Appreciate the conversation, gents. Always a pleasure to see and hear from you both. As I have commented previously, it is a crying shame your channel has so few views. If I may, I wish to add something on the discussion you had, and my position is no comment one way or the other on abortion. Much of the conversation was on the topic of what philosophers would refer to as ontology. When are the cells a human being? When does a human being start? etc. Michel, you established a line of reasoning along the lines of - go back from a 9 year old, to a six month year old (still a human being), to day one after birth, to the day before birth, to the foetal 20 week stage, to day.one of conception. If I understood you correctly you were saying that in the absence of a clear line elsewhere, then one would reasonably need to go to conception. I think I see your argument, but I am not sure it is quite so binary or simple. Take a house, for example. We all know what it is. There is no uncertainty about it, ontologically. Work backwards starting from when it was a fifty year old house, to when it was only six months after completion (clearly still functionally and recognisable as a house), to the stage when they were doing the final fittings but no one was living in it (already a house at this stage, for sure), back to when they had erected the posts and a roof (people would refer to it as a house on the way, but not fully a house in the absence of walls, running water, etc), back again to the day when the very first shovel of soil was turned (insurance company wouldn't rate it as a house, and anyone needing a shelter wouldn't rate it as a house at this stage, even though the plan is fully in place and approved), then back again to the day the architect met the builder and they started planning, then back again to when the ideation process was taking place in the husband and wife's mind. If the architects drawings got chewed by a dog and lost, there would be a huge loss of potential, but nobody is going to say that a house disappeared. Where is the line where a house ontologically becomes a house, as distinct from the sand, water, mortar, tin, steel bar, architects plan (the DNA), etc that it is comprised of? I think this is what Anish's point was as regards the foetus. The above comments are offered in full respect, and full gratitude for your truly excellent conversations - I am almost wishing the pandemic was back because your episodes were more frequent back then. Warm regards to you both.
Thank you very much, Gav. These are excellent points that you make. I think a key difference between a house and a human being (or an animal, for that matter) is that the house is an artifact whereas the animal is a natural being which has in itself its principle of development and growth. The house, on the other hand, depends on the builder to be "assembled." A house does not "develop" but an embryo does. Vice versa the embryo is not "assembled." As you note, artifacts are dependent on the human mind for their being in a way natural substances are not. Without getting into the philosophical aspects of this question, Richard Stith brings up the exact same point that you make (except that he uses the example of a car being assembled versus a Polaroid developing) to argue that most pro-choice folks view the developing fetus as if it were a car (but it's not!..). www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2006/11/stith-arguing-with-pro-choicer. I had forgotten about his insights but they are well worth bringing up when discussing this question. That you for your kind comments
I see how Dr Koka is struggling with this topic; as a fellow Hindu, I can see why, and I empathize. The philosophical underpinnings of Hinduism-- reincarnation and karma-- make a topic like "abortion" and "life" a very unique decision based on individual circumstance. I favor the old Bill Clinton framing of the issue of abortion: it should be safe, legal, and rare. The "rare" part seems to have been done away with by the pro-choice side, which has in turn hardened the pro-life side. And most of the rest of us in the middle just wish to get on with it. Here's a lay Hindu philosopher (a nuclear physicist by education) explaining a Hindu view on abortion to the school boys at the prestigious Eton school in England: ua-cam.com/video/6oQQJ7LVeXo/v-deo.html
If belief in reincarnation allows the abortion of embryos with severe deformities, as the physicist says, then would it not then allow the killing of children with deformities, or anyone for that matter? What keeps us from going down the slippery slope he rightly fears? Hasn't the first step been taken with that embryo?
Appreciate the conversation, gents. Always a pleasure to see and hear from you both. As I have commented previously, it is a crying shame your channel has so few views. If I may, I wish to add something on the discussion you had, and my position is no comment one way or the other on abortion.
Much of the conversation was on the topic of what philosophers would refer to as ontology. When are the cells a human being? When does a human being start? etc. Michel, you established a line of reasoning along the lines of - go back from a 9 year old, to a six month year old (still a human being), to day one after birth, to the day before birth, to the foetal 20 week stage, to day.one of conception. If I understood you correctly you were saying that in the absence of a clear line elsewhere, then one would reasonably need to go to conception. I think I see your argument, but I am not sure it is quite so binary or simple.
Take a house, for example. We all know what it is. There is no uncertainty about it, ontologically. Work backwards starting from when it was a fifty year old house, to when it was only six months after completion (clearly still functionally and recognisable as a house), to the stage when they were doing the final fittings but no one was living in it (already a house at this stage, for sure), back to when they had erected the posts and a roof (people would refer to it as a house on the way, but not fully a house in the absence of walls, running water, etc), back again to the day when the very first shovel of soil was turned (insurance company wouldn't rate it as a house, and anyone needing a shelter wouldn't rate it as a house at this stage, even though the plan is fully in place and approved), then back again to the day the architect met the builder and they started planning, then back again to when the ideation process was taking place in the husband and wife's mind. If the architects drawings got chewed by a dog and lost, there would be a huge loss of potential, but nobody is going to say that a house disappeared.
Where is the line where a house ontologically becomes a house, as distinct from the sand, water, mortar, tin, steel bar, architects plan (the DNA), etc that it is comprised of? I think this is what Anish's point was as regards the foetus.
The above comments are offered in full respect, and full gratitude for your truly excellent conversations - I am almost wishing the pandemic was back because your episodes were more frequent back then. Warm regards to you both.
Thank you very much, Gav. These are excellent points that you make.
I think a key difference between a house and a human being (or an animal, for that matter) is that the house is an artifact whereas the animal is a natural being which has in itself its principle of development and growth. The house, on the other hand, depends on the builder to be "assembled." A house does not "develop" but an embryo does. Vice versa the embryo is not "assembled." As you note, artifacts are dependent on the human mind for their being in a way natural substances are not.
Without getting into the philosophical aspects of this question, Richard Stith brings up the exact same point that you make (except that he uses the example of a car being assembled versus a Polaroid developing) to argue that most pro-choice folks view the developing fetus as if it were a car (but it's not!..). www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2006/11/stith-arguing-with-pro-choicer.
I had forgotten about his insights but they are well worth bringing up when discussing this question. That you for your kind comments
You put a fine point on this issue. Thanks for shedding that light on it.
I see how Dr Koka is struggling with this topic; as a fellow Hindu, I can see why, and I empathize. The philosophical underpinnings of Hinduism-- reincarnation and karma-- make a topic like "abortion" and "life" a very unique decision based on individual circumstance.
I favor the old Bill Clinton framing of the issue of abortion: it should be safe, legal, and rare. The "rare" part seems to have been done away with by the pro-choice side, which has in turn hardened the pro-life side. And most of the rest of us in the middle just wish to get on with it.
Here's a lay Hindu philosopher (a nuclear physicist by education) explaining a Hindu view on abortion to the school boys at the prestigious Eton school in England:
ua-cam.com/video/6oQQJ7LVeXo/v-deo.html
If belief in reincarnation allows the abortion of embryos with severe deformities, as the physicist says, then would it not then allow the killing of children with deformities, or anyone for that matter? What keeps us from going down the slippery slope he rightly fears? Hasn't the first step been taken with that embryo?