Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[lightgigantic]

Well. I attended and presented research at the last International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) in Yokohama Japan (June). The research you read about on the Internet is a few years out of date from research presented which is obviously a year or so out of date from bench top work. Yes, the skin, heart, brain, etc... have niches for progenitors. In the brain, for example, these give rise to new interneurons. In the skin those progenitors give rise to skin. This years Nobel Prize (2012) in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to John Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka for changing adult cells into stem cells; these cells (originally performed using skin cells) can be turned into pluripotent ES cells which can become a new organism (including human, although that research is restricted; except maybe in China). So, to be clear, there is NO NEED for an egg OR a sperm. A single adult skin cell can be reprogrammed a developed in a petri dish into a new embryo that will, if implanted, become a fetus and eventually organism. Oh, and yes, sperm can be made from a skin cells. An "eye" can be grown from a skin cell complete with retinal layers and lens.

thanks for keeping me up to date. I will remember this in the future. I was basing my statements off Dolly.

That aside, we are still dealing with life arising from complex incubation so its a bit misleading to talk about skin and a zygote offering the same potential, since one has already achieved that potential and the other requires considerable effort (along with many increased likelihoods of failure and imperfection) to come to the same benchmark.

As for the fetus or late embryo, I just don't think most people are prepared to support pro-choice when confronted with a real life fetus. At 20 weeks we're talking about a 20 centered fully formed human being. Most people have no rational bases for their pro-choice or pro-life support, the decision they make, is made post-hoc of a gut feeling born out of an emotive argument made to them by a media outlet at some point earlier in their life. pretty much like everything else they "think" about.

IMHO the notion of designating something life "life" somewhere down the track from conception is arbitrary. I guess the further down the track one goes, the more one requires political language, so "abortion" becomes "tissue removal" etc etc

 

[iceaura]

That aside, we are still dealing with life arising from complex incubation

No. We are dealing with a claim to consider a cluster of cells (regardless of incubation) already possessing (not "arising", completely arisen) not only life in some general sense but personhood, equivalent to a child.

But since that is not plausible, and when stated plainly is plainly false, we find those making the claim concealing it behind various generalities and euphemisms and circumlocutions.

Which tactic they then project unto others, for example:

IMHO the notion of designating something life "life" somewhere down the track from conception is arbitrary. I guess the further down the track one goes, the more one requires political language, so "abortion" becomes "tissue removal" etc etc

I guess scamming and dissembling all by oneself feels a bit lonely, or something.

 

[lightgigantic]

No. We are dealing with a claim to consider a cluster of cells (regardless of incubation) already possessing (not "arising", completely arisen) not only life in some general sense but personhood, equivalent to a child.

If thats the case you shouldn't be talking about skin and stem cells, since a zygote, although in one sense being a "cluster of cells" (and also existing in a state of incubation as a consequence of fertilization), clearly possess something other "clusters of cells" don't.

But since that is not plausible, and when stated plainly is plainly false, we find those making the claim concealing it behind various generalities and euphemisms and circumlocutions.

Which tactic they then project unto others, for example: I guess scamming and dissembling all by oneself feels a bit lonely, or something.

On the contrary, saying life begins at the point life begins doesn't require any arbitrary/abstract political terms in order to appear buoyant.
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

If thats the case you shouldn't be talking about skin and stem cells,

I wasn't specifying

since a zygote, although in one sense being a "cluster of cells" (and also existing in a state of incubation as a consequence of fertilization)

Fertilization does not imply incubation

clearly possess something other "clusters of cells" don't.

As you were informed above, that is false.

On the contrary, saying life begins at the point life begins doesn't require any arbitrary/abstract political terms in order to appear buoyant.

That kind of dissembling, deflective language from you, by now, is revealed as simply corrupt - an ugly, unprincipled, truly contemptible form of dishonesty. Whatever the underlying motive, you aren't fooling very many people around here any more.

And as a representative of the prolife crowd, you are all too typical.

 

[lightgigantic]

I wasn't specifying

If you weren't then, you certainly are now ...

Fertilization does not imply incubation

whatever, but a cluster of cells certainly doesn't imply a zygote

As you were informed above, that is false.

If that was the case, the guy received a nobel prize for nothing
:shrug:

That kind of dissembling, deflective language from you, by now, is revealed as simply corrupt - an ugly, unprincipled, truly contemptible form of dishonesty. Whatever the underlying motive, you aren't fooling very many people around here any more.

And as a representative of the prolife crowd, you are all too typical.

far from rendering a claim less abstract and political than what it is already, adding a liturgy of personal insult tends to make it moreso ...
:shrug:

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Most people have no rational bases for their pro-choice or pro-life support . . . .

Especially the half of the population who will never have to deal first-hand with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, maternal leave, runaway fathers, etc. This is why this should be a women's issue. No man's opinion on this subject should be considered until one thousand women have spoken first. Male members of Congress and state legislatures should not be allowed to vote on pregnancy-, contraception-, and abortion-related legislation. And if the President is also male, then his signature should not be required.

 

[Orleander]

Especially the half of the population who will never have to deal first-hand with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, maternal leave, runaway fathers, etc. This is why this should be a women's issue. No man's opinion on this subject should be considered until one thousand women have spoken first. Male members of Congress and state legislatures should not be allowed to vote on pregnancy-, contraception-, and abortion-related legislation. And if the President is also male, then his signature should not be required.

:worship::bravo: AGREED!!!

 

[lightgigantic]

Especially the half of the population who will never have to deal first-hand with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, maternal leave, runaway fathers, etc. This is why this should be a women's issue. No man's opinion on this subject should be considered until one thousand women have spoken first. Male members of Congress and state legislatures should not be allowed to vote on pregnancy-, contraception-, and abortion-related legislation. And if the President is also male, then his signature should not be required.

and about 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 such persons should not be heard until one survivor of abortion is heard

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Especially the half of the population who will never have to deal first-hand with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, maternal leave, runaway fathers, etc. This is why this should be a women's issue. No man's opinion on this subject should be considered until one thousand women have spoken first. Male members of Congress and state legislatures should not be allowed to vote on pregnancy-, contraception-, and abortion-related legislation. And if the President is also male, then his signature should not be required.

There is something that always bothered me about this type of point that you make and i think I have finally hit it on the head.

In short : championing any issue of human rights requires advocacy.

To say that any alleged transgression of rights should be solely sorted out between the victim and the instigator is simply to turn a blind eye to whatever structures are already existing and do nothing. Its kind of a sly way of circling the wagons around whatever ideology is in vogue (and suspect of being morally corrupt). Imagine if someone said the only parties who can give valid input into issues of black slavery are slave owners (since, an absence of advocacy sees that blacks have no rights and hence no forum for their grievances to be counted as valid).

 

[wynn]

Especially the half of the population who will never have to deal first-hand with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, maternal leave, runaway fathers, etc. This is why this should be a women's issue. No man's opinion on this subject should be considered until one thousand women have spoken first. Male members of Congress and state legislatures should not be allowed to vote on pregnancy-, contraception-, and abortion-related legislation. And if the President is also male, then his signature should not be required.

As long as this issue is addressed, even if just among women by women for women, by the principle of voting, this is an inadequate way of addressing it.
To leave something up to voting is to leave it up to an arbitrary process.
Humans should be able to do better than that.

 

[wynn]

There is something that always bothered me about this type of point that you make and i think I have finally hit it on the head.

In short : championing any issue of human rights requires advocacy.

To say that any alleged transgression of rights should be solely sorted out between the victim and the instigator is simply to turn a blind eye to whatever structures are already existing and do nothing. Its kind of a sly way of circling the wagons around whatever ideology is in vogue (and suspect of being morally corrupt). Imagine if someone said the only parties who can give valid input into issues of black slavery are slave owners (since, an absence of advocacy sees that blacks have no rights and hence no forum for their grievances to be counted as valid).

What is so problematic about Fraggle's view is at least this:

1. the idea that problems can adequately be settled by voting, thus taking for granted that voting is a fair and rational process of settling difficult issues,
2. the idea that pregnancy is solely the issue of women, as if no input of men were required in order to bring about a pregnancy.

Fraggle's view is simply a convenient excuse to shift the burden of blame and responsibility exclusively on women. It's a modern form of misogyny.

 

[billvon]

Especially the half of the population who will never have to deal first-hand with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, maternal leave, runaway fathers, etc. This is why this should be a women's issue.

