Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

So here's the thing, money is fungible. You have $10. You need lunch. The lunch costs $12. I give you $10 dollars but I say you can only spend my $10 on food. If you have some left over today then use it to buy food tomorrow. You then use my $10 and $2 of your own to buy food. You realize you have enough for a $5 abortion (not real numbers. Do not get a $5 abortion) that you wanted. I have essentially funded your abortion. You just say that you didn't use my money. You didn't if you reallocate funds. But in my view you had already allocated your $10 to food. My $10 was supposed to also go to food. I allowed you to afford the abortion. This is why people want to defund planned parenthood of they disagree with abortion. It's the same reason you boycott a company (chik fil a) because they donate to a cause you disagree with like a religious group that is anti-abortion (EDIT: I just remember it was anti-gay marriage). Any money you give them is directly funding that cause.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

You don't accidentally get pregnant.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I think you are incorrect here but I don't have any data to back that up. To your points about hormonal birth control, I think it's awful and I have never had a sexual partner use it for extended periods of time. Three of my partners used it for a month to four months. They all experienced terrible side effects and decided it wasn't worth it. I supported that decision and we used other methods which relied on me and not her. So you're right that I would never subject myself to that But I don't think anyone should. I would absolutely take risug and I think there are a large number of other men who would as well.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Stop debating abortion. Get back to arguments that don't annoy me with no end.

Also follow the loophole so you don't get pregnant.

Guardiola

iTrader: (1)

I hate being this guy, but I know a few women that are in severe pain without hormonal birth control.

Birth control is not just for avoiding pregnancy, it also helps regulate the menstrual cycle. Some women are not on a regular cycle and can have their period multiple times in one month. This is more common in younger women; most grow out of it over time, but some never do. Birth control helps to set them on a regular cycle or can be used to stop their cycle altogether. The option to stop their period is often used by women with particularly painful periods. In both cases, the treatment can be stopped at anytime and the normal cycle should resume immediately (sometimes taking a month or two to stabilize).

When used in this way, it is more than just birth control. It is a medical treatment for a medical condition.

Also, for any of you that have experienced the unpredictable emotional symptoms women portray on their cycle. A good doctor can find the right medication at the right dose to help tame the hormone roller-coaster. It takes open communication and a willingness to adjust or change medications every few months, until you get it right. Most women are either unaware there are better options or are unwilling to be open about their problems.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Thanks for the info but I already knew that. I didn't say we should ban it or that it had no legitimate uses. I just meant that it is a very bad way to go about it for many women and I would never pressure someone to take it if they didn't want to.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Bravo Monk and Ryan_G. You both just summed up two arguments (developmental biology and the fungibility of money) that are near and dear to my heart. Amazing how many can't or won't grasp these arguments.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Reference to the way the conversation is often structured. The word 'aspirin' comes to mind.

The irony that folks want access to both things blocked.

Weird, isn't it?

Sure it does. Science doesn't really have the standing or tools to answer questions regarding the timeline where cells become 'human'.
This is also why most pro-choice folks are uncomfortable with the idea of late term abortions, especially if the fetus is viable. Except in rare cases where it places the mothers life at risk.

I've taken a class or ten. I'm sure my embryology skills will be back with a vengeance when I start my peds rotation.

Human cells. Not human life. Cancer cells are human cells too.
By the scientific definition, both of the two have the same amount of life.
The definition for when something becomes human is a philosophical belief, not a scientific one. Hence my reference to judeo-christian philosophy.

So is blocking access to birth control and abortion together.

Half of all implantations are spontaneously aborted and up to 15-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage by some estimates.
Anti-choice laws are often written in a way that would penalize these as well.

How does it fall into eugenics? You can't alter the gene pool if the fetus would never reach a stage where it could procreate.
Eugenics also works to control the gene pool, i.e. you artificially select desirable traits and breed for them. That's not at all how it works with most abortions. Abortion isn't performed to 'purify' or 'better' the gene pool. That's a made up definition of eugenics.

By your definition, plan B is a form of abortion.
The debate about what is human isn't a scientific one, it is a philosophical one especially one with a religious moralistic tone to it. If that wasn't the case, the divide between pro and anti choice wouldn't have the religious divide that it does.
Again, science doesn't have the tools to answer the question you're posing. You cannot empirically test humanity in this context. You're merely providing facts to suit your end result.

Every sperm and every egg have the potential to become a person. Are they human?
Half of implantations are spontaneously aborted. Is that the loss of a human life?

Because you haven't mentioned religion by name does not mean that it does not imply that it does not impact someone's system of beliefs.

We know pretty much the same about development that we did in the 60's regarding how an embryo forms and develops. We know far more about stem cells and the nitty gritty genetics of development now than we did then. Understanding homeobox genes and hedgehog doesn't magically make us more omniscient about when life begins.

I would leave that decision up to the same person when they had the ability to reason. Some folks may choose to go either way as is their right.
I appreciate your offer of making me go and commit murder, but I'd like to get a medical license some day. They don't look too fondly on that.

I also never said anything about ability to reason or being a burden. You also can't kill a person when it's just a mass of cells and not a person.
I have no issue with folks choosing to use their own belief system to guide their lives, the issue is when they use a moralistic code that is judeo-christian in origin to tell others how to live there life. Just because you never said something religious doesn't mean that it doesn't the thinking isn't derived from similar logic. Atheists can also use moralistic codes derived from judeo-christian philosophy. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

Hello incommensurability!

Embryology is annoying.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

ridethecliche, you're really doubling down on the argument that scientifically speaking, there's no difference between a fetus and a mass of cancer cells?

z31maniac

I didn't get that all. Maybe a poorly worded analogy.

Either way, neither of you is going to change each other's mind.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

That is not what I said. I said in terms of the life that those cells contain is equal.

What monk is referring to is developmental potential. He's equating the current status of cells with what they have the potential to be. Those are two different concepts.

Science doesn't really measure humanity at those levels. That isn't in the realm of science because it requires moral input from everything that I have been taught. The next leap in logic requires a moral/philosophical jump regarding what exactly constitutes human, not cellular, life. Science isn't equipped to answer that question.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Exactly right -- you're the one injecting philosophical concepts about "humanity" or the "amount" of human life or "potentiality" and things like that. You're making a politico-philosophical argument.

Is a fetus a human organism?

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Probably poorly worded analogy and you're likely right about the changing mind bit.

I did not leave this conversation thinking any less of Monk. He has every right to believe what he does. I have pretty much the same amount of respect that I did for him before this conversation. Probably more given how these conversations can devolve into ad hominem insults and other bs and this one hasn't.

That question doesn't really make sense. I also don't think a fetus meets the requirements for being an organism by the scientific definition. It's been a few decades since I've taken a biology course basic enough to play definitions, so I'd rather not make one up. But my gut response is a meek ehhhhh kinda sorta maybe?

Development potential is a scientific concept, not a philosophical one. Again, science cannot comment on the amount of humanity contained in those cells. The concept of humanity is philosophical, not scientific. We talked quite a bit about this in philosophy of science courses I took in undergrad, but again... it's been more than a decade. The work and research I do now isn't all that related to what I did then. I'm pretty happy not being in a DNA mismatch repair/enzyme kinetics lab.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Ridethecliche, stop moving the goal posts and projecting ideas on to arguments that were never made. No one in this thread mentioned banning access to both birth control and abortion. I understand these people exist but the two topics are different and we are discussing specifically the morality of abortion. Again, no one in this thread made an argument based in religion. We are talking about developmental potential as you have pointed out. You can string together a logical argument that if left alone inside of a woman a fetus will develop into a fully functional human. The only other outcome is that the fetus is not viable and dies off naturally. That's it. Either it is born or it does before birth but it can do nothing else. It is logical to then conclude that the fetus is, in fact, a person and performing an Abortion is actively distinguishing a life. You could develop a definition of person to disclose a fetus but you start entering a grey area. I could start claiming people in a vegetative state of with severe mental handicaps also fit this definition and I can kill them too. Eugenics was mentioned because people often discuss aborting a fetus with a genetic defect such as down syndrome or mental retardation. This is eugenics.

Monk

iTrader: (3)

Same.
I still think you're wrong, and I don't think you are quite grasping my argument, but I ain't mad.
At any rate, I don't have the energy for online debate, and I don't want to offend His Holiness Lars.
As long as nobody is trying to take my guns, cars, or beer, I'm good.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Okay. This would be our impasse, then. I think the accepted definition of organism is pretty straightforward, and I think determining whether a fetus fits this definition is pretty straightforward as well. That's my argument in a nutshell. I don't need to parse philosophical arguments about humanity or consciousness or self-awareness or what a human being is or potentiality versus actuality or anything like that. My position is simply that a fertilized egg is, at that moment, already a living human organism, unique from any other human organism, and thus deserving of the rights and protections afforded to other human organisms.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

I just want us all to do ----. Which makes sense as we are all a bunch of gay guys.

On a serious note my GF is getting sterilized in March. So I never have to worry about this issue.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

GUNS!!!!!!! Surprised you're not dead yet, Monk. With all those guns in your home, right RTC? (End thread jack, sarcasm and trolling)

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

(I don't understand the bolded part.)

We were talking about planned parenthood. Ending federal funding to PP would essentially make them close down, which is the goal of that idea to begin with. No PP = very limited access to birth control in many places. So, that's relevant.

Again, just because someone doesn't quote scripture doesn't mean an argument doesn't take the moralistic views espoused by religion.

Your string of arguments re: logical to conclude that the fetus is a person is a logical leap. Just because something has the potential to be something else doesn't mean that's what it is. Your argument that that a fetus is a person is a gray zone in and of itself.
The equality you're creating between a fetus (i.e. not a person) and someone that is old and can't function by themselves is also bizarre. The argument is that a fetus is not a person, period. Your argument is that things that were once people are magically not people anymore. Those things are not equivalent. Please read your first sentence and explain how you're not doing the exact thing you accuse me of doing? No one is talking about old people. It is also ethical and legal to take someone in a vegetative state off life support. That is not considered murder. If that's how you choose to define it, then I guess that's your right. This is completely unrelated, but I think that people should have a right to have a say that they may not want to stay alive if certain conditions or states are met in their life. Obviously, they'd have to be sound of mind to make the decision and should have the option to change their mind at anytime. But I digress...

Men with down syndrome are sterile afaik. It isn't eugenics because they're not adding to the gene pool downstream anyway. Those with mental retardation don't procreate in most circumstances, in fact impregnating someone that has limited understanding of what is going on around them is something I'd consider pretty unethical. So again, not really eugenics. Eugenics implies selective breeding with the mindset of controlling downstream events. I don't see how this would fit. Again, seems like a selective definition of eugenics.

A big issue with the debate is that the very definition of the thing the debate is centered around has two incommensurable arguments, which I think are both valid in some form. However the reason it's centered around choice is because one side wants their view to be enforced on the entire population.

Except PP isn't an abortion provider. They're a reproductive health and primary care health provider.
I understand the fungible argument re: PP, and agree that yeah they wouldn't be able to provide abortions if they didn't exist. So I guess it holds to some degree, but it's such a bizarre way to circumvent the system and penalize someone for doing something legal, especially when you're not targeting other agencies that may do the same thing, no?

I'm sure that people don't use protection and have sex for pleasure instead of procreation.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

I mean the data is pretty clear that guns in the home increase the risk of suicide or death (especially of children). And you're more likely to die as a result of having a gun in the house than you are of stopping an intruder with one. I think it's weird that the CDC is banned from studying something that is a public health issue.

That said, it doesn't mean that I don't like guns.

Took my GF out to a range when we were in PA visiting my folks. It was her first time.

https://www.instagram. com/p/BO6CI-qgP5El-rVdubJxV44K6Lsdp_ZsDd-hwc0/


Can't embed the link for some time, but it's a Beretta rifle. We shot a pistol first then rented it.

Link won't work. Remove the space before the 'com' to get it to work.