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
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

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

Post by Lacewing »

The way I look at it, is to ask myself if I would want my birth to cause hardship... and, no, I would not. If my parents just weren't ready or able to take on the life form and responsibilities that I would cause them, then I would give them permission to close that door. I wouldn't want to come into this world if I wasn't welcomed. If I'm a strong enough spirit, I can come in through another door. What is the big deal about thinking that life has ONE SHOT at arising? It's arising everywhere all the time.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

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

Post by Lacewing »

Would any of you "pro-lifers" DEMAND to be born, despite any/all hardships to others in opposition? Would you (if you could) demand to use a woman's body as a vessel, against her will and much to her distress, as if you are some kind of selfish parasite who cares nothing about its host?

Personally, I don't think compassionate broad-minded beings would act in such a way, nor make such demands... rather it's more the way of small-thinking humans. I think compassionate broad-minded beings would more likely be our natural/free state when we're not thick in the limitations of being human... so why not consider that when coming to conclusions?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Lace

Post by henry quirk »

If that's the standard we're supposed to adhere to: no one would ever get born.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Lace

Post by -1- »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:02 am If that's the standard we're supposed to adhere to: no one would ever get born.
What fucking standard are you talking about? The pro-life, or the pro-choice standard? You are fucking amazingly bad in communication. You blurt out some stuff as a response to something specific, but you very conveniently omit the very specific you are responding to. This has become common theme with you: You answer yourself, and only you know what's going on in the other part of the conversation you are addressing in writing on the forums.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

-1-

Post by henry quirk »

"What fucking standard are you talking about?"

Lace's. You'd know that if you actually read instead of skimmed.


凸(-_-)凸
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What standard?

Post by Lacewing »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:30 am -1- wrote: "What fucking standard are you talking about?"

Lace's. You'd know that if you actually read instead of skimmed.
What are you talking about, Henry?

I don't think I proposed a standard. I suggested another perspective. That always throws you. :lol:
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Lace

Post by henry quirk »

I stand corrected, and I amend my comment accordingly: If that's the perspective we're supposed to adhere to: no one would ever get born.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Lace

Post by Lacewing »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:43 am If that's the perspective we're supposed to adhere to: no one would ever get born.
How is it that no one would ever get born?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
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 »

It's good try, Lacewing, which sounds like John Rawls's veil of ignorance.

Clinical abortion is always going to be fraught with moral questions.

The best is to compel everyone to learn contraceptive methods from primary school on, to preach against the evil of unplanned parenthood, to provide the best society can give for the rearing and education of unwanted babies, and to do a big media campaign to promote a culture of contraception.

In practice, condoms would be provided free in schools and all other public venues. Condoms would be free to all from specialist shops in high streets.

In the natural course of events there would remain some genetic and gestation accidents which would be addressed from the perspective of the foetus and his mother. In all cases the baby once born would be the person who has more rights than any other in the case, and would be given from public funds large amounts of the best nurturing possible including daily luxuries and the best education money can provide.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Lace

Post by henry quirk »

"How is it that no one would ever get born?"

If folks adopted the notion that it's okay to abort because of 'hardship', or potential 'hardship', then no babies would get born cuz raising kids is 'always' a hardship. There's not a soul raising kids, or who has raised kids, who'd say 'ah yeah, bringin' up a kid: easy peasy'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lace

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:48 pm ...raising kids is 'always' a hardship.
And I've never heard that "she was in my way" is a justification for murder, anyway.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Lace

Post by Lacewing »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:48 pm "How is it that no one would ever get born?"

If folks adopted the notion that it's okay to abort because of 'hardship', or potential 'hardship', then no babies would get born cuz raising kids is 'always' a hardship. There's not a soul raising kids, or who has raised kids, who'd say 'ah yeah, bringin' up a kid: easy peasy'.
So are you seriously unable to understand the distinction I was making? I gave plenty of explanation, which evidently went over your head. Your extreme conclusions are childish. There are countless people who want children -- reproducing is what humans do -- so I doubt that if people thought it was "okay" to abort, everyone would, thereby resulting in no babies.

My suggestion is to consider what the fetus would say if it could be involved in the decision...by asking yourself the question. Would you, Henry, DEMAND to be born into an atmosphere that was unable or in opposition to taking responsibility for you?

People still have the responsibility to take measures to avoid needing to make such a decision, and I doubt that MOST women would be heartlessly unaffected or casual about such a thing. But if it does come to that, the woman is present in the world and has the ultimate decision for what she can take on. I think that an unborn fetus would support her decision. I would!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Lace

Post by henry quirk »

My point, Lace (which leapt over your head like a tree frog): your perspective is dumb.

'nuff said
Belinda
Posts: 8030
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 »

Immanuel, I did not write the following:
I agree with your statement that we don't really know what needs to be done. Until we really do, we should be skeptical of easy solutions of the sort the climate-change lunatics routinely advocate.
I said I (please note I) don't fully understand. I am not a climate scientist. Climate scientists understand .
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Lace

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:48 pm "How is it that no one would ever get born?"

If folks adopted the notion that it's okay to abort because of 'hardship', or potential 'hardship', then no babies would get born cuz raising kids is 'always' a hardship. There's not a soul raising kids, or who has raised kids, who'd say 'ah yeah, bringin' up a kid: easy peasy'.
Bringing up unwanted children is even harder and requires funding from taxes so that these children get the best of everything to make up for not having responsible parents. How much more of your $$, Henry , are you wiling to spend to care for your neighbour's unwanted baby?
Post Reply