Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (479480)	10/21/2003 5:58:11 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

OK, when do the 'rights of humanity' confer? Well obviously at the very first moment that humanity exists – conception. Exactly: as I said, throughout vast expanses of history, and across numerous cultures and religions, this concept of "personhood" was usually equated to when the "soul" was believed to enter the body. This is all empty-headed religion. There is no soul. There is no god. Nature, what we can descry with our senses, is all that matters. Anything else, is just subjective crap. I may know it, but you may not know it. So for this discussion, we will limit ourselves strictly to what we both objectively know, existentialism notwithstanding. …some now believe [humans first exist] 'upon conception' (even before a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining). We know this objectively. A genetically complete, self-expressing human organism first exists at conception-not before and not afterward. Eh? What 'logic'? The logic of the food-chain? The physical laws of the Universe, of biochemistry? What 'logic'? That last paragraph doesn't seem 'clear' to me at all. The logic, the one and only set of biological rules that is responsible for the human animal. That logic exists as part of Nature and it is present in every single instance of humanity. It is in you and in me. It was first present in your instance when the biological contributions of your father combined with those of your mother. It was first present in my instance when the biological contributions of my father combined with those of my mother. This basic and most simple bioLOGICAL structure is the fundamental identity of all human creatures. All higher human identity (i.e. "I am a man who likes tea, not coffee") rests squarely upon it. Why [do you part ways with Tom on the nature of the ovum]? It has a full set of chromosomes.... It is not ever self-expressing as we are. That alone marks it as outside of the human family. It is but a cell and left outside of the structure described above it will always remain but a cell. It must be included within and the logical structure that marks all humans. Once that occurs, the thing that results becomes us by default. Can you state - in words - this 'human definition'? Seems like that would be an important thing to know. When I use this term, I refer to the most basic biological unit that has the same essential characteristics of all men. The most basic human biological unit is the human conceptus. Your speaking with me here is merely a complex manifestation of the self-expressing process that first began when you were conceived. Actually, I'm pretty sure we can trace our existence back in a clear unbroken line of life, all the way to the origins of life... More empty-headed faith-based religion. We will simply ignore this sort of crap. but I 'grok' what you are saying: an individual's unique existence (usually) is circumscribed by their genetic inheritance from both mother AND father... X and Y. No. This is ALWAYS the case where humans are concerned. In no case does a different logic exist that also permits humanity. What the hell is a 'self-expressing conceptus'? The very first appearance of the natural, ever self-developing, biological structure that results of and even contains the logic described previously in this post. Where there is humanity, there is this peculiar biological and naturally directed self-expression. Not true in all animal species (and scientists tell us it will not necessarily be true for all future times) but, we'll let that one stand for now. No. You will let it stand for all time. We are not talking about other animal species. We are talking about the human specie. Should scientists develop an organism that lies outside the logic described here previously, that organism will by definition fail to be human. Cloning offers no escape for you. It is mere copied humanity. Er, you mean: 'prevent a child'. No. I meant precisely what I said. Conception aims to prevent instances of humanity. A “child” can come from a dog or a goat. it comes down to how they define what is a human with civil rights. Of course, there are many different modus for contraception.... If they fail to refer to fundamental and objective biology as they define what is human, then they rely upon mere religion. And I am simply not interested in such crap. [It is not true that all humans depend upon the reality that contraception aims to prohibit] Think even more fundamentally than you do currently. Think of yourself and try to imagine the complete chain of events that led to your existence – include the physical, even the very biological context in which that event chain took place. You depend upon the existence of that reality. But contraception, had it been employed in your case, would have aimed to prohibit a part of the reality that led to you. In this philosophical sense, it is anti-you. Since contraception logically applies to a part of a reality upon which every single human depends, it is philosophically anti-human. By you own argument: anything that threatened the continuation of our species (snip) … Hopefully you now see you missed my point here. If an act represents hostility to human biological identity (as described above), no one has a natural right to force any human to accept it in any way whatsoever. That is why it is a sin against nature to force anyone to pay for contraception. You may contracept. I may contracept. But since contraception is objectively a philosophical negation of human identity, no one has a right to force anyone else to take any part of it at all. So, you do not imbue an implanted early stage fertilized egg (a blastocyte) with full rights of 'humanhood' or 'citizenship'? If the human egg is fertilized (i.e. exists according to the structure previously mentioned), then it is human whether it is implanted or not. Should Nature fail to allow implantation, that is quite another thing. But we sin against our own identity, murdering own character when we actually cause the failure as often occurs in abortion.