Long piece, interesting answers... so let's see:
< OK, when do the 'rights of humanity' confer?>
Well obviously at the very first moment that humanity exists – conception.
>>> Why is that obvious? Why not pick any of the other - I'd argue even more 'obvious' possible points of demarcation.... such as: birth, quickening, etc.?
<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.
>>> Whatever....
<…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.
>>> I'd argue that it isn't all that 'complete' is it hasn't even implanted to draw sustenance yet, as not differenciated cells yet. That hardly sounds 'complete'! at best, it sounds like it's 'potential' is 'complete'... but even that isn't true, as much about one's 'potential' relies upon environmental factors to express themselves. If mere genetic potential was all it took to make a 'complete' human with full rights of citizenship... than what of all the fertilized ovvum that routinely - and 'naturally' - fail to imp[lant, and thus fail to grow into fetuses?
<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.
>>> If you have an actual 'logic', than you should be able to write it down in language. If you can't, then it isn't a 'logic'... it's more likely mysticism.
<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.
>>> Not scientifically true. It can be. In much of nature this is possible, and in the near term future it will also be possible with humanity.
... That alone marks it as outside of the human family.
>>> LOL!!!! Hardly!
It is but a cell and left outside of the structure described above it will always remain but a cell.
>>> We are all 'just cells'.
It must be included within and the logical structure that marks all humans.
>>> It has PLENTY of 'human logic' internal to it!
Once that occurs, the thing that results becomes us by default.
>>> And, by chance.
<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.
>>> What the HELL is a 'conceptus'? Are you a follower of Aristotle?
<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.
>>> NOT RELIGION: demonstrable science! I 'came' from two live cells which conjugated... each of which came from two live cells, and so on, and so on.... back into the mists of history. FACT.
We will simply ignore this sort of crap.
>>> <G> I'd prefer that you learn to answer it... but each to his own....
<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.
>>> Whateever. I have a more inclusive definition of 'humanity'. Among other things, I account for the various genetic inheritances we have that are NOT germ line.
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.
>>> Er... samll note here... you never actually described your 'logic'.
Where there is humanity, there is this peculiar biological and naturally directed self-expression.
>>> Ah, by 'conceptus', you mean 'species'.
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 DON'T mean species? So, WHAT THE HELL IS A CONCEPTUS? (I realize it's a 'concept'... perhaps it's a concept that can be written down?)
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.
>>> I fail to see much that is biologically unique about humans. It sounds like you are deep into a self-congratulatory cup of mystical religion here.
<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.
>>> Say WHAT? "Conception aims to prevent instances of humanity" --- is that like shooting someone aims to prevent death?
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.
>>> The social argument (with respect to pre-birth 'rights') is not about 'what is human'... but more closely focused on 'what rights shall legally appurtain at what stage of development'. We ALL go through stages of development. 'Actualization', if you will.
[It is not true that all humans depend upon the reality that contraception aims to prohibit]
>>> Eh??????????
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.
>>> No problem.
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.
>>> No. It too would have respected and employed the physical laws of the Universe, of 'reality', (it could not be otherwise). It would merely have been a choice.
In this philosophical sense, it is anti-you.
>>> More like 'prevent me'... :) Of course, there would have been no understanding of 'me', since there had never been a 'me'.
Since contraception logically applies to a part of a reality upon which every single human depends, it is philosophically anti-human.
>>> Only if ALL BIRTHS were prevented. Otherwise, the mere use of birth plaining techniques does not threaten the existence of the human species at all - not in an evolutionary sense. Actually, if birth plaining can help keep the human population from over-running it's resource base... than it is a contributor toward our survival as a species, and in your words, it may be called 'pro-human' (in the species sense).
<By you own argument: anything that threatened the continuation of our species> (snip) …
Hopefully you now see you missed my point here.
>>> Only if you make a point...
If an act represents hostility to human biological identity (as described above),
>>> As I explained above... contraception clearly does not, in and of it's self.
no one has a natural right to force any human to accept it in any way whatsoever.
>>> Never said they did.
That is why it is a sin against nature to force anyone to pay for contraception.
>>> ALL taxes force people to pay for things they don't want to. To be a 'sin', it must violate your religious laws.
You may contracept. I may contracept. But since contraception is objectively a philosophical negation of human identity,
>>> I disagree. I believe it is merely an extension of our control over the physical environment.
no one has a right to force anyone else to take any part of it at all.
>>> At least here state-side, they don't.
<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.
>>> You didn't actually answer the question asked.... |
