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

[henry quirk]

"they can EVOLVE in various ways!"

Some can...pretty sure that jar of dog spit ain't gonna do anything other than rot...same for the goo next to the cat's bowl.

#

"that's the question you keep harping on"

Cuz most of you dance hard to avoid answering it. And when you lot finally do offer an answer, you get awfully nasty about it. Almost like you dislike bein' pinned down to specifics. Better, I guess, to keep definitions of and divisions between 'person' and 'meat' nebulous (easier to justify that late-term D & E when you keep things vague).

[Lacewing]

pretty sure that jar of dog spit ain't gonna do anything other than rot...same for the goo next to the cat's bowl

What you call "rot", is based on a certain perspective.

Your perspective continually produces limitations, that you want everything to abide by and fit into.

I think it's interesting to question your motives for doing that.

Answers are typically based on perspective, yes? So, being limited to your two-option perspective is not a realistic approach/foundation for a discussion.

But you just keep banging your caveman club on the ground as if it will make any more sense the more you do it.

[henry quirk]

"being limited to your two-option perspective is not a realistic approach/foundation for a discussion."

Then I offer you the same option I offered Dub...

[-1-]

"You advocate that in order to properly protect yourself, your house, and your family, every American ought to have the right to bear arms."

What in the wild mind of Slim Pickens are talkin' about!?

Skep asked: "are you also happy to FINANCE it?"

I piped in: Here, in America, taxpayers already finance a whole whack of 'entitlements' including foster homes and single mothers. Despite all the money that gets thrown at various problems, the problems persist and worsen. Seems to me: we're focusing on the wrong end of things (band aids for deep wounds instead of preventing the wounds in the first place).

I was using metaphor (I guess) to comment on social ills, and you took that as commentary on guns?

---

"You sound like you switched sides and now you condone abortions."

No, just recasting your question ("IF YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A CHOICE TO CREATE A HUMAN SOUL, WHY DON'T OTHERS HAVE THE SAME ENTITLEMENT?") so that it's honest.

If you accuse me of not following your style and expressive force, it may be that it's hard for someone to express themselves in more complicated terms when he's got a grade three education(*) max, and a similar level mentality.

(*) No matter how many times that grade has been achieved, Henry: five? Seven? Thirteen?

[-1-]

I admit I have no reliable data on your academic achievement, Henry. You could be a Ph.D. for all I know. What I am basing my opinion on is your apparent maximum level of understanding of complexity.

[Lacewing]

being limited to your two-option perspective is not a realistic approach/foundation for a discussion.

Then I offer you the same option I offered Dub...

Do you think this is your house?

[Belinda]

Is that a fact? Citation required .

https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregn ... e_families

But let's suppose they got it wrong, somehow. Let's say there were only 10 families waiting for every healthy infant. What are the chances that one in those 10 isn't suitable for adopting, and that the 9 from the next child are all also unsuitable, and the 9 from the child next to that are all unsuitable too...

And all of them are so bad that being murdered is better than becoming their child?

Got any odds on such a thing?

Apart from your biased and sensationalised reporting style, you may have a point worth my investigating. An immediate possible objection to the article you cited is the quality of the prospective parents. I know that in the UK prospective adoptive parents have to pass very stringent testing and ongoing supervision.

[Belinda]

As I say: if this thread irritates, if I irritate, you're free to indulge yourself elsewhere.

It's not the thread which irritates me. It's idiots like you who can't seem to accept the obvious...and in addition who keep on changing the title of the thread because he's too stupid or too damn lazy to use the bloody quote button. One thing is clear, there's way too many fucking idiots on the planet.

That's the problem with democracy. I often favour an extra vote for persons like you and me Dubious!

[Immanuel Can]

Is that a fact? Citation required .

https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregn ... e_families

But let's suppose they got it wrong, somehow. Let's say there were only 10 families waiting for every healthy infant. What are the chances that one in those 10 isn't suitable for adopting, and that the 9 from the next child are all also unsuitable, and the 9 from the child next to that are all unsuitable too...

And all of them are so bad that being murdered is better than becoming their child?

Got any odds on such a thing?

Apart from your biased and sensationalised reporting style, you may have a point worth my investigating.

Well, I ask again: even were this source three times exaggerated, would it be remotely plausible to think there weren't enough adoptive parents to warrant not killing children as the alternative?

How would it ever be in a child's best interests to be dead rather than adopted into a family that wants him/her, even were that family was only marginally good?

