Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2021.
So unfertilized eggs .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Store bought yes.
You can tell "commercially" raised eggs by the sterile pale yellow of the yolks.
Country raised eggs have darker yellow yolks due to richer mineral content. And any chicken farm with a rooster will have fertilized eggs.
I buy Organic . Obviously yellow yolks . Eggs are great food !!!
Your proclamation is not an argument. Mine requires you to rebut that human life has intrinsic value, but you don't want to do that, as that would make you a bad person. All you're saying here is that me using science is inconvenient to your arguments. #FollowTheScience
So pointing out that you are arguing against scientific definitions, with only your proclamations that they are irrelevant, is now an insult? What "site guidelines" says I can't challenge you when you blithely ignore scientific definitions, on a science forum? The very disproportional threat of a ban for that is the single biggest tell that you don't even believe in the strength of your own arguments. "third time"? I've never been banned.
In-group favoritism, cooperation, etc. seems to be an evolutionary development seen in humans and many animal species that promotes group/species survival over the survival of other species, especially food sources.
Now whether you think that's "moral" depends on whether you believe morality exists and how you define it. If you don't believe human life has intrinsic value, there's likely nothing I could say that could convince you otherwise. And if you believe all life has the same intrinsic value, that would be an argument you'd need to make.
By that criteria, newborns are not "persons." Do you equally advocate for infanticide?
If that's all you have, then it's obvious that homo sapiens is an unarbitrary definition upon which to base any ethical question, whereas "person" is highly susceptible to subjective bias (note how many vague and subjective judgement calls are involved in your "definition"). Just like slave owners tried to arbitrarily claim that black people were not "persons." When you allow arbitrary and subjective definitions, people will twist them to unethically benefit themselves.
But why don't you think human life is sacrosanct? Quit hiding behind claims about life in general. Why does human life mean nothing to you as an ethical concern?
Your right to life is forfeit if you intentionally take the life of another, proving your disdain for such rights. What does that have to do with abortion, other than the abortionist doing just that?
Whereas you seem to make no distinction between human and other life, do you also make no distinction between the innocent and the guilty, victim and perpetrator?
If you're amoral, just say so. Could save us a lot of wasted time.
Okay, explain what science has to say about why a woman doesn't want a pregnancy. Or just don't ape me when I use #FollowTheScience appropriately.
And try to avoid cherry-picking my words out of context:
Never said she wanted the consequences.
Unless you'd support an abortion ban for everything but immediate threat to the life of the mother, rape, or incest, this is a completely disingenuous argument. They obviously don't "influence your opinions."
I can only assume so then. But likely because you don't believe in morals at all, including the concept of moral agency.
A single fertilized ovum is not a fetus nor a baby. In case you missed it, I don't believe in "human life from conception," because it doesn't comport with the science.
So again, cite me a medical source on how a baby and a fetus are mutually exclusive terms. I assume your little condescending diversion was only because you couldn't.
Yes, you've gotten disproportionately defensive.
No, I'm an egalitarian. What you're trying to do here is called poisoning the well. Don't pretend that you haven't argued against preferential treatment by "the system" with respect to CRT.
Again, I don't believe it's human life from the moment of conception. Not my claim, just your own straw man.
Society still has an interest in all children after they are born, which is why we have child social workers, criminal abuse and neglect charges, public schools, etc.. I have no personal involvement with any pregnant women other than partners, friends, or family. I also support criminal charges for murder without any personal involvement with murderers. Good government exists it protect people. That's one of its minimal mandates and why the right exists.
Yes, it's called being held accountable for your own choices, as if you're an adult.
Read what I wrote, especially the "I bring into this world" part. I didn't make any choice that led to any other pregnancy. Those who did are responsible.
(No, just my confidence in the majority of readers.)
So you're not indifferent, just subjective and arbitrary. Got it.
Projecting your "personhood" argument on me is nothing but a straw man. I can't help it if you're too inured in your own moral justifications to engage my actual argument.
Again, all human life isn't equally worthy (it's not black and white), as actions can forfeit your right to life.