I don't buy it. Should only soldiers vote on going to war? We're a democracy and that means _all_ people vote, not just the people considered qualified.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

and about 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 such persons should not be heard until one survivor of abortion is heard.

Okay. I know my suggestion will never be adopted even though I am a member of the phallocracy that administers this planet. At least it got some spirited replies--although unfortunately mostly from other males. Yours is at least reasonable, not to mention touching on the issue of "Personhood."

When a person can't speak for himself, someone (one way or another) is appointed to speak for him. At what putative age would you ask this question? Many people go for decades wishing they hadn't been born. Quite a few of them eventually take matters into their own hands and kill themselves. A rotten early home life is unlikely to increase their contentment.

Imagine if someone said the only parties who can give valid input into issues of black slavery are slave owners (since, an absence of advocacy sees that blacks have no rights and hence no forum for their grievances to be counted as valid).

Your point is reasonable in the abstract. But in this case the slaveowners have already co-opted the issue (women couldn't even vote in my grandparents' time) and it's about time we kicked their butts out of the room and let the slaves take a vote.

As long as this issue is addressed, even if just among women by women for women, by the principle of voting, this is an inadequate way of addressing it. To leave something up to voting is to leave it up to an arbitrary process. Humans should be able to do better than that.

Nice philosophical point, but completely irrelevant since at this point in the development of the United States, voting is all we got.

And I can't help noticing that like most Americans on most issues, you were happy to identify the problem but have absolutely no suggestion for solving it. Apparently it's not that easy.

. . . . the idea that pregnancy is solely the issue of women, as if no input of men were required in order to bring about a pregnancy.

Men are happy to participate at that point in the process, but when the pregnancy becomes a problem, especially one on which they disagree, statistically very few men stick around. So it's not unreasonable, in aggregate, to suggest that their vote shouldn't count because the problem won't be theirs to handle. I know there are a few very nice men out there, but they're so outnumbered that we may have to regretfully throw them to the wolves to avoid greater harm to women.

Fraggle's view is simply a convenient excuse to shift the burden of blame and responsibility exclusively on women. It's a modern form of misogyny.

Uh... you're gonna have to explain that one. Statistically, in this situation women bear about 99% of the burden already.

I don't buy it. Should only soldiers vote on going to war? We're a democracy and that means _all_ people vote, not just the people considered qualified.

I'm not talking about who's qualified, I'm talking about who's going to have to live with the consequences. Statistically, it's the women.

The people who should have the deciding vote on whether to go to war are the ones who are going to be killed or otherwise have their lives ruined. Since they invariably reside in some other country, they can't vote in our elections. Sure, it would have been nice if the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been polled on the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[billvon]

I'm not talking about who's qualified, I'm talking about who's going to have to live with the consequences. Statistically, it's the women.

And statistically, especially in the US, soldiers have to deal with the consequences of our declarations of war. (At least out of the people in the US.)

The people who should have the deciding vote on whether to go to war are the ones who are going to be killed or otherwise have their lives ruined.

I'd be very careful advocating for the "ones who are going to be killed" when you're talking about abortion law.

 

[lightgigantic]

Okay. I know my suggestion will never be adopted even though I am a member of the phallocracy that administers this planet. At least it got some spirited replies--although unfortunately mostly from other males. Yours is at least reasonable, not to mention touching on the issue of "Personhood."

Similarly you might also not be a slave owner, involved in the conflict in the middle east or a host of other things that draw a moral response from you - I imagine you wouldn't take that as sufficient grounds to diminish your attempts at advocacy in these matters. However if you do want to play this anti-advocacy game, by that reasoning no woman has the right to out-speak Gianna Jessen.
:shrug:

When a person can't speak for himself, someone (one way or another) is appointed to speak for him. At what putative age would you ask this question? Many people go for decades wishing they hadn't been born. Quite a few of them eventually take matters into their own hands and kill themselves. A rotten early home life is unlikely to increase their contentment.

Not sure how you work the issue of suicide (an issue which is also championed against by numerous advocates btw) as reasonable grounds for surmounting the generic issues of advocacy being an essential ingredient in challenging any social/human issue. Advocacy has no requirement for age, sex, gender, etc or even whether the said party can speak or not (there are advocacy groups for animal protection). Its simply about addressing/establishing/representing an issue in an appropriate political forum by individuals already established with political power/representation.

