Ontogenetic Discrimination and Double Standards

[minnie616]

If you go read back to the relevant writings from around 1900 and later, you will find very similar philosophical and scientific positions for that matter that say the same about the handicapped, Jews or homosexuals. So may be you are right.

When the article refers to living being , the article is describing a born being ....He is describing the ability for the embryo to grow into a viable fetus that is able to survive out the woman's womb.

Without the woman's biological systems it will start to malform to point it will never survive.

 

[Removable Mind]

You do not have to. The important bit is you cannot refute what i have said.

This is a humorous. Why would I want to attempt refute YOUR claim about someone elses "supposed technology". You haven't offered any source that establishes that what your claiming exist in the first place.

Yes, we've all known for sometime that research in the area of artificial wombs has been around awhile. And I think that Minnie has summed up all that can be said about what's known to be a point of research, which hasn't led to the development of an actual full functioning artificial womb.

And equally important, as Y2L pointed out, "So what!" How is such a technology going to resolve the prevention of unwanted births? This forum is about abortion, not a new way to procreate.

The thread creator abandoned this thread because it was absolute pro-fetus babble and pretended to be exposing humanity's propensity to have no moral compass when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. He hit every shaming reason he could pull out of the hat. Well, artificial wombs is one of the arguments that quite a few have introduced since I've been a member of DP, which is nearing six years. And their claim was the killing of innocent unborn children would stop when such a technology becomes a viable on. But then comes the reality. Is governments going to be Constitutionally allowed to force women to undergo a surgical procedure against their will? Y2L and Minnie have also pointed out this fallacy.

The so-call angry misogynist men that you described earlier want the right to have now what is coined as a "Male Abortion". That's is a legal vehicle to opt out of any financial or physical custody demands "prior to the viability of a fetus". Why? Because technically women, prior to viability of a fetus, can do that by having an abortion.

The only application that such a type of technology would in relationship to the lack of men's reproductive rights is - if a man WANTS the child and the woman doesn't - again, as pointed out by Y2L and Minnie, if a woman is willing to undergo a surgical procedure to transport a embryo or early stage fetus into this artificial womb of sorts. That's about it.

That hardly seems like a worthwhile investment for the inventors of such a technology.

Or it could be used for women who have extreme difficulty with successfully going through the gestation process and giving birth. Now this might have more value than for the use men would have for it.

But from your own source (which I see that you've deleted the link since posting it yesterday evening) that you posted in a reply to Minnie it said: (To Paraphrase the article) Such a technology (speaking about an artificial womb device) won't be used as a substitute for men and women who can't reproduce in a natural fashion.

 

[joG]

When the article refers to living being , the article is describing a born being ....He is describing the ability for the embryo to grow into a viable fetus that is able to survive out the woman's womb.

Without the woman's biological systems it will start to malform to point it will never survive.

And? The kid cannot survive without someone's support for many years. As a matter of fact, a man alone hasn't a chance at all to paraphrase Hemingway. Focusing on defining human subgroups of any kind always offers the same slippery slope problem. It is arbitrary in the sense that this philosopher and scientists say yay. But those ones there or ten years later will say nay. Taking a relativistic approach to the definition of the human being is in itself a dangerous precedent.

 

[minnie616]

And? The kid cannot survive without someone's support for many years.

Surving without someone/a capable person, be it mother, father, grandparent, Foster parent, older sibling , caregiver is not at all comparable to using the mother's biological systems to form the organs of the fetus making the fetus viable and making it capable of surving once out the womb.

 

[joG]

Surving without someone/a capable person, be it mother, father, grandparent, Foster parent, older sibling , caregiver is not at all comparable to using the mother's biological systems to form the organs of the fetus making the fetus viable and making it capable of surving once out the womb.

Things are never exactly the same thing. That is, what makes the slope so slippery.

 

[minnie616]

Things are never exactly the same thing. That is, what makes the slope so slippery.

Your anology failed miserably.

 

[soylentgreen]

I did not do the research at your request.
And I did not fail...it is you failed with nothing but Brave New World tales from the 1960s.

I have done a lot of research regarding articles about about artificial wombs for years.

I posted a clip and a link from that article just about a year ago. As far as I can find out the work has not started up again. Women are much more than a womb. They are not just hosts. They actually grow the embryo into a living being.

Here is a link to my post a little over a year ago.

Post #503

https://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/245104-full-abortion-debate-argument-51.html#post1065541360

I did not request, you were obliged, big difference.

nd you still fail. Did you not botice that one conspicuous word in the title "soon".
As i personally have not argued that it will happen " soon" then your attempt to put that kind of time limit on me makes your attempt the failure that it is.

and again, pointing out that america has stopped tells me only that another xenophobe refuses to acknowledge anything that happens outside of her country as being significant.

 

[soylentgreen]

Asking you to prove your assertions is what is expected of you, it is not a "cry to prove it like a Christian"

Minnie handed it to you.

Thanks Minnie.

For the record, I can envision an artificial womb that would be helpful for those trying to maintain a pregnancy, but anatomically are unable to, But if they develop such a thing the hurdles to cross would be great..and frankly the application would be later in pregnancy - not early like when abortions normally occur. Remember, this is an ABORTION forum....so the context would be how your artificial womb is applicable in the abortion debate, And in the CONTEXT of an abortion debate it is a non storter

1) it would require major surgery or complicated potentially harmful procedure to transfer the embryo of fetus to the artificial womb.

2) the cost as an abortion replacement and the use of hospital resources would be phenomenal.

3)if this is an abortion replacement who is going to care for all the children born? Would those left over all of a sudden be there to burden the already burdened foster system?

No, your asking me to prove what is quite obvious. The analogy still applies. If i said the sky was blue do you need a link or can you open a window yourself.

Minnie has failed twice now with two posts and a few links.
First she declares her xenophobia by arguing that because it has stopped in america then it cannot possibly be carried on elsewhere. And secondly she attempts to qualify my claim to a time line of being "soon". I point i have not argued for.

And to put an end to this silliness....don't you think if we had the technology to pull off the artificial womb as a replacement for abortion.....we already would have solved the contraception issue? Making contraception completely reliable for the man or woman that uses it?

Really! This is how you think science works? Do you really think scientists all around the world think that because they are working on contraception then any other field of research should be dropped? We have already solved the issue with contraception so there is nothing left for science to do and they all pack up and go home.

By putting an end to silliness do you mean this will be the last time you say something so silly?

 

[minnie616]

I did not request, you were obliged, big difference.

nd you still fail. Did you not botice that one conspicuous word in the title "soon".
As i personally have not argued that it will happen " soon" then your attempt to put that kind of time limit on me makes your attempt the failure that it is.

and again, pointing out that america has stopped tells me only that another xenophobe refuses to acknowledge anything that happens outside of her country as being significant.

You are mistaken I not obligated to post the article...I chose to post .

They have been working on artifical woes for over 20 years.
Looks like crrently no one even working on them. The failure with the deformed Mouse proved the female mammal is needed for a longer period of gestation than was originally thought.

In others words it's not working.

Soon...20 years? 200 years? 2000 years?



As far as using to artifical womb to chance the limit of viability or to prevent abortions ...not going to happen.

Pro life people are living in a fantasy land if you/they think artical wombs will prevent abortions.

Better to team up the pro choice who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The less unwanted pregnancies the fewer elective abortions.

 

[soylentgreen]

This is a humorous. Why would I want to attempt refute YOUR claim about someone elses "supposed technology". You haven't offered any source that establishes that what your claiming exist in the first place.
.

I have now thanks to minnie.

Yes, we've all known for sometime that research in the area of artificial wombs has been around awhile. And I think that Minnie has summed up all that can be said about what's known to be a point of research, which hasn't led to the development of an actual full functioning artificial womb.

She has summed up a xenophobic view point and attempted to falsely claim a time line i have nothing to do with.

And equally important, as Y2L pointed out, "So what!" How is such a technology going to resolve the prevention of unwanted births? This forum is about abortion, not a new way to procreate.

The thread creator abandoned this thread because it was absolute pro-fetus babble and pretended to be exposing humanity's propensity to have no moral compass when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. He hit every shaming reason he could pull out of the hat. Well, artificial wombs is one of the arguments that quite a few have introduced since I've been a member of DP, which is nearing six years. And their claim was the killing of innocent unborn children would stop when such a technology becomes a viable on. But then comes the reality. Is governments going to be Constitutionally allowed to force women to undergo a surgical procedure against their will? Y2L and Minnie have also pointed out this fallacy.

The so-call angry misogynist men that you described earlier want the right to have now what is coined as a "Male Abortion". That's is a legal vehicle to opt out of any financial or physical custody demands "prior to the viability of a fetus". Why? Because technically women, prior to viability of a fetus, can do that by having an abortion.

The only application that such a type of technology would in relationship to the lack of men's reproductive rights is - if a man WANTS the child and the woman doesn't - again, as pointed out by Y2L and Minnie, if a woman is willing to undergo a surgical procedure to transport a embryo or early stage fetus into this artificial womb of sorts. That's about it.

That hardly seems like a worthwhile investment for the inventors of such a technology.

Or it could be used for women who have extreme difficulty with successfully going through the gestation process and giving birth. Now this might have more value than for the use men would have for it.

I see your problem now. You have mistakenly taken what i have said to be in support of some of these claims. That was not my intention so if i have mislead then my fault.
My argument for the change in technology was to point out another comment that sentience was factor in when a child should be aborted and terminated or aborted and removed to a life support. All i had meant was that sentience is not a fixed limit because the technology will improve to where a fetus can survive outside the mother long before sentience can be demonstrated.

But from your own source (which I see that you've deleted the link since posting it yesterday evening) that you posted in a reply to Minnie it said: (To Paraphrase the article) Such a technology (speaking about an artificial womb device) won't be used as a substitute for men and women who can't reproduce in a natural fashion

I have not deleted any links and going back through yesterday they appear to be all there and working. Care to back this claim up by telling me exactly which post this alleged crime occurred. Or will it be a case of now having attempted slander and being asked to confirm you will now suspiciously remain quiet on the subject.

 

[soylentgreen]

You are mistaken I not obligated to post the article...I chose to post .

They have been working on artifical woes for over 20 years.
Looks like crrently no one even working on them. The failure with the deformed Mouse proved the female mammal is needed for a longer period of gestation than was originally thought.

In others words it's not working.

Soon...20 years? 200 years? 2000 years?



As far as using to artifical womb to chance the limit of viability or to prevent abortions ...not going to happen.

Pro life people are living in a fantasy land if you/they think artical wombs will prevent abortions.

Better to team up the pro choice who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The less unwanted pregnancies the fewer elective abortions.

The same mistake. I do not argue that artificial wombs will be used to prevent abortions that was just an assumption on your part. My argument started as and has remained that the argument of abortion will change as technology changes. There are no fixed points in this debate as technology could turn it completely on its head.

 

[minnie616]

The same mistake. I do not argue that artificial wombs will be used to prevent abortions that was just an assumption on your part. My argument started as and has remained that the argument of abortion will change as technology changes. There are no fixed points in this debate as technology could turn it completely on its head.

Technology can prevent unwanted pregnancies which I feel is a much better alternative than an artificial womb.

Now - shall we discuss the tech chip inplanted that can turn on a woman's ability to ovulate at the click of the switch and the ability to stop ovulation at the click of a switch so the woman can choose when she wants to become pregnant. How far apart she wishes to space her children and when she wants to stop pregnancies permanently?

 

[Removable Mind]

The same mistake. I do not argue that artificial wombs will be used to prevent abortions that was just an assumption on your part. My argument started as and has remained that the argument of abortion will change as technology changes. There are no fixed points in this debate as technology could turn it completely on its head.

Did you make the post #70?

When we reach the stage where there is no need for a woman to actually carry a child at all. Then on what do you base the right of a woman to decide on an abortion when it is no longer an argument of her body, her right.

Do you see any contradictions and fallacies that you've posted since post #70?

Let me tell you how technology will turn the abortion debate on its head.

Glance over the article on the MIT Technology Review site:

A few private companies step up to the challenge of creating new contraceptives. MicroCHIPS’ timing could be good. An international coalition of governments, companies, philanthropies, and nonprofits recently committed to providing family planning to 120 million more women in the world by 2020.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528121/a-contraceptive-implant-with-remote-control/

To provide this preventive technology free to every woman worldwide the savings to governments everywhere would be substantial.

This is truly about substantially reducing abortion worldwide. Not beaming up a prenatal life into an artificial womb.

 

[soylentgreen]

Technology can prevent unwanted pregnancies which I feel is a much better alternative than an artificial womb.

Now - shall we discuss the tech chip inplanted that can turn on a woman's ability to ovulate at the click of the switch and the ability to stop ovulation at the click of a switch so the woman can choose when she wants to become pregnant. How far apart she wishes to space her children and when she wants to stop pregnancies permanently?

No doubt true. But a big so what. Science should not be made to stop research in one area just because you are satisfied with the science in another. Unfortunately for your argument science does not stop research in one area just because of a success in another.

 

[soylentgreen]

Did you make the post #70?



Do you see any contradictions and fallacies that you've posted since post #70?

Let me tell you how technology will turn the abortion debate on its head.

Glance over the article on the MIT Technology Review site:



To provide this preventive technology free to every woman worldwide the savings to governments everywhere would be substantial.

This is truly about substantially reducing abortion worldwide. Not beaming up a prenatal life into an artificial womb.

No all i see here is another american suffering from xenophobia. Abortion is not a debate (no matter how much you or minnie wish to distort it as such) about just what america does or is based only on the american perspective.
Especially in the area of technology.

And thank you for confirming that your comment on my deleting links was in fact nothing more than a pathetic attempt at slander. A good indication of how desperate you are getting.

