• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ohio State Sen. says if men are so worried about wombs, then turnabout is fair play

ANTPogo said:
Republicans only care about the sacred right to life of a fetus before it's born. After it's born, it becomes just an excuse for those lazy 47%-ers to take undeserved money from the Job Creators, which is why SNAP and WIC need to be eliminated and the ACA/Medicaid have to be done away with.
Click to expand...
Whether or not some people may be hypocrites has nothing to do with what I am asking.

Although for the most part what you are saying is not true. Few republicans what to eliminate food stamps or health care for the poor.
Probably the main dispute is determining at what level someone needs them.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I am not interested in playing cheap rhetorical games but you made the following reply to Muldor's statement (Because conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity).

Not according to actual medical science.
I thought it was because you actually had evidence that medical science thought otherwise.
Click to expand...

I do.

Although really I was looking for some sort of scientific consensus that what he said was incorrect.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. It's not that there's no scientific consensus on where it's not, it's that there's no scientific consensus on where it is. The notion that human life begins at conception, though, is not a popular one among scientists for a variety of reasons enumerated in the article I linked you to (and nicely summarized at the RationalWiki link).

You linked to an article which is a lot like an opinion piece to me. If you do not actually know of any particular scientific articles backing up your statement that is fine with me. If you do why would you not lead me to them.
Click to expand...

Because the question is not one that can be answered by one single definitive scientific paper. The article I linked you to contains information about a variety of positions with citations to literature discussing those positions, ranging from the fact that there is no "moment of conception" (it's a process that takes up to four days) to the discussion about the development of nervous system and synaptic function in the embryo to the "twin argument" I mentioned upthread.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I guess you could say I am looking for when a new human begins. Such as when did Eeyore1954 begin.
Click to expand...
Define for me human being? I'm being serious. Is a person on life support and in a persistent vegetative state a human being? If we could remove the brain but keep the body alive would that body still be a human being?

When is the exact moment that night ends and daylight begins? You want scientific information to make an empirical claim about a complex cline (gradient).

There is no exact beginning. Such a question is pointless. See Loki's Paradox. But it's not as if we don't have some empirical basis to say that 1:00 PM is day time. And we have an empirical basis to say that the ability to think and feel are critically important to whether or not something is fundamentally further along the cline to being a human being. In fact it's more important than anything else.

Would you rather be the recipient of a brain transplant or would you rather be the donor? If you were the donor would you still be you even if you had a different body?
 
Eeyore, why do you defend Republican's changing of medical definitions? Shouldn't it be doctors doing that.
 
pgwenthold said:
The law that you think is ok because getting a pregnancy test before getting contraception "makes sense"
Click to expand...

Since I've never said I support such a law, and in fact such a law doesn't seem to exist, you are battling a straw man. That's a kind way of putting it. A less kind response would be, "You are lying."

If you're going to respond have the courtesy to address what I've said and not some position you have projected on me with no evidence. I'm very careful with words. If I supported such a law I would have said so.
 
RandFan said:
It's a medical procedure. If the doctor thinks its important for the health and well-being of the mother then I'm fine with it.
Click to expand...

I'm beating a dead horse here and if you want to flame me for pedantry go ahead. I note you use the word "mother" here and submit that even when people are firmly in the pro-choice camp there is often underlying ambivalence, as evidenced by their choice of words. You like to say we evolved as a social species concerned with the well-being of the community (I'm paraphrasing, sorry if I have it wrong). IMO we also are biologically wired to value the potential human life that is a fetus (after 6 months, it's pretty much a baby). I abhor the subterfuge of pretending to value life in order to exert social control.

The Texas legislator of another an ANTPogo thread basically said that in cases of rape hospitals routinely provide a service (D&C) that kills fertilized eggs by scraping uterine walls. Besides being stunningly wrong, she doesn't seem to understand the dissonance of her position. She feels it's a human being, for religious or other unscientific reasons. But if the hospital will kill that person for her, she can wash her hands, Pilate-like, of its death. Is she a hypocrite, or just ignorant? As far as I can tell she has to be one or the other, unless she's both. I have theorized that there are evolutionary reasons for ambivalence about terminating a pregnancy. After all reproduction is a basic drive. IMO fundamentalists are capitalizing on that ambivalence, using it as a springboard for a slew of repressive, unrealistic and downright cruel laws. For some reason I'm not foaming at the mouth on this issue. I think it's because I am, perhaps wrongly, giving the pro-life side the benefit of the doubt when it comes to motives.

When they make exceptions for rape or incest - or even imply that it's sometimes OK to kill a zygote - they've revealed, at the very least, that sometimes it's OK to take what they consider an innocent human life. Despite this red flag I continue to believe that among pro-lifers there are people with good intentions, who honestly believe "It's a child, not a choice," and who have motives beyond punishing women for having sex. Many people are ambivalent about abortion. Admitting that seems to invite damnation from either end of the choice/life spectrum.
 
Minoosh said:
I'm beating a dead horse here and if you want to flame me for pedantry go ahead. I note you use the word "mother" here and submit that even when people are firmly in the pro-choice camp there is often underlying ambivalence, as evidenced by their choice of words. You like to say we evolved as a social species concerned with the well-being of the community (I'm paraphrasing, sorry if I have it wrong). IMO we also are biologically wired to value the potential human life that is a fetus (after 6 months, it's pretty much a baby). I abhor the subterfuge of pretending to value life in order to exert social control.
Click to expand...
Flame you for pedantry? I don't see anything pedantic in your post. My usage of the word "mother" may very well be a Freudian revelation. I doubt it but it's certainly possible.

In any event, I think you have some misconceptions about me.

The Texas legislator of another an ANTPogo thread basically said that in cases of rape hospitals routinely provide a service (D&C) that kills fertilized eggs by scraping uterine walls. Besides being stunningly wrong, she doesn't seem to understand the dissonance of her position. She feels it's a human being, for religious or other unscientific reasons. But if the hospital will kill that person for her, she can wash her hands, Pilate-like, of its death. Is she a hypocrite, or just ignorant? As far as I can tell she has to be one or the other, unless she's both. I have theorized that there are evolutionary reasons for ambivalence about terminating a pregnancy. After all reproduction is a basic drive. IMO fundamentalists are capitalizing on that ambivalence, using it as a springboard for a slew of repressive, unrealistic and downright cruel laws. For some reason I'm not foaming at the mouth on this issue. I think it's because I am, perhaps wrongly, giving the pro-life side the benefit of the doubt when it comes to motives.

When they make exceptions for rape or incest - or even imply that it's sometimes OK to kill a zygote - they've revealed, at the very least, that sometimes it's OK to take what they consider an innocent human life. Despite this red flag I continue to believe that among pro-lifers there are people with good intentions, who honestly believe "It's a child, not a choice," and who have motives beyond punishing women for having sex. Many people are ambivalent about abortion. Admitting that seems to invite damnation from either end of the choice/life spectrum.
Click to expand...
My passion on subjects often gets the better of me.

I was once "pro-life". I grew up a conservative Mormon. After years of passionately defending my religion and conservative principles and after learning about skepticism and critical thinking I gradually changed many of those positions. I'm guided by my conscience and my own cognitive dissonance which I suffered from for years about things like gay marriage, abortion, the existence of god, dualism, global warming, evolution, etc., etc.. The lack of cognitive dissonance makes me believe that my journey from right-wing conservative Christian was correct.

That said, I firmly subscribe to the premise in the book by Johnathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind that our beliefs are primarily emotional and we argue primarily to justify those beliefs. I'd like to believe that my passionate advocacy of conservative principles for years and my subsequent reversal of those beliefs are indicative of my being correct on those beliefs. But I sincerely accept that I could be wrong on any matter. All of my beliefs and opinions are provisional.

I believe in the power of the dialectic to improve society. As Frank Zappa said, "without deviation from the norm progress is not possible." It's important that we discuss and debate. Sometimes we influence people sometimes they influence us. It's the best we can do to move society forward.
 
RandFan said:
I'd like to believe that my passionate advocacy of conservative principles for years and my subsequent reversal of those beliefs are indicative of my being correct on those beliefs. But I sincerely accept that I could be wrong on any matter. All of my beliefs and opinions are provisional.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about all the taboos and customs that have been used in the past to control reproductive behavior. IIRC primitive cultures have even been theorized to pick the best time for producing baby boys. Taboos around menstruation direct reproductive activities (or sex) toward the middle of the cycle when fertility is high. There is possibly a higher value on controlling women's behavior because the stakes are higher with women. Men can sow their seeds and be on their way; women's wombs can be commandeered for a year at a time. So perhaps they have come to be seen more as communal property. I've often reflected at our society's obsession with youth and realize we may have selected for external signs of fertility. The flat belly, certain patterns of fat distribution.

I tend not to argue on principle, conservative or liberal or any other dichotomy. I use weasel words and devil's advocate-type arguments. Polarity is less interesting to me than the potential for reconciliation - when a community arrives at consensus (yes, let's control carbon emissions, legalize pot, lower the voting age etc.). I value this forum for the civility and emphasis on sound thinking. As long as someone is making an honest argument I will attempt to entertain views that run counter to my own. I'm agnostic on a slew of issues and I love to argue.

Thank you for helping make this forum what it is. :)
 
Minoosh said:
I was thinking about all the taboos and customs that have been used in the past to control reproductive behavior. IIRC primitive cultures have even been theorized to pick the best time for producing baby boys. Taboos around menstruation direct reproductive activities (or sex) toward the middle of the cycle when fertility is high. There is possibly a higher value on controlling women's behavior because the stakes are higher with women. Men can sow their seeds and be on their way; women's wombs can be commandeered for a year at a time. So perhaps they have come to be seen more as communal property. I've often reflected at our society's obsession with youth and realize we may have selected for external signs of fertility. The flat belly, certain patterns of fat distribution.

I tend not to argue on principle, conservative or liberal or any other dichotomy. I use weasel words and devil's advocate-type arguments. Polarity is less interesting to me than the potential for reconciliation - when a community arrives at consensus (yes, let's control carbon emissions, legalize pot, lower the voting age etc.). I value this forum for the civility and emphasis on sound thinking. As long as someone is making an honest argument I will attempt to entertain views that run counter to my own. I'm agnostic on a slew of issues and I love to argue.

Thank you for helping make this forum what it is. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks, right back at you. :)
 
RandFan said:
Define for me human being? I'm being serious. Is a person on life support and in a persistent vegetative state a human being? If we could remove the brain but keep the body alive would that body still be a human being?

Would you rather be the recipient of a brain transplant or would you rather be the donor? If you were the donor would you still be you even if you had a different body?
Click to expand...
i believe a person on Life support is still a person. If you could remove the brain. I don't know and my brain is too tired too think about it
 
eeyore1954 said:
i believe a person on Life support is still a person. If you could remove the brain. I don't know and my brain is too tired too think about it
Click to expand...

On life support, yes, but if they are brain dead?! It's idiotic to think a body with no brain function is a person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom