First, time isn't real - as you said it's value reduces to zero at light or a faster speed which essentially means time no longer exists. — TheMadFool

Does this mean that a person is not real? Meaning if I have sex, and create a person, that that person is not really real.

I'm not following that... ?

Does this mean that a person is not real? Meaning if I have sex, and create a person, that that person is not really real.

I'm not following that... ? — 3017amen

Of course your child is real. Where does time figure in all of this though?

Where does time figure in all of this though? — TheMadFool

In our context, the act of creating another human being (human's procreating) in our world of temporal time, we in effect become time-dependent beings. Even whether time/change in itself is illusionary, it still doesn't preclude our requirement for the dependence on same.

And so if the dependence on temporal time, and change, is required for the existence of human beings, how does personhood affect the process of procreation? In other words, in what part of the process does a person become a person?

time-dependent beings — 3017amen

This is the point of contention between us. I don't think we're time-dependent because time isn't real. Light travels at the, well, speed of light. For it, according to relativity, time doesn't exist. We, physical beings incapable of speeds of that magnitude, experience time. I'll give you that. Nevertheless, this is as problematic as someone claiming to see a ghost and others not being able to corroborate this claim. At the very least, it raises doubts regarding the existence of ghosts. Are they real or not? Is time real or not?

At the very least, it raises doubts regarding the existence of ghosts. Are they real or not? Is time real or not? — TheMadFool

Are you suggesting somehow that a person during the procreation process is a ghost?

Are you suggesting somehow that a person during the procreation process is a ghost? — 3017amen

I'm saying that something that can be perceived by some and not by others is of doubtful reality.

Watch this video of professor Sean M. Carroll. His line of thinking matches yours. You can return to where we were in the discussion after.

Thanks I'll check it out when I get time, no pun intended. In the mean-time :smile: , my gut tells me that it's worthy of a completely different thread title.

Accordingly, when you get time, pun intended, you may want to consider the irrelevance of the OP and the personhood argument :smile:

irrelevance of the OP and the personhood argument — 3017amen

I was just working on a hunch. I felt, like everybody does it seems, that language reflects, is a window to, our innermost thoughts, our beliefs, standpoints on the various issues that concern us. Was I wrong?

I would say TMF, you were 'wrong' to conflate the illusion of time with the personhood argument.

I would say TMF, you were 'wrong' to conflate the illusion of time with the personhood argument. — 3017amen

Ok. I went back over your first post. You seem to be saying that personhood is irrelevant to the abortion issue because a person is a time-dependent entity. If I'm anywhere near the correct reading of your view on the matter, you seem to be implying that not enough time elapses in a pregnancy for a fetus to become a person. If that's what you mean then it's precisely what all the hullabaloo is about in the abortion controversy. When does a fetus become a person? That's exactly what the use of "it' to refer to babies is about. If babies who've exited the mother's womb are "it", the word "it" connoting an inanimate object or a non-human ergo, non-person then, fetuses, being less developed than birthed babies, must surely be non-persons and being non-persons it should be ok to have abortions.

But if pro-lifers should be having sex 24/7 — TheMadFool

I never said this I said that “denial of life” is an argument that would lead to this. Since if it were a valid argument one would be “denying life” every second they’re not having sex. There are other pro life arguments.

pro-choicers should be trying to enforce a moratorium on sex. After all, if the issue of abortion begins with intercourse for pro-lifers, in all fairness — TheMadFool

But I still have no clue how what I said leads to this. Why should pro choicers enforce this?

said that “denial of life” is an argument that would lead to this. Since if it were a valid argument one would be “denying life” every second they’re not having sex. — khaled

If "one would be denying life every second they're not having sex" then that implies, if you don't want to deny life then, you should have sex round the clock.

But I still have no clue how what I said leads to this. Why should pro choicers enforce this? — khaled

If pro-lifers need to have sex continuously because they can't deny life then pro-choicers, because they can deny life, must abstain from sex.

You seem to be saying that personhood is irrelevant to the abortion issue because a person is a time-dependent entity. — TheMadFool

Yes, that would be correct.

you seem to be implying that not enough time elapses in a pregnancy for a fetus to become a person. — TheMadFool

No. The logic behind time-dependent Beings make personhood irrelevant because to get to point B (birth), you must have a point A (conception). As soon as conception begins, the clock starts (from beginning to end), and ends whenever the end of one's life occurs.

Metaphorically, you could say that there are different seasons to one's life. When fall begins, if one were to stop time say, halfway through, would you still have fall? And if you did, you would have half-fall. Or if you planted a seed, and at some point the seed stopped growing, would nomenclature (plant-hood) make a difference to its identity as a plant?