 

[Removable Mind]

No all i see here is another american suffering from xenophobia. Abortion is not a debate (no matter how much you or minnie wish to distort it as such) about just what america does or is based only on the american perspective.
Especially in the area of technology.

And thank you for confirming that your comment on my deleting links was in fact nothing more than a pathetic attempt at slander. A good indication of how desperate you are getting.

So you do see how invalid you claims and arguments have been.

Finally!

 

[soylentgreen]

So you do see how invalid you claims and arguments have been.

Finally!

First you try slander and then you think your lack of comprehension makes you a winner. Laughable.

 

[Removable Mind]

First you try slander and then you think your lack of comprehension makes you a winner. Laughable.

Go to the front page of the Debate Politics site and scan down the forum topic categories. Look for the forum labeled as ABORTION. That might help you understand the errors of you ways.

 

[soylentgreen]

Go to the front page of the Debate Politics site and scan down the forum topic categories. Look for the forum labeled as ABORTION. That might help you understand the errors of you ways.

A direct number of a post in which i have deleted a link would be your correct answer rather than some obscure reference to something that has nothing to do with deleted links.

My turn now. You made a claim that i have deliberately deleted a link, back it up or be recognised for the dishonesty of your lie.

 

[Removable Mind]

A direct number of a post in which i have deleted a link would be your correct answer rather than some obscure reference to something that has nothing to do with deleted links.

My turn now. You made a claim that i have deliberately deleted a link, back it up or be recognised for the dishonesty of your lie.

How can I magically reproduce a little link that was in your post and is no longer there? You made a post with two brief quotes. Each quote had a link. Now one quote associated to one link is no longer there. Its possible that only half of that post was reposted, which would explain my not seeing the link that I read from originally.

I don't know if the link that l saw and clicked on was purposely deleted or not. It's not there any longer. But the article itself did sort of supported your claim, but near the end the researchers were clear in pointing out that while there was a value to the artificial method of sustaining embryonic lifespans, it would not ever reach the stage where it could be used to serve as a way to substitute the natural methods of procreation.

So if you are claiming you never purposely deleted a source link then I have no way to refute that you didn't.

 

[joG]

Your anology failed miserably.

You think.

 

[soylentgreen]

How can I magically reproduce a little link that was in your post and is no longer there? You made a post with two brief quotes. Each quote had a link. Now one quote associated to one link is no longer there. Its possible that only half of that post was reposted, which would explain my not seeing the link that I read from originally.

I don't know if the link that l saw and clicked on was purposely deleted or not. It's not there any longer. But the article itself did sort of supported your claim, but near the end the researchers were clear in pointing out that while there was a value to the artificial method of sustaining embryonic lifespans, it would not ever reach the stage where it could be used to serve as a way to substitute the natural methods of procreation.

So if you are claiming you never purposely deleted a source link then I have no way to refute that you didn't.

Do not continue to bull**** me. You can give me the number of the post that you claim i deleted a link from, you can and should give me the number so i can see what you are talking about. I have gone back over my posts the only posts that have links that i have given are all still there and all work. Posts 138 and 139 posts 108 and posts 109.

No excuses give me a number or an apology either will work.

 

[Removable Mind]

Do not continue to bull**** me. You can give me the number of the post that you claim i deleted a link from, you can and should give me the number so i can see what you are talking about. I have gone back over my posts the only posts that have links that i have given are all still there and all work. Posts 138 and 139 posts 108 and posts 109.

No excuses give me a number or an apology either will work.

The post number #70 - I didn't associate to to post with the link.

 

[soylentgreen]

The post number #70 - I didn't associate to to post with the link.

I can honestly say i have not attempted to remove any links. Post 70 i do not recall putting a link with that comment and cannot even think of a link that would be relevant with that comment.

I would have thought that there would be an automatic mark on that post saying that i had edited it if i had gone back to remove the link and there is not.

Thank you for pointing out which post you are talking about and sorry but all i can reply on that is i do not believe i have made any of my links disappear or that any link i have made so far is not here.

 

[Removable Mind]

I can honestly say i have not attempted to remove any links. Post 70 i do not recall putting a link with that comment and cannot even think of a link that would be relevant with that comment.

I would have thought that there would be an automatic mark on that post saying that i had edited it if i had gone back to remove the link and there is not.

Thank you for pointing out which post you are talking about and sorry but all i can reply on that is i do not believe i have made any of my links disappear or that any link i have made so far is not here.

My apologies if I mistook a link to belong to one of your posts. It's possibly that it was associated to another person's post - or it's also possible that only a specific portion of one of your post was reposted.

I don't have a clue. I do remember a fair amount of its content. That's all.