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

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sat May 18, 2019 3:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
Age wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 2:46 pm
What do you mean by 'obviously'?
Nothing sinister. I just mean that when one knows whether the entity in the womb is human, and when one knows that it is a person, one has different answers to what is ethical to do with it than if one supposes it's not human but only "life," and not a person but "meat."
So, I have expressed clearly what a pregnant female of the human species is carrying in the womb when she is pregnant, from my perspective.

Has any one else done this here?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
To me, this thread title has only one question, which only asks one thing, only.

To me, there is absolutely nothing about murder, killing, not abortion.

Well, perhaps that's because you missed the strand from which the question was generated, on which the subject (and the application of the question) was abortion. Perhaps that could have been specified, if that's what Henry wanted us to focus on.

You are right to say that you didn't start talking about the abortion/murder issue. However, I doubt it's obscure.


What other people are talking about among themselves might not be obscure, if it was being read/listened to, but I have NOT discussed the abortion/murder issue, for OBVIOUS reasons.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
And I wonder, then, just what you thought the application of the question was going to turn out to be?


I do NOT like to assume any thing so I was NOT wondering what the question was going to turn out to be. I just wait to SEE what occurs.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
I can't imagine what else you thought, but I'm willing to hear.


I was NOT thinking of any thing in regards to what that question was "going to turn out to be". For the OBVIOUS reason that no matter what one person calls 'it', which is within a pregnant female, that will have absolutely NO bearing on what another person calls 'it' and thinks about abortion, murder, and/or killing.

To even discuss the issue of abortion is a waste of time because besides the matter being a to subjective of a matter NO one has a right to say any thing without KNOWING ALL scenarios and/or KNOWING each and every particular event that has lead up to a particular a scenario. This is from my perspective, but obviously you are free to discuss this issue for as long as you want to.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm

Who is the 'we' that 'you' are referring to here?
Generic: call it, "the reasoning person," if you will.


Do you class a person who has completely opposite views to you a "reasoning person" also? Or, do you NOT class them as "a reasoning person"?

This is NOT about "if 'you' will. This is NOT about 'me'. I did NOT use the 'we' word, you did. So, 'you' HAVE TO be able to clarify what 'you' yourself are saying and talking about.

The 'we' that you are referring to here can be so many different things that when, and if, you LOOKED AT this OPENLY and Honestly, then you will SEE that you really have NO idea of what you are talking about. Just like EVERY other adult human being when they use words like 'we' have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about. Through clarifying questioning this can be very easily and simply evidenced and SHOWN to be correct.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Mannie

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 18, 2019 3:43 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:42 am
God's blessing from above, don't mean diddly when a some one who sees you as 'resource' comes to take your shit.
Well, that depends.

It depends on whether or not the lawmakers in your society have become convinced that "rights" are a real and unalienable thing, and whether or not they take seriously their duty to enforce them. From a purely Materialist perspective, they can only assert such rights arbitrarily themselves, so their belief in them is not likely to be strong. But where people do not believe "rights" are mere smoke-and-mirrors, and know why they are not, they may well tend to take their duty to uphold them more seriously. And then one may not find oneself simply at the disposal of "someone who sees one as a resource."

But even when that's not the case, and when there's no justice on earth, earth is not the final word on justice.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

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

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 18, 2019 3:50 am

Age wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 3:28 am
What other people are talking about among themselves might not be obscure, if it was being read/listened to, but I have NOT discussed the abortion/murder issue, for OBVIOUS reasons.
That was the subject of the earlier thread. Again, if you were unaware of that, it's regrettable. But it's also nobody's fault.
Do you class a person who has completely opposite views to you a "reasoning person" also?
The adjective "reasoning" can be attached to anybody who can produce sufficient reasons and logic to justify their position.

On the other hand, people who rely on emotional bluster, posturing, obfuscation, insults, raillery, snark, misdirection or gratuitous gainsaying...well, you be the judge of whether or not such people attain the standard of being "reasoners."

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
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 » Sat May 18, 2019 4:00 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
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".
Yes, numbers count as much if not more than individual strength.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: A_S

Post by A_Seagull » Sat May 18, 2019 4:02 am

henry quirk wrote:
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?
It is called a foetus.

Age
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sat May 18, 2019 7:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Obviously, that millisecond does not alter what the child intrinsically is. So we know that for certain there is at least some period of time (let's say third trimester, for argument's sake) that the child is a person inside the mother. But then, we have the same boundary issue again, when it comes to the question, "What's the big difference between very-late second trimester and very-early third?" And again, we'd have to admit that we simply do not know it's not a person.
Is this any different from what I said previously?
Only that the following implication can now be added:
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
And as long as that remains the case, we are immoral to kill the child. We may well be committing a murder, and have no justification for thinking otherwise, then.
I have absolutely NO idea where you are taking this nor what you are TRYING TO imply here.
See my answer above. I'm saying that it is not moral to kill entities that, for all we know, are likely to be human.
What do you mean by; "likely" to be human"?

