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

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: -1-

Post by -1- » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:42 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:56 pm
"Who is murdering babies?"

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person, then that would be the abortionist, yeah?
If. IF. IF.

You said if. But if not, then not.

I say a fetus is a fetus, and a baby is a baby. A baby is a person, a fetus is not.

You may change this definition to your liking, but you won't convince me that your definition is better or more ethical or better suits the libertarian ideal than mine.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: -1-

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:55 pm

-1- wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:42 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:56 pm
"Who is murdering babies?"

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person, then that would be the abortionist, yeah?
I say a fetus is a fetus, and a baby is a baby. A baby is a person, a fetus is not.
But your proof, dear sir...your rational evidence we should all believe...

I mean, you don't expect everyone to believe you simply because you say so, do you? Of course not.

So what rational line of inquiry convinced you -- and should convince us -- that a late-third-trimester "fetus" is not a "baby" and not a "person"?

mickthinks
Posts: 786
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: -1-

Post by mickthinks » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:04 pm

So what rational line of inquiry convinced you -- and should convince us -- that a late-third-trimester "fetus" is not a "baby" and not a "person"?

"Person" in the context of crimes such as murder, is a legal concept. Consult a legal definition applicable to the jurisdiction you live under. No further inquiry required.
While human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born (or even before in some jurisdictions), juridical persons do so when they are incorporated in accordance with law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: -1-

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:17 pm

mickthinks wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:04 pm
So what rational line of inquiry convinced you -- and should convince us -- that a late-third-trimester "fetus" is not a "baby" and not a "person"?

"Person" in the context of crimes such as murder, is a legal concept. Consult a legal definition applicable to the jurisdiction you live under. No further inquiry required.
Well, let's explore your answer, and see if it's true that logically, "no further inquiry" is required.

If practiced as you suggest, your argument would mean that Jews, Armenians, women, children, and persons of colour were not "persons" in the days when the laws said they were not. Now that the law says they are, suddenly they popped into existence as genuine "persons." And they can be declared again as "non-persons" anytime the law reverts. And so can you.

Happy with that?

You've mistaken the legal, pragmatic definition of "person," useful only for law courts, for the moral-ontological definition of "persons," which is the one that really matters here. That's why the conclusions are absurd.

So your argument sheds no light at all on whether or not late-third trimester fetuses are babies...only whether they have been declared so, by people whose rational and moral warrant is just as suspect as -1-'s would be.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Belinda

Post by Belinda » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:23 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:29 pm
The bond between parent and child is real, but isn't ownership.

And: I believe from 12 weeks on (and probably well before that) a pregnant woman carries a person, not a potential person, or a possible person, but an actual person. I believe this person owns himself. I believe this person ought not get off'd without just cause.
Yes, I know you do. Consider if you will that personhood is not a natural fact but a right granted by others. For instance before the Russian Revolution, during South African Apartheid, and during slavery in the Carribbean and the American south people a lot of people were not granted personhood. Indeed black slaves were considered inferior to real homo sapiens.

There is an argument to be had that foetuses should be granted personal rights. If you argue this your oppositions will argue that the pregnant woman's rights are more important than the foetus's rights. Then someone might contend that in special circumstances like if the pregnant woman was about die she should have her death hastened by a Caesarian section to save the foetus.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

-1-

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:27 pm

"you won't convince me that your definition is better or more ethical or better suits the libertarian ideal than mine."

And no one here has convinced me what a pregnant woman carries is anything less than a person.

So: as I say, if there is no agreement, if no definitive defintions or limits can be accepted by all, we should err on safety's side and assume what a pregnant woman carries 'is' a person (from week 12 on, at the very least).

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

mick

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:41 pm

As you well know: in the context of this thread, 'person' means 'human being', as in 'mickthinks is a human being, a person, a self-owned individual'.

Surely, you wouldn't argue your status in the world is utterly dependent on shifting and shifty legal defintion? Is there nothing intrinsic to you setting you apart from the sometimes whimsical rule of others, or are you merely a resource to be weighed, measured, labeled by the powers that be, or the mob?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Belinda

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:29 pm

"Consider if you will that personhood is not a natural fact but a right granted by others."

What I understand is: throughout history any number of populations have been, according to the 'law' of the place & time, viewed as something other than, less than, human. This was and is an abuse, not a negation of intrinsic personhood. This was and is a horror and nuthin' more.

In other words: sometimes the law is an ass (and, when it is, it should be beaten into submission [more directly: overstepping law makers should be curbed or hung]).

