"Women are Hosts"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,882
    I have always tried to reason with the pro-lifers and understand their argument, they simply believe it is murder, and that no one has a right to murder... but this, this I can't defend:



    http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/oklahoma-anti-abortion-lawmaker-says-women-are-hosts.html

    So lets break this down: the women needs the permission of the man to get an abortion, why? because she is the "host" (would it not be hostess?).

    So anyone willing to try to make sense of this, understand his argument, because I give up.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If you look at the definition of life, a fertilized ovum satisfies all the science criteria used to define life.

    Life is organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fertilized ovum does all these things.

    The irony is the religious people have science on their side, while the pro-abortion people, who claim to be more educated have a subjective political philosophy on their side. The religious are painted as hayseeds, who don't know science, yet religion is based on a science position.

    The science definition has nothing to do with being conscious, since that would mean single cells are not alive. The definition used by science includes single cells but not virus. The fertilized ovum satisfies the definition of life as defined by science. Abortion is based on pseudo-science sold as science.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,569
    So.... life begins at fertilization and ends at birth?
    The same people who oh-so-fervently defend the unborn are ever so careless of the babies and children they mandate into the world - as well as the babies and children they bomb, shell, gas and starve all over the world. If I ever see conservatives stating to take care of life, I'll start taking their concern seriously. Until then, it's just another pose; just another means of promoting slavery.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,738
    life
    \ˈlīf\
    noun
    • : the ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks
    Mirriam-Webster

    While a fertilized ovum does grow and change it does not have the capability of reproduction

    I am not sure Science has definitive position on LIFE

    Various science disaplines will hold various views about life which while being different will not be in conflict

    No they don't

    See previous section this post

    I grant much of the views are social I doubt a politics as such has a collective philosophical view

    Again not sure Science has a definitive view

    A virus is alive

    I think is more on social issues

    I doubt if anybody can make a Scientific case for or against abortion

    Religion - science - politics should all leave it to the person concerned and the attending Medical personnel along with social groups as needed

    And refrain from any judgement

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,796
    And yet, pro-life people are fine with eating meat, killing insects, with the death penalty, taking anti-biotics.. In other words, they are fine with ending actual life.

    Irony indeed..

    And no, religious people do not have science on their side. Their position is hardly scientific.

    They demand that protection be denied to an actual life and person, that of the mother's, to give to a potential for life. Because I can assure you, pregnancy is not a certainty and most end up in a pad or on a tampon without the woman being aware she was even pregnant.

    What you and others like you argue, is that women have no rights to their own bodies.

    Which is perverted and obscene.

    And just so you know, your definition of "life" would exclude people who have metabolic disorders, who due to certain conditions, are unable to respond to stimuli and those who cannot reproduce. According to your ridiculous definition, large portions of the human population are not alive or qualified to be classified as "life"..
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,636
    Why distinguish a fertilized ovum from an unfertilized ovum and a random sperm? What happens to make "life" magically happen when they join?

    A fertilized ovum may have the "capacity" for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction but it can't do any of those things on its own. It's a part of the woman's body, just like it was before fertilization. It's a part of her body like a mole, which she may or may not want to have removed.
     
  10. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,792
    Again not sure Science has a definitive view

    A virus is alive


    Religion - science - politics should all leave it to the person concerned and the attending Medical personnel along with social groups as needed


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [/QUOTE]

    How do you define " A virus is a live ?
    Virus can sit for ages , without replication equipment of a cell is dead like a rock.
    " leave it to the medical personnel " you are stretching yourself a little to far Children and animals are born without need of medical personnel, and the world have survived long time , medical personnel is a luxury of the advanced society.
     
  11. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,738
    How do you define " A virus is a live ?
    Virus can sit for ages , without replication equipment of a cell is dead like a rock.
    " leave it to the medical personnel " you are stretching yourself a little to far Children and animals are born without need of medical personnel, and the world have survived long time , medical personnel is a luxury of the advanced society.[/QUOTE]

    When a virus is without a host, it is considered dormant. When the virus is dormant, no biological activity is taking place, which makes it non-living. A virus without a host is called a "virion." Once the virus finds an appropriate host, however, the biological processes become active and it is considered living. When it has found a host and comes alive, it is then officially a virus. This is the stage in which it replicates.

    https://googleweblight.com/?lite_ur...091431&sig=AJsQQ1CTGCCPzBGxkkEu5FtV5obGTHgMaQ

    They are not dead as in Dodo dead or as a rock dead

    Dormant some part of their life cycle

    Replacating inside a host during the other part

    Virus also can be infected with another viruses

    Alive

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,792
    When a virus is without a host, it is considered dormant. When the virus is dormant, no biological activity is taking place, which makes it non-living. A virus without a host is called a "virion." Once the virus finds an appropriate host, however, the biological processes become active and it is considered living. When it has found a host and comes alive, it is then officially a virus. This is the stage in which it replicates.

    https://googleweblight.com/?lite_ur...091431&sig=AJsQQ1CTGCCPzBGxkkEu5FtV5obGTHgMaQ
    e

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [/QUOTE]
    You can call it viron or an other name you please , but it is a plain chemical chain that will not act . A sperm or ovo is also a one strand chemical , but it will produce life a virus will multiply itself until it kills the host.
     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,738
    Would you agree a virion is NOT dead like a Dodo or a chunk of rock?

    ie you can put a tiny tiny hunk of rock inside a cell and the hunk of rock will not replicate

    So I consider the virion to be just a stage of the life cycle of a virus

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,792
    Ok I accept.
     
  15. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    At the risk of being slightly off-topic . . . . . Yours: "And just so you know, your definition of "life" would exclude people who have metabolic disorders, who due to certain conditions, are unable to respond to stimuli and those who cannot reproduce. According to your ridiculous definition, large portions of the human population are not alive or qualified to be classified as "life". . . . . .Mine: I Agree . . . if you include liberal wackos as large 'portions of the human population'! (HAHAHA! . . . just kidding!).
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    I'm actually pro-choice, but I recognize that there is some validity to the pro-choice that can't just be dismissed. It's a 99% but not quite 100% completely settled issue for me.

    I think that, more level-headedly, the argument is that a woman's right to her own body does not supercede the right of a living (but unborn) person to continue to live.

    Every cell of our body is alive. Living tissue, in and of-itself, has no rights. What has rights attached to it is a person. Only a fertilized ovum is sufficient to become a person.


    IMO, pro-lifers and pro-choicers have only a single point of contention, and that is the judgment of when a group of cells is, by any meaningful definition, a person, and therefore acquires human rights.

    For pro-lifers, it is at conception.
    For pro-choicers, it is at birth.
     
  17. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,470
    Finaly we disagree on somptin... i thank a woman shoud have the right to abort the baby at any time.!!!
     
  18. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,738
    Yes it does

    As I understand the law unborn has no rights

    Some places do have laws which punish the termination of unborn

    But that is for the trauma of the mother

    Illegal abortion punishment is more for putting the mothers life in danger

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    IMO, the practical matters can only be discussed once we, as a people, come to terms with the principle at the crux of the issue.

    To me, it seems that the crux is: when does a bunch of cells become a person - a person that has its own rights that may conflict with another's?

    Somewhere in that 38 week span.
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,882
    SO no one is going to defend this "women are host" argument?

    I disagree, personhood is not the problem, it is who gets what rights over whom. We all agree a child has less rights then an adult, that the adult guardian has rights over the child, so why can't we say that a fetus does not even have a right to life or that its right to life does not take supremacy over the wishes of the (usually adult) person who is growing it? In short we already grant varying degrees of personhood, so what wrong with the limited rights we grant to a fetus.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    Before that can even happen, it must first be established whether or not both even have rights.


    If it were to not even have the right to live, then that is not limited rights, that is zero rights.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,882
    Not necessarily, for example we might say it does have the right not to be experimented on and grow to infancy to live a short deformed painful life as a science experiment. In short it has a right NOT to live.

    If your asking about the metaphyics of rights, that a whole other discussion.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    That is still a secondary right than to simply live at all.

    Giving it a label changes nothing.

    The whole issue revolves around whether or not the fetus has rights as a person. (If it didn't there would be no issue to discuss.)

    Suggesting there's a whole other discussion is the very point that I think the pro-choice stance misses/ignores.
    It's why I think there's a flaw. They talk about the mother's rights, but neglect whether the fetus has rights, because that's a hard discussion to have.

    The pro-choice stance is, in a nutshell 'a woman has a right to her own body'.
    I doubt any pro-lifers would disagree with that as-stated.
    What they disagree with is the unspoken implication:
    'a woman has a right to her own body more than a growing fetus has the right to live'.
     

Share This Page