Wednesday, March 28, 2012

The Old Boys Club (a.k.a., the Kentucky House)

Time magazine claims that Kentucky is one of the "top five worst" states in the nation for women. Of course their criteria includes the liberal sacrament of abortion, which it says is not available to many women in the state. One wonders how this is a detriment to women, particularly those still in utero.

But what is also remarkable is that even though one of their criteria is the participation of women in government, and the fact that they never mention the fact that no woman has ever served in a party or chamber leadership position in the Democratic controlled State House. Ever.

Compare that with the Republican controlled State Senate in which several women have served and one is serving right now.

One guess as to why they didn't mention that.

44 comments:

One Brow said...

One wonders how this is a detriment to women, particularly those still in utero.

Of course, Martin knows there is no such thing as an in-utero woman and also knows that access to reproductive freedom (including abortion) is a key indicator of financial success; this is just hyperbole he doesn't really mean.

One guess as to why they didn't mention that.

The obvious guess: the Democrat-Republican difference was not relvant to this article.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

Martin knows there is no such thing as an in-utero woman

So a fetus is neither determinately male nor female?

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow:

The obvious guess: the Democrat-Republican difference was not relvant to this article.

Then why was political participation by women one of their criteria?

KyCobb said...

"One wonders how this is a detriment to women"

Because legal abortion is a safe procedure, and illegal abortions are not.

Martin Cothran said...

So taking a human life can be "safe"?

One Brow said...

One Brow: Martin knows there is no such thing as an in-utero woman.

Martin Cothran: So a fetus is neither determinately male nor female?


Was that supposed to be anything besides a non sequitur, or are you making that claim that "determinately female"="woman"?

One Brow: The obvious guess: the Democrat-Republican difference was not relvant to this article.

Martin Cothran: Then why was political participation by women one of their criteria?


Are you saying that the political participation of women is indicative of one of the two political parties? I don't see the connection between your question and what I said.

One Brow said...

Martin Cothran: So taking a human life can be "safe"?

Pre-vasectomy, I took millions of human lives (sperm) every time I had sex with my wife.

Pe3rforming a kidney transplant from a live donor always increases the long-term risk for the donor, but is considered safe if the desired outcome is achieved.

Yes, an abortion can be safe, even though the embryo/fetus is removed.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

Was that supposed to be anything besides a non sequitur, or are you making that claim that "determinately female"="woman"?

Talk about evading the point. Would you say it was "safe" for a woman to commit infanticide?

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow:

Are you saying that the political participation of women is indicative of one of the two political parties? I don't see the connection between your question and what I said.

I'm saying that the party that is always talking about gender equity in our state (the Democrats) don't practice it, and the party that is given grief over the issue by that other party does.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow:

Pre-vasectomy, I took millions of human lives (sperm) every time I had sex with my wife.

Does your sperm have your own DNA only, or is its DNA distinct?

Martin Cothran said...

Sorry, I think I was confusing my KyCobbs and my OneBrows. But it looks like you are both on the same side--the wrong one, but the same one.

One Brow said...

I'm saying that the party that is always talking about gender equity in our state (the Democrats) don't practice it, and the party that is given grief over the issue by that other party does.

Which would be a valid criticism of the Democratic party in Kentucky, and probably one of the reasons it scored poorly, but since the Time article doesn't mention Democrats nor Republicans in any of the five descriptions, it seems odd that you insinuate they don't mention it in Kentucky for some unspecified reason presumbably involving bias against Republicans. Well, not odd for you.

Does your sperm have your own DNA only, or is its DNA distinct?

Since you don't, and won't support the notion that the identifiying mark of an individual human life is the possession of a unique set of DNA, your question seems to have no relevance.

Still, each sperm I produce has, on average, 3 novel mutations. So most of them do indeed have distinct DNA.

Art said...

Talk about evading the point. Would you say it was "safe" for a woman to commit infanticide?

Chances are, Martin, that your wife, aided and abetted by you, have done so (at least if we stick to your peculiar usage of biological terms).

Did any harm come to you or yours? Just asking...

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

So you're noncommittal on the safety of infanticide?

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow:

Does sperm have a complete set of DNA?

Art said...

Martin, unlike you, I'm against infanticide. The question is, why are you in favor of it? (I'm guessing that you are, since I've seen no remorse on your part when it comes to the acts of infanticide you have probably committed or abetted.)

One Brow said...

Does sperm have a complete set of DNA?

Unless I have greatly misunderstood Aquinian metaphysics, the form of a sperm to have 23 chromosomes of a certain combination. So, any sperm with those 23 chromosomes fulfills its form in that regard, and thus has a complete set of DNA. Of course, some individual sperm fall short of or exceed that total.

Unless you are rejecting Aquinean metaphysics, that is.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

You keep making veiled allusions to these acts you call infanticide. Why don't you come out and fully explain what you mean and why you think they are acts of infanticide.

Then maybe you could explain why intentionally taking the life of an unborn child is not infanticide.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow:

How many total chromosomes does a human being have?

Art said...

You keep making veiled allusions to these acts you call infanticide. Why don't you come out and fully explain what you mean and why you think they are acts of infanticide.

They're what you consider infanticide, Martin. Anyone, who, by act of commission or omission, kills a fertilized egg is, according to you, committing an act of infanticide.

So, Martin, those 2-4 fertilized eggs that did not survive for every child you have are eggs that you killed, by acts of omission. Because, for many decades, we have had the technology to rescue and implant these fertilized eggs. By not giving these fertilized eggs every chance, by not visiting the appropriate clinic or health care facility and demanding that the fertilized egg be rescued and saved for implantation, you killed them, Martin. Deliberately, willfully, intentionally. As surely as you would kill a child by withholding food and water.

Of course, you compounded matters by inappropriately disposing of the bodies, and likely by not notifying authorities that you had killed the infants.

Singring said...

'How many total chromosomes does a human being have?'

Martin, just to warn you: the route of argument you are trying to take will inevitably lead you to the conclusion that people who do not have a complete set of chromosomes or who have additional chromosomes (e.g. Down Syndrome patients) are not human beings.

Is that really what you want to be saying?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I don't think you understand my route of argument yet, but just for purposes of clarification, a thing that is completely what its telos would direct it to be and a thing that is not complete in that respect because of some interference during the process of it becoming complete are not different kinds of things. One is merely a complete or whole X; the other is still an X, but one that was not able to completely fulfill its Xness, so to speak

This is in contrast to a thing that is what its telos would have it be and a thing whose telos directs it to be something different. Those two things are very different.

I realize you don't accept Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics, which is the only way to make sense of such things, but that's not my problem. A Down's syndrome person can be considered as somehow subhuman only outside the Aristotelian/Thomistic worldview.

Something like yours.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

They're what you consider infanticide, Martin. Anyone, who, by act of commission or omission, kills a fertilized egg is, according to you, committing an act of infanticide.

I don't consider it infanticide, since any kind of "cide" (from the Latin "cidium,, meaning killing with intent to kill) involves conscious intent.

In fact, it doesn't even rise to a sin of omission since involves the avoidance of sin only in cases in which one can and ought to act.

You are apparently unaware of the distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance. You are assuming this is a case of vincible ignorance, which it is not, since the avoidance of sin would involve the performance of supererogatory acts.

Abortion is not a case of vincible, but of invincible ignorance, at least in the case of the doctor involved. The case of the mother is less clear, since she can argue sheer ignorance thanks to the culture and medical community around her who lie to her in regard to the consequences of the procedure.

In any case, your comment is completely beside the point.

Art said...

In fact, it doesn't even rise to a sin of omission since involves the avoidance of sin only in cases in which one can and ought to act.

In other words, practicality trumps morality.

In any case, your comment is completely beside the point.

If showing that "life begins at conception" is a hoax, and that even the most ardent pro-lifers have no intention following this tenet to the logical and only morally-permissible conclusion, is besides the point, them, um, OK.

But it is still useful to show how hypocritical anti-abortionists really are. They care not an iota about the unborn. For them, it's all about power (over women) and money.

One Brow said...

How many total chromosomes does a human being have?

A haploioid human being (a sperm or ovum) typically has 23 chromosomes, while a diploid human typically has 46 chromosomes.

Your pointed questions don't seem to be leading to the answers which I infer you think they should get. Why not try a direct approach, and explain what present attributes, or future potential attributes, a human being, or a human life, must always possess that are not present in a sperm? Note that since every human life depends on outside factors of the environment for it's continuance, merely saying it can't be a diploid without the environmental proximity of an ovum is not a true difference.

Regarding your response to Singring:

A person with Down's Syndrome is expressing their telos in the features of Down's Syndrome, because the possession of the extra 21st chromosome causes a variation in their form when compared to people with the usual 46 chromosomes. While they are still in the grouping of forms we refer to as human, having Down's Syndrome is not a deviation from their form.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

So you're not going to actually argue for your position, you just going sniff and call it a hoax?

Is that how they do things in the science department you're in?

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

A "haploid human being"? There's a "haploid human genome," but where are you getting a "haploid human being?" Can give me a reference to any widely recognized source in biology that uses the term "haploid human being"?

Is this the absurdity we have to descend to to defend abortion?

One Brow said...

A "haploid human being"?

A sperm or an ovum. Is it your claim they are not human, or that they are not beings?

There's a "haploid human genome," but where are you getting a "haploid human being?"

A sperm or an ovum. Is it your claim they are not human, or that they are not beings? They contain genomes, but are certainly more than genomes. Each is a discrete living entity.

Can give me a reference to any widely recognized source in biology that uses the term "haploid human being"?

Would it matter either way? If I can, does that mean you'll alter your opinions? If I can not, does that mean sperm and ovum are not individual life forms?

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

Is it your claim they are not human, or that they are not beings?

I think I was pretty clear on what I asked. And this whole discussion is clearly about what constitutes a human being.

A sperm or an ovum clearly does not, since it does not by its nature contain a full complement of chromosomes.

A zygote however does, and there is no fundamental difference between a zygote and, say, a two week old child other than geographical location, and development.

Genetically the zygote is identical to a two-week old child; it is not identical in that respect to either the sperm or the ovum.

One Brow said...

I think I was pretty clear on what I asked. And this whole discussion is clearly about what constitutes a human being.

Clear, but disingenuous. Since when do you turn to science for the answer to philosophical notions like whether a sperm is a human being? If I find a biological source that says a zygote is not a human being, would you accept that?

A sperm or an ovum clearly does not, since it does not by its nature contain a full complement of chromosomes.

Some people are born with one X chromosome and no Y nor second X. They do not have a full complement of 46 chromosomes, yet I have no doubt you regard them as human beings.

Of course, you're free to say "a human being is what I say, and nothing else", but I'm free to point out the arbitrariness of that standard.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow:

Since when do you turn to science for the answer to philosophical notions like whether a sperm is a human being?

Well, that didn't stop you from declaring a sperm a human being, did it? So are you saying now that science is not capable of handling this question and that philosophy is?

In fact, can I count on you now to defer to philosophy all these kinds of questions?

One Brow said...

So are you saying now that science is not capable of handling this question and that philosophy is?

In fact, can I count on you now to defer to philosophy all these kinds of questions?


You mean, as opposed to a prior time when I said science could? If I ever felt that way, I do not recall doing so, and it was certainly not within the last couple of years. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

You can count on me to defer to the law for legal questions (what rights does a fetus or its host have), to science for scientific questions (what level of awareness and intelligence is displayed by an unborn human diploid at 6 weeks gestation), and to philosophy for philosophical questions (what does it really mean to be a human being)? I will mke every effort to respect each discipline in their own baliwick.

Martin Cothran said...

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?


That may very well be the case.

One Brow said...

No worries, then. I don't think you've met any of Singring, Art, KyCobb, or myself in person, so it's only natural our individuality would be a little fuzzy. I experience that myself.

Singring said...

'Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

That may very well be the case.'

For the record (and not that anyone cares), just to clear up any potential confusion:
I likewise do not claim, have never claimed and will never claim that science can tell us who is or isn't a human being or a person in a moral or legal sense.

Moral philosophy and ethics will have something to say on that.

However, like OneBrow, I think science can tell us a lot about the empirical indicators we might want to refer to when making our moral and legal decisions.

One thing I do know, however, is that anyone's assertion that a zygote or fetus of X days of age is a human being or person because of telos, natural law, conclusions derived from other 'self-evident' premises or an 'intuition' holds no sway with me beyond the acknowledgement that it is the honest opinion of whoever is making said assertion.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

That's fine. So what is the biological difference between a zygote and a 2-week old baby?

One Brow said...

Martin,

While in that discussion, how about your reason for thinking a sperm is not a human being?

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

"how about your reason for thinking a sperm is not a human being?"

I already answer this above: "A sperm or an ovum clearly does not [constitute a human being], since it does not by its nature contain a full complement of chromosomes."

One Brow said...

"A sperm or an ovum clearly does not [constitute a human being], since it does not by its nature contain a full complement of chromosomes."

How many chromosomes is a sperm supposed to have?

Also, are diploid humans with Turner's syndrome (often caused by having 45 chromosomes total) not human beings, since they do not have a full complement?

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

23.

And I have already addressed the issue of things that, for accidental reasons, do not have the complete complement of chromosomes they were, by their nature, supposed to have.

The fact that something doesn't have, for accidental reasons, what it would otherwise have by nature doesn't change the thing's nature.

One Brow said...

So, a sperm with 23 chromosomes has a full complement, according to you.

Also, it seems it's not actually the chromosome count that matter, it is the nature. Is this nature in anyway discoverable, or must it be postulated? In other words, is there any reason to treat it as something other than arbitrary?

Art said...

That's fine. So what is the biological difference between a zygote and a 2-week old baby?

Well, Martin, you've already told us that it's perfectly OK to starve a zygote to death. Are you implying that it should be OK to similarly starve a 2 week-old baby?

Singring said...

'That's fine. So what is the biological difference between a zygote and a 2-week old baby?'

A nervous system with a brain capable of percwption or thought, for one. Then, in principle, also the ability to survive outside the womb for more than a couple of hours.

Can you tell me what the similarities between a zygote and a two-week old baby are?

Singring said...

'I already answer this above: "A sperm or an ovum clearly does not [constitute a human being], since it does not by its nature contain a full complement of chromosomes."'

It does. A haploid complement, anyway.

A skin cell contains a full diploid complement of chromosomes. So is a skin cell a human being?