The law, as I see it, is meant to serve, to guide, to further. As I say: fundamentally, the law is meant to protect the individual's life, liberty, and property. If law (maker, executor) steps away from this, then break the law, oust or hang the makers & executors.

#

"For instance before the Russian Revolution, during South African Apartheid, and during slavery in the Carribbean and the American south people a lot of people were not granted personhood. Indeed black slaves were considered inferior to real homo sapiens."

Indeed. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

#

"your oppositions will argue that the pregnant woman's rights are more important than the foetus's rights."

They do this now. You've done this, B. What you haven't explained is 'why' your right trumps fetus-person's. Seems to me: your right to choose doesn't start at conception. You exercise it in your choice of sexual partner, in your choice of contraceptive, in your choice to insist your partner wear a condom, and -- before all other choices -- in your choice to have sex to begin with. If your choices lead you to pregnancy at least have the grace to accept responsibility for your choices, and the consequences of those choices instead of obliterating them.

#

"Then someone might contend that in special circumstances like if the pregnant woman was about die she should have her death hastened by a Caesarian section to save the foetus."

Seems to me: when the choice is made it's always made in favor of saving the woman. I know of no situation where a woman was forced to give birth at the expense of her own life. I do know of situations where women have risked dying to give birth when they could have aborted and avoided the possibility of meeting the Reaper.

Dicey pregnancies: situations like this do arise, yes, but these circumstances aren't the norm for most abortions. Most American abortions aren't performed to save the woman's life, or to negate the result of rape. No, most abortions are done as a kind of after-the-fact contraception, for convenience (an absolutely awful excuse to rub out a human being).

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Belinda

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:32 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:29 pm
B. wrote: "your oppositions will argue that the pregnant woman's rights are more important than the foetus's rights."
They do this now. You've done this, B. What you haven't explained is 'why' your right trumps fetus-person's. Seems to me: your right to choose doesn't start at conception. You exercise it in your choice of sexual partner, in your choice of contraceptive, in your choice to insist your partner wear a condom, and -- before all other choices -- in your choice to have sex to begin with. If your choices lead you to pregnancy at least have the grace to accept responsibility for your choices, and the consequences of those choices instead of obliterating them.
Well said.

In this case, the "consequences" are another human being.

While the obscurantists will rage that a foetus "isn't a person," ( a thing they could not possibly know, and for which they provide no rationale indicating we should believe it) all of us know darn well that, left to nature, another unique, valuable and made-in-the-image-of-God, bona fide, indisputable human being will exist. And we know absolutely that an abortion will cut off (or more accurately lynch, mangle and suck into a sink, or dismember and sell for parts) that human being.

Nobody's in the least doubt of the truth of that.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Mannie

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:03 am

"Well said."

With just the right balance of nicotine and caffeine it all falls together.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11849
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

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

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:44 am

Has anyone ask these women why they are having abortions and not using contraceptives?

Could it be their husbands won't use them or won't let them use them so they are slipping off and having an abortion without telling them so they don't have to bear another brat?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

A_uk

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:47 am

Yeah, the 638,169 abortions performed in the U.S., in 2015, these were all husband-fearin' wives lookin' to avoid raisin' another rugrat.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
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 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:12 am

Henry Quirk wrote:
Dicey pregnancies: situations like this do arise, yes, but these circumstances aren't the norm for most abortions. Most American abortions aren't performed to save the woman's life, or to negate the result of rape. No, most abortions are done as a kind of after-the-fact contraception, for convenience (an absolutely awful excuse to rub out a human being).
Well argued as is whole of Henry's post.

One detail: what do you think about the morning after pill?

Next, we might consider how to help women who have no or limited access to contraception.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
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 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:42 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:12 am
Next, we might consider how to help women who have no or limited access to contraception.
Relevant only after this discussion, not now.

"Help" will not be possible until we've defined the first question: "Is the child a person, or just meat?"

You can "help" someone to murder someone else, but this is not what we should mean by "being helpful." It is better to "help" someone to find an alternative of which they were not being cognizant.

That's why "helping" women to see abstinence/contraception/responsible childbearing/adoption as options is real "help," but "helping" them to see the murder of their children as their primary alternative is not.

uwot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

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

Post by uwot » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: That's why "helping" women to see abstinence/contraception/responsible childbearing/adoption as options is real "help," but "helping" them to see the murder of their children as their primary alternative is not.
Why just women, Mr Can? Have you no faith in your capacity to "help" men share your views?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests