Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

And again, humans are animals- like their close relatives the bonobo chimps. In bonobo chimp society, sex is used as social communication, and for pleasure, not simply to reproduce. We have the mental and physical capacity to separate the mechanics of reproduction from instinct or physical drive, and find pleasure in sex, for reasons other than propagation.

Why can't we be more like the swans who mate for life?

If you believe that sex is only for reproduction that is your choice, but don't go around presuming to tell other people what they have to do if an accident occurs.

I'd rather prevent the accidents in the first place.

Besides, you still haven't shown me why we should separate the procreative aspect of sex from the pleasure.

[Ben Kenobi]

Last Conformist:

There's plenty of stuff I'd call human that do not contain any DNA, human or otherwise.

Like what?

[Ben Kenobi]

Just that little detail that technology will make it possible to have a zygote from a single set of DNA, so the "genetic distinction" argument will be superseded.

Future tense? Might not be so.

If it can not be separated without tissue death*, it's integral. Sorry, that's just the way it is. * = Even with medical intervention or support from another organism.

One can live without being pregnant, yet without organs, you could not survive. The relationship between the individual organs in your body, and the unborn child, is that the unborn child is a distinct entity, totally dependent, for a temporary period upon the mother for survival. The organs cannot exist without the
mother, nor the mother from her organs. Thus, the organs are an integral part of her, while her child is notl.
quote:

Feet are such wonderful things. I spend a lot of time going from place to place on them.

As do I, but that's a slow way to shift environments. Would you want to walk halfway across a continent?

Delivery with assistance is ideal for the safety of mother and baby, and is often necessary, but it is not an absolute biological requirement. The infant doesn't need the mother at all - do you think every infant dies if it's mother dies in childbirth or shortly thereafter? The whole point of being an independent organism isn't that it's a neonate mountain man, it's that care and support of the infant can be accomplished by nearly anyone.

So? Why does it matter who supports the person, so long as someone supports them? I see no difference in the state from an infant to an unborn child, except in degree. Degree of dependency varies vastly among born people, yet we do not make a distinction between them with respect to personhood. Therefore, a degree of dependency is a poor standard to reject the unborn child as a person.

One has an independent sustainable existence, the other has an absolute biological dependence on the specific individual carrying it, and is incapable of the most fundamental body functions unless and until it develops to the point where it is able to live as an independent organism.

And how independent is this person outside the womb? He is still absolutely dependent upon others for his survival, and will perish unless adequately cared for.

Secondly, which body functions are fundamental? Aren't you confusing functioning as a person with being a person? We are not persons because of what we can do, but rather, because of who we are.

So all clones, identical twins or triplets, etc. are now one person? Shouldn't you rephrase that to "independence is irrelevant when I want it to be" in order to be consistent?

Pain in the *** this word. Independence in the sense that one needs to live without the support of others is irrelevant to personhood. Independence in the sense that the organism is distinct from his mother, is not. Poor choice of words on my part.

Good, so we'll issue "conception certificates" instead of birth certificates, allow tax benefits and shelters to be based on trusts and transfers to embryos,

Why? There's no need for any of this. Birth will remain as the point to which the child enters society, in the sense that they will be tracked through birth certificates, just because it is easier on our end.

make use of the pill a felony equivalent to say, aggravated mayhem, and institute a whole new framework of state action relating to cell masses implanted within a uterus.

Begs the question, MtG. You are right that should the unborn child just be a cell mass, that this would be ludicrous. But that is hardly my argument, and you should consider my points, rather than attacking a strawman.

That's logically consistent with equality of racial and gender status.

A person's a person, no matter how small.

You've failed to demonstrate any biological basis for such a contention,

How so?

Biologically, human life begins at conception. Check any textbook, and they will say this.

Secondly, if human life begins at conception, as determined scientifically, why then should we have some classes of humans that do not receive the protections of personhood?

The onus is not on the prolifers to show that a human being ought to be protected, but rather, on those who kill these human beings to say why the protections accorded to all human persons ought not to apply to the unborn child.

Yes, we agree a conventionally fertilized zygote is genetically distinct from the separate contributors of it's genetic material. Trouble is, that doesn't make it a person, and you can only ignore biological independence if you ignore identical twins and clones.

Twins are still genetically distinct from their parents, and not genetically unique. This is why I have shifted my terminology to address this point.

As for clones, that remains to be seen. If one takes the route that I have, clones would become the property of the original, as a part of their body, and would not have rights of their own. This seems wrong, but I don't know yet how to fix this problem.

Depraved indifference or reckless disregard (the California term) merely requires that a reasonable person knows or ought to know the potential consequences of their actions.

I'm not sure this information on the pill is as widespread as one would hope. If one has had this information concealed from them, then how can one be held at fault?

The only way I can see, is if all the doctors who prescribe the pill inform their patients (as they ought to, by the strictures of informed consent), only then could the use of the pill add up to depraved indifference.

The requirements are the same for any other prescription drug. The information is readily available, it is not concealed, and the only people who are "unaware" are those who choose to be "unaware."

Dodges the question. Do the doctors provide this information when the prescribe the pill?

I thought this was about "protecting" "unborn children?" So it's A-OK to allow high risk behaviors that would likely cause crippling birth defects or health issues at any time during the pregnancy, but not ok to prevent the implantation of a single-cell "person?" Consistency, Ben, consistency.

Did I say these high risk behaviours were okay? No. Just that in terms of the seriousness of the offense, the latter is the greater crime than the former.

Crippling someone is not as bad as killing them, but that does not mean that crippling them is okay.

It's the entire purpose and function of the pill (elevating hormone levels to prevent implantation). You can't "remove" the effect.

How do you know that, MtG? Have people tried to alter the composition of the pill, so that the hardening of the endometrium does not occur?

And the way it works is well known, thoroughly available in the public domain to anyone even vaguely interested, and usually the little product blurb that comes with prescriptions describes how it works. The Catholic Church has had it's position regarding the pill published for close to four decades now, so I doubt there are many people who don't know, unless they're just clueless about human sexuality in the first place.

Again, do the doctors who prescribe the pill, inform their patients of the abortifacient effects of the pill? Yes or no? They have a responsibility to do so, through informed consent, so even if the public domain also provides this information, it does not excuse the doctors for neglecting their responsibilities to the patients in their care.

Another point of consistency. A woman solicits the murder of her "unborn child" and pays the killer, but she gets a free pass, and only the actual hitman is prosecuted? By all means, let's pardon John Gotti now.

So all women who seek abortions are John Gotti?

And they call me misogynist?

There are many motivations for women who seek abortions. In many cases, they are victimised by the procedure. The doctors profit off of abortion, and in order to prosecute them, I have no problem with securing a pardon for the women who have abortions.

Let's see how much legislative support there is for this position. I'd like to see the Christian right be honest and consistent about their legislative goals, instead of playing around with word games. Besides, oral contraceptives are available world wide - better expand the "War on drugs."

If it can be done, to alter this effect of the pill, then it ought to be done. I see no reason why this angle should not be pursued.

So now if we merely extract the cellular DNA, we still have a "person?" - I think you're stretching a bit far in avoidance of biological independence. The "essential parts" of a human being are those which are required for existance as a biologically independent organism, no more and no less.

And your definition of biological independence is limited to the environment outside the womb. Inside the womb, the unborn child only needs this, as well as nourishment and shelter in order to grow and develop. Outside the womb, he may need more, but these things will grow in time.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Horse?

Equus.

I knew that, but there's two names.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You have a single cell with the capacity to grow and develop, with a human genetic code distinct from the parents.

How does that make a zygote a human being?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, by the definition of species, like begets like. Human parents can only produce other human beings.

That is not the point. For example, most people will disagree that a single fertilised fish egg is a fish.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Third, if one believes that an infant is a human being, and a zygote is not, but the parents are, this is a violation of the principle that human parents have human offspring.

Why? A zygote does not have any of the physiological characteristics of a human being. It does not have any of the organs.

Biologically, it is indistinguishable from any healthy human body cells.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The only consistent defense is to say that the unborn child is human throughout their development, just as they are after birth.

If you ignore the differences.

[Ben Kenobi]

How does that make a zygote a human being?

By the biological definition.

What do you base your definition on?

That is not the point. For example, most people will disagree that a single fertilised fish egg is a fish.

If most people believed the earth was flat, would that make it so?

Biologists will call a fish zygote a fish, or a pig embryo a pig. To be consistent, one would also call a human embryo a human.

Why? A zygote does not have any of the physiological characteristics of a human being. It does not have any of the organs.

He has a human genetic code, so he shares some features with other human persons.

Biologically, it is indistinguishable from any healthy human body cells.

The zygote is very distinguishable, in having a capacity to grow and develop not possessed by these other cells.

If you ignore the differences.

Sure. There are plenty of surface differences between people, age, sex, race, etc, but they do not matter with respect to personhood.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
molly:

Why can't we be more like the swans who mate for life?


Besides, you still haven't shown me why we should separate the procreative aspect of sex from the pleasure.

Because relatively few animals mate for life.

Time to brush up on your basic biology, and stop believing in outdated anthropomorphic Victorian silliness.

You haven't shown me why humans shouldn't do what comes naturally- engage in pleasurable communication using sexual intimacy.

If the clitoris has more nerve endings than the penis, one suspects there might be some kind of benefit in that.

At least to the woman anyway.

In any case, humans are not automata compelled to procreate- unlike many animals we do not come into season once or twice a year (or more if you're mice or rats) so we can separate the sexual urge from the procreative urge.

Have you ever considered the possibility that sexual acts have a role other than plain reproduction in human society?

There is no 'should' or 'shouldn't' in any case- you're thinking in culturally specific proscriptive religious terms again I suspect.



As Dorothy Parker is alleged to have quipped:

'A little coitus never hoitus.'

[Ben Kenobi]

You haven't shown me why humans shouldn't do what comes naturally- engage in pleasurable communication using sexual intimacy.

Maybe that's because I see the positive benefits?

Procreation and pleasure, after all.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Maybe that's because I see the positive benefits?

Procreation and pleasure, after all.

Aside from ignoring all the gay men and lesbians this statement makes little sense as a rebuttal- sexual activity is pleasurable with or without procreation.

Having sex without the compulsion/burden of reproduction simply means not making heterosexual women baby factories.


Ahhhh......


Kinder Kuche Kirche, Obi Gyn?

Been tried before.

Doesn't work.

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

Just because it can be done, is not a justification for why the two should be separated.

Having sex without the compulsion/burden of reproduction simply means not making heterosexual women baby factories.

,

So all the women who enjoy sex this way are baby factories?

I'm sure they'd disagree.

Baby factories implies a lack of consent, which is hardly what I would be defending.

It also implies a lack of pleasure, which is also not the case. It can be much less of a hassle, than trying to make sure everything is perfectly arranged to prevent conception.

Procreation and pleasure do not contradict each other. You can have both together.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So all the women who enjoy sex this way are baby factories?

I'm sure they'd disagree.

Baby factories implies a lack of consent, which is hardly what I would be defending.

It also implies a lack of pleasure, which is also not the case. It can be much less of a hassle, than trying to make sure everything is perfectly arranged to prevent conception.

Procreation and pleasure do not contradict each other. You can have both together.

Not what I said at all.

Enjoyment of sex does not depend or demand reproduction- it's a choice.

You want to restrict choice?- that's the totalitarian aspect of religion after all, a pastor in every bedroom.

I don't see how being a baby factory implies any lack of pleasure- if you like being a brood mare, fine, if it's a choice you made of your own free will, but that doesn't mean just because one woman or three hundred women like it, that it becomes mandatory for all of them.

Of course, you'll never be worn out by childbearing, or suffer repeated miscarriages, swollen breasts, sore nipples, pre-eclampsia, prolapsed wombs, et cetera, et cetera.

The consent part comes when woman control their own sexuality and whether or not they reproduce- not when men make the choices for them.

And luckily, even in Ancient Rome and Greece and Egypt, women were able to exercise some control over their sexual activity and reproductive processes.

My way, women get to have enjoyable sex, and reproduce IF THEY CHOOSE TO.

Your way is Hobson's Choice, which is no choice at all.

[Ted Striker]

I am going to roll into Planned Parenthood office with an "I'd hit it " t-shirt on.

[Ben Kenobi]

You want to restrict choice?- that's the totalitarian aspect of religion after all, a pastor in every bedroom.

I didn't say that. I just don't understand why you would want to separate the two of them.

Of course, you'll never be worn out by childbearing, or suffer repeated miscarriages, swollen breasts, sore nipples, pre-eclampsia, prolapsed wombs, et cetera, et cetera.

Some of the 'brood mares' enjoy the experience. So much for openmindedness! You don't see me calling the girls who like sex with contraception sluts.

The consent part comes when woman control their own sexuality and whether or not they reproduce- not when men make the choices for them.

Where do I say that? Something like this would need to be a joint decision, between the man and the woman. No other way to do this properly.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I didn't say that. I just don't understand why you would want to separate the two of them.

Some of the 'brood mares' enjoy the experience. So much for openmindedness! You don't see me calling the girls who like sex with contraception sluts.

Where do I say that? Something like this would need to be a joint decision, between the man and the woman. No other way to do this properly.

The two are separate- you can have one or the other, or both. Physically and culturally it's a fact. Get used to it.

I don't recall hearing any woman express the joy of a prolapsed womb, or repeated miscarriages, or pre-eclampsia. Is that in a part of 'My Secret Garden' I missed out on reading?

In any case, if women choose to reproduce multiple times, that's their choice, as I've said before. A great number of women appear to have voted with their money and the contraceptive of their choice.

Besides, I don't need to justify the separation of reproduction from sexual pleasure- you need to explain why you will only allow pleasure for those who want to breed.

As for me not being open-minded- who's the one who wants to impose control?

The pot decries the swarthy aspect of the kettle.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
By the biological definition.

Ben, a zygote is not even an organism. You are hard pressed to classify a cell as a human. Afterall, it takes more than a cell with human DNA to be human.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Biologists will call a fish zygote a fish, or a pig embryo a pig. To be consistent, one would also call a human embryo a human.

Quote me some of those biologists, Ben.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
He has a human genetic code, so he shares some features with other human persons.

A human cell also share many features with, say, pig cells.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The zygote is very distinguishable, in having a capacity to grow and develop not possessed by these other cells.

We do not classify something as what it may become, we classify it as what it is now.

Example: we do not classify the sun as a red dwarf, but a yellow main sequence star.

Another example: we do not classify you as dead, but alive.

Yet another example: you do not get senior concessions, even though you are going to beome one someday.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure. There are plenty of surface differences between people, age, sex, race, etc, but they do not matter with respect to personhood.

I didn't mean between people. I meant between a person and a zygote.