No. The logic behind time-dependent Beings make personhood irrelevant because to get to point B (birth), you must have a point A (conception). As soon as conception begins, the clock starts (from beginning to end), and ends whenever the end of one's life occurs.

Metaphorically, you could say that there are different seasons to one's life. When fall begins, if one were to stop time say, halfway through, would you still have fall? And if you did, you would have half-fall. Or if you planted a seed, and at some point the seed stopped growing, would nomenclature (plant-hood) make a difference to its identity as a plant? — 3017amen

Personhood is irrelevant in the sense there never is a person or irrelevant in the sense that there always was a person?

Personhood is irrelevant in the sense there never is a person or irrelevant in the sense that there always was a person? — TheMadFool

That there was always a person. Because we're time-dependent, it's just an aspect of "person-hood " as it were.

then pro-choicers, because they can deny life, must abstain from sex. — TheMadFool

Can =/= must. I think you might not be understanding what I’m saying.

The pro life argument of “Abortion is a denial of life which is wrong” is bad because: If it were valid then said pro lifer must have as many children as feasible in order not to be “denying lives” which is bad per their argument. This doesn’t lead to pro choicers having to abstain from having children. Because there is no hypocrisy in saying that “The denying life argument is dumb” and then having kids.

Abortion is a problem. It is a problem for young women of reproductive age and their conscience and their doctors.
Not for old white men in legislative chambers who do not care to provide any support for the poor or for preschool care or head start programs.
The best solution for abortion is ready access to sex education and pregnancy prevention methods.
The next best solution is early detection and early termination of unwanted pregnancy, modern serum pregnancy test are accurate within the first 14 days and pharmacologic termination is available.
There still will remain fetal defects and deformities, genetic diseases, and threats to maternal health.
The investment of time, emotion, money and resources in raising a child is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.
I think it is forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term that is criminal and not good for society, the individual or the child. If privacy and autonomy mean anything they mean control over ones own body and reproductive choices.

Can =/= must. I think you might not be understanding what I’m saying.

The pro life argument of “Abortion is a denial of life which is wrong” is bad because: If it were valid then said pro lifer must have as many children as feasible in order not to be “denying lives” which is bad per their argument. This doesn’t lead to pro choicers having to abstain from having children. Because there is no hypocrisy in saying that “The denying life argument is dumb” and then having kids. — khaled

If "can =/= must" then, on what grounds are you making the claim that just because not having sex is a denial of life that pro-lifers must engage in sex 24/7? After all, pro-lifers too can give life (i.e. not deny life) by making love continuously just as pro-choicers can deny life by not abstaining from scoodlypooping.

You say that there's no hypocrisy in saying that "The denying life argument is dumb" and then having kids. Let's see. To believe that the denying life argument is dumb implies that you find it acceptable that people deny life. How does one deny life? Two methods are available: 1) abortion and 2) sexual abstention. Since the pro-choicer doesn't mind people denying life, it implies that he accepts both methods mentioned above as a means of denying life. Which is better? Abortion or abstention. Considering there's a raging controversy about abortion with even pro-choicers not completely sure whether abortion amounts to the criminal act of murder, the best method of denying life seems to be 2) sexual abstention. Ergo, to believe that "the denying life argument is dumb" and then having kids is a clear-cut case of hypocrisy. After all, a pro-choicer knows sexual abstention is the best, in the sense least controversial, method available for denying life and if they still engage in sex and bear children then that's saying something and doing the opposite - the very definition of hypocrisy I believe.

on what grounds are you making the claim that just because not having sex is a denial of life that pro-lifers must engage in sex 24/7? — TheMadFool

Because they say they don’t want to deny life. And since not having sex IS denying life, they must have sex all the time.

Since the pro-choicer doesn't mind people denying life, it implies that he accepts both methods mentioned above as a means of denying life. Which is better? — TheMadFool

After all, a pro-choicer knows sexual abstention is the best, in the sense least controversial, method available for denying life — TheMadFool

Dude. Wtf? Seriously? “Since the pro choicer doesn’t mind denying life, it implies that he must deny life all the time”. Please rethink that statement. That’s like saying “Since I don’t hate chocolate I must eat chocolate 24/7”

I don’t want to come off as rude but this is super basic reasoning. Are you trolling me?

Re-read my post. It'll make sense.

trust me it doesn’t. Or at least it doesn’t make sense even after rereading it 5 times over

rust me it doesn’t — khaled

:up: :ok:

trust me it doesn’t — khaled

:lol: