 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
Ben, I'm just curious. Do you plan on having hundreds of kids, or just being able to count the number of times you have sex in your life on one hand?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Neither can children, yet they still have rights. Rights do not need to be defended by the person, but rather, exist independently of the capacity of the person to defend themselves. That's the whole point of having a right to life, in that the ones who would otherwise not be able to defend themselves would be protected.
|
Children have a guardian at litem appointed for them, which is often the parent, unless the parent is found to be incapable of acting as a guardian at litem. So let's appoint guardians ad litem for every zygote, embryo or fetus to bring a civil action for damages if the woman drinks, smokes, or does anything else adverse to the "interests" of the zygote, embryo, or fetus. Then let's have the state prosecute child endangerment charges in the interest of the "child."
quote:
So what about someone who is profoundly mentally handicapped, or trapped in a coma? Do they still have existing 'interests?' Just because the person cannot express their interests, does not mean that their interests are nullified.
|
Once they're born, regardless of condition, they are legally "persons" and have the same interests at law as any other person. Case closed. 
quote:
No, I could not, because the egg is not an individual entity with DNA distinct from the other cells of the parent. The zygote is vastly different on all of these points from the egg.
|
Not if the egg is used to create a cloned zygote. You stated no exceptions as a result of technology, and the potential exists to clone zygotes from the genetic material of a single individual. It's been done with cats and sheep, humans are just around the corner. Looks like genetic distinction is out the window.
quote:
Secondly, I make the assumption, that we should not kill another person without due cause. Just because the unborn child cannot express their desire to live, does not mean that they forfeit their protection. Rather, because they are so vunerable to the desires of others, they need to be protected to a greater extent. |
I agree, but then infanticide is already illegal. And zygotes or embryos, or even early fetuses, don't have the level of brain development to form a "desire to live" - you're advocating extending the legal concept of personhood even to cell masses which don't have a functioning brain, so you're simply projecting your assumption of what they will desire in the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
I've repeatedly stated that a zygote, embryo, or foetus is human. Whether it is a "human being" depends on what a "being" is, which the participitants in this debate stubbornly refuse to define.
|
It's the second half of my definition, in the capacity to grow and develop not possessed by other cells. Biologically one might say that part of this would be the proteins in the zygote, but that would neither be exhaustive, nor entirely correct.
quote:
Any honest biologist will tell you that species membership is an abstraction, and that borders get fuzzy and arbitrary at the edges.
|
So, my question to you, is does the unborn child qualify as human? If so, then the rest of this is irrelevant to the debate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure. Saying the two ought to be connected admits that it is possible to disconnect the two. Sex should be pleasureable just as much as sex should lead to procreation.
So this is the heart of the matter, for you, eh?
Why then do you separate the two, Molly? You may not experience this connection, but that does not mean that you cannot do so. |
Why do you keep putting words into my mouth?
I haven't said anything about 'ought' or 'should' - you're the one looking for ways to impose imperatives, not me.
Why on earth 'should' sex lead to reproduction? There is no 'should' about it, nor have I ever implied there is.
And no, simply because I don't happen to want to reproduce doesn't mean that is the crux of the matter for me- the difference is I'm not seeing it simply from the point of view of someone who doesn't have to experience a full term pregnancy and delivery.
And why do I separate the two?
Well, let's see, the person I love is a man, and in case you haven't heard. it's a tad difficult still to get men pregnant.
Still, perhaps you could volunteer, and if if successful, see how enthusiastic you are about sexual pleasure being shackled to reproduction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I may not be the best person to talk about this, as I just finished the busiest month of my life, as intern in the newborn nursery, but...
Frankly, this is a choice I'd like to see more women make.
Optimally, more people would use birth control; but religion has done such a good job stigmatizing it that the majority of insurance programs won't cover BC pills or Depo-Provera or IUDs or anything else.
I also have this thing about telling people what they can and can not do with their own bodies. I know, I'm nutty like that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Given that I plan to get married to one wife, and to not have sex outside that marriage, I don't see how it would be possible for me to end up with 100 kids, given that my wife might be fertile for around 15 years. Theoretically, if every fertile period worked out, it would be much less than 100 kids.
And that presumes that the woman I marry would be 25 when we married, and this is not necessarily the case.
So I call false dilemma.
I have numerous options, including abstaining from sex during her fertile periods by mutual consent. |
So it's option B then.
Where's the false dilemma? If you think you should only have sex when you intend to reproduce, and you don't want lots of kids (hundreds was a bit of hyperbole, I would have thought that was obvious), then by default you plan to have sex the minimum number of times required to have as many kids as you want. Theoretically, if you want three kids, then you could have sex three times in your life. Sounds like a blast.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You don't understand the point I tried to make in the last sentence. Women are not always fertile. You can have sex during her infertile periods of her cycle, without resorting to artificial contraception. |
I understand it perfectly - but it seems you don't. You are arguing with Molly about why someone would separate pleasure from reproduction. If you are of the mind that you should only have sex to reproduce (with the pleasure being a nice bonus), then you would only have sex during the so-called "fertile" times. If you don't, then you're guilty of the exact thing you don't understand - having sex for pleasure without much chance of conception.
However, my main point was that it's sad and pathetic to either plan to have sex a handful of times ever with your wife (before you even get married, to boot), or be a hypocrite about the whole thing. It's also kind of frightening that you think the rhythym method is an effective means of contraception.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should people pay for the choices of other people? If the insurance company covers these elective medications, that will increase the premiums for everyone else. I can think of drugs that are of much higher priority for insurance coverage than birth control.
|
Once these same insurance companies dump coverage for Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis, get back to me on that one, Sparky.
And now those abominable "get your seventh prescription free" ads for Viagra have added layers upon layers to this particular fiasco.
quote:
Secondly, you should work on getting basic plans for everyone rather than cadillacs for the few. |
Cadillacs?  Yeah, Ortho Tri-Cyclin and Depo-Provera sure are Cadillacs of the drug world.
quote:
Finally, you are telling people what they should do, just as much as any of us are, in recommending birth control. |
Try reading what I wrote again. I said I have a problem with telling people what they can and can not do with their own body. I have no problem whatsoever with telling people what they should and should not do with their own body. That's exactly my line of work.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2004 20:12
|