I have to ask.

[Chuz Life]

In short, Ian...

You have no objectivity.

In fact, you have a bias towards a pre-determined outcome. You have already demonstrated this with comments like "when life begins doesn't matter" and the like.

It's kind of ridiculous to argue for a child's right to their life with someone who denies the relevance of when their 'life begins.'

Dontcha think?

You agree with me that 'personhood' is the most important thing, and that compariatively 'life' is an irrelevant factor when deciding on the legality of a particular situation.

Where / how do you come up with this stuff?

How about you don't tell me what I agree with,... and you ask me if I agree instead?

Besides that, in your comment you seem to be treating life and personhood as though they are diameterically opposed to one another,... when in fact they work in conjuction with one another.

You (metaphorically you) can't argue for the rights of a 'person' to their life,... if they are either 1) not alive or 2) a person.

to summarise: both sperm and a zygote are alive, but you only believe a zygote to be a person, therefore it's personhood, not life, which dictates your different treatment of the two.

Ian,... have you ever asked my why I consider a zygote to be a person but not a sperm cell?

As for 'objectivity': I've said it several times that I'm waiting for you to respond to questions with an objective (dictionary) grounding. The fact that you've ignored it and are focusing on personal attacks implies that its' not me who should be worried about objectivity.

It's a matter of public record Ian,... that whenever I provide "objective dictionary definitions" and other reference materials,.... You either dismiss it entirely (as you did the definitions for Life Cycle) or you downplay it's significance. (Definition of LIFE)

For instance;

Having thought about it...

'Life' isn't the issue here; as I've said many times before, sperm cells are alive, and a corpse can be composed mainly of living cells. Personhood is the issue here - and that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I was hoping we might go into it a bit more in this thread, but so far, no beans.

I'll go with Chuz's first definition. As for 'life cycle' - that's another issue for another place, I feel.

So much for your want to consider objective definitions.

 

[mac]

Fantastic!

I shall do so in the morning. It's dangerously close to getting light outside here, I should have slept hours ago. If you can't wait, feel free to start without me!

oh, I'll wait for it...

 

[iangb]

Where / how do you come up with this stuff?

How about you don't tell me what I agree with,... and you ask me if I agree instead?

I extrapolated from what you've written, is all. I included my reasoning, and everything - I even said 'you should'!

Besides that, in your comment you seem to be treating life and personhood as though they are diameterically opposed to one another,... when in fact they work in conjuction with one another.

Not opposed at all... but not in perfect conjunction. Look at the logic of it: All 'persons' are alive, but not all alive things are people. You've got two unequal groups, and you're trying to directly equate them.

You (metaphorically you) can't argue for the rights of a 'person' to their life,... if they are either 1) not alive or 2) a person.

Agreed, though I'd say and, rather than 'either/or'

Ian,... have you ever asked my why I consider a zygote to be a person but not a sperm cell?

You argument runs: "Person"="Human being"="zygote". It's arguably equivocation, but I don't feel like going into that right now.

It's a matter of public record Ian,... that whenever I provide "objective dictionary definitions" and other reference materials,.... You either dismiss it entirely (as you did the definitions for Life Cycle) or you downplay it's significance. (Definition of LIFE)

For instance;

So much for your want to consider objective definitions.

I've (repeatedly now) given my reasons for emphasising 'personhood' over 'life'. Seeing as you requested that I ask... Do you not agree with me on this?

As for life cycle: you've got your definition, I've got mine.

Life cycle:
1. Biology . the continuous sequence of changes undergone by an organism from one primary form, as a gamete, to the development of the same form again.

My turn!

You haven't addressed the fact that four dictionary definitions and a cited wikipedia link (read: one with the appropriate citations) directly contradict your claims that a zygote is an organism. To summarise them here:

• A zygote is not capable of biological independence - one of the qualifiers for being an organism.
• A zygote is not the end product of the reproductive cycle; as this is the process by which a new individual/organism is created, this implies that a zygote is not yet an organism.
• A zygote is united ('formed into a single whole') with the mother, both semantically (dictionary link to 'placenta') and biologically (microchimerism).
• A zygote is described as 'developing into' an organism, which strongly implies it is not yet one.

That's what you haven't addressed.

 

[Chuz Life]

As for life cycle: you've got your definition, I've got mine.

Life cycle:
1. Biology . the continuous sequence of changes undergone by an organism from one primary form, as a gamete, to the development of the same form again.

My turn!

Did you even bother read the definitions which follows the one you quoted?

From the same page of YOUR reference;

1. The characteristic course of developmental changes through which an organism passes from its inception as a fertilized zygote to its mature state during which another zygote may be produced. -Stedman's Medical Dictionary

1. "In organisms that reproduce sexually, the life cycle may be thought of as beginning with the fusion of reproductive cells to form a new organism. The cycle ends when that organism produces its own reproductive cells, which then begin the cycle again by undergoing fusion with other reproductive cells. "-- American Heritage Science Dictionary
Your chosen definition's source?

Random House unabridged.

:shock: :doh

 

[iangb]

Did you even bother read the definitions which follows the one you quoted?

From the same page of YOUR reference;

1. The characteristic course of developmental changes through which an organism passes from its inception as a fertilized zygote to its mature state during which another zygote may be produced. -Stedman's Medical Dictionary

1. "In organisms that reproduce sexually, the life cycle may be thought of as beginning with the fusion of reproductive cells to form a new organism. The cycle ends when that organism produces its own reproductive cells, which then begin the cycle again by undergoing fusion with other reproductive cells. "-- American Heritage Science Dictionary
Your chosen definition's source?

Random House unabridged.

:shock: :doh

At first look, we seem to have conflicting definitions - on the same page, no less. This, by now, should not come as a shock to you.

However, neither of your definitions state how long it takes for those fused reproductive cells to become an organism. A ZEF is a developing organism; that is, it develops into an organism. That's the reproductive cycle.

 

[MaggieD]

There are now (and have been in the past),... multiple conversations on the abortion issue that have been oriented around the moment that a fetus begins to 'feel pain' or becomes 'self aware.'

No definition of 'person' or personhood that I have found so far has either the ability to feel pain or even 'sentience' as a requirment for the definition or the word (person) to apply.

So, I have to ask; "Where does this line of thinking come from?"

If it's just a Red Herring, I have to admit,.... it's a persistant and prevailing one as I see it everywhere.

If I were a woman (I'm male) and I wanted to get an abortion,... for whatever reason i felt it was justified,.... I don't think I would much care if the 'thing' I am aborting might feel pain, move, think or suffer on any level.

So, I have to ask; "Why is this an issue?"

It's an issue not because of what the aborter thinks. It's an issue because of what others think. What's so hard about that?

 

[mac]

At first look, we seem to have conflicting definitions - on the same page, no less. This, by now, should not come as a shock to you.

However, neither of your definitions state how long it takes for those fused reproductive cells to become an organism. A ZEF is a developing organism; that is, it develops into an organism. That's the reproductive cycle.

Not accurate, Ian, a Zygote is an organism.

 

[iangb]

Not accurate, Ian, a Zygote is an organism.

Colloquially ('broadly'), the word 'zygote can refer to the orgnanism that a (single-celled) zygote develops into. Biologically, though, that's not the case. See the four bullet points elsewhere:

So - what haven't you addressed? You haven't addressed the fact that four dictionary definitions and a cited wikipedia link (read: one with the appropriate citations) directly contradict your claims that a zygote is an organism. To summarise them here:

• A zygote is not capable of biological independence - one of the qualifiers for being an organism.
• A zygote is not the end product of the reproductive cycle; as this is the process by which a new individual/organism is created, this implies that a zygote is not yet an organism.
• A zygote is united ('formed into a single whole') with the mother, both semantically (dictionary link to 'placenta') and biologically (microchimerism).
• A zygote is described as 'developing into' an organism, which strongly implies it is not yet one.

That's what you haven't addressed.

 

[mac]

It's an issue not because of what the aborter thinks. It's an issue because of what others think. What's so hard about that?

He stated that in the op. What are you adding?

 

[jallman]

I'm certainly not offended.

I think we are just now getting to the root of our differences on this aspect.

You mentioned that you arrive at your conclusion that a child's life begins at 'brain activity' by way of 'rationality, reason and an examination of the moral consequences.'

Many who have arrived at a completely different conclusion claim to use the same methods.

So, again.... unless you are claiming we are both correct,.... you are (whether you intend to or not) implying that one of us is incorrect.

Are you claiming we are both correct in our conclusions about when a child's life begins?

Or no?

I think we apply different rule sets to our reasoning. I concern myself purely with the legal implications and moral consequence associated with the child. I think you apply a clear agenda of enforcing an archaic morality to others, utilizing a simple, indisputable scientific fact which you grossly over-simplify in analysis while simultaneously over-magnifying in relevance to the issue.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm certainly not offended.

I think we are just now getting to the root of our differences on this aspect.

You mentioned that you arrive at your conclusion that a child's life begins at 'brain activity' by way of 'rationality, reason and an examination of the moral consequences.'

Many who have arrived at a completely different conclusion claim to use the same methods.

So, again.... unless you are claiming we are both correct,.... you are (whether you intend to or not) implying that one of us is incorrect.

Are you claiming we are both correct in our conclusions about when a child's life begins?

Or no?

I think we apply different rule sets to our reasoning. I concern myself purely with the legal implications and moral consequence associated with the child. I think you apply a clear agenda of enforcing an archaic morality to others, utilizing a simple, indisputable scientific fact which you grossly over-simplify in analysis while simultaneously over-magnifying in relevance to the issue.

1. I don't give a flying **** about the moral aspects.

2. And I think that you and others 'apply a clear agenda of enforcing' your desired morality onto others by ignoring, downplaying, minimizing a simple, indisputable scientific fact (conception begins a new life) which you grossly under-appreciate in analysis while simultaneously under -appreciating its relevance to the issue.

Anything further?

 

[jallman]

1. I don't give a flying **** about the moral aspects.

Your lack of attention to morality is pretty clear by your posts so you aren't enlightening anyone by that statement.

2. And I think that you and others 'apply a clear agenda of enforcing' your desired morality onto others by ignoring, downplaying, minimizing a simple, indisputable scientific fact (conception begins a new life) which you grossly under-appreciate in analysis while simultaneously under -appreciating its relevance to the issue.

It has no relevance to the legal/moral issue of abortion and I have no interest in much else when it comes to this debate. Despite your snarky protests and your already devolving, mouthfoaming ranting...I have no interest in enforcing any morality upon anyone except where it is necessary to protect the developing fetus from suffering, which we as a civilized society should do for all people.

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that a rational human being is going to accept your preference +1 indisputable constant as legal grounds for application of that preference for all men. Ain't gonna happen, pal.

Oh here...let me try it....

Clouds are good and should be protected; when you fly an airplane through a cloud, you break it up slightly. Clouds are made of water; you can't dispute that. Therefore, you cannot fly your airplane through any clouds.

That's the absurdity of your whole argument. I don't give a flying rat's ass if life technically begins at conception or not. If it's life that's so sacred (because clearly, upon conception, it's life but it ain't life we can actually relate to yet), then I'm sure you feel that way about all life and eat no meat, wear no leather, eat no plants, crush no bugs, etc etc.

But we know you're here yammering out your snarky responses so obviously that ain't true.

Anything further?

Yeah, it'd be cool if you made a rational and consistent point but I ain't holding my breath for that one either.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your lack of attention to morality is pretty clear by your posts so you aren't enlightening anyone by that statement.

So, if you know this,... why are you accusing me of forcing morality (or trying to),... when I clearly am not?

 

[jallman]

So, if you know this,... why are you accusing me of forcing morality (or trying to),... when I clearly am not?

Because whether you intend to or not, enforcing a "life begins at conception" standard upon women is enforcement of an archaic and patriarchal morality intended solely to keep dem bitches in line cuz, you know, it's kinda hard to express independence if you got one kid hanging to the leg, another one attached to your tit, and another one in the belly weighting you down.

 

[prometeus]

1. I don't give a flying **** about the moral aspects.

Now that I like. Can I use it in my sig and quote it from time to time?

 

[Chuz Life]

Now that I like. Can I use it in my sig and quote it from time to time?

Absolutely!

 

[prometeus]

Absolutely!

Thank you.

 

[Chuz Life]

... Why are you accusing me of forcing morality (or trying to),... when I clearly am not?

Because whether you intend to or not, enforcing a "life begins at conception" standard upon women is enforcement of an archaic and patriarchal morality intended solely to keep dem bitches in line cuz, you know, it's kinda hard to express independence if you got one kid hanging to the leg, another one attached to your tit, and another one in the belly weighting you down.

Wow.

I have no response to a comment as ignorant as that.

A simple recognition of biological facts is now tantamount to an "enforment of standards " that "forces an archaic and patriarchal morality,.... with the sole intention of keeping dem bitches in line?"

There are no words.

 

[Chuz Life]

Wow.

I have no response to a comment as ignorant as that.

A simple recognition of biological facts is now tantamount to an "enforcement of standards that forces an archaic and patriarchal morality,.... with the sole intention of keeping dem bitches in line?"

There are no words.

I was interrupted before I could edit.

Pardon the errors.

 

[jallman]

Wow.

I have no response to a comment as ignorant as that.

A simple recognition of biological facts is now tantamount to an "enforment of standards " that "forces an archaic and patriarchal morality,.... with the sole intention of keeping dem bitches in line?"

There are no words.

No words except the 47 you yammered out in this post with zero response to the actual point I made, right?

 

[Chuz Life]

:yt

Because whether you intend to or not, enforcing a "life begins at conception" standard upon women is enforcement of an archaic and patriarchal morality intended solely to keep dem bitches in line cuz, you know, it's kinda hard to express independence if you got one kid hanging to the leg, another one attached to your tit, and another one in the belly weighting you down.

Wow.

I have no response to a comment as ignorant as that.

A simple recognition of biological facts is now tantamount to an "enforcement of standards that forces an archaic and patriarchal morality,.... with the sole intention of keeping dem bitches in line?"

There are no words.

No words except the 47 you yammered out in this post with zero response to the actual point I made, right?

:yt

Wait,...

There was a point?

 

[jallman]

:yt





:yt

Wait,...

There was a point?

Well I guess the point is quickly becoming that you can't have an honest conversation exactly as I was warned by everyone else around here.

Buh-bye Chuz. You enjoy preaching to yourself now, ok?

 

[Chuz Life]

Well I guess the point is quickly becoming that you can't have an honest conversation exactly as I was warned by everyone else around here.

Buh-bye Chuz. You enjoy preaching to yourself now, ok?

:lol:

It's a matter of record now,... you characterized my intent to prove that life begins at conception as a "forcing of archaic and patriarchal morality intended solely to keep dem bitches in line."

:doh

Who is the one that is actually being dishonest here?

 

[Demon of Light]

There are many ways to kill someone that don't involve suffering of any kind, but we do not consider these acceptable killings.

I think what really characterizes the pro-choice argument and really any argument in favor of abortions other than life-saving ones is a mindset that focuses on the near-term benefits. Some examples of this mindset are the comments made by jallman. Essentially it is a hedonistic morality where the key priority is pleasure and satisfaction. The present is the focus of such morality meaning no consideration is given to the future of the human life being discussed. All that matters are "my needs" and what "I want" rather than any notion about compassion for presently insignificant life. Some make a further argument about how the child may be born into bad conditions as a result pushing a sort of mercy-killing defense, which makes their support for mercy-killing after birth quite logical. Then there are those who emphasize population control, yet seem to think no one should take the more logical step of reducing the existing population. All of it emphasizes how present considerations and present happiness is more important than any individual life.

Anyone who has read Brave New World should consider the consequences of such a hedonistic society.

 

[jallman]

There are many ways to kill someone that don't involve suffering of any kind, but we do not consider these acceptable killings.

I think what really characterizes the pro-choice argument and really any argument in favor of abortions other than life-saving ones is a mindset that focuses on the near-term benefits. Some examples of this mindset are the comments made by jallman. Essentially it is a hedonistic morality where the key priority is pleasure and satisfaction.

It would be oh so helpful if you could show me where I once mentioned pleasure or satisfaction. kthanx.

The present is the focus of such morality meaning no consideration is given to the future of the human life being discussed. All that matters are "my needs" and what "I want" rather than any notion about compassion for presently insignificant life.

again, didn't make either argument unless I did it while sleepwalking and the forum magically erases it every time I log in. Can YOU show me where I made either argument?

Some make a further argument about how the child may be born into bad conditions as a result pushing a sort of mercy-killing defense, which makes their support for mercy-killing after birth quite logical. Then there are those who emphasize population control, yet seem to think no one should take the more logical step of reducing the existing population. All of it emphasizes how present considerations and present happiness is more important than any individual life.

There's nothing "individual" about a mass of cells without any cognition, awareness, response to stimulus, etc. There is nothing "individual" about a slug of flesh that, removed from the womb and the resources being charitably given it, would die within minutes.

Anyone who has read Brave New World should consider the consequences of such a hedonistic society.

Anyone who has read history should consider the consequences of medieval fantasies of subjugation of women as nothing more than baby vessels.