Is Feminism Still Relevant? - Page 48 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-05-2013, 12:24 PM   #706
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
It is when you look at what we can risk in our health, finances, etc. We are not walking incubators. We are humans.
My children remain a risk to my health and finances (ask any parent and they will agree). That has little to do with their right to exist.

You keep mentioning this "walking incubator" - who is making that claim? Even if you think that "pro-life" men have this opinion, it will soon be irrelevant. It won't be long before science allows children to be created, nurtured, and born outside of the womb (in a lab controlled incubator). Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think this will finally relieve women of this horrible burden? Or perhaps you believe - as many women do - there is still something sacred about growing a child within your own body - and that by removing women from the process, we actually lose some of what it means to be human - and that women will lose something that makes them unique from men.

I guess some say that pregnancy is a burden - but I know many mothers who say it is a blessing - and it was the most special experience of their lives and the joy far outweighs the hardship.

I have to imagine that a child born from a woman's womb will have something that a child born from an incubator does not, but this is probably slipping into religion/mysticism territory.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 12:25 PM   #707
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Fair enough. If this is true - then we are left with nothing but subjective opinions. And these opinions are held in minds that are influenced by everything from a Woman's Studies professor to a Roman Catholic priest.

I'm still holding out hope for a scientific answer.

I think that most rational people do accept there is such a thing as a "human organism" - and that this "human organism" has a beginning and has rights once it has begun.

Does a scientist not know when something is a "live organism" vs when something is "not-alive organism?" Does a scientist not know what organisms are "human" and what organisms are "not-human?"
Just a note, it is believed among Jews that a fetus has the potential for life, and life begins when we take our first breath, ie the Breath of Life.

I'd say a fetus is between in limbo. Not truly alive, but almost there. That depends, of course, on what stage it is in. A fetus who can survive outside the womb is more alive than a zygote.
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 12:28 PM   #708
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Does a scientist not know when something is a "live organism" vs when something is "not-alive organism?" Does a scientist not know what organisms are "human" and what organisms are "not-human?"
Human vs. non-human is obviously an easy answer as it is based on DNA but then that would mean that "human" is a fertilized egg, which is immediately following conception. This is the harshest possible definition of life because:

- Women cannot know that they are pregnant for a minimum of 8+ days following conception. And that's with a blood test a week before they miss their period. Will the expectation be that every woman who is sexually active should have blood tests a week after ovulation? Should they know when they ovulate (best way to determine is combo of ultrasounds and blood tests, every month). Think about the implications here.

- Medical doctors don't consider a woman to be pregnant during this time.

As for what is a living organism, I don't believe that until viability there is a "living organism", what you have is a developing organism which passes through the phases of blastocyst, embryo, fetus.

AEON, I think what you are proposing is essentially impossible. Again, there has to be a decision made, on a non-scientific basis, as to what qualifies as life. Why does a "living organism" qualify, for example, when somebody else may say that an implanted embryo should count instead? Who decides that?
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 12:34 PM   #709
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
It won't be long before science allows children to be created, nurtured, and born outside of the womb (in a lab controlled incubator). Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think this will finally relieve women of this horrible burden? Or perhaps you believe - as many women do - there is still something sacred about growing a child within your own body - and that by removing women from the process, we actually lose some of what it means to be human - and that women will lose something that makes them unique from men.
Very debatable as to "won't be long" part (I think you're wrong), but as for the rest, I would hazard a guess that many women and couples with fertility issues would welcome this as an option in the future. As it stands, many can't "grow a child within their own body".
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 12:35 PM   #710
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post

I've heard men fear the power of our sexuality because it can warp their minds.
That was certainly true when I was younger. Now that I'm in my forties - and the "drive" has generally lost it's Sith Lord ability to cloud my thoughts - a woman's sexuality (men translate that as "physical appearance") has less power over me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I get the sense some men are terrified when women insist they can control their own sex lives because that means those men can't see a woman's body as territory, and control who she sleeps with or how many guys she's been with - which I suspect plays a role in male competition on who gets what.
That - and a legitimate fear of disease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I take it some men see women as a sort of playing field where they compete to get a woman, and if that woman refuses to go along with the game and sets up her own rules, it turns men's world upside down.
I think both genders play a version of this game. Both genders tend to fight for social status - and the partner they choose can elevate/diminish that status.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 12:49 PM   #711
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Again, there has to be a decision made, on a non-scientific basis, as to what qualifies as life.
Isn't that exactly what the Catholic Church has done? Make the decision? Yet, many don't accept their decision.

