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
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

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

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 am

Kunts like this aren't 'exceptions'; they are the rule. The only reason male kristian anti-choicers want males to have a say in personal abortion decisions is so that they can force their mistresses to have them:

Image

Image


Since you were on the subject of 'principles':


Image

I take it you think a man should be able to force a woman to abort a foetus in order to avoid child support payments.

Walker
Posts: 6842
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

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

Post by Walker » Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:40 am

I take it you support killing a baby to avoid feeding it, raising it, loving it.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:19 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:05 pm
:baby:
Complexity of life in embrio is a gradual process. It is simple form of life which turns into a complex one.

gaffo
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:18 am

meat until the 24th week.

gaffo
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:36 am
24 weeks and prior "meat"

post 24 weeks a baby.

clear enough?
That's your view.

Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
why week 12?

gaffo
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:23 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:31 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:36 am
24 weeks and prior "meat"

post 24 weeks a baby.

clear enough?
That's your view.

Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
Whilst I would argue for the earliest possible abortion, and agree that 12 weeks would be a better time to aim for than 24 weeks. Foetuses are no "persons" until they are named and certified by live birth.

Premature births at 24 weeks are survivable, though the children can face serious medical conditions. I would try to convince any prospective mother to keep any child over 22 weeks.
Gaffo should take a look at this.
https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/ ... ek-24.aspx
my position has been clear from day one. its the same as the Supreme Court.

Viability. to date AFIAK its 24th week...............if it is 22nd week, fine, the meat become baby at 22nd week.

as science advances, the week pregresses, and i shall amend the meat vs baby with the science.

its not rocket science.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

gaffo

Post by henry quirk » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am

gaffo wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:36 am
24 weeks and prior "meat"

post 24 weeks a baby.

clear enough?
That's your view.

Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
why week 12?
Cuz by then all the biological machinery that seems to be necessary for a person to be a person is in place. Before that, not so much.

gaffo
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:52 am

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am
gaffo wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am


That's your view.

Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
why week 12?
Cuz by then all the biological machinery that seems to be necessary for a person to be a person is in place. Before that, not so much.
ok, but science to date is not able to keep that fetus alive?

if so, then your view is not mine sadly.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- » Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 am
...a man should be able to force a woman to abort a foetus in order to avoid child support payments.
I never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. The guy is responsible for the child 50%. Yet she has to live with the consequences. Why can't he? He should be forced to live with the consequences equally, which means, that he should also be in a position to order an abortion.

The woman's body belongs strictly to the woman. She has absolute sovereignty over it. But the fetus she carries is 50% somebody else. The father must not only have equal say to KEEP the child, as the woman, he must also have equal say to NOT keep the child, as the woman.

Nobody else should have a say in this, but the father and the mother equally. The fetus is THEIRS, not hers, not his, but THEIRS.

And definitely not anyone else's, like a congressman's or a congresswoman's.
Last edited by -1- on Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- » Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:26 am

gaffo wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:23 am

my position has been clear from day one. its the same as the Supreme Court.

Viability. to date AFIAK its 24th week...............if it is 22nd week, fine, the meat become baby at 22nd week.

as science advances, the week pregresses, and i shall amend the meat vs baby with the science.

its not rocket science.
As science advances, we'll see a day, theoretically, when every sperm is sacred.

The house will be full of human polliwogs. A married couple will run out of first names before the tea pot boils.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

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

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:44 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 am
...a man should be able to force a woman to abort a foetus in order to avoid child support payments.
I never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. The guy is responsible for the child 50%. Yet she has to live with the consequences. Why can't he? He should be forced to live with the consequences equally, which means, that he should also be in a position to order an abortion.

The woman's body belongs strictly to the woman. She has absolute sovereignty over it. But the fetus she carries is 50% somebody else. The father must not only have equal say to KEEP the child, as the woman, he must also have equal say to NOT keep the child, as the woman.

Nobody else should have a say in this, but the father and the mother equally. The fetus is THEIRS, not hers, not his, but THEIRS.

And definitely not anyone else's, like a congressman's or a congresswoman's.
Shallow thinking. Completely ridiculous and unenforceable (from both perspectives). A foetus is not dependent on the male for it's survival. As far as nature is concerned, after impregnation the male's job is done (and nature doesn't give a flying fuck about human opinions or habits). Why don't you try to give it a little more thought?
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Sculptor » Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:13 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am
gaffo wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am


That's your view.

Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
why week 12?
Cuz by then all the biological machinery that seems to be necessary for a person to be a person is in place. Before that, not so much.
Usual ignorance.
The biological machinery for life is in place at conception. The timeline is therefore arbitrary. Personhood is when the baby is born and named.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Sculptor

Post by henry quirk » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:29 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:13 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am
gaffo wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am


why week 12?
Cuz by then all the biological machinery that seems to be necessary for a person to be a person is in place. Before that, not so much.
Usual ignorance.
The biological machinery for life is in place at conception. The timeline is therefore arbitrary. Personhood is when the baby is born and named.
Yes, the machinery for life is in place at conception, but what seems to be necessary for personhood is not. I'm talkin' about organs, organ systems, etc, not just rapidly dividing cells. And, of course, I disagree with your notion about the beginning of personhood.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:03 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:44 am
Shallow thinking. Completely ridiculous and unenforceable (from both perspectives). A foetus is not dependent on the male for it's survival. As far as nature is concerned, after impregnation the male's job is done (and nature doesn't give a flying fuck about human opinions or habits). Why don't you try to give it a little more thought?
This does not address the issue I raised at all. You make three claims, that are either false, or else have nothing to do with the issues.

Your claims with my responses:

1. The idea is unenforceable. But it is enforceable! Haven't you heard of abortions?

2. Foetus survival depends on the mother alone. Not true. The mother alone in historical times was not able to raise children by herself. Or support a developing foetus biologically. Have you ever seen a mother before, during, and after birth, produce food in all phases of food production and raw material procurement? No you haven't. You haven't seen pregnant women in their last month run after gazelles and kill them. Or chop wood. Or harvest wheat with scites. Or build houses for shelter. Or build fireplaces to bake bread or to cook in / with. The foetus depends on the father as much as on the mother for survival. In our modern societies, it depends on social safety net (if there is one), or on the financial support of the father (if there is one around) for survival.

3. Nature does not give a fuck. This is true, and makes no difference at all in my argument.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

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

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:14 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:03 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:44 am
Shallow thinking. Completely ridiculous and unenforceable (from both perspectives). A foetus is not dependent on the male for it's survival. As far as nature is concerned, after impregnation the male's job is done (and nature doesn't give a flying fuck about human opinions or habits). Why don't you try to give it a little more thought?
This does not address the issue I raised at all. You make three claims, that are either false, or else have nothing to do with the issues.

Your claims with my responses:

1. The idea is unenforceable. But it is enforceable! Haven't you heard of abortions?

2. Foetus survival depends on the mother alone. Not true. The mother alone in historical times was not able to raise children by herself. Or support a developing foetus biologically. Have you ever seen a mother before, during, and after birth, produce food in all phases of food production and raw material procurement? No you haven't. You haven't seen pregnant women in their last month run after gazelles and kill them. Or chop wood. Or harvest wheat with scites. Or build houses for shelter. Or build fireplaces to bake bread or to cook in / with. The foetus depends on the father as much as on the mother for survival. In our modern societies, it depends on social safety net (if there is one), or on the financial support of the father (if there is one around) for survival.

3. Nature does not give a fuck. This is true, and makes no difference at all in my argument.
I don't know why I bother--so I won't :cry:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests