Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Belinda

Post by gaffo » Sun May 26, 2019 1:44 am

henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 11:14 pm
"I was there at the time and I experienced that my unborn children were parts of me parts of my own body."

The egg was yours, part of you in exactly the same way the sperm was the Dad's.

But, the moment half of your DNA linked up with half of the Dad's, sumthin' new was formed: it originated with you and the Dad, but it wasn't 'you' or 'him'. In a very real sense: you were an incubator (not an owner).

I have no doubt you experienced all manner of sensations: quite irrelevant when it comes to the matter of what was and was not 'you'.

And: playin' the 'woman card' is beneath you, B. That's the kinda crap I expect from that silly cow, veg. You're better than that.
concur WRT to Belinda, she is better than that!

yes belinda?

gaffo
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by gaffo » Sun May 26, 2019 1:49 am

Belinda wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 9:00 am
Yes Henry a man a man cannot trump that mother woman card.
not so, there is nothing fundementally different between an egg gamete and a sperm gamete other than the yoke of the egg.

remove the DNA of the egg and place the sperm DNA in it and it is an egg gamete like any other nature one.

then fertilize it with another sperm gamete and you have kid.

ain't science great, not motherhood biological supporiority bullshit needed - not anymore. or soon so at least.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7841
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun May 26, 2019 6:14 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:49 am
Belinda wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 9:00 am
Yes Henry a man a man cannot trump that mother woman card.
not so, there is nothing fundementally different between an egg gamete and a sperm gamete other than the yoke of the egg.

remove the DNA of the egg and place the sperm DNA in it and it is an egg gamete like any other nature one.

then fertilize it with another sperm gamete and you have kid.

ain't science great, not motherhood biological supporiority bullshit needed - not anymore. or soon so at least.
Except that the woman has to do all the work, and has all the power over her foetus. Hmm. Isn't that what this is ultimately about? Power? A certain kind of inadequate little worm of a male (like Henry and his buddy Ick) can't stand the thought of women having more power than they do?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7841
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun May 26, 2019 7:29 am


User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7841
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Belinda

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun May 26, 2019 8:10 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:44 am
henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 11:14 pm
"I was there at the time and I experienced that my unborn children were parts of me parts of my own body."

The egg was yours, part of you in exactly the same way the sperm was the Dad's.

But, the moment half of your DNA linked up with half of the Dad's, sumthin' new was formed: it originated with you and the Dad, but it wasn't 'you' or 'him'. In a very real sense: you were an incubator (not an owner).

I have no doubt you experienced all manner of sensations: quite irrelevant when it comes to the matter of what was and was not 'you'.

And: playin' the 'woman card' is beneath you, B. That's the kinda crap I expect from that silly cow, veg. You're better than that.
concur WRT to Belinda, she is better than that!

yes belinda?
You moron. The mother dies then the foetus dies. If they are two separate people then why would this be the case? Yet this doesn't work both ways. Why do you think that is?

Belinda
Posts: 2695
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Belinda » Sun May 26, 2019 8:42 am

Gaffo wrote'
I can make my own child from me and myself, with the help of science (eventually).
I agree with vegetariantaxidermy that the abortion debate is about power.

Gaffo's scenario is possible too, as one trend that unleashed capitalism might take.

In view of the coming ecological disaster gaffo's scenario wont happen because no expensive technology will be possible. The fertility of women will again be valued and respected.

In the meantime some men struggle to hold on to power and behave like big babies in tantrums of frustration.

gaffo
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by gaffo » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:28 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 6:14 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:49 am
Belinda wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 9:00 am
Yes Henry a man a man cannot trump that mother woman card.
not so, there is nothing fundementally different between an egg gamete and a sperm gamete other than the yoke of the egg.

remove the DNA of the egg and place the sperm DNA in it and it is an egg gamete like any other nature one.

then fertilize it with another sperm gamete and you have kid.

ain't science great, not motherhood biological supporiority bullshit needed - not anymore. or soon so at least.
Except that the woman has to do all the work, and has all the power over her foetus. Hmm. Isn't that what this is ultimately about?
not after science and the "External womb"

gaffo
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Belinda

Post by gaffo » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:31 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 8:10 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:44 am
henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 11:14 pm
"I was there at the time and I experienced that my unborn children were parts of me parts of my own body."

The egg was yours, part of you in exactly the same way the sperm was the Dad's.

But, the moment half of your DNA linked up with half of the Dad's, sumthin' new was formed: it originated with you and the Dad, but it wasn't 'you' or 'him'. In a very real sense: you were an incubator (not an owner).

I have no doubt you experienced all manner of sensations: quite irrelevant when it comes to the matter of what was and was not 'you'.

And: playin' the 'woman card' is beneath you, B. That's the kinda crap I expect from that silly cow, veg. You're better than that.
concur WRT to Belinda, she is better than that!

yes belinda?
You moron. The mother dies then the foetus dies. If they are two separate people then why would this be the case? Yet this doesn't work both ways. Why do you think that is?
what bullshit are you spouting now Veg? clarify if able.

gaffo
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by gaffo » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:35 am

Belinda wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 8:42 am
Gaffo wrote'
I can make my own child from me and myself, with the help of science (eventually).
I agree with vegetariantaxidermy that the abortion debate is about power.

Gaffo's scenario is possible too, as one trend that unleashed capitalism might take.

In view of the coming ecological disaster gaffo's scenario wont happen because no expensive technology will be possible. The fertility of women will again be valued and respected.

In the meantime some men struggle to hold on to power and behave like big babies in tantrums of frustration.
noting that the cost of science lowers over time...........why do you think my posit - i,e, man making his own baby via two of his gamets via an external womb - as "Expensive" in latter time?

asking honestly.

Belinda
Posts: 2695
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Belinda » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:00 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:35 am
Belinda wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 8:42 am
Gaffo wrote'
I can make my own child from me and myself, with the help of science (eventually).
I agree with vegetariantaxidermy that the abortion debate is about power.

Gaffo's scenario is possible too, as one trend that unleashed capitalism might take.

In view of the coming ecological disaster gaffo's scenario wont happen because no expensive technology will be possible. The fertility of women will again be valued and respected.

In the meantime some men struggle to hold on to power and behave like big babies in tantrums of frustration.
noting that the cost of science lowers over time...........why do you think my posit - i,e, man making his own baby via two of his gamets via an external womb - as "Expensive" in latter time?

asking honestly.
I refer to climate change and the coming scarcity or vanishing of resources. These shortages will cause an age of extreme austerity like nothing we have known in the past. Maybe the privations of the Dust Bowl would compare, if you are aware of these. Elective abortion is one expensive technology among many others. Surgical operations require a huge infrastructure of specialist buildings, training and maintenance of several sorts of experts, amenities such as food distribution, sewerage, clean water, surgical supplies and so forth. Economic growth will be slowed to zero.

gaffo
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by gaffo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:25 am

Belinda wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:00 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:35 am
Belinda wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 8:42 am
Gaffo wrote'



I agree with vegetariantaxidermy that the abortion debate is about power.

Gaffo's scenario is possible too, as one trend that unleashed capitalism might take.

In view of the coming ecological disaster gaffo's scenario wont happen because no expensive technology will be possible. The fertility of women will again be valued and respected.

In the meantime some men struggle to hold on to power and behave like big babies in tantrums of frustration.
noting that the cost of science lowers over time...........why do you think my posit - i,e, man making his own baby via two of his gamets via an external womb - as "Expensive" in latter time?

asking honestly.
I refer to climate change and the coming scarcity or vanishing of resources. These shortages will cause an age of extreme austerity like nothing we have known in the past. Maybe the privations of the Dust Bowl would compare, if you are aware of these. Elective abortion is one expensive technology among many others. Surgical operations require a huge infrastructure of specialist buildings, training and maintenance of several sorts of experts, amenities such as food distribution, sewerage, clean water, surgical supplies and so forth. Economic growth will be slowed to zero.
i agree with your overall view of resource scarcity in the future, but not in the immediate future IMO - more like 500 yrs hence (not 50 yrs hence) - Oil will last another 200? yrs and coal 500+...............that is a long time from now.

in the meantime we will have China as Big Brother Empire -from 2050 to 2150, with India as little brother empire (the latter has our (Europe/american Western mindset (in spite of Modi), and so will alley hwerself with "us" to bolster her power with China breather over her neck.

.........all of this while resources - oil - is still around and plenty.

after 2150? what empire will exist and how much oil? no clue, but oil is now 1/2 gone at worst - so that means 100 (at least) more years of abundant recources for empire building.

after that time - when oil is gone, we will have coal, solar, wind and nuclear. (not sure about gas).

eventually we will have "water wars" IMO, after oil is gone, and earth is hot - ME will be unlivable too (humidity which is high around the Gulf - adding the higher temp of +3 celcius will make it unlivable).

but who knows. both you and i will be dead by that time of my prognostication.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"scarcity in the future"

Post by henry quirk » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:31 pm

The only scarcity is generated by schmucks in power. Actual resources -- on earth and over our heads -- while finite, 'are' plentiful.

Not one damn reason any soul has to, for example, starve. That folks 'do' starve is all on the powers that be (any of 'em, all of 'em).

And: no, 'socialsm' is not the friggin' answer; free enterprise is the answer.

And (just to keep my own damn thread on track): person? meat? pick on: act & respond accordingly.

Belinda
Posts: 2695
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Belinda » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:17 pm

Gaffo, if the old people like you and Trump and such keep denying climate change it's the young ones that will pay for that laziness and criminal folly.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:48 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:17 pm
Gaffo, if the old people like you and Trump and such keep denying climate change it's the young ones that will pay for that laziness and criminal folly.
Or not. There's a lot about the "climate change" panic that's a bit bizarre. One thing is that we need to know that climate change isn't just happening, but is man-made. Then we have to show that it can be reversed.

Equally importantly, once that is done, we have to tell most of the developing world that they're not allowed to develop anymore. Because unless countries like China and India stop developing, pollution levels are not going down worldwide -- they're just perhaps going to go up very marginally slower than they otherwise would, or maybe not even that -- because the decline of American productivity is likely to be filled by increased productivity from places like southeast Asia, where pollution controls are even worse than in the developed world. So the money will move around, and people will be hurt; but nobody will be helped.

Meanwhile, some developed countries, like say, Canada or Denmark, couldn't possibly make a significant difference to the world situation if they stopped all polluting right now. But they'd cripple their economies.

So how much human misery are we willing to create in order to feel good about "fighting climate change"? Because unless we answer these questions, nothing we do is actually doing anything but hurting people.

Belinda
Posts: 2695
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Belinda » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:00 pm

All your objections are true, Immanuel. But they are not sufficient to add up to our not doing as much as we can to stop man made climate change.

Moreover the lately developing large countries will be encouraged when we act responsibly. Lately developing countries are not entirely inhabited by morons. FOrward in faith ! We dont have a choice after all.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests