News The World Can't Wait Drive Out the Bush Regime

[vanesch]

I believe I have argued that point.

I haven't seen it. You've only said that a zygote is a life form, which is correct. But being a life form doesn't give it human rights. Bacteria and mushrooms are also life forms, and I think we agree that they don't have human rights. Chimp zygotes are also life forms.

Now, the difference between an unfecondated egg cell and a fecondated one is only its DNA content. So is it this DNA which makes it have human rights ? There, I argued that, say, T-cells in your blood contain EXACTLY THE SAME DNA.

Another argument is that a zygote can devellop into a human being, given the right environment. There too, you can do that with the DNA of a T-cell (it has not yet been done with humans as far as I know, but it has been done with sheep - it is called cloning). So the T-cell also can potentially devellop into a human being.

Again, could you repeat the SCIENTIFIC argument that makes the difference between a zygote and a T-cell, or between a zygote and an unfecondated egg cell, or between a human zygote and a chimp zygote, such that it is clear that we have to assign human rights to the zygote, and not to all those others ? Sorry if I make you repeat, I didn't see the argument clearly.

 

[vanesch]

But they choose to adhere. Hence religion and beliefs.

?? How does making abortion illegal coincide with "they choose to adhere" ? Of course a woman that has the belief that abortion is wrong can choose to adhere and not abort ! But the woman that doesn't adhere to these beliefs ? Why should she be denied that right ??
If it only counts for those that "choose to adhere" I'm with you of course (that was btw my joke: abortion should not be IMPOSED upon a woman
). But then there is no need to make laws about it.

 

[DM]

I haven't seen it. You've only said that a zygote is a life form, which is correct. But being a life form doesn't give it human rights.

I've used Involuntary euthanasia to support and protect the human rights of a zygote.

Bacteria and mushrooms are also life forms, and I think we agree that they don't have human rights. Chimp zygotes are also life forms.

HUMAN life forms. Very different to bacteria and mushrooms.

Again, could you repeat the SCIENTIFIC argument that makes the difference between a zygote and a T-cell, or between a zygote and an unfecondated egg cell, or between a human zygote and a chimp zygote

A zygote is a human life form constituted from two parties. It has ABILITIES to develop into a human being. Any other cell such as an infertile egg does not have the potential to create a human being as it only consists of one part of a party, in this case the woman. The human life form respires with the aid of organs.

 

[DM]

But the woman that doesn't adhere to these beliefs ? Why should she be denied that right ??

I suppose nothing, except for legality I would assume. But again passing legislations permitt abortion.

 

[1123581321]

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere, but 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 there is no perfect form of birth control. The most responsible of people may still have an accident. They may not be ready to have a child and I am in full support of first trimester abortions for any reason. I am in full support of abortion in later trimesters for medical & psychological reasons.

I have to ask how many unwanted children you have adopted, or if you're too young, how many you plan to adopt? It's so easy to tell people how to live their lives, not so easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Also, there is no way adoption would be a viable alternative to abortion, are you aware of the numbers?

yeah, i know that there is no way that all the kids could be adopted. if you can combine that with all the other forms of birth control, i'd say that it could be done.
I cannot adopt a child because of my age, but i have not dropped that possibility. Remember, there are plenty of people who would.

 

[vanesch]

A zygote is a human life form constituted from two parties. It has ABILITIES to develop into a human being.

Yes, but exactly the same can be said about a T-cell (white blood cell).

I want to point out to the arbitrariness of the definition: constituted from TWO PARTIES, human life form, the ability to devellop.

Against each individual criterium, I can find an obvious counter example:

*) Constituted from two parties: admit that this is a priori a silly criterium: why should human rights be based upon the origin being from two parties ? But ok, let's accept it. Assume now that I CLONE a human being, by extracting its DNA, say, from a T-cell of yours, and putting that DNA into another egg cell. There is no a priori reason why this is not possible; it has been done with sheep. Does that mean then that the grown-up person that would result from such a manoeuver would not have any human rights, it being only the result of ONE party ? I'm sure that if that person grows up like a healthy boy of 15 years, which is biologically your twin, you would not like to deny him its human rights, would you ?

*) human life form: the definition of a human life form must be a cell, containing human DNA in its core. Your T-cells satisfy the definition.

*) the ability to devellop into a human being. Note that by this, in itself, you are already admitting that it IS NOT YET A HUMAN BEING ! But ok. I can take this in several ways. An unfecondated egg cell can devellop into a human being, for instance, I can take DNA from the mother, and put it in its core, and then it will devellop into a clone of the mother.
If it is the DNA that counts, then I can take the DNA of a T-cell, and that DNA, when put into an egg cell, can also devellop into a human being. So in a way, T-cells, when put in the right "environment" can also devellop into human beings.
But there's another way of seeing this: if whatever has an ability to devellop into a human being should do so, then unfecondated egg cells and spermatozoida should always be put as much as possible into contact, because every way of not doing so would deny that potential human being from develloping. In other works, one should deliver oneself to fornication all over the place until exhaustment because NOT doing so would deny the right of development of POTENTIAL human beings.

Apart from these difficulties with your definition of what has human rights:

You can of course improve the biological definition of whatever has to have human rights until there's nothing left but a zygote that satisfies it. But admit that this is totally arbitrary: you are ADAPTING your definition of what has human rights IN ORDER TO ARRIVE at your desired conclusion: namely zygotes. There's nothing NATURAL about it, and I can now try to have you argue WHY the definition you gave should imply the acquiring of human rights. You will have a hard time.

A much more natural definition would be: "when there is the potential for conscious human suffering present", because it is based upon an ethical rule that one should not make other humans suffer consciously.

Or "when it can devellop biologically ON ITS OWN into a human being". This is more based upon the fact that "you own your body" and that you have the right to deny other beings of using it.

