John Kimbler, My Shot
This past year, a record amount of domestic legislation has targeted women's access to abortion and birth control, sometimes with lawmakers citing the sacred nature of every zygote. (You may have heard about this.) In response to this flood of anti-reproductive-rights lawmaking, a few legislators submitted amendments of their own. These amendments have attempted to level the playing field by stating that, in addition to eggs, every sperm must be considered sacred. According to a journal article in Current Biology -- and disseminated by Science Magazine -- flowers are also mindful of waste when it comes to pollen, otherwise known as plant sperm.
While each reproductive cell in a flower is fertilized by only one sperm cell, pollen is delivered at a much higher rate, usually on the heels of honeybees. This is where flowers appear to be taking a cue from our lawmakers. According to the Science article, "if more than one pollen grain heads for the same reproductive cell... it could mean that others will go unfertilized." To avoid wasting sperm, flowers appear to turn off their signals attracting sperm to cells that have already been fertilized to most efficiently allocate resources.
Maybe conservatives haven't heard the call for equality in reproductive rights, but at least the flowers were listening.
Leave a Comment:
"Every sperm is sacred"
Love the Monty Python.
Flowers have more brains than Republicans (and more spine than Democrats).
Putting religion into public law is like lemmings jumping off a cliff.
Read Genesis very closely. Pishon and Gishon are under the Persian Gulf.
Plain as day. Two large rivers submerged by rising water under the Persian Gulf with lush vegetation all over Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The bottom of the Persian Gulf was dry land no more recently than 13,000 years ago during the last ice age just before perpetual drought created Arabia and Sahara deserts. This was so recent that there is still water close to the surface in parts of the Sahara (oases).
Writing was invented about 6,000 years ago.
We were illiterate for 7,000 years before that part of Genesis was written down.
Only an unhealthy mind would believe it is OK to write laws based on an opinion regarding 13,000 year old illiterate conversations recorded by dead civilizations.
The whole zygote discussion is like mindless GOP self-love.
I think the Bible started being written 100 years after Jesus walked the Earth. The ideas though have been conveyed and passed down through the ages long before Jesus arrived. Communication began a long time ago. Adam and Eve didn't talk or write they communicated through the spirit.
When there is a law about cutting flowers, then this analogy may have some relevance.
The problem in the debate over abortion, is that the Left refuses to say when life begins. If abortion is not murder, when exactly is killing another human murder? Is it arbitrarily anytime after 180 days of pregnancy? Is it after the heart starts beating? Is it at the point of viability (and when is that)?
If when life is a life worth protecting were answered by the Left, then we would have a point at which to begin to find common ground. IMHO
The left has no official position on when life begins because as WNYDem says, there is variance in beliefs among people. Even some on the right are pro choice.
A sperm and ovum are potential life. We have the capability, but a potential life is not a person.
I know some people really try hard to create life, some people have no intention to do so.
The flower analogy is apt, because of the human reproductive system is taught through pollenation. Some men do not wish to create life when they have the capability of recreationally doing so. Then others are forceful and insistent upon a female giving birth by control. Now, have I given enough examples from the male perspective?
Controlling men is also on the table, forcing them into fatherhood. Is that fair to say that controlling men is also occurring? Only the woman actually does the carrying and birthing, so we frequently frame it as controlling women because it is her body.
I do not know for sure when life begins, but I know I read something about the breath of life, so I think that when breathing begins and ends describes life. We can breathe artificially and scientifically produce embryos, we can keep hearts beating artificially. I can only say my belief is based upon the breath of life, not the exact moment of conception. Others say the moment of conception.
Freedom aka Liberty. I have to give the decision making to people involved, not myself. We are never going to stop people from behaviors that are not intended to procreate, either. At least birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy and disease prevention could be taught to cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancy and diseases.
Sandy, thanks so much for the very thoughtful and civil response. I have to admit, I did not expect it. While I don't necessary agree with everything, I certainly can respect the viewpoint.
I guess my only comment would be that most on the right do not see it as an attempt to control a woman's body but as a heart felt attempt to protect the vulnerable. Even if you don't agree with their position, I would hope you could at least appreciate the mindset from which they oppose abortion.
Unfortunately, like in may political arenas, radicals seem to gather the most publicity and become the face of the movement.
I wish more civil dialog could come to a place where both sides find success in reducing abortions, increasing wanted pregnancies, and decreasing pregnancies that are neither wanted, advisable, or could potentially lead the need for abortion services.
I don't think anyone says abortion should be the first option, so making it less needed (without outlawing or disrespecting women) would be a worth goal.
I agree that people believe they are being protective (even heroic) toward the vulnerable. But they often ignore the fact that their protective measures are at odds with other people. People that think they protect the liberty of people that are not just cavalier about the issue. The premise is completely different. The punitive measures are not adequate (coat hanger) and the lack of freedom cannot just be brushed aside. Imagine the government saying you are required to have this child.
There are gray areas for the pro choice and it appears to me, the anti abortion folks are only looking at the black and white of it.
We cannot define black and white rules about every little thing because of all the differences. We also cannot have a majority running over a minority. This country is a major melting pot of people.
Everyone does not think alike, nor can we expect everyone to follow the same moral code/beliefs on everything. Too many differences, we cannot sustain freedom if we continue to chip away at freedom. That would be theocratic or dictatorship type government, not democratic Republic.
The same threat applies from the left and right. Preserving freedom is the primary common goal, but taking one person's freedom to preserve another person's is really always an issue. How to resolve the conflicts automatically calls for debate and different views are always there. How to keep from oppressing each other.
To me, a person cannot be manipulated to give birth or conform with all traditions (with no variance allowed) by law and call it freedom. The individuals involved are to decide according to their own circumstances, not me. Not the coercive laws. They are free persons.
Interesting, prevention and do overs occur in nature. No more offspring or help me out, please. Up to each flower to decide.
The opposite; In China, dictator government says only one child allowed: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,AUS_RRT,,CHN,,4b6fe1b9d,0.html
The passionately anti abortion folks might look into using more carrots and less sticks to see which results are better to achieve the goal of fewer abortions.
This is exactly what is wrong with the analogy. The flower doesn't decide, it can make no choice. Unlike us, who can use logic, emotion, etc.
I read the articles under the links, there were experiments to show the actions that occurred in nature to promote efficient reproduction.
Decide was what people do in relation to the flower in nature (to reproduce its species).
But you are not really looking for any agreement, so I guess that's it. The literal was not the point. I thought we already established that flowers are representational of humans, not that they are human. Abstract.
RobDon wrote:
"If when life is a life worth protecting were answered by the Left, then we would have a point at which to begin to find common ground. "
______________________________________________________________________________________
And my thoughts are:
"The left" (I hate being lumped with everyone to the left of you, but I assume that is what you mean) actually has a pretty clear position on the question of when life begins. We believe that question is not definitively answered yet (or is answered differently for different people) by either faith or science, so individuals should be free to make their own decision on the matter, based on their own beliefs and understanding of the facts. Which is why we don't want the government making the decision for us.
When life ENDS is pretty plain- whenever the government decides, either thru capitol punishment or military action!
WNYDem, thanks also for your thoughtful response. I agree the answer is difficult if not impossible to define, certainly not for everyone. I would agree that different things (science, religion, etc) drive one's opinion.
I would disagree that there isn't some role for government. For instance, we all believe that sometimes deadly force is needed in self defense but we don't want individual just on their own making that decision without some type of governmental oversight (investigation, justice system, etc.) I just don't yet know the best answer of how and when.
But thanks for the conversation.
Make a deal. Stay out of my government and I will gladly stay out of your church. Why do these people love the fetus so much and give so little thought and time to the support and care of the babies. Oh yea until we start training them in our increasingly "for Profit" prison systems. What a bunch of rabid clowns.