Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[Kontiki]

Ben, I'm just curious. Do you plan on having hundreds of kids, or just being able to count the number of times you have sex in your life on one hand?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Neither can children, yet they still have rights. Rights do not need to be defended by the person, but rather, exist independently of the capacity of the person to defend themselves. That's the whole point of having a right to life, in that the ones who would otherwise not be able to defend themselves would be protected.

Children have a guardian at litem appointed for them, which is often the parent, unless the parent is found to be incapable of acting as a guardian at litem. So let's appoint guardians ad litem for every zygote, embryo or fetus to bring a civil action for damages if the woman drinks, smokes, or does anything else adverse to the "interests" of the zygote, embryo, or fetus. Then let's have the state prosecute child endangerment charges in the interest of the "child."

So what about someone who is profoundly mentally handicapped, or trapped in a coma? Do they still have existing 'interests?' Just because the person cannot express their interests, does not mean that their interests are nullified.

Once they're born, regardless of condition, they are legally "persons" and have the same interests at law as any other person. Case closed.

No, I could not, because the egg is not an individual entity with DNA distinct from the other cells of the parent. The zygote is vastly different on all of these points from the egg.

Not if the egg is used to create a cloned zygote. You stated no exceptions as a result of technology, and the potential exists to clone zygotes from the genetic material of a single individual. It's been done with cats and sheep, humans are just around the corner. Looks like genetic distinction is out the window.

Secondly, I make the assumption, that we should not kill another person without due cause. Just because the unborn child cannot express their desire to live, does not mean that they forfeit their protection. Rather, because they are so vunerable to the desires of others, they need to be protected to a greater extent.

I agree, but then infanticide is already illegal. And zygotes or embryos, or even early fetuses, don't have the level of brain development to form a "desire to live" - you're advocating extending the legal concept of personhood even to cell masses which don't have a functioning brain, so you're simply projecting your assumption of what they will desire in the future.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Clearly, you don't know what an organism is.

An amoeba is an organism. A zygote is not.

Do notice the word "is."

That indicates present tense.

Exactly! A zygote is an organism at an early stage of development! So is a small child, though not as early a stage of development.

[Ben Kenobi]

A lot this stuff from Ben and others is sooo male centric.

And you are qualified to gage otherwise?

[Ben Kenobi]

As for the second, I'll admit what many women have told me- it's entirely possible to have sex and not enjoy it, either as a sexual act, or for procreation.

Sure. Saying the two ought to be connected admits that it is possible to disconnect the two. Sex should be pleasureable just as much as sex should lead to procreation.

Is there a connection between sexual pleasure and reproduction?

Not for me.

So this is the heart of the matter, for you, eh?

Why then do you separate the two, Molly? You may not experience this connection, but that does not mean that you cannot do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, I'm just curious. Do you plan on having hundreds of kids, or just being able to count the number of times you have sex in your life on one hand?

Given that I plan to get married to one wife, and to not have sex outside that marriage, I don't see how it would be possible for me to end up with 100 kids, given that my wife might be fertile for around 15 years. Theoretically, if every fertile period worked out, it would be much less than 100 kids.

And that presumes that the woman I marry would be 25 when we married, and this is not necessarily the case.

So I call false dilemma.

I have numerous options, including abstaining from sex during her fertile periods by mutual consent.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've repeatedly stated that a zygote, embryo, or foetus is human. Whether it is a "human being" depends on what a "being" is, which the participitants in this debate stubbornly refuse to define.

It's the second half of my definition, in the capacity to grow and develop not possessed by other cells. Biologically one might say that part of this would be the proteins in the zygote, but that would neither be exhaustive, nor entirely correct.

Any honest biologist will tell you that species membership is an abstraction, and that borders get fuzzy and arbitrary at the edges.

So, my question to you, is does the unborn child qualify as human? If so, then the rest of this is irrelevant to the debate.

[Ben Kenobi]

It does not to be simply "human", which you recognize by your use fo the phrase "human DNA".

LC:

Very correct. A human.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure. Saying the two ought to be connected admits that it is possible to disconnect the two. Sex should be pleasureable just as much as sex should lead to procreation.

So this is the heart of the matter, for you, eh?

Why then do you separate the two, Molly? You may not experience this connection, but that does not mean that you cannot do so.

Why do you keep putting words into my mouth?

I haven't said anything about 'ought' or 'should' - you're the one looking for ways to impose imperatives, not me.

Why on earth 'should' sex lead to reproduction? There is no 'should' about it, nor have I ever implied there is.

And no, simply because I don't happen to want to reproduce doesn't mean that is the crux of the matter for me- the difference is I'm not seeing it simply from the point of view of someone who doesn't have to experience a full term pregnancy and delivery.

And why do I separate the two?

Well, let's see, the person I love is a man, and in case you haven't heard. it's a tad difficult still to get men pregnant.

Still, perhaps you could volunteer, and if if successful, see how enthusiastic you are about sexual pleasure being shackled to reproduction.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why on earth 'should' sex lead to reproduction? There is no 'should' about it, nor have I ever implied there is.

I'm not saying that you ever said this, molly.

It makes more sense for me to put the two together rather than taking the two apart.

And why do I separate the two?

Well, let's see, the person I love is a man, and in case you haven't heard. it's a tad difficult still to get men pregnant.

Finally! That wasn't so hard to come up with one reason why people would want to keep these separate.

Could there be another reason why people would want to separate the two?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm not saying that you ever said this, molly.

It makes more sense for me to put the two together rather than taking the two apart.

Finally! That wasn't so hard to come up with one reason why people would want to keep these separate.

Could there be another reason why people would want to separate the two?

"Saying the two ought to be connected admits that it is possible to disconnect the two. "

Obi Gyn

This sure looks like it implies I said it or meant it.

You can't put together that which you consider is already joined- you're not making much sense, I'm afraid.

And as for sexual reproduction and pleasure being separate for me, that's pretty much a given- I don't need a 'reason' to separate them.

Why do people not want to reproduce whenever they have sex?

Choice? Free will? Cost? Physical constraints? Employment? Health?

Pick any likely option or combination.


Sex can be fun but it doesn't have to entail spawning- we aren't fish.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Saying the two ought to be connected admits that it is possible to disconnect the two. "

Actually, that was directed at my statement, not yours.

I have to admit the possibility that they can be disconnected, in saying that they 'ought' to be connected. If they could not be disconnected, then it makes no sense to say that it ought to be one way or another. It just is.

Why do people not want to reproduce whenever they have sex?

Choice? Free will? Cost? Physical constraints? Employment? Health?

Pick any likely option or combination.

Thank you molly. That was all I was after.

It seems odd to me that employment would be in the mix. I thought we were supposed to make things easier for women in the marketplace.

Sex can be fun but it doesn't have to entail spawning- we aren't fish.

No, but I wondered why people tried so hard to pull them apart.

[Guynemer]

I may not be the best person to talk about this, as I just finished the busiest month of my life, as intern in the newborn nursery, but...

Frankly, this is a choice I'd like to see more women make.

Optimally, more people would use birth control; but religion has done such a good job stigmatizing it that the majority of insurance programs won't cover BC pills or Depo-Provera or IUDs or anything else.


I also have this thing about telling people what they can and can not do with their own bodies. I know, I'm nutty like that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, but I wondered why people tried so hard to pull them apart.

Oh, just let it go.

They already exist separately. Have done for thousands of years of recorded human history.

One does not depend upon the other.

I

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Given that I plan to get married to one wife, and to not have sex outside that marriage, I don't see how it would be possible for me to end up with 100 kids, given that my wife might be fertile for around 15 years. Theoretically, if every fertile period worked out, it would be much less than 100 kids.

And that presumes that the woman I marry would be 25 when we married, and this is not necessarily the case.

So I call false dilemma.

I have numerous options, including abstaining from sex during her fertile periods by mutual consent.

So it's option B then.

Where's the false dilemma? If you think you should only have sex when you intend to reproduce, and you don't want lots of kids (hundreds was a bit of hyperbole, I would have thought that was obvious), then by default you plan to have sex the minimum number of times required to have as many kids as you want. Theoretically, if you want three kids, then you could have sex three times in your life. Sounds like a blast.