These points are discussable. Not a definition made up to arrive at a zygote, in order to give some scientifically sounding background to a purely religious idea.

So again, apart from the above counter examples to each part of the definition, what ETHICAL reason is there that justifies such a definition which is not based upon a religious argument ?

 

[1123581321]

At what point does a Human become a human and what doctrine are you using to base this upon?

Also, euthanasia is typically the right of individuals to choose when where and how they expire---people choosing their own fate.

How much mental capacity does a zygot have? Can a zygot survive without the mother? If I have a kidney can you force me to give it to you to save your life?

A human is always a human, because if it is not a human, what is it? A human zygote is still a human being, it is just in the first stages of development. it is cruel to not even give it a chance to live, even if the mother dosn't want it to live for whatever reasons.
Abortions are wrong, and there are ways around them.
That is my stated opinion, i can see that this thread is not, nor will ever go anywhere productive, so, there you go.

Fibonacci

By the way, don't take anything that i say as a personal insult, even if it sounds like one.
unless you're that crazy guy from India that left a few months ago, i don't like you.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My ancestors were not considered human beings and were murdered by their government. Just how far do you trust your government to pick and choose whom it will protect?

 

[DM]

Does that mean then that the grown-up person that would result from such a manoeuver would not have any human rights, it being only the result of ONE party ? I'm sure that if that person grows up like a healthy boy of 15 years, which is biologically your twin, you would not like to deny him its human rights, would you ?

I believe this is a deficient criterion. Citing genetic engineering as a means of constituting a human life form with only one party still represents TWO PARTIES as you need the donor to donate the sperm. Would you agree?

the ability to devellop into a human being. Note that by this, in itself, you are already admitting that it IS NOT YET A HUMAN BEING !

There must be an incipient stage for the development of an embryo to form a human life form. The zygote has been constituted, its chromosomes are locked and ready to be developed. This is the threshold at which development begins. I agree with discussing this point further with your inputs.

you are ADAPTING your definition of what has human rights IN ORDER TO ARRIVE at your desired conclusion: namely zygotes.

Yes, I am adapting my definition of what a zygote is in order to admittedly mould my perceptions with what I understand and believe is right.

There's nothing NATURAL about it, and I can now try to have you argue WHY the definition you gave should imply the acquiring of human rights. You will have a hard time.

HUMAN rights. A zygote with locked chromosomes is in my opinion a human being. When defining a HUMAN, everything is reduced to chromosomes and DNA, but ultimately chromosomes.

A much more natural definition would be: "when there is the potential for conscious human suffering present", because it is based upon an ethical rule that one should not make other humans suffer consciously.

The flaw with this definition is that we are unable to prove whether a zygote possesses senses or not. But I would agree that the present ethical rule is "one should not make other humans suffer consciously".

This is more based upon the fact that "you own your body" and that you have the right to deny other beings of using it.

Why shouldn't a life form that is dependent to another human life have human rights? A terminally ill patient with unabilities to communicate and walk is heavily dependent on another human being. What makes it different? I know you'll have a hard time explaining this, or so I expect.

what ETHICAL reason is there that justifies such a definition which is not based upon a religious argument ?

Debatable but in my opinion the threshold at which a zygote acquires its full chromosomes.

 

[vanesch]

I believe this is a deficient criterion. Citing genetic engineering as a means of constituting a human life form with only one party still represents TWO PARTIES as you need the donor to donate the sperm. Would you agree?

No, that's the point exactly. Chromosomes (= DNA + its enrolling polymers btw ; for the sake of argument here, they mean the same thing) DO NOT HAVE TO COME from two parties. Every human cell has a FULL SET. It are ONLY the sexual cells which miss half of it ; all other cells have a complete set. When fecundation occurs, the sexual cells COMPLETE THE SET. But I'm not obliged to go that way. I can take AN ALREADY EXISTING COMPLETE SET somewhere, and put that in the core of an egg cell. So I don't need a "father and a mother". I think you're confusing this genetical engineering with in vitro fertilisation. I can take ANY SINGLE PERSON, take a non-sexual cell, take out its FULL CHROMOSOME SET, and put that in the core of an egg cell (previously emptied of its contents of half a set). When I do this, and the egg cell is given a chance to devellop (and other boundary conditions), then what devellops is a biological copy of the being from which I took the full set. This is called CLONING. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning

The point is, I can take that full set from about any cell of your body (except sex cells and a few others, like red blood cells). I don't need any "father".

HUMAN rights. A zygote with locked chromosomes is in my opinion a human being. When defining a HUMAN, everything is reduced to chromosomes and DNA, but ultimately chromosomes.

That's exactly my point. ALL (or almost all) of your cells have that chromosome content. So why deny them then "human rights" ?? That was my point with spitting.

The flaw with this definition is that we are unable to prove whether a zygote possesses senses or not.

Ah, come on. You need a central nervous system for that.

Why shouldn't a life form that is dependant to another human life have human rights? A terminally ill patient with unabilities to communicate and walk is heavily dependent on another human being. What makes it different. I know you'll have a hard time explaining this, or so I expect.

He doesn't depend on A SPECIFIC HUMAN BEING. Society, or a group of human beings, can decide to care about him/her. I would oppose any OBLIGATION of caring for a terminally ill person, if it biologically depended on my body. I would reserve the right to make that decision for myself.

Debatable but in my opinion the threshold at which a zygote acquires its full chromosomes.

Yes, but then you cannot deny those rights to ANY CELL WITH A FULL SET OF HUMAN CHROMOSOMES. Most of your cells are in that case !

 

[vanesch]

A human is always a human, because if it is not a human, what is it? A human zygote is still a human being, it is just in the first stages of development. it is cruel to not even give it a chance to live, even if the mother dosn't want it to live for whatever reasons.
Abortions are wrong, and there are ways around them.
That is my stated opinion, i can see that this thread is not, nor will ever go anywhere productive, so, there you go.

You can hardly call that an argumentation, can you ? It is just stating an opinion. The point is that that is indeed, your stated opinion, and it is seriously inspired by religious motives. Others can have other opinions and one should not use the law to impose YOUR opinions upon them. The reason being that your opinions are based upon religious motives and not logical, ethical or philosophical ones. If you take away the religious content, your opinion falls down. This means you are trying to impose your religious views upon people with other views, religious or not, by the means of law ; which would mean a violation of the separation of state and religion, the most valuable invention in human organisation (far above democracy)!

In order to argue for legal means, one should base oneself on an argumentation that is NOT dependent on a religious point of view.

And when you do away with any "soul" or other religious attribute, that gets attributed to that zygote (you don't want to say so, but that's the underlying argument, isn't it!) a zygote is simply a cell, like the thousands of cells that die when you spit on the floor, or when you sneeze, or when you go to the toilet, and there's no point of making a fuzz about it. When it would make a REAL LIVING HUMAN unhappy to have this cell devellop into a child, I really don't see where is the point in removing it. It is a simple cell !

 

[DM]

It are ONLY the sexual cells which miss half of it ; all other cells have a complete set.

My only argument here is that it STILL requires two parties for an embryo to be created. By the way, whether it is genetic engineering or cloning, you INITIALLY have to extract an egg cell from a female and use a sperm cell from a male.

 

[vanesch]

My only argument here is that it STILL requires two parties for an embryo to be created. By the way, whether it is genetic engineering or cloning, you INITIALLY have to extract an egg cell from a female and use a sperm cell from a male.

No, do some reading up on cloning (starting with the link from wikipedia). You are talking about in vitro fertilisation. But that's not cloning.

I can extract an egg cell from a female, and extract a full set of chromosomes from that same female, put it in the nucleus of the egg cell, and make a clone of that female. All with just one female. No father. It has been done with sheep and other animals, and has been tried with humans.

 

[Anttech]

DM never heard of dolly the sheep?

vanesch is correct

 

[DM]

DM never heard of dolly the sheep?

yes, I have actually.

I can extract an egg cell from a female, and extract a full set of chromosomes from that same female, put it in the nucleus of the egg cell, and make a clone of that female. All with just one female. No father. It has been done with sheep and other animals, and has been tried with humans.

Given your definition and my assimilation to its meaning, how does it fit into your point? What would it mean?

 

[pattylou]

Fom Oxford dictionary:
Pro-choice adj. believing that a pregnant woman should be able to choose to have an abortion if she wants.

vs.

I'd like to know your stance in abortion, do you support it or condemn it? I'm unable to identify it from your answers.

Do you recognize that there is a slight contradiction in these two statements? In the first, the liberty of the individual is emphasized. In the second, you explicitly talk about supporting abortion.

Nothing in the first quote says anything about supporting abortion.

My views are perhaps best reflected in the idea of not judging a neighbor until you have walked a mile in their shoes. The religious pro-life contingent argues on some militant defense-of-the-innocent argument. This mentality is contrary to everything I believe as a spiritual individual raised in catholicism ... as are Fibonacci's "self defense" beliefs. I believe in the golden rule and turning the other cheek, not in killing to protect myself. I believe that Jesus is a worthwhile role model. I find the mentality that promotes militant pro-life and warmongering etc, spiritually abhorrent.

Having a child is an enormous responsibility. Simply carrying a child healthily to term, is large responsibility. Some women know that they are not able to handle such a responsibility. How on Earth is it socially responsible of me to *mandate* that such a woman carries a child? How is it compassionate, if the embryo has not even implanted yet, for me to force her down that path? Knowing that women in the sixties went to back alleys to have someone with a coat hanger abort a fetus for them - How can we possibly consider returning to that?

I do not believe in black/white choices, thus will not pigeonhole myself as pro life or pro choice. We, as a moral society, need to try to take care of all of our members. We need to provide adoption services for women who are willing to carry but not raise a child. We need to provide sex ed to our young people. We need to promote valuing life, every life, everywhere on the planet - which does not in any way equate to militant pro-life ideology. it does not equate to the Bush administration, in any way, shape or form.

We need to understand that there is no good consensus on when an embryo becomes a "person." We don't know when precisely it feels pain. We know in general terms when it may be viable - and we know with some accuracy when various organs develop.

I can tell you that "I" am a woman, a mother, a passionate environmentalist. This is who "I" am. This identity was not present when the mass of cells from which I derived, was present in my mother's reproductive tract. I feel no sense of identity to that mass of cells.

Does that answer your question?

Care to share your thoughts on the matter?

 

[DM]

It seems I was partly right.

There are two different types of cloning:

1) Artificial Embryo Twinning

2) Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer

The process you are addressing is Somatic Cell Nuclear Tranfer. In artificial embryo twinning, sperm cells are introduced in an egg cell, only in a petri dish, the resulting embryos are then placed in a surrogate mother.

http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/whatiscloning/

 

[DM]

Do you recognize that there is a slight contradiction in these two statements? In the first, the liberty of the individual is emphasized. In the second, you explicitly talk about supporting abortion.

But of course there's a contradiction. Support = Pro-choice. Condemnation = Pro-life.

Nothing in the first quote says anything about supporting abortion.

I believe it does because it gives you the liberty to "choose". In practise if you choose to have an abortion, you are in my opinion condoning it. The only absolute exception is when a women conceives a child that possesses mental deficincies (not physical) that in itself will prove too much for the child; chronic suffering.

Does that answer your question?

I believe it has, very articulate indeed. Thank you.

Care to share your thoughts on the matter?

Let's just say that I condemn it. I believe in Human rights and since involuntary euthanasia reflects the rights of a zygote; a terminally ill patient that is unable to orally communicate and walk is heavily dependent on another human being. Many dispute the fact of a zygote being dependent to its mother, they thus believe that a zygote does not automatically have any rights.

 

[vanesch]

The process you are addressing is Somatic Cell Nuclear Tranfer.

Yes this is what I meant. Cloning is always a-sexual: it is a COPY of the genetic material which devellops in an independent being.

Given your definition and my assimilation to its meaning, how does it fit into your point? What would it mean?

What I meant was that it is possible (in principle) to start the development of a new human being just with the biological material of ONE other human being. That takes away the argument you were using that "it needs to come from two parties" in an artificial attempt to give special status to a zygote over a T-cell. Because this new human being will (if it grows up) be a true human being and according to your definition, it should be denied "human rights" because it didn't start out with chromosomes "from two parties".

 

[vanesch]

Many dispute the fact of a zygote being dependent to its mother, they thus believe that a zygote does not automatically have any rights.

Apart from that (which is ALSO a valid argument), I tried to argue that a zygote has nothing special compared to other cells of your body as such. Why then make such a case for the rights of a zygote and not of T-lymphocytes ? I have not seen an ARGUMENT that tells me convincingly that zygotes should have more rights. Personally I find it a totally ridiculous idea to give legal rights to a single-cell living organism. Because then mushrooms are much more entitled to a seat in the UN !

 

[Townsend]

...mushrooms are ... entitled to a seat in the UN !

Jolly good idea...

 

[Skyhunter]

It seems I was partly right.

There are two different types of cloning:

1) Artificial Embryo Twinning

2) Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer

The process you are addressing is Somatic Cell Nuclear Tranfer. In artificial embryo twinning, sperm cells are introduced in an egg cell, only in a petri dish, the resulting embryos are then placed in a surrogate mother.

http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/whatiscloning/

You cannot be partly right when stating an absolute. That like saying "she is partially pregnant."

 

[pattylou]

In practise if you choose to have an abortion, you are in my opinion condoning it.

You are ignoring the vast middle ground, those who would *never* have an abortion, and would also *never* dream of imposing their views on others.

The polarisation you advocate (either/or, bad/good, murderers/saints) is precisely the militant sort of tactic that role models such as Jesus would not engage in.

But of course there's a contradiction. Support = Pro-choice. Condemnation = Pro-life.

You completely missed the contradiction I pointed out. Your above statement is gibberish.

There is not a person on this planet that "supports" abortions. The seeming inability to understand this typifies the far right wing. Learn to understand people if you wish to lead them.

 

[DM]

You cannot be partly right when stating an absolute. That like saying "she is partially pregnant."

I think you misread it. Either that or your post is completely off topic. Then again so is this whole thread.

 

[DM]

You are ignoring the vast middle ground, those who would *never* have an abortion, and would also *never* dream of imposing their views on others.

Let me get this right. The vast middle ground are those that would never have an abortion? Is this correct? I mean statistically correct?

The polarisation you advocate (either/or, bad/good, murderers/saints) is precisely the militant sort of tactic that role models such as Jesus would not engage in.

The polarisation I advocate? You lost me completely! What on Earth are you talking about?

You completely missed the contradiction I pointed out. Your above statement is gibberish.

It seems to me that you like to engage on direct insults. If you claim I'm "gibberish", then perhaps simplifying your "contradiction" would actually benefit both of us. Insults will only waste my time.

There is not a person on this planet that "supports" abortions. The seeming inability to understand this typifies the far right wing. Learn to understand people if you wish to lead them.

Is that right? I've just met a couple in this thread that advocate abortions.

 

[DM]

Apart from that (which is ALSO a valid argument), I tried to argue that a zygote has nothing special compared to other cells of your body as such.

And I believe Vanesch, that I too have argued your view.

Why then make such a case for the rights of a zygote and not of T-lymphocytes ?

I've addressed this point.

I have not seen an ARGUMENT that tells me convincingly that zygotes should have more rights.

Nor have I seen an argument that tells me convincingly that "T-cells" and "spitting" are the same as a zygote.

Personally I find it a totally ridiculous idea to give legal rights to a single-cell living organism. Because then mushrooms are much more entitled to a seat in the UN !

Personally, I find it sick when a person argues that "spitting" is the same as a zygote. Not that I don't respect your views but I find it unjust for such comparisons.

 

[vanesch]

Is that right? I've just met a couple in this thread that advocate abortions.

Ah, words ! Let's come over at 10 this evening at my house, we'll have an abortion party

My point is simply: there's nothing special about the early development of a fetus, it is a living organism all right, of the same nature of complexity as, respectively, a blood cell, a worm, a fly, and a fish. As long as it is not more sophisticated there's nothing more dramatic in removing (and hence killing) it, than it is to kill a blood cell, a worm, a fly or a fish. When it grows bigger, and starts to take on the forms of a human being, you can start a lot of discussions, and the borderline is not clear (I could give my personal opinion, but it would shock people too much so I refrain from it, because it doesn't add much to the discussion). You can start trading off the rights of an "almost human being" of 7 or 8 months old and the right of the mother to dispose of her body as she pleases. Because of the grey zone there, I can accept that a society chooses to give rights to that almost human being (it must now be on the level of a dog or so), so that one considers that for these few extra months, the mother just carries on.

But denying the right for abortion in the first few months is totally ridiculous, because it means that you put the right of a living creature of the complexity of a horse fly over the right of a full human being to dispose of her body as she pleases. Talking about the rights of a zygote is even more of an aberration. And all this because in a certain religion, one has posited that a SOUL is assigned to a zygote.

Thinking about in what deep troubles a girl can be for the rest of her life simply because one has denied her the right to kill something like a horse fly is outrageous.

 

[Art]

Because then mushrooms are much more entitled to a seat in the UN !

That would explain a lot ... most members of the UN seem to thrive when kept in the dark and fed sh!te

 

[vanesch]

Nor have I seen an argument that tells me convincingly that "T-cells" and "spitting" are the same as a zygote.

But I have. I have debunked each of your arguments which made a zygote "special". I think we both agree that it is a unicellular organism. I take it that you don't want to give "human rights" to EACH unicellular organism. So I asked you what set it out to be special, and you told me:

- it was created from TWO parties. I responded that you then have a problem with cloned humans, which originated from egg cells which were NOT fecundated, but got their DNA by cloning, from another human cell such as a white blood cell, and that you now have the contradiction that you will have to deny human rights to the person that grows out of this egg cell. So "two parties" cannot be an argument.

- it contains HUMAN chromosomes. Well, so do your white blood cells. BTW, what makes human chromosomes so special ? Chimp DNA is 99% similar...

- it could POTENTIALLY evolve into a human being. But so can the nucleus of a white blood cell.

So one of your reasons (two parties) leads to a contradiction, and the other two do not lead to a fundamental difference between a white blood cell and a zygote.

And that's because you have it all wrong. There's nothing sacred about this biological material. What sets out a human as special is its brain function.

 

[vanesch]

That would explain a lot ... most members of the UN seem to thrive when kept in the dark and fed sh!te

After I wrote that, I expected comments of the kind

 

[redwinter]

abortion debate

there's been a lot of posts regarding abortion here in response to the call for The World Can't Wait: Drive Out the Bush Regime -- and it is a very important issue. it is imperative to defend the right to abortion because right now the attacks on abortion are part of a campaign to take away women's rights in a broad way. Basically, abortion is one big way that a woman can decide what she wants to do with the rest of her life, whether she wants to have children at a certain time or not. If you take away that right, it's basically just the man deciding whether or not he wants to knock a woman up, or up to the faulty condom breaking, or maybe some other kind of accident.

BUT this attack is part of a broader attack that includes birth control as well, Bush is rapidly cutting funding to any kind of sex education program that promotes anything but abstinence. In fact, many of the programs in the US and worldwide are abstinence-only thanks to his regime's decisions. By promoting this in Africa, the Bush regime is promoting the continuing genocide thanks to AIDS by combatting the spread of birth control and safe sex, which would save millions of lives.

And why attack both birth control and abortion? Because they want to make women into breeding machines for men, take away the advances of women's rights during the 60s and 70s, and drive our society back to a ****ing high-tech Dark Ages, putting their religious notions of how society should be run into law. This is not the future I nor millions of others want to see. That's why everyone who reads this thread should link up with the movement to drive out the Bush regime and fight against every aspect of this criminal government, eventually to drive it out of power.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ah... You're back. Can you answer my questions now about what real way you intend to make changes please?

 

[DM]

I responded that you then have a problem with cloned humans, which originated from egg cells which were NOT fecundated, but got their DNA by cloning, from another human cell such as a white blood cell, and that you now have the contradiction that you will have to deny human rights to the person that grows out of this egg cell. So "two parties" cannot be an argument.

Two parties continues to be a valid argument as it is the natural way of conceiving and creating a zygote. Human cloning is an ILLEGAL activity. Let me then, for the sake of your argument, debunk cloning by assuming it is LEGAL. The point at which the zygote would have its own rights, is the point in which the egg cell and somatic cell are fused using an ELECTRIC PULSE. This is the point where the chromosomes in Somatic cell nuclear transfer become locked and ready to be developed.

 

[DM]

And that's because you have it all wrong. There's nothing sacred about this biological material. What sets out a human as special is its brain function.

This is absolutelly "outrageous" and "ridiculous". You have until now extricated involuntary euthanasia in which answers your claim of "What sets out a human as special is its brain function". A terminally ill patient with no brain function is "wrong" in your opinion.

 

[vanesch]

Two parties continues to be a valid argument as it is the natural way of conceiving and creating a zygote. Human cloning is an ILLEGAL activity. Let me then, for the sake of your argument, debunk cloning by assuming it is LEGAL.

You can declare the square root of two to be illegal, but its existence nevertheless demonstrates the irrationality of the real number system. I mean by this that the MERE POTENTIAL EXISTENCE of cloned human beings debunk your argument that human rights follow when and only when genetic material of TWO HUMAN BEINGS comes together in an egg cell.

The point at which the zygote would have its own rights, is the point in which the egg cell and somatic cell are fused using an ELECTRIC PULSE. This is the point where the chromosomes in Somatic cell nuclear transfer become locked and ready to be developed.

First of all, one mustn't confuse movies about Frankenstein with microchirurgy :-)
So now you've changed your definition of what gets human rights. So what gives human rights now is not anymore that it is human genetic material that comes from TWO PARTIES (that was what you were claiming to make a zygote "special") ; now it is also ok if it comes from only one party but there are electric pulses. How much volts is needed for a pulse to convey human rights ?

See, you're twiddling and drifting around with your definitions in order to save your zygote human rights. But you haven't given AN ARGUMENT WHY that cellular organism should have human rights in the first place ! WHY are you doing this twiddling around ? WHY do you want zygotes to have human rights?
Is it because human suffering should be avoided ? Without a central nervous system, suffering is not possible.

What is the great principle on which you base yourself to DERIVE the right of a zygote ? Isn't it deep down because you are somehow convinced that a SOUL is attached to a zygote ?

 

[vanesch]

This is absolutelly "outrageous" and "ridiculous". You have until now extricated involuntary euthanasia in which answers your claim of "What sets out a human as special is its brain function". A terminally ill patient with no brain function is "wrong" in your opinion.

A patient with no brain function is indeed not a human being ! I wouldn't have the slightest difficulty in having it die (in fact, it IS dead): it is the very definition of death of a human being: brain dead.

But, there are some differences which give it "the benefit of doubt".

1) Such a terminally "ill" patient doesn't limit much the liberties of others: it is just some money to keep the machine running and to pay the doctors and the nurses. THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL BURDEN PLACED UPON A LIVING HUMAN BEING. Your body is not to be connected to it. So we can give it the benefit of doubt and have it "live" a bit longer, until we get finally soo bored about it that we can pull the plug.

