Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

No, it's not my definition. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry to sound lawyerly on you, but did you not post these words below?

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.

Are you now claiming this egg has no biological "life"? Are you actually stating that biologist would look at fertilized egg and conclude it was "not alive" in any sense?

[anitram]

Yes, I wrote those words.

You will note that I was stating "human" not "human life".

VERY significant distinction.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

Yes, I wrote those words.

You will note that I was stating "human" not "human life".

VERY significant distinction.

So, you're stating the recently fertilized egg in not alive? That it's dead? If we were in a courtroom, and placed a recently fertilized egg under microscope, and asked 1000 scientists and doctors to look at the thing with all those cells moving and dividing like nuts - how many do you think would claim it was dead?

If a fertilized egg is human (you've already agreed to this) - and the egg is alive (which certainly seems to be the case) - then it follows that this is human life.

[anitram]

Life is not simply a biological construct.

A scientist would tell you that a fertilized egg is a blastocyst and would be able to identify whether and how many of its cells appear to be alive.

A scientist worth anything would not say "this is definitively human life."

I should know, it used to be my career.

In any event, this discussion is pointless because you wish to reduce the definition of human life to only a biological construct which is in my view impossible. So there really is not a lot for us to go on discussing.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

So, you're stating the recently fertilized egg in not alive? That it's dead? If we were in a courtroom, and placed a recently fertilized egg under microscope, and asked 1000 scientists and doctors to look at the thing with all those cells moving and dividing like nuts - how many do you think would claim it was dead? If a fertilized egg is human (you've already agreed to this) - and the egg is alive (which certainly seems to be the case) - then it follows that this is human life.

Forgive me for butting in, but I highly doubt anitram - or anyone - thinks a fertilized egg is dead. I'd say it has the potential for life, but not exactly alive because it can't live outside the womb.

This debate shows just how complex it is to define life which adds to the complexity of the abortion issue.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

If a fertilized egg is human (you've already agreed to this) - and the egg is alive (which certainly seems to be the case) - then it follows that this is human life.

No, that's called an association fallacy, in scientific and mathematical terms.

[LadySpinHead]

This is a very interesting conversation- hope no one minds if I butt in...

I take issue with human life beginning at conception, when sperm meets egg. Ask anyone who has endured a failed IVF treatment, or even general infertility. The embryo(s) fail to attach to the uterus because they weren't viable. Something was wrong with the embryo or the environment, and the embryo failed to develop. Also, human embryos can be cryogenically frozen within 5-6 days of conception and successfully thawed later. That process isn't possible for any other phase of human development with current technology.

I can buy into human life starting when the embryo attaches to the uterus, but that is a really important step that embryos are basically useless without. Embryos have the potential for life, it's an important first step, but I can't say that's when life starts.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

No, that's called an association fallacy, in scientific and mathematical terms.

Not exactly. Here's the association fallacy construct:

Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion - Therefore, all Bs are Cs

In order for the argument to be guilty of this fallacy, it would need to be built like this:

A functioning Fertilized Egg that contains human DNA (Premise A) is a human (Premise B)
A functioning Fertilized Egg that contains human DNA (Premise A) is also alive (Premise C)

Therefore All humans (Premise B's) are alive (Premise C's).

That is not my argument.

Here is my argument:


Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion - Therefore, A is BOTH a B and a C

A functioning Fertilized Egg that contains human DNA (Premise A) is a human (Premise B)
A functioning Fertilized Egg that contains human DNA (Premise A) is also alive (Premise C)

Therefore all functioning Fertilized Eggs that contains human DNA (Premise A) are BOTH human (Premise B) and alive (Premise C).

Please note - I am using your statements for both Premise A and Premise B.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by LadySpinHead

This is a very interesting conversation- hope no one minds if I butt in...

I take issue with human life beginning at conception, when sperm meets egg. Ask anyone who has endured a failed IVF treatment, or even general infertility. The embryo(s) fail to attach to the uterus because they weren't viable. Something was wrong with the embryo or the environment, and the embryo failed to develop. Also, human embryos can be cryogenically frozen within 5-6 days of conception and successfully thawed later. That process isn't possible for any other phase of human development with current technology.

I can buy into human life starting when the embryo attaches to the uterus, but that is a really important step that embryos are basically useless without. Embryos have the potential for life, it's an important first step, but I can't say that's when life starts.

Thanks for butting in. I think you make a good point (especially the cryogenically frozen point).

So let me ask you (or anyone else that wants to add) - if most scientist finally agree and declare in public that human life indeed starts the moment the embryo attaches to the uterus, then is it plausible that abortion after this point is morally wrong? Especially if we accept the notion that ending an innocent (as in, not guilty of a crime) human life prematurely is morally wrong...?

[anitram]

OK, Aeon - nice and thorough.

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.

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

Life is not simply a biological construct.

Are you getting Deepak on us?

Originally Posted by anitram

A scientist would tell you that a fertilized egg is a blastocyst and would be able to identify whether and how many of its cells appear to be alive.

Good.

Originally Posted by anitram

A scientist worth anything would not say "this is definitively human life."

That's not the question that was asked of them. They were simply asked if the fertilized egg was alive or dead.

Originally Posted by anitram

I should know, it used to be my career.

We live in an age of nearly unlimited access to information. There is very little "secret" information that you have in your possession that can't be accessed, researched, and discussed by anyone with an Internet connection. Please do not be so condescending. If you have a secret book of knowledge - please be so kind to share with the rest of us fools. Furthermore - this tangent of the discussion is based on the information you've provided. If that information is incorrect, please make the necessary modifications.

Originally Posted by anitram

In any event, this discussion is pointless because you wish to reduce the definition of human life to only a biological construct -

No, I'm trying to arrive at a bare minimum definition.

Originally Posted by anitram

which is in my view impossible.

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?

[LadySpinHead]

Originally Posted by AEON

So let me ask you (or anyone else that wants to add) - if most scientist finally agree and declare in public that human life indeed starts the moment the embryo attaches to the uterus, then is it plausible that abortion after this point is morally wrong? Especially if we accept the notion that ending an innocent (as in, not guilty of a crime) human life prematurely is morally wrong...?

I personally would have a little easier time getting behind that concept scientifically, but morally it is such a gray area for me.

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?

I guess morally that's up to each woman and her own personal spirituality. 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.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by LadySpinHead

I personally would have a little easier time getting behind that concept scientifically, but morally it is such a gray area for me.

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?

I guess morally that's up to each woman and her own personal spirituality. 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.

Thanks for sharing your experience and your take, LadySpinHead. It's good to hear a different angle on this.

Because this issue is so complex and most abortions are done in the first trimester after careful thinking, I really don't think there should be any strict laws or other people telling others what to do. The gray area is too vast.

[digitize]

AEON, is consisting of living cells the same thing as being alive, in the sense of being a living human? If so, then science will tell you that fetuses are alive, in the sense of being a living human. But scientific inquiry isn't going to make these definitions.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by digitize

AEON, is consisting of living cells the same thing as being alive, in the sense of being a living human? If so, then science will tell you that fetuses are alive, in the sense of being a living human. But scientific inquiry isn't going to make these definitions.

Same thing I've been saying all along.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

OK, Aeon - nice and thorough.

Thank you - and I do appreciate you taking the time to work this through with me.

Originally Posted by anitram

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?

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by digitize

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.

Originally Posted by digitize

If so, then science will tell you that fetuses are alive, in the sense of being a living human.

I agree.

Originally Posted by digitize

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"

[Pearl]

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.