To me what a pregnant female of the human species is carrying in the womb IS a human. To me "they" are human at conception.

To you when does a 'human' begin?

How do you KNOW you are being immoral to kill the young of the human species?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
As I say, we know for a fact that a born-baby and an immediately-pre-born baby are both fully persons, in all the defensible senses.
How do you KNOW this? What are you basing this upon?

What is your definition for the word 'person'?

Also, what do you mean by "defensible senses"? And, do you have any examples of what exactly "defensible senses" are, so that 'we' can LOOK AT them, and then discuss?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
What we don't know is the status of the child earlier; and so long as we don't know, we're not free to kill it with saline injections, or tear it apart with forceps and flush it into a sink.
What do you mean by; 'we are not free' to kill it ...?

Are there some jurisdictions where it is completely permissible to kill the young of the human species while it is still in the womb?

If yes, then 'we' are free to kill it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
That would be an evil thing to do to a "person." And we have absolutely no reason to be confident we're not doing it to a person.
Is it only evil to kill the young of the human animal?

Are you just trying to say that it is evil, or wrong, to abort any 'thing' being carried in a pregnant female of the human species no matter at what age 'it' is at?

If yes, then so what?

Some people say that what you say is evil and wrong also.

If no, then what are you just trying to say?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Think of it this way. Suppose I gave you a gun, and said, "Just for fun, let's fire six shots through the middle of the door over there." And you said, "Is there anybody behind the door?" And then I responded, "Maybe: we don't know for sure. It could be nothing, it could be an animal, or it could be your best friend or your spouse."

Would you shoot the gun?
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?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Would you be an ethical person if you did?
Would you really call that "fun"?

I certainly would NOT.

That's all an evasion of the thought experiment. Don't worry...I have no concern about any pro- or anti-gun agenda, at the moment.

Okay I will NOT worry, but then again I NEVER have anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
Let me reframe the thought experiment this way, so as to avoid your reaction to guns:

There's a (biodegradable, if you like) sack perched on the edge of a river. I say, "Push it in." You say, "What's in the sack?"
But I would NOT say that first. What I would instead first ask is, "Why?"

Now, I could tell you what you will say, but that would NOT really be how a "thought experiment" works, correct?

If yes, then you can NOT propose a 'thought experiment', and then TELL me what I would, nor would not, say. 'Thought experiments' just do NOT work that way. Do you understand?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
I say, "Possibly nothing, and possibly your daughter." Would you push it in, without finding out first?
Well that would all depend on the multitude of millions of varying different factors like for example: Do I like my daughter? Do I want her dead anyway? Is she still alive in the biodegradable sack or is she dead anyway? Did I kill her and want to dispose/hide the body? Plus millions of other variables that I would have to first consider before I would answer your question here.

Would you care to start to explain the FULL scenario? Obviously I can NOT make a well informed decision and give you a Truly Honest answer if I have not yet been fully informed.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
And if you just went ahead and pushed it in, even if, at the end of the day it wasn't your daughter in there, what sort of person would that decision make you?
To me, there is NO "sort" of person. See, unlike 'you', adult human beings, I do NOT judge.

What I do instead is SEE, and UNDERSTAND, how ALL of you adult human beings do some right, but do far more wrong in comparison.

Age
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re:

Post by Age » Sat May 18, 2019 7:48 am

henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 6:32 pm
Age wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 2:46 pm
"What does 'mebbe' mean?"
'maybe'

#
Okay 'mebbe', to you, means 'maybe'. Got it now. Thank you.
henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 6:32 pm
Age wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 2:46 pm
"And, what would that information be actually useful for exactly?"
You'd have to ask the individual who has an interest.
Do you have an interest about when thinking and feeling begins, in the womb?

If yes, then what could that information be useful for exactly?
If no, then that is fine also, as I also have absolutely NO interest in knowing EXACTLY when thinking and emotional feelings begin within a human fetus.
henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 6:32 pm
Jane might have a different reason for wantin' to know than Sally who may have a different reason than Stan who may have a different reason than Lucinda, and on and on.
Could this principle apply to absolutely EVERY human being?
henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 6:32 pm
More generally: new information is always a good thing, yeah?
As been pointed out already: You would have to ask the individual who has an interest. BECAUSE Jane might have a different reason for wantin' to know than Sally who may have a different reason than Stan who may have a different reason than Lucinda, and on and on.

Also, some people might want "new" information for 'bad' purposes, and this, to "others", is NOT a good thing. You adult human beings do, after all, mostly only want "new" knowledge so that you can obtain some thing beneficial for your own self, or only for you and a very few select "others", usually in some monetized, greedy way.

Age
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: FOR THE RECORD

Post by Age » Sat May 18, 2019 7:50 am

henry quirk wrote:
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!
Has any one TRIED TO do this?

Age
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re:

Post by Age » Sat May 18, 2019 8:17 am

henry quirk wrote:
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?"
Yes that is right, that is what I did ask.
henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:03 pm
I hunt with my shotgun, and I've self-defended with it, so: self-preservation, self-reliance, self-defense.

#
Okay so owning a gun is said, by some, to be for self-preservation, self-reliance, and self-defense. But how could an unborn human be provided with self-reliance for self-defense, for self-preservation, from and older human being with saline injections, or forceps that are about to pull them apart, when they obviously do NOT have access to a gun?

What do you propose these younger humans could use for their self-defense, for their self-preservation?


henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:03 pm
Age wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 2:46 pm
"What logical explanation could there be given for a gun to even still be in existence?"
Self-preservation, self-reliance, self-defense.
But who are you human beings self-preserving yourselves from EXACTLY?

Who do you need self-defending from EXACTLY?

As far as I can see the ONLY ONE'S that you REALLY NEED defending from is your own (STUPID) selves.

Obviously if you human beings did NOT create guns and weapons, then you would NOT have to defend yourselves, from yourselves.

But if guns is what you Truly BELIEVE is necessary, then keep going right ahead creating this "world" that you are living in right now, when this is written. The other REAL world I find much more simpler and easier to live in, but you are FREE to live the way you WANT TO.

By the way you can TRY TO "justify" the use of guns for self-defense from yourselves for as long as you like, but the STUPIDITY of it speaks for itself. I certainly do NOT need to say any more.

Also are 'you', human beings really ONLY self-reliant with a gun?

I wonder what you human beings actually RELIED ON for all of those hundreds of thousands, and/or millions, of years BEFORE you human beings brought guns into existence?

Belinda
Posts: 2779
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 » Sat May 18, 2019 8:57 am

Thailand: disabled dog rescues baby buried alive by teenage mother

Why has this teenage mother found it necessary to bury her baby alive?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

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

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm

Age wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 7:29 am
What do you mean by; "likely" to be human"?
You are correct. I was being too polite to "the other side" in my choice of wording. It's a human and a person, and we all know that.

Plain now?
How do you KNOW you are being immoral to kill the young of the human species?
If I were an Atheist, there is no way I could answer. I wouldn't "know," but I might "prefer" not to. If I were an Agnostic, I might hover in uncertainty. But I'm a Theist. God forbids murder, and forbids it to everyone.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm
As I say, we know for a fact that a born-baby and an immediately-pre-born baby are both fully persons, in all the defensible senses.
How do you KNOW this? What are you basing this upon?
Biology, psychology, physiology and logic.
What is your definition for the word 'person'?
A human being. Animals and objects don't qualify. But some abortionists argue that though we all know (biologically) that a fetus is a human (i.e. not porcine or feline), it doesn't qualify as a person (which they define as a being with utility to society).

For them, this means that a) the baby can be "terminated" at any point in the pregnancy, and b) the value of a person will not commence until its external to the mother -- and in some cases, they say, not even then. In any case, what they want is for women to be able to kill babies at will, unchallenged by moral constraints (see the old, "it's my body" argument), and in extreme cases, this includes not only third trimester (see Canada), but even a few days post-birth (as in current Virginia proposals).
Also, what do you mean by "defensible senses"? And, do you have any examples of what exactly "defensible senses" are, so that 'we' can LOOK AT them, and then discuss?
Let's start with my last comment. To say that a baby is "not a person" is not rationally defensible.
What do you mean by; 'we are not free' to kill it ...?
I mean if we do it, we will be objectively morally bad people.
Are there some jurisdictions where it is completely permissible to kill the young of the human species while it is still in the womb?
Yes.
If yes, then 'we' are free to kill it.
We're "free" in that unrestricted sense, to do many immoral things. But we'll never be right to do them.
Is it only evil to kill the young of the human animal?
No. There are many evil things one can do. But we are not discussing all of them at present.
Some people say that what you say is evil and wrong also.
Well, let's see what the Creator says.
There's a (biodegradable, if you like) sack perched on the edge of a river. I say, "Push it in." You say, "What's in the sack?"

But I would NOT say that first. What I would instead first ask is, "Why?"
The point of the thought experiment is only to isolate the key issue, not to create an actual happening. The key issue is,
"Can you be moral while performing an act that you know MAY kill a human being, even if you aren't sure it will? "

So strip away all the particulars (sacks, guns, etc.), and your answer would be...what?
I do NOT judge.
Why not? Surely you do have normal faculties of judgment, do you not? Or is "never judge" a sort of informal moral imperative you've adopted for some reason? Or did somebody convince you that having some judgment was a bad idea? What's your hesitation?

I would have thought that to know the difference between good and bad (i.e. be able to judge) was rather a good thing. And if you agree, then you do judge...you simply may not act on your judgment.
ALL of you adult human beings do some right, but do far more wrong in comparison.
Well, how do you define your view of "right" and "wrong"?

You say you can "see" and "understand" them. That's very assertive, but I see you intended to be, as you put both words in caps.

I'm curious as to what paradigm or criteria you personally employ to achieve that feat. Because of course there are quite a few people to day who insist there are no objective grounds for moral qualities like "right" and "wrong," so I'd like to see how you're different from them in that.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Mannie

Post by henry quirk » Sat May 18, 2019 4:09 pm

"It depends on whether or not the lawmakers in your society have become convinced that "rights" are a real and unalienable thing, and whether or not they take seriously their duty to enforce them."

Sure. I ain't holdin' my breath on that ever happenin'.

Consider: most of the world lives under, is burdened by, prehistoric culture/morality/ethics. Enclaves wherein the human individual is considered sovereign are relatively new and limited, and under constant assault. It's a brutal world. No utopia is likely. "earth is not the final word on justice" but Earth is where I am, and where I intend to stay, so I look to Valhalla but make great personal efforts to not go there today.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Age

Post by henry quirk » Sat May 18, 2019 4:11 pm

"It is called a foetus."

Sure, but is it a person?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Mannie

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 18, 2019 4:31 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 4:09 pm
"It depends on whether or not the lawmakers in your society have become convinced that "rights" are a real and unalienable thing, and whether or not they take seriously their duty to enforce them."

Sure. I ain't holdin' my breath on that ever happenin'.
It's what Locke thought, and what the US founders thought. But it's not a durable view once Theism is no longer taken for granted. So we've kind of cooked that by secularizing. Now we don't know what we can use to get "rights" for people, except ride the tradition as long as people don't question too hard.
Consider: most of the world lives under, is burdened by, prehistoric culture/morality/ethics. Enclaves wherein the human individual is considered sovereign are relatively new and limited, and under constant assault.
Yep. And the idea of "right" was unique to the Christian West anyway. Other cultures don't have that concept at all, except when a few of them have borrowed it from there, through intercultural assimilation.
It's a brutal world. No utopia is likely. "earth is not the final word on justice" but Earth is where I am, and where I intend to stay, so I look to Valhalla but make great personal efforts to not go there today.
Fair enough.

But one day, justice will come. We will not have to make it come, but it will. Meanwhile, we do well to make things as just as we can, realizing that some degree of failure is inevitable. No utopia can be made -- and those that have been tried have invariably been promoted with blood -- but perhaps the sort of just recognition of human failure and moral untrustworthiness might lead us to make modest laws that guard us against the most extreme bad possibilities. (This is the idea of "checks and balances" that underwrote the American Constitution: we "check" the excesses and "balance" the limitations of our human moral condition with reasonable safeguards, not that we create utopia.)

And that would be good. I'd rather live where there were laws to prevent the worst evils from being actualized than live in a place where there were no such laws, or where utopian-aspirers had power to kill me in order to "advance" their vision of the perfect world.

Belinda
Posts: 2779
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 » Sat May 18, 2019 4:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
God forbids murder, and forbids it to everyone.
If that were the case God would have forbidden killing in battle, capital punishment, or self defence. The Commandment forbidding murder is a moral principle so you have to interpret it. If it were a simple instruction all you would have to do is blindly obey it.

Fundamentalists ignore what motivates a doctor to perform a clinical abortion, and a woman to choose it. Why would a woman choose to abort? What dreadful social conditions force her to choose to abort her baby? What is being done in Alabama to support the woman and her baby who are the victims in all this ? How are the Alabama authorities going to stop the victim of rape or incest going to a back street abortionist or trying to self-abort?


The clinician who performs the operation is motivated to help the women patients and in many cases the foetuses too. The title of this discussion which presents two alternatives makes no mention of motive towards choosing abortion. The act itself is seen to be all that matters, according to the title.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest