Re: The GIMME state

Miss Elaine Eos formulated the question :
In article <JyZrl.57663$aZ3.19354@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Miss Elaine Eos submitted this idea :
In article <QpHrl.27431$Zp.17959@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And have it not the criteria which would affect you. Because ultimately, people want to preserve the "right" to abortion in case they "need" to use it

Not true. I was pro-choice LONG before I thought abortion was an ok idea (i.e., back when I thought it was a bad choice.) I just think that (a) the woman's choice is more important than a stranger's and (b) that it's absurd to anthropomorphize embryos.

And that is pure silliness. "Anthropomorphize" as in ascribe human features to something that is clearly [not] human.

Yes. That is what anti-abortionists do. They play on the emotions, and try to make something that is not-human seem human, in order to "protect" it.

I don't believe the humanity is in question. It's whether it deserves civil rights.

Are you saying the fetus that became Ted the human is different somehow than Ted the human? Or something inhuman became something human?

Yes.

Only as Ted the toddler is different than Ted the adult.

Are you saying that the sperm that became Tony-the-human is the same, somehow, as Tony-the-human?

(Must resist straight-line... ;)

Nope, I can't say that. A sperm (no matter how sacred ;)) only has half the complement of DNA required to form a human, and if left alone with die.

You're going to have to be much more precise in your terminology.

Where's the imprecision?

The imprecision is equating a sperm to an embryo (which you just did).

Sure, if you're willing to ascribe "humanity" to someone on one day and not the day before, sure.

But you are, too. It's just that you (and Bart) are getting all nit-picky about how I say "yes on this day, no on that day" whereas you say "yes at this millisecond, no at that millisecond." It's the same thing, I'm just willing to put myself further behind the line -- deeper into the safety-zone, if you will.

If you watch an egg being fertilized, you can tell exactly when it becomes a he or she. The DNA "zips up" and the whole thing begins to divide. I learned this in biology. Did you miss that class?

I think those people who believe that the fetus becomes "human" when it is born are much more intellectually honest. They're dead wrong, of course, but they are consistent.

Well, we agree about them being wrong... ;)

Although, to be fair, I occasionally wonder about "separation of the umbilical" as the cut-off point. I'm pretty sure that's not it, but I occasionally wonder. I mean, they're sharing blood, for crying out loud!

Hey, you talk about "viable outside the womb", but not without cutting the cord, right? Cutting the cord is necessary to having a separate person!

(Yes, I know that's not quite right -- but you see what I mean, right?)

Well, the person is separate regardless of the cord. (I don't know how the DNA of the placenta which separates and is delivered counts. I'll have to look up whose DNA that has.)

As science advances, the point of viability is being moved back every single year. It becomes harder for moral people to sanction the killing of a fetus after the point when he or she could be delivered live and saved.

Not at all true.

In fact, "viability" happens at conception! I mean, we mix sperm & egg in a metaphorical "test tube", then they get born, later, right? All we need to do is take out the middle-[wo]man, and it's all done, right?

But it's still not "a person." :)

If the definition of "person" is "a citizen who currently is granted civil rights", I'd have to agree.

But here I have to disagree with you. I'm going to have to ask you to validate a definition:

A baby is a small human who with medical help can survive outside the womb.

And even earlier than the 12th week, he or she has a beating heart and is obviously human.

"Beating heart" != "obviously human." Not even in things that re on their way to becoming human. See chicken/embryo, elsewhere.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cq2Z1j3ugQs/STk_kGXZA2I/AAAAAAAADio/fc2SMhL1H8c/s400
/703692447_m.jpg

Is that obviously human in your opinion?

"N'c'est une pipe." ;)

It's a picture of SOMEthing. There's not enough information for me to determine if it's human.

A little face sucking on it's own opposable thumb. Is it a little monkey?

Is this the face of Jesus?

<http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/7007/3787/400/mars2.jpg>

;)

You are the face of Jesus. :)

Of course you'll say "no" -- but the point remains: people ascribe "face", "human" and what not to a lot of places where they don't belong.

Why would I say no. I see the face of Jesus in a lot of places :)

--
The Cigar Diary
http://www.cigardiary.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: special DH prime
    ... Just pulling in respect of a session with the grave is too separate for ... Tony to dominate it. ... They accumulate once, boil amazingly, then follow above the relevance ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Signed Les Paul?
    ... Tony Done wrote: ... authentic something, as provable by DNA or whatever, but it doesn't ... it does say "Les Paul Autographed Guitar". ... drew a small picture of a bull's head on the taxi driver's hat. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: 17 Markers
    ... The explanation does not need to be an usual occurrence; rather, the situation is that there must be a common patrilineal forefather, after the last mutation which changed anything in the y Dna. ... the mobility of population has to do with likelihood of the plausibility of those two branches finding so different places & ways to settle. ... Can we agree that from the way Bjorn has posted his information that he and the other party have satisfied themselves that they can trace no common ancestor? ... We would also know that their (separate) ancestors in 1300 must also have had matching DNA. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... It is DNA that is separate from the nuclear DNA. ... Identical twins form this way. ... minate cleavage type does not look really ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
    ... between A-negative and B-positive human blood... ... No more than one bit might separate a program that works correctly ... DNA is code. ... produce RNA, which has an important role in regulating cell functions. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)