2) In certain cases is difficult to know if there is absolutely no brain function left ; sometimes the body recovers. Of course not if the brain is totally damaged, but we don't know yet enough about very low levels of brain activity to be sure in certain cases whether the process is irreversible. GIVEN THE ABSENCE OF BURDEN UPON ANOTHER PERSON, we can then just say, hey, let's keep it a bit longer, it doesn't hurt much and who knows.

3) At least there IS a brain ! If there weren't a brain, then there's no point in even considering keeping the "body" alive. Except of course, for those very valuable T-lymphocytes which are cellular organisms with human chromosomes in them, and have some human rights

My personal opinion is even, but that's only an opinion, that even when the brain is not totally damaged, and some activity remains, but it is clear that the person will be severely mentally damaged, that you better pull the plug. I would prefer that for myself.

 

[russ_watters]

DM, I'm one of those people who is pro choice and anti-abortion...

Perhaps it would help if you tried the logic on something else, like smoking.

 

[vanesch]

The point at which the zygote would have its own rights, is the point in which the egg cell and somatic cell are fused using an ELECTRIC PULSE. This is the point where the chromosomes in Somatic cell nuclear transfer become locked and ready to be developed.

Upon rereading I think you have a profound misunderstanding on how somatic cell nuclear transfer works: the two cells are not FUSED somehow. The genetic material (the core) is REMOVED from the egg cell. Just the cellular mechanism is left in place. The core (containing ALL the chromosomes) of another cell is taken ; in the process, that cell is destroyed. This core is placed in the egg cell, replacing the original one. NO GENETIC MATERIAL OF THE ORIGINAL EGG CELL REMAINS. There is no "fusion". And it is done with micropipettes, not with lightning bolts :-)

In fact, it is not entirely true that no genetic material remains of the original cell: the mitochondria (outside of the core) remain. These are the "energy factories" of the cell, but mitochondria normally do not play a role in defining the species.

Again, nothing is FUSED. The emptied egg cell is used as a kind of womb for the nucleus of the other cell (for instance a T-lymphocyte). If you would have put the nucleus of a chimp T-lymphocyte into the egg cell of a human, you would grow a chimp. If you would have put the nucleus of a human T-lymphocyte into the egg cell of a chimp, you'd grow a human. At least in principle.

 

[vanesch]

DM, I'm one of those people who is pro choice and anti-abortion...

Perhaps it would help if you tried the logic on something else, like smoking.

You mean: you don't smoke, but as long as the smoke of others doesn't hinder you, you don't see how you can deny others the right to smoke ?

 

[DM]

I mean by this that the MERE POTENTIAL EXISTENCE of cloned human beings debunk your argument that human rights follow when and only when genetic material of TWO HUMAN BEINGS comes together in an egg cell.

I believe it does not debunk my argument. You still have to admit that Human cloning is an illegal activity. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense, a man and a woman. Not a machine and a woman.

So now you've changed your definition of what gets human rights. So what gives human rights now is not anymore that it is human genetic material that comes from TWO PARTIES (that was what you were claiming to make a zygote "special")

I did say for the sake of arguing your original point, don't distort sentences. In case you missed it or didn't understand it, a zygote that is created from two parties is the natural way of conceiving and forming an embryo. Assuming that cloning is LEGAL, in which I completely condemn, my definition of HUMAN CLONING would be based on the electric impulse that locks the chromosomes inside a cell. This is the point where the killing of an existing cell (in HUMAN CLONING) should not take place as it is under development.

See, you're twiddling and drifting around with your definitions in order to save your zygote human rights.

I don’t really appreciate your little ad hominem attacks, Vanesch. It's actually your problem of either accepting it or not. I will not be preached and converted by your arguments, I think it's time to realize that. In addition, I would also appreciate it if you could keep this discussion in a formal way. Insults will lead us no where.

But you haven't given AN ARGUMENT WHY that cellular organism should have human rights in the first place !

For once and for all, a zygote is constituted from two parties (again! the normal way). That is my argument! If you don't accept it, it’s plainly your problem, not mine.

What is the great principle on which you base yourself to DERIVE the right of a zygote ? Isn't it deep down because you are somehow convinced that a SOUL is attached to a zygote ?

There are religious principles, yes. But when excluding religion and faith, I did say that it is the development of a zygote that makes it wrong for another human being to brutally kill it. You have argued that the zygote is unable to sense or feel as it doesn't have a nervous system, thus it should not have any rights. The latter is your stance on this matter and I can respect that, however I will not accept your draconian scientific doctrine of killing zygotes because “they have no nervous system”.

 

[DM]

A patient with no brain function is indeed not a human being ! I wouldn't have the slightest difficulty in having it die (in fact, it IS dead): it is the very definition of death of a human being: brain dead.

In other words, you believe this person should not be entitled to his/hers rights.

1) Such a terminally "ill" patient doesn't limit much the liberties of others: it is just some money to keep the machine running and to pay the doctors and the nurses. THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL BURDEN PLACED UPON A LIVING HUMAN BEING.

In most cases, ill patients ACTUALLY limit the liberties of others. The money aspect is the predominant reason behind it. Relatives that do not possesses the requested money to leave the terminally ill patient in charge of nurses and doctors, are obliged to sustain the “patients”. In addition, it’s not all about “money” but also about the pain in which a relative feels when he or she sees the terminally ill patient dying. You make it seem as if relatives and loved ones are cold blooded.

My personal opinion is even, but that's only an opinion, that even when the brain is not totally damaged, and some activity remains, but it is clear that the person will be severely mentally damaged, that you better pull the plug. I would prefer that for myself.

At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you.

 

[DM]

DM, I'm one of those people who is pro choice and anti-abortion...

I totally respect that.

Perhaps it would help if you tried the logic on something else, like smoking.

Meaning that you're an anti-smoking believer?

 

[Anttech]

No offence but if you want to get taken seriously when you say:

I don’t really appreciate your little ad hominem attacks, Vanesch. It's actually your problem of either accepting it or not. I will not be preached and converted by your arguments, I think it's time to realize that. In addition, I would also appreciate it if you could keep this discussion in a formal way. Insults will lead us no where.

You probably shouldn't be doing your own "ad hominem attacks":

At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you.

Anyway you don't have to listen to me :-)

 

[DM]

You probably shouldn't be doing your own "ad hominem attacks"

On Vanesch? Actually it was him who started calling my views "outrageous" and "ridiculous". But I'm sure he'll appreciate your vote of support for him. Anyway I've decided to clear ad hominem attacks. I think you would agree on keeping discussions formal, right?

By the way:

At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you.

I don't actually consider this as an "ad hominem" attack. I see it as humour, but you don't have to listen to me as well.

Anyway you don't have to listen to me :-)

No! I actually thank you for clearing this up.

 

[Art]

Returning to the OP for a moment The political scene in the US today is very reminiscent of the latter days of Thatchers gov't in Britain.

She too divided the country to the point where there was civil disorder spilling onto the streets, a particular point of focus being the poll tax demonstrations.

However even though her gov't became synonymous with greed, corruption and elitism the British public still voted in another Tory gov't under John Major.

This was because, as IMO is happening in the states today with the GOP, the Tory party persuaded the public that Thatcher was personally to blame and so by jettisoning her their dreadful public image went with her.
Another major factor which ensured Britain suffered another 4 years of Tory rule was the main opposition party - the Labour party - was in disarray, much like the democratic party is currently in the USA.

Eventually Labour realized that to win elections you need first and foremost to be a united party and secondly to hold the middle ground. By reinventing themselves and dropping their more socialist policies they finally made themselves electable and followed up with successive landslide victories at the polls.

Unpallatable as the Bush administration is, the only answer to it is to follow the democratic process and ensure that when the people next go to the polls they vote Democrat, not because of the bad things Bush and his GOP did - because as the Labour party in Britain found this will not win you an election - but because of the good things the Democrats will do when in office.

 

[russ_watters]

Meaning that you're an anti-smoking believer?

Meaning I'm anti smoking, but I don't think it should be outlawed. It works almost exactly the same as for abortion.

 

[Skyhunter]

Returning to the OP for a moment The political scene in the US today is very reminiscent of the latter days of Thatchers gov't in Britain.

She too divided the country to the point where there was civil disorder spilling onto the streets, a particular point of focus being the poll tax demonstrations.

However even though her gov't became synonymous with greed, corruption and elitism the British public still voted in another Tory gov't under John Major.

This was because, as IMO is happening in the states today with the GOP, the Tory party persuaded the public that Thatcher was personally to blame and so by jettisoning her their dreadful public image went with her.
Another major factor which ensured Britain suffered another 4 years of Tory rule was the main opposition party - the Labour party - was in disarray, much like the democratic party is currently in the USA.

Eventually Labour realized that to win elections you need first and foremost to be a united party and secondly to hold the middle ground. By reinventing themselves and dropping their more socialist policies they finally made themselves electable and followed up with successive landslide victories at the polls.

Unpallatable as the Bush administration is, the only answer to it is to follow the democratic process and ensure that when the people next go to the polls they vote Democrat, not because of the bad things Bush and his GOP did - because as the Labour party in Britain found this will not win you an election - but because of the good things the Democrats will do when in office.

I agree with your assessment, however Clinton was a moderate with good ideas, he streamlined government and presided over the longest economic expansion in our history. Look what happened to him.

Now there is even less cohesion among the left, the liberals don't trust the centrists because of what they see as a sellout to the corporate status quo. I fear that unless the fallout from the disastrous policies of the right do not get worse nothing will change. As long as they can say "we are turning the corner, the economy is improving, we are bringing freedom to an opressed people", etc they will continue to manipulate public opinion and remain in control. As long as the media promotes the corporate interests people will continue to vote against there own best interests.

 

[vanesch]

I believe it does not debunk my argument. You still have to admit that Human cloning is an illegal activity. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense, a man and a woman. Not a machine and a woman.

It is an illegal activity in certain countries because some people decided to make it illegal, based upon the same kinds of opinions that you are espousing. But you completely miss the point I am making. The point is not whether or not cloning is a "natural" thing to do, whether it is "legal", "right", "tastes like chocolate" etc... The point was: it is a physically possible thing to do, and from it can result a REAL HUMAN BEING, a guy like you or me. Whether this was done in an artificial way or not, with a machine and a woman, or with a machine, a chimp and a man or whatever.

In order to ARGUE whether something should have rights or not, you cannot come up with a catalogue of what should have these rights, you should come up with a reasonable argument of WHY that something should have those rights, based upon general principles, and I was asking you - without getting an answer, except the one I debunked, what are the general principles on which you base yourself to DERIVE why you believe a certain thing should have these rights.
You gave me your list of 3 consequent "grand principles":
- it must result in fusion of genetic material from the union of two parties (2 human beings)
- it must contain human chromosomes
- it must potentially devellop into a human being when given the chance

Although it is still not clear to me why you took these (I suspect you were trying to AIM at a zygote as result, and you were not citing big a priori principles like "avoid suffering" or something that could intuitively be understandable), for the sake of argument I took your 3 principles as the necessary and sufficient condition for something to have human rights, and then I looked around to what I could apply them to derive the consequences of these principles.

One of the consequences I found was that cloned human beings, which did of course not satisfy the first criterium, WOULD NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS ACCORDING TO YOUR GRAND PRINCIPLES, because they did not result from the fusion of genetic material from two parties. The point is not whether this is an illegal activity or not, the point is that this is possible, and that out of this would grow a human being, which would be denied every human right if we were to follow your grand principles.

So I took the liberty of tossing this out of your list of 3, because I take it that such an illegally grown person would not be denied its human rights by you, after it grew up ; and that including your first criterium would for ever do so.

Even you accepted that your famous "electric pulse" (don't know where it comes from except from Frankenstein, any reference ?) in cloning could replace this condition of mixing from two parties. I took act of your change, and called this a "changing of your definition of what was to have human rights".

Once this first condition eliminated, however, only these two remained:
- it must contain human chromosomes
- it must potentially devellop into a human being when given the chance

I then went on showing that a T-lymphocyte satisfies also these criteria, and that according to your reasoning, we must attach human rights to every white blood cell. Indeed, no-one will deny that the full set of human chromosomes are present in these cells, and that the core of these cells, when put into an egg cell (even a chimp's egg cell) can devellop into a clone of the person to which the white blood cell belonged.

So I came to a logical full circle: your grand principles also give human rights to white blood cells.

Assuming that cloning is LEGAL, in which I completely condemn, my definition of HUMAN CLONING would be based on the electric impulse that locks the chromosomes inside a cell. This is the point where the killing of an existing cell (in HUMAN CLONING) should not take place as it is under development.

Yes, and the above is exactly what I call: adapting your grand principles to the circumstances in order to be able to come to the desired conclusions. That says enough about the value of the great principles as great principles.

I don’t really appreciate your little ad hominem attacks, Vanesch. It's actually your problem of either accepting it or not. I will not be preached and converted by your arguments, I think it's time to realize that. In addition, I would also appreciate it if you could keep this discussion in a formal way. Insults will lead us no where.

Showing flaws in your argument is not an insult. I never attacked your person but only your ideas. I even didn't attack them, I just showed they led to absurdities, like NOT granting human rights to cloned humans, or GRANTING rights to white blood cells, together with correcting some misunderstandings concerning your writings about celllular biology.

The next step in the argument is that you just gave me a list of properties (like what kind of molecules, originating from what kinds of sources, are the basis for human rights) from which it is intuitively absolutely not evident why on Earth they should be the basis of granting human rights. It is as if I gave you the definition of the people that should be given absolute legislative rights:
- their name should start with a "v"
- their name should end with an "h"
- they should post on PF
- they should live in France.

Here is my opinion of what kinds of people should have absolute legislative rights. It is clear this way.

I would take it that you can ask WHY I gave these criteria, and it is obvious that I just set them up so that *I* am the one having absolute legislative rights. In the same way, I suspect you to set up your criteria, and to even CHANGE your criteria during the discussion, in order to arrive at "a zygote has human rights". So there must be a "hidden agenda" between fiddling around in such a way that you end up with "zygotes have human rights", in the same way as in my example there was a hidden agenda that "I wanted to be the master of the world".

I know that I cannot convert you, that's not the point. I wanted to show in this argument that there are no scientifically and ethically grand principles which are clearly acceptable by everybody, and from which you can deduce that zygotes should have human rights. Once this is clear, the only thing that remains you to justify your point ARE PURELY RELIGIOUS REASONS. That's your true "hidden agenda" but you will not say so, because if you did, it would be clear that you were going to use legislation to impose your religious view upon others. I wanted, in this discussion, to make this clear.

For once and for all, a zygote is constituted from two parties (again! the normal way). That is my argument! If you don't accept it, it’s plainly your problem, not mine.

That's not an argument, sorry. You say that a zygote is constituted from two parties, except when it isn't.

There are religious principles, yes.

Ah, we're home.

But when excluding religion and faith, I did say that it is the development of a zygote that makes it wrong for another human being to brutally kill it.

I want to see the argument for that. Apart from STATING that repeatedly, I have not seen any argument.

You have argued that the zygote is unable to sense or feel as it doesn't have a nervous system, thus it should not have any rights. The latter is your stance on this matter and I can respect that, however I will not accept your draconian scientific doctrine of killing zygotes because “they have no nervous system”.

So you respect my stance, but you cannot accept it. Visibly you cannot respect that stance in a woman who wants to get some cells out of her body, knowing that she will not cause any pain to any being, given that it doesn't even have a central nervous system.

The problem with your opinion is that 1) it is forced upon others not sharing that opinion through a legal system and 2) it is an opinion purely based upon a religious belief and has no generally acceptable scientific and ethical argumentation, independent of the belief system a person adheres to.

 

[DM]

Meaning I'm anti smoking, but I don't think it should be outlawed. It works almost exactly the same as for abortion.

Why shouldn't it be outlawed? What's your insight in its legality?

 

[vanesch]

In other words, you believe this person should not be entitled to his/hers rights.

A body with a dead brain ? Of course.

In most cases, ill patients ACTUALLY limit the liberties of others. The money aspect is the predominant reason behind it. Relatives that do not possesses the requested money to leave the terminally ill patient in charge of nurses and doctors, are obliged to sustain the “patients”. In addition, it’s not all about “money” but also about the pain in which a relative feels when he or she sees the terminally ill patient dying. You make it seem as if relatives and loved ones are cold blooded.

I will repeat my earlier remark: if my left leg got ripped off my body just before I got crushed under a truck, should one keep this leg alive with artificial irrigation of blood and so on ?

You were talking about a BRAIN DEAD PERSON. It's a CORPSE !

At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you.

Of course I have opinions, and one of these opinions, probably shared with about 99.9% of all scientists, is that giving human rights to a single cell is ridiculous. However, when talking about what should be imposed upon others, I refrain from simply venting *opinions* and want to see *arguments*.
BTW, calling an idea "ridiculous" is not an ad hominem attack. Saying that I find the statement that we are invaded by little green men from Mars ridiculous is not an ad hominem attack, and honestly, both statements (about rights for a single cell and green men from Mars) are, in my OPINION, on exactly the same level.