Why is [conception the obvious first point of humanity]? Why not pick any of the other - I'd argue even more 'obvious' possible points of demarcation.... such as: birth, quickening, etc.?
Because all of these other allegedly "more obvious" points of demarcation are but the continuous non-spatial result of the self-expresssing logic that first exists at conception. To arbitrarily pick these other points of demarcation as the beginning of humanity is to completely ignore the obvious human expression upon which these points are predicated. That expression begins at conception - and not before. All human expression subsequent to that first expression is but the continual result of the character that comes into being at conception. Conception is the objective beginning of all instances of humanity.
I'd argue that [the conceptus] isn't all that 'complete' is it hasn't even implanted to draw sustenance yet, as not differenciated cells yet. That hardly sounds 'complete'!
And your 2 month old has not yet learned to open the fridge and eat. So she isn't complete either. (Dear me, playa. Try to think DEEPLY here) Implantation is mere human expression that occurs as a result of the chracter that began at conception - not before. Without conception, implantation is meaningless. But without implantation, conception yet has meaning. Through the conceptus, the logic of a particular instance of humanity yet exists with us in space-time even without implantation, despite that it may not survive for 70 years. It is us in a nutshell, the very first logical position where "us" comes into being. All humanity consists of the compounding self-expression that begins right there.
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.
My goodness man. There is not a shred of mysticism here. I simply expected you would be able to read between the friggin' lines. Not every friggin' thing can be simply "written down" in a goofy forum called SI (sheesh!). The logic of man is comprised of everything we know about the human genomic structure, everything we know about microbiological structure as it pertains to the human organic machine, everything we know about the structure of human cells, the requiste bipolarity for sexual reproduction, the effects of gravity upon the structural development of sperm, and undoubtedly stuff we haven't even yet begun to investigate. The complete logic exists quite obviously. Nature uses it time and again to produce self-replicating humans. I unfortunately lack the skills to simply "write down" the math that completely describes man. But that math exists and it first gains physical expression in the form of the human conceptus.
Not scientifically true [the the ovum is not self-expressing as we are]. It can be. In much of nature this is possible, and in the near term future it will also be possible with humanity.
Once again, ovums do not self-express as humans do. They do not of themselves seek and acquire nutrients as we do, compounding expression until death. They are but expressions of some other self-expressing human, sent forth to potentially combine with the bipolar expression of some other human to create a unique, self-expressing human organism.
LOL!!!! Hardly!
I am absolutely correct here.
We are all 'just cells'.
Correct! But we are not "just cells" in the same way the ovum is just a cell. We are not all "just cells" in the same way dogs are "just cells." Our logic is quite radically different than that which exists in dogs and in isolated ovums.
It has PLENTY of 'human logic' internal to it!
Indeed yes. But that human logic is incomplete, the mere expression of a complete human. Ovums simply are not self-expressing into ever developing humanity. They are ovums and left to their natural existence will ever remain ovums till death. They are not one of us. They are mere expressions of us, like books, mathematical formulae, automobiles and hair.
And, [instances of humanity develop] by chance.
I am not at all prepared to stand so firmly on this point. Chance? When we drop a feather in the wind, does it flutter a certain way by chance? I think not. There are myriad forces, each of which possibly can be quantified, acting on the feather a certain way to cause it to fall as it does. We merely need to have a profound understanding of these forces and the ability to manipulate them so that the feather falls precisely the same way every time we release it. Chance is quite possibly another word for "Ignorance."
What the HELL is a 'conceptus'?
hyperdictionary.com
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.
Revisit this closely. It has an embarrassing flaw in its symmetry (hint. "I" here is a BIG problem). There is no fact here at all. It is all ridiculous religion. Friggin' stupid CRAP!
<G> I'd prefer that you learn to answer it... but each to his own....
It ain't even worth my typing this sentence in response to it, so certifiably crappy it is.
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.
You here simply ignore the conceptus because of its incipiency. And that is just irrational, arbitrary religious crap. To be accurate, you absolutely must account for the character upon which all humanity depends. That character first appears in space-time with us and as one of us - at conception.
What the hell is a 'self-expressing conceptus'?
hyperdictionary.com
Er... samll note here... you never actually described your 'logic'.
That is because I assumed you would understand that describing it here is just inappropriate. We at least should understand together that the logic exists. I simply referred to it assuming you would at least agree here without my having to drag your ass to it as if you were some stupid kindergartener!
Ah, by 'conceptus', you mean 'species'.
hyperdictionary.com
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?)
hyperdictionary.com
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...
Well then go out and mate with a friggin' fish, since you are not that biologically different from one. (sheesh, maan. You are making me very angry. I'm not kidding here.)
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.
Indeed, and merely because some of us are at different stages of the human developmental continuum by no means at all support the notion that some of us are not "us." Merely because your daughter is now a conceptus by no means gives you the natural right to declare her less human than your two-year-old tricycle-riding son. And merely because two-year-old cannot build space-shuttles by no means gives you the natural right to declare him less human than your oldest space-shuttle-building daughter. All of us are One Thing. We are One Human Thing, from conception to the grave.
No [contraception, had it been employed in my case, would NOT have aimed to prohibit a part of the reality that led to me]. 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.
We need a definition in terms. By reality here, I mean the sum total of all existence as it relates to you. You are now a fact of reality and now I must consider you in all my dealings on this issue. What does contraception mean to you as a philosophical value (not as a practical value)? Considering that a reality has led to you, had contraception been used amidst that reality you would have been prevented. In that philosophical sense then, it is anti-you. Indeed, it is anti-everyone in that sense - which is why no natural right exists to demand its tolerance. But because it is not practically anti-anyone, we cannot arrogate to ourselves a right to force anyone not to do it.
More like 'prevent me'... :) Of course, there would have been no understanding of 'me', since there had never been a 'me'.
Yes. This is practically true. But I must consider your philosophical reality and relate it to contraception as a value in nature. It is philosophically contrary to you simply because it is contrary to the process in reality upon which all humans depend.
[Contraception is 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
The philosophical principle is the issue here. The principle is anti-human whether for one or many. It may not literally result in human extermination, but only because enough humans likely will understand it as philosophcally hostile to humankind. Because of this very real philosophical threat, we have no right to force its toleration, though some may engage in it if they wish.
[I will see your point] Only if you make a point...
Look to your head. There it is in all its ill-gotten glory.
ALL taxes force people to pay for things they don't want to. To be a 'sin', it must violate your religious laws.
Lord. Can't you for once try to keep religion out of things? DANG! I use the word "sin" here as shorthand for "contrary to the pattern inherent in nature." Can't you give me just one friggin' break here. I mean DANG guy! You demand I write down the entire friggin' mathematical formula for man and you ain't even letting me have once sloppy reference to natural contradiction. It's just stupid! Now come on, and stop all this crap.
I disagree. I believe [contraception] is merely an extension of our control over the physical environment.
Well hell, we control the physical environment when we murder fokes. So obviously there is something missing here in your little stupid determination. You have failed to consider the compatibility of our actions with the logical patterns inherent in nature. This is a very common failure of liberals. To them, if a baby gets in the way of their going out on the town, they just have it sucked out of the womb and thrown in the trash.
You didn't actually answer the question asked....
I most certainly did. I only want you to connect the dots so you can better understand the thing. Tired of telling your behind EVERY little thing...
I'm leaving right now for a trip. Won't be back for a bit. So I won't really get to your comments in response to this post. I'm bored with them anyway. |
