AI
Friday, July 05, 2013 11:38:45 PM
An anti-abortion, 'zygote is a person' personhood person .. short conversation with ..
Let me check. You believe when two gametes form a zygote a person is created?
Wha???
I mean you believe when a sperm gets into an egg, voila! a person is created.
That's right!
To check. Before fertilization of the egg by the sperm there is no person?
That's right.
So what's wrong then with a morning after pill that stops ovulation?
Wha???
I mean what's wrong then with a morning after pill that stops a female's ovary releasing an egg, or more?
Morning after pills do not do that.
You sure?
Yes.
How about this?
Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be [Are] Unfounded .. one bit ..
Later, in 2007, 2009 and 2010, researchers in Australia and Chile gave Plan B to women after determining with hormone tests which women had ovulated and which had not.
None who took the drug before ovulation became pregnant, underscoring how Plan B delays ovulation. Women who had ovulated became pregnant at the same rate as if they had taken no drug at all. In those cases, there were no difficulties with implantation, said one of the researchers, Gabriela Noé, at the Instituto Chileno de Medicina Reproductiva in Santiago. Dr. Blithe of the N.I.H., said, “No one can say that it works to inhibit implantation based on these data.”
The Evidence Grows
In 2009-10, during discussions about making Plan B available over the counter for all ages, the manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, again asked that implantation be deleted from the label. The F.D.A. again declined. Valerie Mulligan, Teva’s senior director of regulatory affairs, declined to discuss conversations about Plan B, but said, “There is quite a lot of evidence now that it doesn’t affect implantation.”
By this year, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics considered the research so strong that it issued a statement saying that pills with Plan B’s active ingredient “do not inhibit implantation.”
Research on Ella, approved in 2010, is less extensive, but the F.D.A., Dr. Blithe, and others say evidence increasingly suggests it does not derail implantation, citing, among other things, several studies in which women became pregnant when taking Ella after ovulating. The studies, focused on Ella’s effectiveness, were not designed to determine if it blocked implantation, but experts still consider them significant.
Dr. Trussell of Princeton said that if morning-after pills worked after eggs were fertilized, they would prevent pregnancy better than they do. The pregnancy prevention rates are probably lower than scientists and pill makers originally thought, he said — in some studies as low as 52 percent for Plan B and 62 percent for Ella.
By contrast, scientists say, research suggests that the only other officially approved form of emergency contraception, the copper intrauterine device (also a daily birth control method), can work to prevent pregnancy after an egg has been fertilized.
Despite the accumulating evidence, several abortion opponents said they remain unpersuaded. Dr. Harrison, director of research and public policy for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that the Plan B studies were led by “a good researcher,” but that she would prefer a study with more women and more documentation of when in their cycles they took Plan B. She added that if the studies done so far are correct, Plan B’s label should say it is ineffective after ovulation.
which is toward the bottom of this one .. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all , the NYT article linked by F6 in this one .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76703993
I'm with the last paragraph! Anyway whatever that science is doesn't matter, a zygote is living!! It's life!!!
Isn't a sperm life? Do you eat much?
What's that got to do with it?
(it slides)
Anyway, any birth control interferes with the natural function of the body. With God's way.
Do you take medicine at all? Aspirin? Vitamins?. Minerals?
What's that got to do with it?
You're kidding. Right?
Am i RIGHT!!??? Of course i am.
Figures.
.. they drift apart .. pro-lifer turns FOX on .. the other reads ..
Should Zygotes be Considered People?
Posted by Mike LaBossiere on November 18, 2011 (38) Go to comments
[ Oocyte viewed with HMC ]
Image via Wikipedia
In the United States certain Republicans have been proposing legislation that would define a zygote as a legal person. The most recent instance occurred in Mississippi when voters were given the chance to approve or reject the following: “the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” The voters rejected this, but there are other similar attempts planned or actually in the works. There are, as far as I know, no serious attempts to push person hood back before fertilization (that is, to establish eggs and sperm as being persons).
Since this is a matter of law, whether or not a zygote is a legal person or not depends on whether such a law is passed and then passes legal muster. Given that corporations are legally persons, it does not seem all that odd to have zygotes as legal people. Or whales. Or forests. There is, after all, no requirement that legal personhood be established by considered philosophical argumentation.
From a philosophical perspective, I would be inclined to stick with what seems to be the general view: zygotes are not persons. I do accept the obvious: a zygote is alive (as is an amoeba or any cell in my body), a zygote has full human DNA (as does almost any cell in my body), and a zygote has the potential to be an important part of a causal chain that leads to a human being (as does any cell in my body that could be used in cloning). However, these qualities of a zygote do not seem to be sufficient to establish it as a person. After all, the relevant qualities of the zygote seem to be duplicated by some of the cells in our bodies and it would be absurd to regard each of us as a collective of persons.
But, as I noted, the legal matter is quite distinct from the philosophical-after all, zygotes (or anything) could become legal persons with the appropriate legislation. This leads to a point well worth considering, namely the consequences of such a law.
The most obvious would be that abortion and certain forms of birth control (such as IUDs and the “morning after” pill) would certainly seem to be legally murder. After all, they would involve the intentional (and possibly pre-meditated) murder of a legal person. This is, of course, one of the main intended consequences of such attempts. However, there would seem to be other consequences as well.
One rather odd consequence would be in regards to occupancy laws and regulations. These tend to be set by the number of persons present and unless laws are written to allow exemptions for zygotes, etc. then this would be a point of legal concern. This seems absurd, which is, of course, the point.
Another potential consequence is the matter of deductions for dependents. If a zygote is a person, then a frozen zygote is still a person and presumably the child of the parent(s). This would, unless specific laws are written to prevent this, seem to allow people to claim frozen zygotes as dependent children and thus take a tax deduction for each one. While the cost of creating and freezing zygotes would be a factor, the tax deductions would seem to be well worth it. Perhaps this is the secret agenda behind such legislation: people could avoid taxes by having enough zygotes in the freezer.
Of course a “zygotes are people” law might also entail that it would be illegal to freeze zygotes on the grounds that they would be confined or imprisoned without consent or due process. Naturally, laws would need to be written for this and they would also need to be worded so as to avoid making “imprisoning” a zygote in the womb a crime. There is also the matter of in vitro fertilization and whether or not certain processes would thus be outlawed by the “zygotes are people” law. After all, some of the zygotes created do not survive. If these zygotes are people, IVF could be regarded as involving, if not murder, at least some sort homicide or zygoteslaughter. Of course, outlawing such practices seems to be one of the intended consequences of these proposed laws.
Another point of concern is the matter of death certificates. After all, the death of a person requires a certificate and the usual legal proceedings. If a zygote were to be a legal person, then it would seem to follow that if a zygote died, then the death would need to be properly recorded and perhaps investigated to determine if a crime were committed. Naturally, specific laws could be written regarding various circumstances (for example, should women have to report every zygote that fails to implant-thus resulting in the death of a person). Perhaps the state would need to set up womb cameras or some other detector to monitor the creation of these new people so as to ensure that no death of a person goes unreported.
One rather interesting consequence is that such a law might set the precedent that any cell that could be cloned would count as a person (after all, as argued above, it would seem to share the relevant qualities of a zygote and the law in question mentioned cloning or any functional equivalent). This would have some rather bizarre consequences.
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=3579
.. bit later, catching a time during FOX News when the watcher seems less absorbed than 'normal', this is put ..
Didja know .. birth control leads to fewer zygotes flushed out than would occur in a naturally functioning woman's body .. so, fewer zygotes destroyed should, in your personhood mind, be seen as less murders .. and banning abortions, does not cut the number of abortions .. it simply leads to more dangerous abortions .. birth control cuts abortions .. and greater availability for any desired makes them less dangerous .. so your position really is one of ..
"The Ultimate Hypocrisy"
Reading Sarah and Fred’s articles and then thinking them through and doing some research made me realize that those in the pro-life movement, or at least the leaders of the pro-life movement, are incredibly inconsistent. You simply can’t be against the pill for fear that it will result in flushed out zygotes and yet not concerned at all about the vastly greater number of zygotes flushed out naturally every day. At least, not if you really truly believe a zygote has the same worth as an infant, toddler, or adult, and not if you’re truly motivated solely by a desire to save the lives of these “unborn babies.” Fresh off of these thoughts, I came upon two news articles on the subject in the last week that have completely shattered the last bit of faith I had in the pro-life movement.
about two thirds down in How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81362560
Beeeewwwwaaaaaaahhhhhh! All that stuff is rubbish. Fox News is more real.
.. the other goes out for fresh air ..
Let me check. You believe when two gametes form a zygote a person is created?
Wha???
I mean you believe when a sperm gets into an egg, voila! a person is created.
That's right!
To check. Before fertilization of the egg by the sperm there is no person?
That's right.
So what's wrong then with a morning after pill that stops ovulation?
Wha???
I mean what's wrong then with a morning after pill that stops a female's ovary releasing an egg, or more?
Morning after pills do not do that.
You sure?
Yes.
How about this?
Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be [Are] Unfounded .. one bit ..
Later, in 2007, 2009 and 2010, researchers in Australia and Chile gave Plan B to women after determining with hormone tests which women had ovulated and which had not.
None who took the drug before ovulation became pregnant, underscoring how Plan B delays ovulation. Women who had ovulated became pregnant at the same rate as if they had taken no drug at all. In those cases, there were no difficulties with implantation, said one of the researchers, Gabriela Noé, at the Instituto Chileno de Medicina Reproductiva in Santiago. Dr. Blithe of the N.I.H., said, “No one can say that it works to inhibit implantation based on these data.”
The Evidence Grows
In 2009-10, during discussions about making Plan B available over the counter for all ages, the manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, again asked that implantation be deleted from the label. The F.D.A. again declined. Valerie Mulligan, Teva’s senior director of regulatory affairs, declined to discuss conversations about Plan B, but said, “There is quite a lot of evidence now that it doesn’t affect implantation.”
By this year, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics considered the research so strong that it issued a statement saying that pills with Plan B’s active ingredient “do not inhibit implantation.”
Research on Ella, approved in 2010, is less extensive, but the F.D.A., Dr. Blithe, and others say evidence increasingly suggests it does not derail implantation, citing, among other things, several studies in which women became pregnant when taking Ella after ovulating. The studies, focused on Ella’s effectiveness, were not designed to determine if it blocked implantation, but experts still consider them significant.
Dr. Trussell of Princeton said that if morning-after pills worked after eggs were fertilized, they would prevent pregnancy better than they do. The pregnancy prevention rates are probably lower than scientists and pill makers originally thought, he said — in some studies as low as 52 percent for Plan B and 62 percent for Ella.
By contrast, scientists say, research suggests that the only other officially approved form of emergency contraception, the copper intrauterine device (also a daily birth control method), can work to prevent pregnancy after an egg has been fertilized.
Despite the accumulating evidence, several abortion opponents said they remain unpersuaded. Dr. Harrison, director of research and public policy for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that the Plan B studies were led by “a good researcher,” but that she would prefer a study with more women and more documentation of when in their cycles they took Plan B. She added that if the studies done so far are correct, Plan B’s label should say it is ineffective after ovulation.
which is toward the bottom of this one .. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all , the NYT article linked by F6 in this one .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76703993
I'm with the last paragraph! Anyway whatever that science is doesn't matter, a zygote is living!! It's life!!!
Isn't a sperm life? Do you eat much?
What's that got to do with it?
(it slides)
Anyway, any birth control interferes with the natural function of the body. With God's way.
Do you take medicine at all? Aspirin? Vitamins?. Minerals?
What's that got to do with it?
You're kidding. Right?
Am i RIGHT!!??? Of course i am.
Figures.
.. they drift apart .. pro-lifer turns FOX on .. the other reads ..
Should Zygotes be Considered People?
Posted by Mike LaBossiere on November 18, 2011 (38) Go to comments
[ Oocyte viewed with HMC ]
Image via Wikipedia
In the United States certain Republicans have been proposing legislation that would define a zygote as a legal person. The most recent instance occurred in Mississippi when voters were given the chance to approve or reject the following: “the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” The voters rejected this, but there are other similar attempts planned or actually in the works. There are, as far as I know, no serious attempts to push person hood back before fertilization (that is, to establish eggs and sperm as being persons).
Since this is a matter of law, whether or not a zygote is a legal person or not depends on whether such a law is passed and then passes legal muster. Given that corporations are legally persons, it does not seem all that odd to have zygotes as legal people. Or whales. Or forests. There is, after all, no requirement that legal personhood be established by considered philosophical argumentation.
From a philosophical perspective, I would be inclined to stick with what seems to be the general view: zygotes are not persons. I do accept the obvious: a zygote is alive (as is an amoeba or any cell in my body), a zygote has full human DNA (as does almost any cell in my body), and a zygote has the potential to be an important part of a causal chain that leads to a human being (as does any cell in my body that could be used in cloning). However, these qualities of a zygote do not seem to be sufficient to establish it as a person. After all, the relevant qualities of the zygote seem to be duplicated by some of the cells in our bodies and it would be absurd to regard each of us as a collective of persons.
But, as I noted, the legal matter is quite distinct from the philosophical-after all, zygotes (or anything) could become legal persons with the appropriate legislation. This leads to a point well worth considering, namely the consequences of such a law.
The most obvious would be that abortion and certain forms of birth control (such as IUDs and the “morning after” pill) would certainly seem to be legally murder. After all, they would involve the intentional (and possibly pre-meditated) murder of a legal person. This is, of course, one of the main intended consequences of such attempts. However, there would seem to be other consequences as well.
One rather odd consequence would be in regards to occupancy laws and regulations. These tend to be set by the number of persons present and unless laws are written to allow exemptions for zygotes, etc. then this would be a point of legal concern. This seems absurd, which is, of course, the point.
Another potential consequence is the matter of deductions for dependents. If a zygote is a person, then a frozen zygote is still a person and presumably the child of the parent(s). This would, unless specific laws are written to prevent this, seem to allow people to claim frozen zygotes as dependent children and thus take a tax deduction for each one. While the cost of creating and freezing zygotes would be a factor, the tax deductions would seem to be well worth it. Perhaps this is the secret agenda behind such legislation: people could avoid taxes by having enough zygotes in the freezer.
Of course a “zygotes are people” law might also entail that it would be illegal to freeze zygotes on the grounds that they would be confined or imprisoned without consent or due process. Naturally, laws would need to be written for this and they would also need to be worded so as to avoid making “imprisoning” a zygote in the womb a crime. There is also the matter of in vitro fertilization and whether or not certain processes would thus be outlawed by the “zygotes are people” law. After all, some of the zygotes created do not survive. If these zygotes are people, IVF could be regarded as involving, if not murder, at least some sort homicide or zygoteslaughter. Of course, outlawing such practices seems to be one of the intended consequences of these proposed laws.
Another point of concern is the matter of death certificates. After all, the death of a person requires a certificate and the usual legal proceedings. If a zygote were to be a legal person, then it would seem to follow that if a zygote died, then the death would need to be properly recorded and perhaps investigated to determine if a crime were committed. Naturally, specific laws could be written regarding various circumstances (for example, should women have to report every zygote that fails to implant-thus resulting in the death of a person). Perhaps the state would need to set up womb cameras or some other detector to monitor the creation of these new people so as to ensure that no death of a person goes unreported.
One rather interesting consequence is that such a law might set the precedent that any cell that could be cloned would count as a person (after all, as argued above, it would seem to share the relevant qualities of a zygote and the law in question mentioned cloning or any functional equivalent). This would have some rather bizarre consequences.
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=3579
.. bit later, catching a time during FOX News when the watcher seems less absorbed than 'normal', this is put ..
Didja know .. birth control leads to fewer zygotes flushed out than would occur in a naturally functioning woman's body .. so, fewer zygotes destroyed should, in your personhood mind, be seen as less murders .. and banning abortions, does not cut the number of abortions .. it simply leads to more dangerous abortions .. birth control cuts abortions .. and greater availability for any desired makes them less dangerous .. so your position really is one of ..
"The Ultimate Hypocrisy"
Reading Sarah and Fred’s articles and then thinking them through and doing some research made me realize that those in the pro-life movement, or at least the leaders of the pro-life movement, are incredibly inconsistent. You simply can’t be against the pill for fear that it will result in flushed out zygotes and yet not concerned at all about the vastly greater number of zygotes flushed out naturally every day. At least, not if you really truly believe a zygote has the same worth as an infant, toddler, or adult, and not if you’re truly motivated solely by a desire to save the lives of these “unborn babies.” Fresh off of these thoughts, I came upon two news articles on the subject in the last week that have completely shattered the last bit of faith I had in the pro-life movement.
about two thirds down in How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81362560
Beeeewwwwaaaaaaahhhhhh! All that stuff is rubbish. Fox News is more real.
.. the other goes out for fresh air ..
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