[Belinda]

https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregn ... e_families

But let's suppose they got it wrong, somehow. Let's say there were only 10 families waiting for every healthy infant. What are the chances that one in those 10 isn't suitable for adopting, and that the 9 from the next child are all also unsuitable, and the 9 from the child next to that are all unsuitable too...

And all of them are so bad that being murdered is better than becoming their child?

Got any odds on such a thing?

Apart from your biased and sensationalised reporting style, you may have a point worth my investigating.

Well, I ask again: even were this source three times exaggerated, would it be remotely plausible to think there weren't enough adoptive parents to warrant not killing children as the alternative?

How would it ever be in a child's best interests to be dead rather than adopted into a family that wants him/her, even were that family was only marginally good?

Clinical abortions are not children "being murdered".

[Immanuel Can]

Clinical abortions are not children "being murdered".

Is a third-trimester, late term or birth-canal abortion (such as are performed routinely in Canada and Europe) not the murdering of a child?

Precisely how do you come to be so assured of that?

And what about having a "clinic" turns murder into non-murder?

[Belinda]

You switch between using 'murder' as a legal term and 'murder' as moral evaluation. As a legal term clinical abortions are not murder as I think you have to agree.

As moral evaluation 'murder' is too loaded with the legal connotation to be disinterested.

It would be better if you could define the parameters of life . So far you have said nothing except that abortion is horrible. You keep repeating that. But everyone agrees with you, nobody likes clinical abortion.

[Immanuel Can]

You switch between using 'murder' as a legal term and 'murder' as moral evaluation. As a legal term clinical abortions are not murder as I think you have to agree.

Well, you have to regard that as unimportant. Both you and I know that a law can be moral or immoral. The real question is not "What laws exist at the present moment," but "What laws, attitudes and actions should exist, if we want to be moral people?"

To prove that, there was a time when abortions were illegal. Would you say that they were also immoral, then? What changed that?

As moral evaluation 'murder' is too loaded with the legal connotation to be disinterested.

To be "disinterested" about murder is not moral. It's cold-blooded at best, and wicked at worst. The people who said nothing while Armenians were massacred, or intellectuals were swept up in the Cultural Revolution, or Jews were marched to the gas chambers may have been "disinterested," but nobody thinks that was a good thing now, I hope.

Being "disinterested" sometimes means not just being amoral, but being immoral.

It would be better if you could define the parameters of life .

It should be quite obvious to you that it is not necessary for me to do so, because I'm not even potentially killing anyone. It's necessary for the abortionist to justify the murders...he/she is the only one contemplating a killing. I have pointed out the many better alternatives already.

So far you have said nothing except that abortion is horrible. You keep repeating that.

Naw, I haven't said that once. Instead, I've said it's murder, that it's wicked, and that everybody who participates in it is living in bad conscience.

But everyone agrees with you, nobody likes clinical abortion.

You didn't answer my question about how the word "clinic" gets anyone off the hook for murdering babies. You're using neutral language to gloss over evil, just like "work camp" was used to excuse Dachau. Your "abortion clinic" is a factory of death.

But think further: why would anyone "not like" something which some people insist is "therapeutic," and "a woman's health benefit"? That makes absolutely no sense: if abortion is better than the alternatives, then everybody ought to like it and celebrate it...the way we would celebrate if a dread disease was made curable.

But in that "nobody likes" is a confession -- that the participants know they are doing something wicked.

They just want to do it anyway.

[henry quirk]

Really, if the thread annoys, if my approach annoys, there are other threads to trundle 'round in. Absolutely, you can both hang out 'here', givin' me the business, but I'm not seein' the point.

'nuff said.

[henry quirk]

"Clinical abortions are not children "being murdered"."

If 'murder' is killing a person without justification (that is, killing an innocent) then clinical abortions might very well be 'children being murderd'.

Comes down to: is the unborn a person? When, during the pregnancy, do human cells become a person?

As I say: in the absence of definitive answers, it might be best to err on safety's side and assume that what a pregnant woman carries 'is' a person. Certainly, from week 12 on, all the biological machinery (organs, nervous system, brain, etc.) is substantially in place. Purely from a materialist's point of view, the things needed for 'personhood' are in place. Even the most hard-nosed commie atheist thug should be uncomfortable asserting what a pregnant woman carries from week 12 on is not a person.

Can I get an 'amen, brother!'?

Can I get a 'hallelujah!'?

Can I get any agreement on this from anyone? Lace? B? Dub? -1-? Anyone?