Is Feminism Still Relevant? - Page 50 - 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, 03:41 PM   #736
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
OK, Aeon - nice and thorough.
Thank you - and I do appreciate you taking the time to work this through with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Premise C is entirely your premise and is based solely on the idea that life is a biological construct and that being "alive" consists of having one cell which is biologically functioning.

As long as you hold this view, we cannot find middle ground.
What do you mean by "biological construct?" - as opposed to what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I see human life as complex - not just biological cells which are undergoing cellular processes, but individuals which have awareness, a conscience, ability to respond or at least sense stimuli, varying degrees of understanding their environment, with the ability to form bonds, relationships and what have you. I haven't covered everything, obviously, just a few things that popped into my mind. I.E. Life requires not just a pack of cells, but all these other, intangible things for something to be alive.
All of this is referring to "living" - which is all worthy of discussion. But I am simply talking about the point where human life (biologically speaking) begins. After that moment, there are various stages of growth, maturity, development...etc. I get that. I understand that. But those events are much further down the line.

From what I can see, is that at the moment of conception, a unique and distinct organism begins. And as you pointed out, because this organism contains human DNA - it is a human organism - an organism that at this point only needs proper nutrition and a proper environment to continue growing and remain alive (you also pointed out that an incubator might serve this purpose in the future for women that can't carry a child in their womb; and this is also true for every human being now alive).

If all of these scientific facts is true - and so far I see nothing to refute it - then human life begins at the moment of conception. And as such - this new human life has the same rights we feel compelled to offer ALL human life.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 03:47 PM   #737
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
T
If all of these scientific facts is true - and so far I see nothing to refute it - then human life begins at the moment of conception. And as such - this new human life has the same rights we feel compelled to offer ALL human life.
That is your opinion, however. Because it is based on a purely biological definition of human life.

I don't see a 7-cell embryo in a petri dish in a fertility clinic which has been deemed to be inadequate for implantation (embryos are ranked/graded) to be human life and I certainly don't see it as entitled to all the rights a state provides.

But these are opinions, and again, ones which cannot be settled definitively by scientists.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 03:47 PM   #738
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
AEON, is consisting of living cells the same thing as being alive, in the sense of being a living human?
I would think so. Whether or not there is "quality" to that life is another discussion. I know that poets and artists talk about the feeling of being alive - but from a pure scientific approach, it seems like it's quite easy to determine life from non-life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
If so, then science will tell you that fetuses are alive, in the sense of being a living human.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
But scientific inquiry isn't going to make these definitions.
Sorry. You lost me here...didn't you just say, "then science will tell you that fetuses are alive, in the sense of being a living human"
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 03:48 PM   #739
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 07:11 PM
On a side note, are incubators really a good idea? I could see them being good for unwanted fetuses or women unable to carry their children. But wouldn't that hurt the child's ability to connect with others when it wasn't inside of one in utero? It will interesting to see how a child develops emotionally and empathically like that, but I think it can be a bit scary.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 03:55 PM   #740
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
But these are opinions, and again, ones which cannot be settled definitively by scientists.
Let's say I concede, that we can't use science (in particular Biology) to define life - and by extension, human life.

And we can't use the authority of the Church.

You suggested we let the "people" decide. If cold logic (science) isn't allowed - then how do you expect the "people" to arrive at ANY conclusion, especially the "right" one? We are essentially left with what we have now - a bunch of emotionally charged subjective opinions that really do not bring us any closer to arriving at the truth.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 04:00 PM   #741
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON;7733880how do you expect the "people" to arrive at [B
ANY[/B] conclusion, especially the "right" one? We are essentially left with what we have now - a bunch of emotionally charged subjective opinions that really do not bring us any closer to arriving at the truth.
Pretty much.

I don't see this as a topic where people will ever be in universal agreement.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 04:10 PM   #742
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Another thing I have been thinking about is your whole proposition that "if science agrees that x is when life starts, then what?"

I don't see this as solving the current divide on this issue. You could have told my dear old grandmother (passed away years ago) that science defines life as X and it would have meant absolutely nothing to her. She was Catholic and went to church 7 days a week and couldn't care less what science thought when the Pope told her otherwise. Then you have the aforementioned Jewish view of when life began. And various other religious views. Why do you think that for people who are not primarily driven by scientific thought, this would be a problem solver? Do you think Sarah Palin would care about a scientific definition or some Imam who hasn't ever seen the inside of a biology textbook? I'm being absolutely serious. For these people, it will not be compelling at all to use that definition to set the threshold for morality.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 04:27 PM   #743
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Let's say I concede, that we can't use science (in particular Biology) to define life - and by extension, human life.