If the answer does not come from science - then we will always be left with coffee house philosophical musings of "I believe life begins when..."

Science will have an answer - if it doesn't already. We're not talking about abstractions like "when does life get a spirit?" or "where does the spirit go once a life ends?" There are verifiable facts about life vs non life, human vs non-human. And these facts must be discussed outside of the influence of religionists and feminists.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 12:56 PM   #712
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Very debatable as to "won't be long" part (I think you're wrong), but as for the rest, I would hazard a guess that many women and couples with fertility issues would welcome this as an option in the future. As it stands, many can't "grow a child within their own body".
I'm guessing the choice will be there in a few decades, based on the recent stem cell and printable organ breakthroughs. But I tend to be optimistic about tech. Eventually, this will be an option - that much is true.

I think for women that desire a baby and can't physically carry one in her womb for whatever reason - then this incubator option is certainly valid. However, I think I was trying to say that there is still a difference between a woman and an incubator - that women are more than just that (it was implied that "pro-life" men think women are mere incubators).
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 12:59 PM   #713
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
That - and a legitimate fear of disease.
You do know that women fear the same thing, right? If someone like Russell Brand made a pass at me, I wouldn't dare to go near him - even if he wore 100 condoms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I think both genders play a version of this game. Both genders tend to fight for social status - and the partner they choose can elevate/diminish that status.

Because men played the upper hand in the game for generations, I don't think some of able to deal with women asserting themselves more in what they want in men and a relationship.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 01:01 PM   #714
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Human vs. non-human is obviously an easy answer as it is based on DNA but then that would mean that "human" is a fertilized egg, which is immediately following conception.
The inconveniences you list after this response do nothing to diminish the scientific fact that you are presenting - that a "human" begins immediately following conception.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 01:06 PM   #715
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Science will have an answer - if it doesn't already. We're not talking about abstractions like "when does life get a spirit?" or "where does the spirit go once a life ends?" There are verifiable facts about life vs non life, human vs non-human. And these facts must be discussed outside of the influence of religionists and feminists.
"Science" does not have an ANSWER on when human life begins and it can have NO answer until we as a society accept what LIFE is. Then and only then can science offer insight.

You seem to not be understanding that point so I don't know how many times I can say it differently. There are various definitions of life - what constitutes a cell, a morula, a blastocyst, an embry, a fetus, a baby. Science cannot tell you which of these is life! They are ALL LIFE in their own, distinct way, within their pre-defined, scientific parameters. Science can set those parameters but that's it.

It is up to people to decide which one they wish to use as a standard. As you said, the Catholic Church has one standard. They say conception. Science can then pinpoint when conception occurs and everything flows from that.

But unless we are living in an authoritarian Catholic system, this is not helpful. So how will we as a secular democracy decide?

Seemingly we can't and science cannot either. Period.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 01:07 PM   #716
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
The inconveniences you list after this response do nothing to diminish the scientific fact that you are presenting - that a "human" begins immediately following conception.
OK, you're free to adopt that as your standard for when life begins.

Nobody is precluding you from doing so.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 01:15 PM   #717
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
OK, you're free to adopt that as your standard for when life begins.

Nobody is precluding you from doing so.
To clarify - human life. And it was your definition.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 01:19 PM   #718
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
To clarify - human life. And it was your definition.
No, it's not my definition. Please don't put words in my mouth.

"Human life" needs to be unpacked. Sorry to sound lawyerly on you. But there is a question of what is human and the what is life.

Human on a biological level consists of specific DNA markers not seen in other, closely related animals like primates. Human on a social level is something else.

Life - I have NOT provided a definition for and it has been my entire point all along that there is no standard definition.

Therefore there is NO agreed upon definition of "human life".
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 01:24 PM   #719
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
"Science" does not have an ANSWER on when human life begins
But you already offered that it does, the point of conception is when human life begins. Are you taking that back?

That aside - it certainly seems "reasonable" to accept this idea. It's about as close to scientific definition as we seem to be able to get at this time. Furthermore - it now certainly seems "reasonable" that people stand up for the rights of these fellow humans - no matter how inconvenient their existence is to others.

If the inconvenient theory was valid - then we would see nothing wrong with those governments that deemed it necessary to displace or irradiate entire races of people because their very existence was inconvenient to the nation.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 01:27 PM   #720
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
But you already offered that it does, the point of conception is when human life begins. Are you taking that back?
Again, I did no such thing.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com