Your point is reasonable in the abstract. But in this case the slaveowners have already co-opted the issue (women couldn't even vote in my grandparents' time) and it's about time we kicked their butts out of the room and let the slaves take a vote.

You miss the point - It was co-opted due to primarily the advocacy efforts of white people (who were neither slaves nor slave owners, but who, by dint of their race, had established political representation and could hence catalyze the change)

As I said, not permitting the general principle of advocacy in the discussion of a social issue is simply a sly way of circling the wagons on pre-existing power structures.

 

[wynn]

As I said, not permitting the general principle of advocacy in the discussion of a social issue is simply a sly way of circling the wagons on pre-existing power structures.

Permitting the general principle of advocacy can only take place when there is an understanding that there is an entity on behalf of which to advocate.

Those in favor of abortion on demand maintain that there is no entity on behalf of which to advocate to begin with.

 

[wynn]

Nice philosophical point, but completely irrelevant since at this point in the development of the United States, voting is all we got.

The good thing about self-destructive systems is that they self-destruct.
It's only a shame that they sometimes take a while to self-destruct, and that they cause so much collateral damage in the process.

And I can't help noticing that like most Americans on most issues, you were happy to identify the problem but have absolutely no suggestion for solving it. Apparently it's not that easy.

No, it doesn't seem to be easy. Although I'm interested mostly in how come some people don't find it easy.

Men are happy to participate at that point in the process, but when the pregnancy becomes a problem, especially one on which they disagree, statistically very few men stick around. So it's not unreasonable, in aggregate, to suggest that their vote shouldn't count because the problem won't be theirs to handle.

That's like saying that, for example, an arsonist has nothing to do with the fact that the house he set on fire has burnt down and whatever damage and costs this has incurred; that all the arsonist did was light a match, and the rest is the house's fault or the fault of the owner of the house; and that as such, the arsonist is guilty only of lighting a match, nothing more.
This is absurd!

Uh... you're gonna have to explain that one. Statistically, in this situation women bear about 99% of the burden already.

Only if the objective reality of the situation is that it is the woman's own fault or the fault of her body that she conceived a child that she did not want.

I'm not talking about who's qualified, I'm talking about who's going to have to live with the consequences. Statistically, it's the women.

Again, only if the objective reality of the situation is that it is the woman's own fault or the fault of her body that she conceived a child that she did not want.

Otherwise, you are simply coming from the position of the belief that it is the woman's own fault or the fault of her body that she conceived a child that she did not want.

The people who should have the deciding vote on whether to go to war are the ones who are going to be killed or otherwise have their lives ruined. Since they invariably reside in some other country, they can't vote in our elections. Sure, it would have been nice if the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been polled on the use of nuclear weapons.

You seem to think that going to war is an idle matter, something people do because they haven't thought of any better way to spend their time and money.

 

[lightgigantic]

Permitting the general principle of advocacy can only take place when there is an understanding that there is an entity on behalf of which to advocate.

Those in favor of abortion on demand maintain that there is no entity on behalf of which to advocate to begin with.

Actually I don't think we are even at that point with Fraggle. ATM he is not even willing to concede the general principle of advocacy, full stop.

 

[wynn]

Actually I don't think we are even at that point with Fraggle. ATM he is not even willing to concede the general principle of advocacy, full stop.

I wonder how come.

 

[iceaura]

Those in favor of abortion on demand maintain that there is no entity on behalf of which to advocate to begin with.

Not no "entity" - no person. Yet. An entity, a valuable and wonderful one, but not yet a person.

Except for the woman, of course - a person we note you overlooked, in claiming our lack of "entitie" for advocacy. And therein we see a pattern - - - -

And with that qualification, it's worse even than you note, in many cases.

We maintain that the entire prolife crowd is actually in agreement with us on this matter - that your handling of, say, three week embryos, in all other situations and throughout history, reveals that you also regard them as not persons, as entities valued for their potential but not for their current status as people. That makes your entire line of arguments an exercise in bad faith and self-deception. Advocacy? What you are actually advocating for is female subjugation - look at your claim above, that men should have control over what women do with their own bodies because they had sex with them. The weird, perverted arrogance of something like that would be shocking, pathological, if it were not so familiar.