And we can't use the authority of the Church.

You suggested we let the "people" decide. If cold logic (science) isn't allowed - then how do you expect the "people" to arrive at ANY conclusion, especially the "right" one? We are essentially left with what we have now - a bunch of emotionally charged subjective opinions that really do not bring us any closer to arriving at the truth.
I don't think there will ever be an universal agreement for as long as there's people strongly believing in religion.

Science cannot define our definitions, but it can help us choose. There's a reason why the current laws usually allow abortion until the 21nd week. That's the point where a fetus *could* survive outside the womb. This has nothing to do with emotions or what defines being alive, but it's what we got. For me, this is enough and I accept that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 04:43 PM   #744
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Are you a nihilist or something? Do you not think that science, and in particular biology, can determine whether something is life vs non-life? Were my textbooks from grade school wrong when they claimed that something like a rock was "non-life" and something like a cell was "life"? When did this get so complicated?
It's always been complicated, some things are taught in a simplified manner in school compared to how it actually is. I remember a very simple explanation of respiration which was basically glucose and oxygen gives you energy, water and CO2, when its a multi tiered process.

Viruses act like they are alive but they are generally accepted in science as being at the edge of life but not alive, they exist in a grey area.

Whether something is alive entails as much philosophical enquiry as does it scientific. A foetus or blastocyst would probably fit most biologists definition of being 'alive', it reproduces itself in cell division, it metabolises etc. though I also imagine some would argue along the lines do these processes occur independently enough. Is a tumour alive? It's doing much the same as an early embryo is doing at this point containing the same DNA etc.

Does it purely being alive give it the exact same rights as a fully developed human (and for arguments sake we will say that is the finished baby) because as an embryo it is no more different than any other mammalian embryo, it contains human DNA but functionally it is no different, there is no 'mind' yet.
__________________
LJT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 04:50 PM   #745
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:11 PM
at this point, i think AEON should become a vegetarian.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 04:58 PM   #746
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Another thing I have been thinking about is your whole proposition that "if science agrees that x is when life starts, then what?"

I don't see this as solving the current divide on this issue. You could have told my dear old grandmother (passed away years ago) that science defines life as X and it would have meant absolutely nothing to her. She was Catholic and went to church 7 days a week and couldn't care less what science thought when the Pope told her otherwise. Then you have the aforementioned Jewish view of when life began. And various other religious views. Why do you think that for people who are not primarily driven by scientific thought, this would be a problem solver? Do you think Sarah Palin would care about a scientific definition or some Imam who hasn't ever seen the inside of a biology textbook? I'm being absolutely serious. For these people, it will not be compelling at all to use that definition to set the threshold for morality.
All of this is true. Yet, it would provide a starting point for rational discussion vs "I personally believe...."

At least during the last line of discussion - we've moved the abortion debate into the arena it belongs (bioethics) and away from the arena it does not belong (feminism).
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 04:58 PM   #747
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
at this point, i think AEON should become a vegetarian.
I already am. Vegan to be specific.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 05:00 PM   #748
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
I don't think there will ever be an universal agreement for as long as there's people strongly believing in religion.
It's not just religion. Do you think the feminists would give into science on this subject?
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 05:12 PM   #749
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I already am. Vegan to be specific.

that's impressive.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 05:18 PM   #750
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadySpinHead View Post
It is true that a woman could not even necessarily know she was pregnant for several weeks, even a couple of months after the moment of implantation. Is it fair to her that it's too late to make that decision to end the pregnancy once she learns of it? On the flip side, is it fair to the fetus? Who wins that struggle?
These are great points and I think they require more consideration from both the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadySpinHead View Post
I guess morally that's up to each woman and her own personal spirituality.
Moral relativism is very difficult to defend.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LadySpinHead View Post
Do I feel comfortable with anyone waiting until 24 weeks viability to abort a pregnancy? No, not really, in general. But some situations warrant it. Each circumstance is different. I think that's overall my biggest issue with the abortion debate. Some abortions are completely justified in my mind, and some are not.
I respect this viewpoint and somewhat agree, especially when the woman's health is at risk.
__________________

__________________
AEON 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 06:11 PM.


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