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

FOR THE RECORD

Post by henry quirk » Fri May 17, 2019 6:55 pm

I generated this thread to further conversation.

That it strays, meanders, or drifts off-topic or into unexpected territory is fine by me.

I'm not an anal-retentive jackhole lookin' to force thread participants to stay on the straight & narrow.

'Bout the only thing I'd prefer not to see in-thread is an actual anal-retentive jackhole tryin' to force thread participants to stay on the straight & narrow.

Bugger off, jackholes!

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

Re: Belinda

Post by Belinda » Fri May 17, 2019 7:00 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 6:46 pm
"To deny an abortion to a pregnant woman is to deny her right to own her body."

Mebbe. Could be, though, that temporary and very narrow restraint of the woman is simply meant to preserve another human life.

#

"Her foetus is not a person but a foetus and cannot have any rights as it's not in any sense independent."

The jury is (still) out on what a woman carries. As for its rights being tied to its independence: this is as flawed as 'viability' as the standard. After all: there's a whole whack of oldsters who lack 'independence'. Are they without rights?

#

"It depends utterly and completely upon the rest of her body."

Someone who relies on dialysis or an iron lung is in the same boat. They lack 'rights', yeah?

#

"You may as well claim that the woman's heart is a person."

That's silly. Her heart will never be anything but a heart. That bundle of cells in her womb: that'll become (and mebbe already is) a person.

#

"The foetus becomes relatively viable as the pregnancy advances. The trouble with people who believe that a foetus is a person is they have no notion of relativity."

Mebbe. Or mebbe they simply recognize there are 'absolutes'.

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

Post by henry quirk » Fri May 17, 2019 7:03 pm

Age asked...

"Why would a human being in this day and age, when this is written, even have or own a gun?"

I hunt with my shotgun, and I've self-defended with it, so: self-preservation, self-reliance, self-defense.

#

"What logical explanation could there be given for a gun to even still be in existence?"

Self-preservation, self-reliance, self-defense.


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 » Fri May 17, 2019 7:17 pm

Henry Quirk, I agree with you on all points except the last one. There are no absolute moral laws any more. Life's decisions were easier when there were absolute moral laws, in past times when people generally believed that God had revealed moral laws.

On all the other points you draw attention to you are right that these are worthy considerations. Generally I think that people who would prevent a woman's right to her own body are generally the same people who believe that there are moral laws that are fixed for all time, unchanging, even after the advent of enormous changes in technology, and globalisation that rapidly changes cultures.

I understand why some people seek to hold back modernity where all moral decisions relate not to God's moral law but to particular situations . Modernity brings responsibilities and decisions that many perhaps most individuals feel unfit to shoulder. This present debate about clinical abortion is a difficult one. A few decades ago there was a similar debate about artificial contraception, and that debate settled into a general consensus that artificial contraception was morally justified.

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

Belinda

Post by henry quirk » Fri May 17, 2019 7:30 pm

"There are no absolute moral laws any more."

Well, there's a moral relativism runnin' rampant, for sure. Not sure that's the same as 'no absolute moral law'.

As a once indifferent agnostic who's become a slightly-less indifferent deist, I have to wonder if the house Crom built doesn't mebbe have some rules.


And: just call me Henry, B.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5904
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 » Fri May 17, 2019 7:48 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:17 pm
There are no absolute moral laws any more.
"Any more"? So then, you say they DID exist, but you banished them?

How'd you do that?
Life's decisions were easier when there were absolute moral laws, in past times when people generally believed that God had revealed moral laws.
Confused decisions aren't generally better ones.
Generally I think that people who would prevent a woman's right to her own body...
You're assuming she HAS a right to "her own body." Sorry, but nobody has a right to "their own" body. At most, we have temporary responsibility for it. But our option to use it for just any old evil purpose we may happen to like, well, we never had that in the first place. We don't allow people to use "their own" fists to punch other people in the head; why would would we allow a woman to use "her" womb as a place to create and then murder infants? It wasn't designed for that, and nobody promised her that alleged "right."
...are generally the same people who believe that there are moral laws that are fixed for all time, unchanging, even after the advent of enormous changes in technology, and globalisation that rapidly changes cultures.
You're making the old, but very simple logical mistake of thinking that increasing the number of opinions changes the truth. It doesn't.
I understand why some people seek to hold back modernity...
Who are you thinking of, the Amish? Nobody else is.

Relativism isn't a signal of sophistication. But it's certain proof of moral confusion. And being morally-confused isn't an admirable characteristic of any time period, modern or otherwise.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri May 17, 2019 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Age: "I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me."

Post by Kayla » Fri May 17, 2019 7:55 pm

Age wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 2:46 pm
Why would a human being in this day and age, when this is written, even have or own a gun?

What logical explanation could there be given for a gun to even still be in existence?
obviously you are not a farmer

where i live we have coyotes and we have feral pigs

neither mixes well with free range poultry, or baby goats or lambs, and the latter do not mix well with crops of any sort

both are smart enough to avoid places where they are shot at

also feral pigs are very delicious, but these days we have to go look for them, they avoid our farm - and it is much safer to hunt them with a gun than with a spear

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 » Fri May 17, 2019 9:18 pm

Immanuel Can, I am not going to even begin to try to inform you.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

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

Post by A_Seagull » Fri May 17, 2019 10:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:48 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:17 pm
There are no absolute moral laws any more.
Generally I think that people who would prevent a woman's right to her own body...
You're assuming she HAS a right to "her own body." Sorry, but nobody has a right to "their own" body. At most, we have temporary responsibility for it. But our option to use it for just any old evil purpose we may happen to like, well, we never had that in the first place. We don't allow people to use "their own" fists to punch other people in the head; why would would we allow a woman to use "her" womb as a place to create and then murder infants? It wasn't designed for that, and nobody promised her that alleged "right."

People have rights if they give themselves rights and claim those rights. Just as I have the right to think that you are talking nonsense. Nevertheless I allow you the right to speak your nonsense.
As someone once said: 'Your right to swing your fists ends at my nose'. In the same vein.. your right to interact with the world ends at my body.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

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

Post by Greta » Fri May 17, 2019 11:59 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 10:34 pm
As someone once said: 'Your right to swing your fists ends at my nose'. In the same vein.. your right to interact with the world ends at my body.
Perfect.

"Right-to-lifers" never cared about saving lives. You don't see them protesting against war, teen suicide, cuts to health budgets and cycles of poverty. They are mostly abject liars.

The entire "pro-life" movement is based on a ridiculous lie. So many "pro-lifers" truly and and deeply don't give a damn about any person outside of their church and circle. They claim to care about embryos but do they actually feel love for a blastocyst - or are they rationalising their misogyny?

The below is what "pro-lifers" are valuing over adult women - they see our lives as less valuable than even a microbe's.

Image

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

A_S

Post by henry quirk » Sat May 18, 2019 1:15 am

This...

your right to interact with the world ends at my body.

...squarely brings us back to my opening question: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

If 'meat' then: meh, do as you like with it.

If 'person': then your right to interact with the world ends with his/her body, yeah?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5904
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 » Sat May 18, 2019 1:30 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 10:34 pm
People have rights if they give themselves rights and claim those rights.
Then their "rights" are only theirs if they have strong arms, and those arm remain permanently strong. The minute they weaken in their ability to enforce their "rights," they will lose them to somebody stronger, or some group that's bigger and can exert more force.

And if they never had enough strength to enforce their "rights" in the first place, well, it's hard cheese for those people -- according to your definition, they never had rights at all, then.

The claim is worth zero if you can't make others listen to you. And the only way one can "give" oneself rights is by having enough force to assert them, in that case.

Not ordinarily what we mean when we speak of "rights".

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5904
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 » Sat May 18, 2019 1:31 am

Belinda wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 9:18 pm
Immanuel Can, I am not going to even begin to try to inform you.
I'm desolate.

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

Mannie

Post by henry quirk » Sat May 18, 2019 2:42 am

"Then their "rights" are only theirs if they have strong arms, and those arm remain permanently strong. The minute they weaken in their ability to enforce their "rights," they will lose them to somebody stronger, or some group that's bigger and can exert more force."

But that 'is' the state of affairs, whether man is just a smart ape or an ensouled marvel. That is: even an ensouled marvel will have to fight to keep body & soul as one cuz all the intrinsic value in the word, and God's blessing from above, don't mean diddly when a some one who sees you as 'resource' comes to take your shit.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest