- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 385
- Location
- Nun-ya-dang Bidness
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I extrapolated from what you've written, is all. I included my reasoning, and everything - I even said 'you should'!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?
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.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.
Agreed, though I'd say and, rather than 'either/or'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.
You argument runs: "Person"="Human being"="zygote". It's arguably equivocation, but I don't feel like going into that right now.Ian,... have you ever asked my why I consider a zygote to be a person but not a sperm cell?
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?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.
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.
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!
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.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
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?"
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.
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:Not accurate, Ian, a Zygote is an organism.
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.
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?
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'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?
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?
Now that I like. Can I use it in my sig and quote it from time to time?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?
Thank you.Absolutely!
... 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 "enforcement of standards that forces an archaic and patriarchal morality,.... with the sole intention of keeping dem bitches in line?"
There are no words.
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.
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
: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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?