Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

It isn't as if "science" is a person.

Determining when life begins is dependent on your definition of "life". "Science" can't provide you with an answer until that definition is settled. And that definition is not going to be agreed upon by anyone.

Science is based on logic. If we disregard science - then we disregard logic. If we disregard logic - we are left with nothing more than superstitions and intuitions. If we rely on superstitions and intuitions - then a "pro-choice" perspective is just as invalid as a "pro-life" perspective.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by jeevey

It's not just rape. What about when women don't have access to health insurance or money for contraceptives? What about condom breakage? What about women who become pregnant while actually using the pill or IUD? (It does happen.) What about women with controlling or fundamentalist partners who oppose birth control? Or partners who aren't willing to wait while diaphragm or cervical cap gets settled? What about women who lack reliable transportation to get to drs appointments to get contraceptives? What about women who are drug addicted or mentally ill and can't manage a method reliably? All of these women--lots of them-- are not raped, but they do really do not have "absolute control" over when they have sex or when they become pregnant. This abortion in cases of rape only narrative just ignores the complexity of women's lives.

In every one of these cases (with the exception of the mentally ill example) the woman does in fact understand that one possible consequence to sexual intercourse is pregnancy. In these cases - the woman has a choice to have sex. As long as a woman continues to chose not to have sex, she will not become pregnant (unless there is divine intervention). And as long as my son chooses not to have sex, he will not become a father.

I know we live in a world that tries to remove all unwanted consequences for the choices we make. However, sometimes it is not morally or legally possible to do so - and this can be seen as unfair. But this is true about many things in biology. I think it's 'unfair' that I wasn't born looking like George Clooney or that I can't play basketball like Michael Jordan or understand quantum mechanics like Sheldon Cooper.

This is a biological fact: heterosexual sex may lead to pregnancy. Whether this is fair or not is left to the realm of mere opinion, but biology doesn't care about our opinion.

And if biologist DO come to an agreement that human life begins at conception - would you still be in favor of abortion?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

Science is based on logic. If we disregard science - then we disregard logic. If we disregard logic - we are left with nothing more than superstitions and intuitions. If we rely on superstitions and intuitions - then a "pro-choice" perspective is just as invalid as a "pro-life" perspective.

OK, but that doesn't really provide any solution here.

How is "science" supposed to determine when life begins if the various factions of people do not agree on what life means?

When does life begin? You are NOT considered to be medically pregnant at conception, but only after implantation and only after your beta HCG level rises above a certain threshold. So conception seems like a poor choice, do we go with implantation? Or do we go with when there is a discernible heartbeat? Or when the fetus becomes viable?

These are questions that "science" cannot answer. Science can tell you when conception occurs (within 12 hours of ovulation), when implantation occurs (6-10 days after conception), when beta HCG is over 25-50 (a couple of days after implantation), when the heart beat is typically heard on ultrasound (7 weeks) or when a fetus is viable outside the womb (21-22 weeks). But science can't determine which of these is when life begins.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Can you please clarify?

Jeevey summed it up well in her post

Originally Posted by AEON

I hear you saying that during the pregnancy there is another person involved, the child. And that these two persons sometimes are not "on the same page" - and because of this, the mother has the right to end the other person. By that logic, my wife still has the right to kill my 8 year old child if they disagree.

The mother is involved in this because she carries the child and may have difficulties during the pregnancy. And saying a woman can kill an 8 year old by that logic, is actually not logical at all.

Originally Posted by AEON

I agree. I just don't think abortion is one of your "rights."

It is when you look at what we can risk in our health, finances, etc. We are not walking incubators. We are humans.

Originally Posted by AEON

There was a rumor once that the working title to Achtung Baby was "Fear of Women." As a male human being, I'm sure that no matter how informed and enlightened I may become - I will occasionally have a viewpoint that will expose some "fear" of the unknown. Even Stephen Hawking, one of the smartest people of the last 100 years, conceded that women are a "complete mystery." However, despite my occasional slip into Achtung-Hawking territory, removing the abortion debate from the larger Equal Rights discussion seems logical.

I appreciate that you admit to a fear some men are afraid to admit. Women have a fear of men because of their physical strength, violent tempers and sometimes their better stance in society (in some places in the world, women have much to fear with that). I've heard men fear the power of our sexuality because it can warp their minds. 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. 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 know I probably went into very sensitive territory right there, but that is my theory.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

But science can't determine which of these is when life begins.

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?"

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

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.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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".

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

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.

Originally Posted by Pearl

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.

Originally Posted by Pearl

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]

Originally Posted by anitram

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]

Originally Posted by anitram

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).

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

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".

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

"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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.