Join Our Community!
Share
Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > Eggs - An Observation (Page 1)
Avatar
Q: Eggs - An Observation
asked by: oopoopoop on December 16th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
I keep chickens. A good hen will lay 5 to 7 eggs a week. They will do this even without a rooster being around. If you are running a rooster with your hens, the vast majority of the eggs laid will be fertilised. Roosters are very enthusiastic about their role in life, and will make sure that just about every hen within reach gets her fair share of attention each day. Even so, most laying hens very rarely go broody. That is to say, every day the hen goes into the nest box, lays an egg, and then comes out again. She has no inclination whatever to sit on the egg. That means there is a fertile egg just sitting there. I can go and collect it and put it in an incubator, and it would probably develop and hatch into a chicken 21 days later. Or I can crack it open and make an omelette. If you keep the egg cool, it won't start to develop at all. Somewhere warm, and after a couple of days you would get a blood spot forming maybe, but it would still be fine to eat.

But what you can't do is put the egg in the oven, mash some potatoes and make gravy, and expect to get a roast chicken dinner. A fertilised egg is an egg. It isn't a chicken.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Replies(101)
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on December 16th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
As a pro-lifer would say, "Not yet." I don't see the point either, but they are fond of saying that.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
yodavater
replied on December 17th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Re: Eggs - An Observation
poopoopoo wrote:
. A fertilised egg is an egg. It isn't a chicken.

And your point would be.......???

Are you saying a fertilized chicken egg is not of the same species as that of the hen that laid it?

A newborn baby is not an adult, either... but they are of the same species.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
oopoopoop
replied on December 17th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
I'm saying an egg is not a chicken.
By extension, a fertilised human egg is not a human being.

The chicken lays a fertilised egg, but chooses not to incubate it. Mammalian reproduction is so...poorly designed.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on December 17th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Well it makes it possible to keep the developing embryo far safer. It keeps it in a temperature regulated environment that ALSO allows the mother full mobility - no egg to sit on. The parents aren't in danger of a lizard coming along and eating the eggs since the entire jalopy is contained within the mother's abdomen.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Jincks013
replied on December 18th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Very nice post Poopoopoo.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
yodavater
replied on December 18th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
poopoopoo wrote:
I'm saying an egg is not a chicken.
By extension, a fertilised human egg is not a human being.

That makes absolutely no sense. We all know a fertilized chicken egg is not an adult chicken, nor is it a newly hatched chick. So what?

"Human" is a species classification, NOT a developmental stage, like "zygote", or "child", or "adult".

So if you want to compare poultry to humans, at least acknowledge that a fertilized chicken egg is of THE SAME SPECIES as the adult chicken.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on December 18th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
She's using "human being" the way I use "person"; a distinction between fetus and born. Just like the distinction between fertilized egg and chicken.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Jincks013
replied on December 18th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
yodavater wrote:
poopoopoo wrote:
I'm saying an egg is not a chicken.
By extension, a fertilised human egg is not a human being.

That makes absolutely no sense. We all know a fertilized chicken egg is not an adult chicken, nor is it a newly hatched chick. So what?

"Human" is a species classification, NOT a developmental stage, like "zygote", or "child", or "adult".

So if you want to compare poultry to humans, at least acknowledge that a fertilized chicken egg is of THE SAME SPECIES as the adult chicken.


1. they are both mammals
2. the comparison is apt; you wouldn't refrian from having a chicken dinner or egg breakfast becasue you might be destroying a living being that was entitled to life ; which makes you a hypocrit.
3. the arguement isn't about the same speicies it was about placing the same value on the egg as the chicken who laid it.. rather like placing the same value on a fertilized human ovum.
This should be apparent to anyone with at least a highschool sophmore biology class behind them.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
yodavater
replied on December 20th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
poopoopoo wrote:
I'm saying an egg is not a chicken.
By extension, a fertilised human egg is not a human being.
.

Your semantic arguments are pitiful.

" Gallus domesticus" is the scientific name of domestic chickens. Are you saying that a fertilized egg does not belong to that species?

While common usage of the word "chicken" may or may not include one of it's fertilized eggs, the same is not true of the common usage of the term "baby" or "human being". There is no such confusion as regards humans.

"Homo sapiens" is the scientific name of our species, and "human being" is the precise vernacular equivilent of that term. "Human being" NEVER means "adults only".... it means every member of our species.

Homo sapiens
modern human beings. [L. wise man]
http://www.stedmans.com/section.cfm/45

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
http://www.bartleby.com/61/
HUMAN:
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Definition Homo sapiens
noun SPECIALIZED
human beings considered together as a type of animal
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp ?key=37696&dict=CALD

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0481706.htm l / hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
yodavater
replied on December 20th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Jincks013 wrote:
[
3. the arguement isn't about the same speicies it was about placing the same value on the egg as the chicken who laid it.. rather like placing the same value on a fertilized human ovum..

YES, it IS about SPECIES....... anytime you use the term "human being" or "Homo sapiens" you are using the labels of OUR SPECIES....

Those two terms are NOT developmental terms...... we do NOT "grow into" our species.... we inherit it from our parents upon fertilization.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
sociable_recluse
replied on December 20th, 2007
Experienced User
yodavater wrote:
Jincks013 wrote:
[
3. the arguement isn't about the same speicies it was about placing the same value on the egg as the chicken who laid it.. rather like placing the same value on a fertilized human ovum..

YES, it IS about SPECIES....... anytime you use the term "human being" or "Homo sapiens" you are using the labels of OUR SPECIES....

Those two terms are NOT developmental terms...... we do NOT "grow into" our species.... we inherit it from our parents upon fertilization.


I think you'll find that she wasn't arguing that it wasn't the same species rather the focus of the argument was on valuing an egg over a sentient chicken.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Sandbox Party
replied on December 20th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
i like to eat eggs..
and if an egg is a *species* and a *species* is human..

does that make me a cannibal?

shrug
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
yodavater
replied on December 20th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
sociable_recluse wrote:

I think you'll find that she wasn't arguing that it wasn't the same species rather the focus of the argument was on valuing an egg over a sentient chicken.

I didn't see the word "value" in that post, but I think that the species concept is of paramount value in any debate about the term "human being", since that is a label for our species.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
yodavater
replied on December 20th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Sandy_Pants wrote:

and if an egg is a *species* and a *species* is human..

That's the whole point..... "egg" is not a species......
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
sociable_recluse
replied on December 20th, 2007
Experienced User
sociable_recluse wrote:
yodavater wrote:
Jincks013 wrote:
[
3. the arguement isn't about the same speicies it was about placing the same value on the egg as the chicken who laid it.. rather like placing the same value on a fertilized human ovum..

YES, it IS about SPECIES....... anytime you use the term "human being" or "Homo sapiens" you are using the labels of OUR SPECIES....

Those two terms are NOT developmental terms...... we do NOT "grow into" our species.... we inherit it from our parents upon fertilization.


I think you'll find that she wasn't arguing that it wasn't the same species rather the focus of the argument was on valuing an egg over a sentient chicken.


yodavatar wrote:
I didn't see the word "value" in that post, but I think that the species concept is of paramount value in any debate about the term "human being", since that is a label for our species.


See above, i've highlighted it for you.

Just for the record, i'm one of those pro choicers for whom the concept of a zef being a human being is irrelevant. It could be doing the hokey cokey for all i care, it doesn't have the right to violate my bodily autonomy without my consent.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Georgia59
replied on December 20th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Aren't debates better if we actually attempt to see the viewpoint of the other person? Just a thought.

some people seem to purposely avoid seeing the other person's point.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
yodavater
replied on December 20th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
sociable_recluse wrote:

See above, i've highlighted it for you.

Just for the record, i'm one of those pro choicers for whom the concept of a zef being a human being is irrelevant. It could be doing the hokey cokey for all i care, it doesn't have the right to violate my bodily autonomy without my consent.

Okay, now I see it. And I disagree that "value" has anything to do with the use of the terms we are discussing.

Okay, then if you feel that way, at least you are being honest about it. I may be horrified by your sentiment, but at least you're not lying about it.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on December 20th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
yodavater wrote:
Sandy_Pants wrote:

and if an egg is a *species* and a *species* is human..

That's the whole point..... "egg" is not a species......

We had someone on here trying to say the uborn was a "race" (aka they had their own culture). Pfft!! A culture? They can't even communicate with each other!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
yodavater
replied on December 20th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Eiri wrote:

We had someone on here trying to say the unborn was a "race" (aka they had their own culture).!

Obviously someone who was misinformed.

However, I've seen much more incredible claims coming from prochoicers. Like "The unborn are not alive", or "the unborn are not humans", or "the unborn creatures/things/being/(you name it and I'll deny it)."
Did you find this post useful?
|
Quick Reply
Search