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

[Luisss]

Yet do we say they are not human?

Whether or not someone acts human like, no one denies that they are human. That's not to mention that two words can describe the same object - Something can be a fetus and a baby.

Also, you can stop at "A fetus is a human being." . No rabbit hole necessary.

Using that definition human cell cultures are in fact people. Now that's just silly if nothing else.

Who said anything about personhood?

I'm talking strictly about human beings. The difference between fetuses, and a skin cell, of course, would be that fetuses have the ability to become full human adults.

Question for everyone: Is a baby not a person the day before its born? Is it not a person two days before its born?

At why point do you draw the line, and why?

 

[RandFan]

What is the definition of a human being? Really?

A human being is any member of the race known as homosapien. By virtue of having that race's DNA, and being alive, a fetus is a human being.

Sperm have human DNA and they are alive. Therefore every sperm is a human being. Thank you.

Also, what makes you think a fetus isn't a baby? We don't call humans that lack their faculties something other than human. By that same token, we shouldn't call babies something other than babies simply because they lack the developed body parts that other babies have due to time.

Based on that logic spermatozoa and ovum are babies.

 

[RandFan]

I'm talking strictly about human beings. The difference between fetuses, and a skin cell, of course, would be that fetuses have the ability to become full human adults.

Spermatozoa have the ability to become full human adults.

Moving of goal posts and special pleading in 3, 2, 1...

Question for everyone: Is a baby not a person the day before its born? Is it not a person two days before its born?

It's a fetus up and until the moment it is born.

At why point do you draw the line, and why?

Viability. A.) That's about the time a fetus has the minimum cognitive capacity for thinking and feeling. Not likely self aware though. B.) If a fetus can be delivered alive and it can survive on its own then what is the point of terminating it?

 

[Arcade22]

Who said anything about personhood?

Yes who did? I didn't.

I'm talking strictly about human beings.

As did i. Using your earlier definition a human cell culture would be at least one human being, if not many. Maybe not a "person" but that was not the point.

The difference between fetuses, and a skin cell, of course, would be that fetuses have the ability to become full human adults.

Spermatozoon and ovum also share that ability. Are they also human beings? Persons?

 

[Minoosh]

So then why subject someone that has never had sex to both a pregnancy test and an std test?

If it's a college-educated woman with a broad range of resources including decent Internet skills and good insurance, she may have a private doc who won't "subject" her to tests to ensure her reproductive health. However, many doctors require pelvic exams and Pap smears, per link above. They're not all just being mean. Clinics see a diverse demographic - some professionals but also the young, uninsured, un- or mis-informed, possibly carrying denial and shame about molestations or drug-related behavior. In such cases taking the opportunity to test may be the best chance to detect potentially life-threatening diseases and curing what can be cured.

It isn't about the fetus. If the woman intends to birth the fetus then she has a certain emotional attachment to it. If that is forcibly taken away then she has been harmed.

A woman's wanting to get pregnant does not preclude attachment to a fetus should one turn up. This was addressed to someone else and I may not be on point.

No, not really. It is unnecessary and I have yet to see any good arguments against that idea.

I think you mean you have yet to see any good arguments in favor of the idea. It's protocol for some docs; I didn't make it up. Why would you not want, where doubt exist, to exclude the possibility of pregnancy before prescribing pills that may give her a false sense of security? If no doubt exists, the provider can make that call. I'm not trying to denigrate women when I say people aren't always candid with their doctors or infallible on the subject of even their own sexuality.

It is not unknown for a woman to take the pill for many years before she ever has sex. Now imagine she has to take a pregnancy test every time she wants a refill even though she is still a virgin. Ridiculous.

I don't see this happening if a woman develops a trusting relationship with a provider. Clinics often serve a less stable demographic. In such cases a thorough workup - STD test, Pap smear, pelvic exam, breast palpitation and perhaps pregnancy tests - may be required. Even a private doctor might want to find out as much as he/she can to make the best choices. Wven in the best relationships doctors may insist on pelvics and Pap smears.

I keep wanting to hear from OB/gyns, or see evidence posted, that indicates I am totally, completely off-base and I'll keep searching the Net for a day or two. I've found evidence that providers often require a thorough work-up before prescribing birth control. It's not about trust, it's about prudence and probably a certain amount of CYA behavior.

 

[marplots]

Question for everyone: Is a baby not a person the day before its born? Is it not a person two days before its born?

At why point do you draw the line, and why?

No, and it isn't a person two days after it's born. What's needed here is a metric that fits the facts instead of jamming things into discrete boxes. Thankfully, there's already a perfectly good one available.

Fuzzy logic allows for partial categories, which is what we need here. So, if you want to measure the personhoodness of something, you do it on a percentage basis ranging from 0 (let's say the free floating molecules that will eventually become a person) through to some intermediate point (as with a growing fetus) and then finally 100% at some point where you figure they have all the characteristics.

Of course, doing this runs afoul of any particular person's "gut instinct" - we very well might disagree at when we have "more than 25% personhood." But the method of using a gray scale and expressing things as "more" or "less" than instead of exact values will work.

All this recognizes the lack of a "bright line" and the non-discrete nature of biology and biological processes. If doing this for a fetus is too troubling, we might very well ask the exact question for the other end of life: when is a person no longer a person? If we say, "after death" we have the same problem as before in deciding exactly when death occurs.

As to the fetus, there's another out. We can say, "No matter what it was before, it's dead now." In other words, we can force an outcome that matches a definition.

Finally, we can just set any old line we like. We say that at 12:01 on their 18th birthday, someone becomes an adult. Of course, we realize that human beings mature at different rates, but having a clear line means we can make up laws using it. This is just what we do with fetuses and abortion now. Whatever the line is, we simply agree that, although we know there's nothing set in concrete about it, here is where we will put it.

 

[rocketdodger]

Question for everyone: Is a baby not a person the day before its born? Is it not a person two days before its born?

At why point do you draw the line, and why?

There are a few objective ways to draw the line.

One is to say that a fetus is not a person until it can survive outside the mother period -- even with medical assistance. I'm not an expert but I think this is somewhere around 5 months gestation, or the middle of the second trimester.

Of course this is a moving metric since medicine gets better and better. Presumably some day we will be able to grow babies in test tubes. But for now it seems like a pretty solid way to draw the line.

 

[SezMe]

Sorry, late to the show.

Is there any scientific evidence that human life begins at a time other than conception or when the cell splits?

You've said something similar to this a couple of times. I infer (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that you think twins form by the splitting of the original zygote. That is not necessarily true. The split can occur as late as nine days after fertilization when the blastocyst has hundreds of cells. Linky.

Unlike the single baby, this fertilized egg cell will split into two separate embryos, and grow into identical twins. This remarkable event takes place during the first week after fertilization, and can happen at several different times:

• At the two cell stage on days 1 to 3
• At the early blastocyst stage on days 4 to 6
• Or in the late blastocyst stage on days 7 to 9[

 

[SezMe]

This bill is ridiculous, .... because the government would have to have a legitimate purpose aimed at regulating the way, and the process associated with a man taking medications.

That type of regulation already exists. Countless regulations govern the process of medication for both men and women and the legitimate purpose is to sustain or improve the health of individuals and populations.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

In cases of fetal resorbtion, should the surviving twin be charged with murder ( and canibalism)?

 

[eeyore1954]

Sorry, late to the show.



You've said something similar to this a couple of times. I infer (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that you think twins form by the splitting of the original zygote. That is not necessarily true. The split can occur as late as nine days after fertilization when the blastocyst has hundreds of cells. Linky.

Thank you I did find that link and view it after I posted.

 

[eeyore1954]

Why do you believe that a new human life begins after conception? That's just an arbitrary point. The pregnant woman will abort about 50% of all conceptions before they can attach. Why not choose the point at which the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall? Why not choose any number of important points of development (see ANTPogo's link)? Why isn't every sperm and ovum a new life and why shouldn't they be protected? Conception results in a cell that cannot think and cannot feel. You think that the cell is more important than the sperm and egg prior to conception. Why?

These are questions you won't likely be able to answer because your position is based on cultural indoctrination and feelings. There is nothing intellectual about the decision as it is arbitrary and ad hoc.

Are you opinions on this matter also based upon cultural indoctrination and feelings? If we can only answer questions when we are free from cultural indoctrination and feelings then what can we ever attempt to answer.

Personally while of course I have cultural bias I do not see where my decision has "nothing intellectual in it".

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Sperm have human DNA and they are alive. Therefore every sperm is a human being. Thank you.

Based on that logic spermatozoa and ovum are babies.

The assertion that sperm are alive... I thought the ability to self replicate was an essential in the more common definitions of life.

Alive, and living, what are the distinctions? Sorry I can't write this better but my hands are shakey today.

 

[Minoosh]

Clarifying: I'm not saying a woman needs a pregnancy test before getting every Rx of the Pill. I'm talking about first-time users in a clinic setting, not established patients. If she takes it faithfully and her doc knows it he/she may see no need. Her doctor may still require other invasive tests to prescribe pills. In an earlier post I said:

I'm talking about sexually active women who go to a clinic or doctor's office *for contraception*. This doesn't apply to virgins or people who have not had sex in months.

Oddly virgins can get pregnant. Not likely, but:

Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration?
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/975.aspx?CategoryID=54

Providing a urine sample is not some medieval ordeal designed to degrade women, and some professionals err on the side of prudence. Evidence: the poster who complained that if she were late for her Depo-Provera shot she would have to pee in a cup. (Per the UK NHS, it seems). The literature says:

Promptly at the end of the 3-month interval, you will need to return to your health-care provider for your next injection in order to continue your contraceptive protection ... The effectiveness of DEPO-PROVERA Contraceptive Injection depends on the patient returning every 3 months (13 weeks) for her next injection

This from the federal government. I'm not making it up.

I'm not trying to make contraception less accessible. Put the pill in vending machines or make it OTC as it is in some countries. Then it's a woman's choice whether to see a doctor at all. Where I live women can drive to Mexico, buy a shot at a pharmacy, inject themselves, go empty-handed through U.S. Customs and return home. No muss, no fuss and it's time-efficient.

 

[rocketdodger]

Are you opinions on this matter also based upon cultural indoctrination and feelings? If we can only answer questions when we are free from cultural indoctrination and feelings then what can we ever attempt to answer.

Personally while of course I have cultural bias I do not see where my decision has "nothing intellectual in it".

I think what RandFan is trying to say is that although all opinions are so based, some opinions are formed top down rather than bottom up.

Meaning, some may attempt to define what constitutes a person by looking at the facts ( through their window of cultural bias ) and forming an opinion from there. Others may have an opinion, informed by their window of cultural bias, and they look for facts to support the opinion.

The difference is easy to see. People who already hold that a fetus is a person aren't going to consider any facts to the contrary. On the other hand, people who hold that a fetus is < whatever a fetus is > are going to consider all facts as ... well, facts.

 

[Minoosh]

Presumably some day we will be able to grow babies in test tubes.

But they would come out all squished and tube-shaped.

 

[Minoosh]

Apologies to Travis, I misread something and corrected something that wasn't wrong.

Sorry.

 

[RandFan]

Are you opinions on this matter also based upon cultural indoctrination and feelings?

Of course. I've said as much many times. You quoted me saying as much.

Personally while of course I have cultural bias...

What exactly do you think that means?

If we can only answer questions when we are free from cultural indoctrination and feelings then what can we ever attempt to answer.

Personally while of course I have cultural bias I do not see where my decision has "nothing intellectual in it".

I apologize, I never meant to imply otherwise.

 

[RandFan]

I think what RandFan is trying to say is that although all opinions are so based, some opinions are formed top down rather than bottom up.

Meaning, some may attempt to define what constitutes a person by looking at the facts ( through their window of cultural bias ) and forming an opinion from there. Others may have an opinion, informed by their window of cultural bias, and they look for facts to support the opinion.

The difference is easy to see. People who already hold that a fetus is a person aren't going to consider any facts to the contrary. On the other hand, people who hold that a fetus is < whatever a fetus is > are going to consider all facts as ... well, facts.

Thank you. Yes. And keep in mind that I was once "pro-life". I wrote letters, attended rallies and meetings. I changed my position long before I ever came to JREF 10 years ago. Back when I was still very right-wing conservative. I did so because of cognitive dissonance after learning more and more about developmental biology. I simply could not justify my position to myself anymore.

That DOESN'T make me correct. I have no illusions about the fact that I could be wrong about anything. But my change in positions, like my becoming an atheist, left me without cognitive dissonance. The facts, IMO, are pretty clear. Until a fetus reaches viablility there is no basis to think that it is a thinking, feeling human being. A pregnant woman is a thinking, feeling human being. Her future and wellbeing should trump sperm, ovum, blastocyst, zygote and unviable fetus. Once the fetus is viable, if the woman doesn't want it, then deliver it and let the state take custody. It has to be delivered dead or alive. Why not deliver it alive?

 

[RandFan]

The assertion that sperm are alive... I thought the ability to self replicate was an essential in the more common definitions of life.

How do you differentiate between sperm that are swiming and those that are not?

Alive, and living, what are the distinctions? Sorry I can't write this better but my hands are shakey today.

I don't know. If you prefer "living" to "alive" I don't have a problem with that? It seems at best a hyper technicality.