3 ms·

> I am not talking about beneficial side affects like pleasure. It is my understanding that the we evolved from asexual to sexual beings not for pleasure but fo

• _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Well, sexual reproduction was invented by rather primitive organisms around two billion years ago, but evolution hasn't stood still since then. I didn't say otherwise. >If you think things like pleasure are mere beneficial side effects, you don't understand much about people either singly or in groups (how do you explain married couples who choose to remain childless?). I don't get what you mean? People can attempt to separate sex from procreation and take steps to try and stop it from happening. I didn't say otherwise. >You might look into bonobo chimpanzees, for whom sex has an even more central social role than for humans. Nothing you are saying contradicts what I am saying. I think you are getting things backwards. The reason why sex is pleasurable or increases social standing or whatever else is to encourage procreation. Sex did not come about for pleasure but for procreation. >Many conservatives would agree with you, but many of those would then start defining rape very restrictively Since you can see the future can you tell me the winning lotto numbers? >Hmm. I'm not sure what blood type has to do with it, and you've somewhat sidestepped the issue of when you think a fertilized egg becomes a human Some people deny that a fetus is a distinct individual from the mother. No different than a tumor. A different blood type shows it is different than a tumor. A human doesn't have two different blood types. > You just use the term "fetus". Correct. I will sometimes use baby, but it can be ambiguous for people who deny a fetus is a baby. Using fetus makes it clear we are talking about a preborn baby. I think it can have a dehumanizing effect so I am not a huge fan of it though. >Do you believe a fertilized egg immediately becomes a human deserving of rights, or is there some additional grace period or precondition such as successful implantation into the wall of the uterus? I believe at conception it is a distinct human which should have all human rights. I don't think the location or size of the human determines if a human is a human. >I was more thinking that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to forbid abortion if they don't allow comprehensive sex-ed, rather than preconditioning abortion on the lack of it.:-/ I think you are generalizing conservatives. In the US you have an option of proabortion with sex ed or antiabortion without sex end. I would also say that if you talked about the basics and didn't go to far, like what happens in the same places you would have support from the majority of conservatives. I think the majority of conservatives just don't trust the government to handle this properly. >What do you think of medically preventing fertilization That is not abortion. I think the majority of prolifers have no issues with it. >preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (eg. hormones such as Levonorgestrel, also known as Plan-B)? This is abortion and should be treated equally.
  • webmaven 4y ago
    Wow. Well, if you're going to define both abortion and human so expansively, I can't say I have much sympathy for your position. What about all the extra fertilized eggs produced via IVF? Do you think the ones not selected for implantation are "aborted" as well? Cloning of human cell lines for various purposes (especially therapeutic) is going to throw a monkey wrench into your definitions, with "humans" flushed down the drain wholesale every day, as a matter of course.
    • _-david-_ 4y ago
      >Well, if you're going to define both abortion and human so expansively, I can't say I have much sympathy for your position. If you are going to define human is limited, I can't say I have much sympathy for your position. It is dehumanizing and absolutely frightening. >What about all the extra fertilized eggs produced via IVF? Do you think the ones not selected for implantation are "aborted" as well? Yes. >Cloning of human cell lines for various purposes (especially therapeutic) is going to throw a monkey wrench into your definitions, with "humans" flushed down the drain wholesale every day, as a matter of course. I don't believe random cells are humans. Please stop (deliberately?) straw-manning millions of people's beliefs. You sound like the people who say prolifers think masturbation is the same as abortion. Just stop. This conversation is not going anywhere and is a waste of time. We have such fundamental difference on what is a human that any higher level conversation is a waste.
      • webmaven 4y ago
        > I don't believe random cells are humans. Please stop (deliberately?) straw-manning millions of people's beliefs. What makes a pluripotent stem cell not a human? If implanted, it would basically grow into one. With more research it could probably be implanted into an artificial womb instead. There is no difference between a clump of cloned cells and a clump of cells originating from a fertilized egg, except some incidental details like methylation that aren't essential and can be reset as needed. Growing cloned organs and tissues for transplanting isn't all that far away. Pretty soon the ultra wealthy will pay to grow entire bodies to transplant their brain into. They may not wait for the additional research necessary to grow clones without a neocortex. So personally, I am worrying a lot more about regulating the things we allow cells to be grown into than about giving the clumps of cells rights depending on the exact methodology of their origin. And that's still just considering cells that are sourced solely from humans.