It's very simple. I consider my own life to have intrinsic value, so it only follows that other human lives have equally intrinsic value. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You keep erecting that straw man, but I've yet to see you support it with anything but your own baseless assumptions. As if me not, personally, volunteering to care for every unwanted baby somehow undermines my argument. Does me not, personally, volunteering to house convicted criminals mean I must advocate for no prisons too?
Again, we get that you're completely unconcerned for any baby until the moment it's born. Why or how birth imparts this magical thing called "personhood," you've yet to explain.
Yes there is. Science has defined both terms.
human - any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens
life - animate matterIn the case of early development, it goes from a collection of contributing cells (egg and sperm, which could be compared to skin cells, etc.) to a new human life when the new, unique DNA fully takes overt its development. Obviously, living skin cells, eggs, sperm, and even fertilized eggs are not members of the species homo sapiens. And equally as obvious is the fact that an embryo developing under it own human DNA is. Otherwise, you have to make the absurd claim that something other than a human can develop from human DNA. Very clear and simple distinction of when merely living cells become human life.
To be fair, he equated a fertilized egg to skin cells, etc.. That's not the same as a fetus.
How big is a fertilized egg before it starts dividing to form skin cells?
Almost missed these, which were literally addressing me, but without a quote notification.
Not sure you who think doesn't understand what an unintended pregnancy is, unless you really didn't realize that you quoted me out of context.
And thanks for verifying everything I said about a father's responsibility.
As if we haven't developed birth control or the morning after pill and unintended pregnancies have nothing to do with neglecting to responsibly use either.
Their welfare was only put in jeopardy by them attempting to quit being "pregnant women." Which means said pregnant women didn't care about their own well-being. Should be commit them to mental hospitals "for their own good"?
Way to blatantly admit your straw man.
No surprise that a philosophy source prioritizes philosophical criteria over scientific ones. The fact that people can make "personhood" whatever they want only demonstrates that it is subjective, and thus not a proper criteria for rights. Again, see the slaver's subjective criteria of "person." Notice how this source also denies that "moral rights" even exist. If there are no moral rights, then there is no basis for legal rights beyond arbitrary agreement. That would mean that abortion not being legal murder is just a happenstance of agreement, and like all agreement, subject to change. That literally means there can be no "settled law."
Where do you imagine that happened? Because it certainly didn't in reality.
No, a zygote is neither inanimate nor "human life." See the distinction there? You even immediately acknowledge that I was talking about "human life," even though you only quoted me defining "life" in general. Maybe the full quote will help ya.
Both terms, human and life, are necessary to define a human fetus.
Not my problem if you contradict yourself.
I can't really account for your inability to understand. If every abortion ban has an exception for risk to the life of the mother, risk to her life is irrelevant in arguing against those laws. Pretty damn simple.
The consent is in knowingly taking the risk.
She consented to taking that risk. Avoiding it only means she's not accountable for her own actions. And it's a far greater breach of the baby's right to life.
Something else you're unaware of.
Again, I have benefited personally from women willing to have sex without any desire for children or marriage. I like women who like to have sex. I just prefer responsible women who like sex. Why do you keep acting as if the two are mutually exclusive?
As James so helpfully cited:
If a prospective mother seeks to abort a pregnancy against a father's wishes, an attorney may be able to draft an agreement where the father agrees to pay the costs of pregnancy and obtain full custody after birth.
https://www.findlaw.com/family/paternity/fathers-rights-and-abortion.htmlIf abortion were not an option and there were not already existing financial support during pregnancy, the father would be held as financially responsible for the pregnancy as for the child, unless it's being given up for adoption and the adopting parents are doing so.
No, I have no right to kill someone who has not threatened or harmed me, gun or not.
I have no idea what arbitrary way you may subjectively define "human life," contrary to all scientific definitions. That's on you. #FollowTheScience
Again, educate yourself. I've already cited Planned Parenthood explaining how the morning after pill doesn't abort a fertilized egg. Go read it again.
And 18 years thereafter.
Adoption, even of a born child, always absolves the biological father of financial responsibility, as the adoptive parents agree to it themselves. And if adoption is agreed to before birth, the adoptive parents usually help with pregnancy costs too.
Already debunked above, at least in the US, which are the laws we're talking about here, you citing Texas and all.
