Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 12:56 am Okay...good...progress.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:25 am 'Argue' about it till the cows come home. Access to safe, legal abortion is essential for women. That's all you perverted male turds need to know.

QED.

Abuse, irrationality, deflection, and no argument.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:28 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 12:56 am Okay...good...progress.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:25 am 'Argue' about it till the cows come home. Access to safe, legal abortion is essential for women. That's all you perverted male turds need to know.

QED.

Abuse, irrationality, deflection, and no argument.

If you say it then it must be true.

'QED'. What a pompass ass

"None of the above."

Huh?

Pretty sure you're right: Mannie most certainly would recognize a rational argument, especially if it were chompin' down on his tallywhacker.

Why?

What's 'essential' about abortion?

Reliable birth control: sure.

But: abortion?

Why?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:43 am "None of the above."

Huh?

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

To me the answer to this question is: None of these.

Now do you understand?

You mean to say it's not a human being/person or 'life'/meat, yeah?

Again: huh?

Not a person, not meat, 'what' then?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 2:36 am You mean to say it's not a human being/person or 'life'/meat, yeah?

Yes. I did mean that. After all I'd say, NONE of them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 2:36 amAgain: huh?

That is NOT a question, which could be answered correctly and properly without first a clarificating question of, What are you ACTUALLY asking, or seeking?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 2:36 amNot a person, not meat, 'what' then?

See now this is a clarifying question, which could be answered correctly and properly. They are VERY rare in this forum, but VERY much welcomed, by me anyway.

To me, a pregnant female human is carrying a human body or a human foetus.

When a human 'being', or 'person' actually comes into existence or comes to 'be/ing', needs to discussed and decided first, before that part of your wuestion could be answered.

Absolutely EVERY physical thing is, 'life', so it could be said that a pregnant female human is carrying 'life'/meat but this is to ambiguous, or could be to deceptive.

"To me, a pregnant female human is carrying a human body or a human foetus."

But mebbe, probably, not a 'person', *yeah?

So: meat (provisionally)









*cuz, as you say: "When a human 'being', or 'person' actually comes into existence or comes to 'be/ing', needs to discussed and decided first, before that part of your wuestion could be answered."

try this on, tell me what you think: 'a person is an individual who has a natural potential for the capacities of subjective awareness, intrinsic intentionality and cognition, and intentional action'

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 1:18 am "To me, a pregnant female human is carrying a human body or a human foetus."

But mebbe, probably, not a 'person', *yeah?

So: meat (provisionally)









*cuz, as you say: "When a human 'being', or 'person' actually comes into existence or comes to 'be/ing', needs to discussed and decided first, before that part of your wuestion could be answered."

try this on, tell me what you think: 'a person is an individual who has a natural potential for the capacities of subjective awareness, intrinsic intentionality and cognition, and intentional action'

What I think is; Are you asking me what a person is, or are you telling me what a person is?

A person is indivdual 'what' exactly?

...'tell me what you think'

#

"A person is indivdual 'what' exactly?"

If a tomato 'has a natural potential for the capacities of subjective awareness, intrinsic intentionality and cognition, and intentional action' then: a tomato.

But, that's silly, yeah?

In context: what do you and I know of that 'has a natural potential for the capacities of subjective awareness, intrinsic intentionality and cognition, and intentional action'?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 3:05 am ...'tell me what you think'

#

"A person is indivdual 'what' exactly?"

If a tomato 'has a natural potential for the capacities of subjective awareness, intrinsic intentionality and cognition, and intentional action' then: a tomato.

But, that's silly, yeah?

In context: what do you and I know of that 'has a natural potential for the capacities of subjective awareness, intrinsic intentionality and cognition, and intentional action'?

So, what you are getting at is: a 'person' is; an individual person.

If that is what you are getting at, then great.
But, if that is not what you are getting at, then what are you getting?

My answer, however, to your question is; A human foetus might have this 'natural potential'.

I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 12:56 am Okay...good...progress.

So: why is the six week old embryo a potential human, but anyone reading this an actual human?

What's the difference between that embryo and you?

viability outside the womb.

take modern science into account and move the weeks of preg as "murder" vs removing a clump of cells. i,e, make abortion legal to the time prior to viability, and move that timeline back as science progresses.

easy peazy.

I missed that. Please, repost.

#

Gaffo: "viability outside the womb."

That was my standard too, for a long time.

Doesn't really hold up though, does it?

Consider: June Wisenheimer is one month shy of her 100th birthday. Without any number of regular medical treatments and procedures, June will give up the ghost. Her days of biological viability are behind her. By your logic: we ought suspend any and all life-preserving -extending care and let her croak. Never mind that her mind is sharp, or that she might object to gettin' shoved into a grave.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 5:51 pm I missed that. Please, repost.

#

Gaffo: "viability outside the womb."

That was my standard too, for a long time.

Doesn't really hold up though, does it?

why does that concept not hold up Sir? i think it apt myself.