Saturday, August 2, 2014

Zygotes and Sprouts

Another comment that can't make it through the MinnPost moderation for some reason.
MinnPost Contraceptive Coverage Controversy

I was getting frustrated with Jason's views:
 "I couldn't care less about this fertilized egg nonsense nor the religious rights scientific ignorance. If they want to place a valid objection based on when a fertilized egg becomes a human or if soul exists, then they should prove both of those theories, otherwise, it holds no more validity than believing a giant bunny visits my house every April and leaves plastic eggs filled with candy for my kids." Jason

and then Todd added in:
"Joking aside, some religious people think that human life begins at conception. This is totally arbitrary on their part though and is not support by scientific literature. That's why we have names for the different stages of development, from embryo to zygote, fetus, and so on. A baby isn't actually a bay until it's born. An embryo has the *potential* to become a human, but that doesn't happen till later in the process.

If we're tackling humans from the potential point of view, then an unfertilized egg has the same potential as a fertilized egg. Not only eggs, but sperm too." Todd

So then this occurred to me.
"Just back from Guardians of the Galaxy, it was very good if you like comic book movies. One of the characters was a plant based life form named Groot.

That got me thinking... Is a plant alive once it starts to sprout?
If one chooses not to water it, is one choosing to kill it"?
If one chooses to dig it up and set it on the hot asphalt is one choosing to kill it? 

By the way, I just sprayed a bunch of weeds with Round Up to kill them and it didn't bother me at all.

And some I pulled and left on the hot rocks in order to kill them.

Thoughts?" G2A
And yes I acknowledge that Roe V Wade compromised between the 2 extremes and created the concept of viability, which makes some sense.  What I find fascinating is that some pro-choice folks want to treat those growing cells with the same importance as a wart that someone has growing on their finger.  I always have to wonder if they do this to protect themselves from the reality that what they are choosing to kill could develop into a beautiful laughing and vibrant child.

I mean when I choose to kill a small seedling that sprouted in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I do envision the beautiful maple tree it could grow into, just like the others I have in my yard.  I don't need to rationalize that it is just a wart in my yard before killing it.  And yes I am choosing to kill that tree.  After I am done spraying it or pulling it, it stops growing and ceases to live.  It will never develop into the majestic tree that it could have been.

By the way, usually it is the male commenters that work to marginalize the death that is occurring when a zygote, etc is starved or dehydrated and its growth/ life ceases.  The women usually stick to defending their right to choose, so maybe they understand better the magnitude of the decision.


Tree Life Cycle
Human Life Cycle


John said...

FYI. I just noticed that I used the word "weed". And I think I should give the farm boy definition...

"A plant out of place"

Many of the "weeds" I killed would have been beautiful somewhere other than in my lawn and patio.

We used to kill beautiful wild roses in the soybean fields when I was young, because they were a plant out of place.

Laurie said...

If an employee uses part of her salary to get an abortion has her employer paid for her abortion?

If a person's compensation is part salary part benefits, including health insurance, isn't it up to the employee to choose which treatments/medications to purchase with her insurance card.

An abortion paid for with cash or an insurance card is not paid for by the employer. The employer has paid wages for someone to operate his cash register and has purchased an insurance plan plan for his employees as part of their compensation. What gives him the right to choose how an employee uses their salary or their insurance card. What's the difference?

No $ goes from the employer to the abortion provider.

Maybe Hobby Lobby employees should be required to sign sign a pledge promising not to use any of their salary to purchase birth control and agree that if they want to use contraception they will get a second job to pay for this prescription.

John said...

If what you are saying was correct, then we would not be having these court battles.

The reality is that businesses choose what and how much will be covered in the insurance policies they select and offer to their employees. The insurance companies then adjust the premium paid based on the policy that was selected.

If certain things are not covered the premiums paid will be lower. If certain things are added the premiums will be higher. Thus by offering abortion, IUD and morning after pill coverage the company will pay more and therefore will be paying for things they see as murder.

John said...

Please also remember the concept of personal property that I believe in. Once the money has been paid to the employee, it is then the employee's money. Thus they have control of how they choose to use it.

Which of course is part of why I find this to be such a silly fight. If you want a morning after pill, just go buy it.

Or better yet... Take proactive birth control steps and avoid this whole potential of fertilizing an egg in the first place.

Laurie said...

The hobby lobby decision was 5-4, so many of the justices reached the wrong conclusion, maybe the majority is wrong in this instance.

Maybe employer's should purchase an insurance plan that only covers pregnancy/child birth for married women, as long it is okay to use religious views to discriminate.

Maybe employer's should get out of providing health insurance and using it to impose their morals on their employees and just raise salaries enough so people can purchase their own plan.

jerrye92002 said...

I find it curious that those who have no understanding of religious beliefs about a soul would want "scientific proof" of the existence of such. It's just a cop-out. If a baby isn't a human until it's born, then what it is one second prior? Or during the many hours of labor? Or any time after viability? And before that, isn't it a totally unique potential human being and if not, what is it? At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, I point out that the first thing you do is to dehumanize the human you plan to kill. One needs to ask, do you have the same feelings about abortion in general as you do abortion for sex selection-- that is, it's OK to kill girl "fetuses" but not boy "fetuses"? Why the difference, if they're just "lumps of tissue"?

Laurie said...

about being prochoice - I actually disagree with much of pro life rhetoric which seems to imply no loss of developing life and the primacy of a woman's right to choose at any pt in the pregnancy.

When I did a search regarding what % of fertilized eggs implant, resulting in pregnancy (answer less than 50) I found this woman's essay whose reasoning I nearly completely agree with, even if her tone is a bit more combative than my own.

Life Begins At Conception. That’s Not the Point

I would agree with limiting abortion to the first trimester with exceptions for medical considerations. (I don't know what % of those second trimester abortions have medical considerations.)

John said...

Good point. I wonder how the liberals would react if parents decided to do genetic modification to turn their little cellular warts into a boy or girl, or to change them from gay to straight, etc.

I mean apparently Mothers can kill the cells, maybe they will be okay if Parents start modifying them.

John said...

I did find these statements from your article interesting...

"Only one person—the woman in question—has the right to decide whether, when, and under what circumstances to bring a new person into the world. And the vast majority of women who have an abortion know they are ending biological life that they can not or do not want to sustain because the commitment to an actual child is a moral commitment they are not able, willing, or ready to make, or can not make for reasons of health or life.

In the end, when you hear the phrase “life begins at conception,” remember the implications. In debating the “personhood” of eggs, embryos, and fetuses prior to viability, we are also implicitly and explicity debating the personhood of women. Because if you have no choice and control over your body, you are less than an actual person in the eyes of the law. If the right is so worried about abortion the closer a pregnancy gets to viability, then anti-choicers would be making sure both contraception and early, safe abortion were widely available. That really is not their actual concern.

The development of a potential human life requires conception as a first step. But that is not the same as either pregnancy or personhood. You can’t reduce complex reality to a slogan, and when you try to do so, you actually minimize the personhood of women."

Its is too bad that the women did not make the proactive responsible decision earlier. Like before the egg got fertilized.

Laurie said...

how do you know "that the women did not make the proactive responsible decision earlier"?

women who use contraceptives consistently and correctly throughout the course of any given year account for 5% of all unintended pregnancies.

Contraceptive Use in the United States

Maybe contraception should be more accessible to all women, like included in health insurance plans.

John said...

I agree that birth control is not perfect. Though according to your link 95% of unintended pregnancies occur to women who are not using it or who are using it incorrectly.

"When used correctly, modern contraceptives are very or extremely effective at preventing pregnancy. The two-thirds of U.S. women (68%) at risk of unintended pregnancy who use contraceptives consistently and correctly throughout the course of any given year account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies. The 18% of women at risk who use contraceptives but do so inconsistently account for 41% of unintended pregnancies, while the 14% of women at risk who do not use contraceptives at all or have a gap in use of one month or longer account for 54%."

Please remember that not even Hobby Lobby was not against the pill, patch, etc.

I thought this was an interesting stat. Apparently some is paying for the B/C, since the usage is nearly identical.

"Ninety-two percent of at-risk women with incomes of 300% or more of the federal poverty level are currently using contraceptives, compared with 89% among those living at 0–149% of the poverty line."

Good source.

jerrye92002 said...

John said, "In debating the “personhood” of eggs, embryos, and fetuses prior to viability, we are also implicitly and explicity debating the personhood of women."

No, we're not, and that's where the pro-choice side (and some on the pro-life side) run off the rails. Again, I have always believed that the judge who ruled that abortion was a matter of contract law had it right. That is, that even though human life begins at conception, /personhood/ begins at viability. Therefore, since abortion is legal prior to viability, according to Roe v. Wade, that at the point of viability there are TWO people involved, and the mother has implicitly contracted, through inaction, to carry the child to term if possible. It is really a far better ruling than Roe v. Wade, IMHO, because it has a better legal and logical basis.

Sean said...

"95% of unintended pregnancies occur to women who are not using it or who are using it incorrectly."

This is why the contraceptive mandate is so important. By making IUDs and subdermal implants -- long-term reversible contraception -- widely available, you're going to dramatically reduce the number of abortions. In studies done that have replicated the contraceptive mandate, abortions were cut by over 50%.

But instead, conservatives are complaining about the statistically insignificant chance that such devices may cause a fertilized egg not to implant in the womb.

Sean said...

So, Jerry, then a woman is free to abort in the case of rape or incest since the contract was entered into to by force?

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, it doesn't become a contract until the point of viability, so a moot point. This solution makes neither side happy, I should point out, but I think it's eminently sensible once the screaming and posturing subside.

And I don't see how a contraceptive MANDATE avoids all of the religious objections, especially when pregnancy is 100% preventable by the simplest of means. Those who want contraception shouldn't be prohibited from buying and using it, of course, but I tend to be pro-choice in such matters. Pro-choice before conception, pro-life after, to sloganeer about it.

John said...

Brick City Blog Steps to Reduce Abortions

Seems to me the only methods being fought are IUDs and the morning after pill. That leaves plenty of other options.

Sean said...

IUDs are significantly more effective than the cheaper methods, though.