You think pregnancy is a punishment, huh?
Not all consequences are punishments, and pregnancy is a blessing. Go try and tell any intending mother otherwise.
Yes, killing hundreds of thousands of babies a year is.
Then it should be easy for you to cite an authoritative source, other than the already discredited FDA labeling. #FollowTheScience
I already cited Planned Parenthood and The Mayo Clinic.
Nope, just demonstrating that, even by your faulty understanding of how the morning after pill actually works, it still wouldn't kill what "some countries" protect as human life.
Simple. The baby is innocent, the criminal is not. Why do you want to punish hundreds of thousands of babies a year with death? What did they do to deserve that?
Right to life.
No, that's still just you not understanding the science of the morning after pill.
If a man is irresponsible or the condom fails, a man is financially responsible for 18 years.
Why, would you prefer we have laws that require both men and women to be sterilized until they intend to have children? Tubal ligation can be reversed too. Are you going to offer to pay the costs over birth control? And even then, such things have been known to spontaneously reverse themselves.
So you think you can refute Planned Parenthood, The Mayo Clinic, and scientific studies?
Not according to the actual science. Educate yourself instead of parroting uninformed nonsense. #FollowTheScience
Yes, Plan B, like abortion, shouldn't be the primary method of birth control, hence "emergency contraceptive."
People only tried to restrict access due to uninformed nonsense, like your "form of abortion." But emergency contraceptives are now available without a prescription or age limit. No idea what goes on in your neck of the woods. According to Planned Parenthood:
For most brands, 1 pill pack lasts for 1 month, and each pack can cost anywhere from $0-$50. But they’re totally free with most health insurance plans, or if you qualify for some government programs.
I never said it was legal or right to kill a trespasser. Where do you get these straw men?
Do you think self-defense is "murder," punishable by up to death or life in prison? Because that's the only justifiable reason for intentionally killing someone.
No evidence of something that hasn't even been tried or tested is trivially so.
I would challenge you to cite the anecdotal stuff you imagine I've posted. That you'd even say this makes me question if you know what the word means.
Hence "emergency contraceptive."
Holy shit! Did you manage to learn something? Admitting that emergency contraceptive is dependent upon a woman's cycle does contradict that it can stop implantation.
Again, condoms and emergency contraceptives are available to anyone, without a prescription. Hormonal birth control, like the pill, requires a prescription, with options for assistance paying. There's a pharmacy on almost every corner here, and you'd have to prove where it is that none would sell birth control. And the public education system in the US is almost completely controlled by the Left. It is a disgrace, and parents should be teaching basic sex-ed.
I don't know, a modicum of intellectual honesty?
Then you are the OP's "But we were not the ones who actually did it, so we are innocent."
You don't get to make up the science just because it's in your body. How hard is that to understand?
Which is it? "In" or "is"?
Quit denying the science. You don't get to make up bullshit, like your spleen is a unicorn or your baby just a growth, just because it's in your body.
Well, you've already repeated all your rubbish at least three times now.
Whether intentional or just out of ignorance, that's called equivocating, where you conflate two different meanings if the same term.
A human is a member of the species homo sapiens, your bones are not. Your bones, warts, etc. are human tissue that have no significant life apart from a human organism. No rational person would confuse a bone or wart for an entire human.
No, I clearly defined "human" and "life." I can't help it if you don't like that the scientific definitions say a fetus is a human life, not just human tissue.
And I directly refuted that with the scientific definitions. Egg, sperm, and zygote are "potential human life." A new organism developing under its own unique, human DNA is a member of the species homo sapiens.
Nope, it is "a human life," not just potential. Your supposed "ungranted premise" is just a straw man.
No, that would be murder, in every state in the US.
first off no one needs to rebut human life has intrinsic value. you have yet to prove that it does but made it prima facie and demand we accept it. secondly you aren't using science. you as usual are lying your ass off. biologists have repeatedly said that it is not their place to answer the question you keep say to follow the science on. this is you claiming things as facts when the facts don't agree with you.
If you don't think human life has intrinsic value, that's on you. As I told James, since I consider my life to have value, it only follows that all human life has value. If you don't consider your own life to have value, I can't help you. I'm not talking about biologists. I'm talking about scientific definitions, whether any scientist wants to weigh in on something as politically fraught as abortion or not. So, are you going to refute the scientific definitions or "human" and "life"? If not, you're claim is moot.
I'll probably get back to the bulk of your hot-tempered blather at some later time. For now, I'd like to take a quick look at your amusingly idiosyncratic attempt to redefine "human life" to suit your purposes.
So, lest I misinterpret you, can I confirm that you're saying that "human life" must consist of an entire organism of the species Homo sapiens that is "animate"?
That would mean that you would not consider a human arm, for example, to be an example of "human life", even when attached to, say, yourself. Correct?
What do you mean by "animate matter", in this context?
I assume you meant to write "over" rather than "overt" there.
A foetus is unable to develop without the assistance of such things as a placenta and a uterus, which are not things that are supplied by the foetus itself or under the control of the foetus's DNA.
At what specific point in the development of this new "human life", in your opinion, does that "life's" unique DNA "fully take over its development"? Seeing as you #FollowtheScience and all, I suppose your Science has a definite point in mind.
You are adamant that your version of "human life" does not start at the moment of conception, which I might define as the time when the DNA and of the ovum and sperm cross over to form a new combination of complete Homo sapiens DNA. Thus, a single-celled fertilised ovum is not, according to you, "human life".
Tell me what your Science says about how a "fertilized egg" that is not a member of the species Homo sapiens becomes such a member, and when (#FollowingTheScience) that happens, exactly.
Lots of stuff is obvious to you, of course. But does what is obvious to you actually make sense #FollowingTheScience? That's the question.
So far in your explanation, we have a fertized egg - not a member of the species Homo sapiens - somehow gaining specieshood by the time it is an embryo. So, at what particular time between those two points does the fertilized egg turn into the human life, according to the #Science?
At that time, does the human life immediately gain all the human rights of an adult human? It would seem the answer to that would be: obviously not. But, according to you, at that time it suddenly acquires, at a minimum, an absolute moral right to use the body of another example of human life for 9 months against that human life's will. Why is that? And what was the relevant moral difference just before and just after it achieved "human life" status, in terms of the #Science?
(Come to think of it, while that "human life" does not gain all the rights of an adult human being, you insist that it gains more rights than a newborn baby would have, in that newborn babies do not have the right to use other people's bodies for 9 months without their permission. Why does your "human life" in the womb have more rights than a newborn human child?)
That makes me chuckle, because that's precisely the absurd claim that you are making. Don't you see?
That fertilised ovum that you proclaim is not "human life" somehow develops into the embryo that you proclaim is "human life". I think you and I can agree that the fertilised ovum has a full set of the requisite human DNA, can we not? So, you are saying that before the magical time when the thing that develops from the fertilised ovum becomes "human life", it is something other than "a human".
Congratulations. You just labelled your own claim as absurd.
What other tricks have you got up your sleeve?
One that you have yet to make. Maybe you'll explain yourself in your reply to this post. We'll see.
so you can't handle facts
now you are mixing up two completely different terms. i consider my life to have value. i consider all life to have value. what i don't believe is that something has value simply for being alive.
that probably explains why you are so wrong
no you aren't. you are literally using the dictionary definitions of words not the "scientific definition"
you aren't using scientific definitions. you are just using definitions. you can't refute a definition it just is. you demand makes about as much sense as demanding some one refute 8.
also biologists and science in general regard any member of the genus homo to be human. so even the definition you used which was the supposed "scientific definition" was wrong
but i'm not really going to debate philosophy with you. which despite your whining is the primary area the abortion takes place not biology. given you clear inability to comprehend abstract thought you clearly lack the capability to understand it.
Many things that are both human and alive (say, cancer cells, or your kidney) do not have the same value as a person.
People who are brain dead do not have the same value as a person. Indeed, generally the only remaining question in such a case is when to turn off life support. Doing so is not murder, since the person who was there is gone, even if their body is still alive.
Spontaneously aborted/miscarried/unimplanted human embryos (i.e. most of them) do not have the same value as a person.
Separate names with a comma.