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
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5994
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 5:09 pm

Belinda wrote:
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.
Non-sequitur. "Murder" is the deliberate and unwarranted killing of another human being. It does not include warranted self-defence, and that you can see even in human courts.
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.
This is true. And what we are working on "interpreting" right now is the moral status of abortion.
Fundamentalists ignore what motivates a doctor to perform a clinical abortion, and a woman to choose it.
Not true. We know why women claim to get abortions.

In the West, by self-report of the involved women, 92% of abortions are purely elective. In only 7% of the cases is a reasonable extenuation even offered, such as perhaps some kind of violence or rape, with only 1% being true "self-defence" situations in which the mother's life is in danger. And that's not what I say, it's what the women say of themselves.

So I'll tell you what: if you recognize that the 92% are evil, I will discuss the others with you. And if you don't agree to the evil of the 92%, then it's not the case that you care at all about the other 8%...they are only a convenient excuse for you to hide the moral evil of the 92%.

So how would you like to go forward with this? Will you grant the evil of 92% of abortions?

Belinda
Posts: 2835
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 6:18 pm

So how would you like to go forward with this? Will you grant the evil of 92% of abortions?
I grant you they are relatively evil.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5994
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 7:41 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 6:18 pm
So how would you like to go forward with this? Will you grant the evil of 92% of abortions?
I grant you they are relatively evil.
Explain. What's "relatively" evil about them?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Belinda

Post by henry quirk » Sat May 18, 2019 7:49 pm

Thailand: disabled dog rescues baby buried alive by teenage mother Why has this teenage mother found it necessary to bury her baby alive?

Without details: any comment is just guesswork.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Mannie

Post by henry quirk » Sat May 18, 2019 8:03 pm

"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."

Sure we (you and me) do. We know exactly what's neccessary to secure (and keep secure) individual sovereignty (and it ain't got nuthin' to do with the ballot box or voting booth).

#

"But one day, justice will come."

No doubt. Till then I think I'm obligated to cover my keister (and the keisters of those I love) best I can. I honestly don't believe the other guy can be trusted to do that for me.

#

"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."

As a minarchist I want exactly that, and no more.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Mannie

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 18, 2019 8:17 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 8:03 pm
"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."

Sure we (you and me) do. We know exactly what's neccessary to secure (and keep secure) individual sovereignty (and it ain't got nuthin' to do with the ballot box or voting booth).
If we can do it, that's fine. But I suspect we can't do it, or can't do it long, or can't do it forever. So at some point, our sovereignty is going to have to be secured by more than force of our personal wills.
#

"But one day, justice will come."

No doubt. Till then I think I'm obligated to cover my keister (and the keisters of those I love) best I can. I honestly don't believe the other guy can be trusted to do that for me.
No, I don't trust "the other guy" either. But I'm realistic about how limited "best I can" often is.
#

"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."

As a minarchist I want exactly that, and no more.
Yep, agreed. The smaller a central government we have, the better off we all are.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Belinda

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 18, 2019 8:22 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 7:49 pm
Thailand: disabled dog rescues baby buried alive by teenage mother Why has this teenage mother found it necessary to bury her baby alive?

Without details: any comment is just guesswork.
In rural India, they do it because girls require dowry, and dowry can bankrupt a family, especially one with limited means. That's why most of the babies and young girls that have gone statistically missing in India are missing.

Perhaps this is a similar situation. Perhaps not.

But, we might ask the pro-abortionists, what's wrong here? The "mother" clearly did not want the baby, and perhaps thought she could not provide for her/him. Do they have any reaction? Why?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Mannie

Post by henry quirk » Sat May 18, 2019 8:36 pm

"If we can do it, that's fine. But I suspect we can't do it, or can't do it long, or can't do it forever. So at some point, our sovereignty is going to have to be secured by more than force of our personal wills."

In this world: what other choice do you and me and the like-minded have but to assert self-ownership and back that assertion with the fist, the knife, the gun? When the brutal outnumber the peaceable, the peacable mebbe need to be brutal.

#

"I'm realistic about how limited "best I can" often is."

Agreed, hence the need to identify and make an accord the like-minded.

Consider: self-reliant, -directing folks cooperate for reasons, and in ways, alien to the run-of-mill communitarians. Focused, short-term alliances can be powerful tools.

Walker
Posts: 6738
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 » Sun May 19, 2019 1:25 am

henry quirk wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:05 pm
:baby:
Seems like principled thinking (ethics) is thinking big (philosophy) about facts, and the ethical principle is, a pregnant woman carries the past and the future of the human race. Power that controls this, in all its forms, is the ultimate human power.

Age
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun May 19, 2019 2:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
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?
If you are asking if it is plainly understood now, then the answer is maybe, since you have somewhat clarified up what I was wondering. So, in part, thank you. But since you added the words "and we all know that", I am now curious as to who/what is the 'we' that you refer to here now, and which you say ALL OF know that 'it is a human and a person' inside the womb of a pregnant female of the human species.

Naturally if ALL of you knew that, then it would just be silly to ask a question like; Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat? And, it would be just as silly to respond if what you say here has any Truth to it. So, are you really SURE that ALL know what the answer is that you, yourself, say it is?

By the way when you say 'it is a human AND a person' are you saying that the two are one AND the same, or, are you saying that whatever 'it' is it is a human AS WELL AS a person?

Are you able to provide your definition for these two words?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
So, that 'thing' that was in the womb of your mother started out as a human AND a person but has some now changed into a 'theist'.

When did 'it' change from a human AND a person into a 'theist'.

How do you human beings actually separate yourselves into these compartmentalized groups like 'atheist', 'agnostic', 'theist', and other such labelled names? And, more so, WHY would you WANT to do such a separatist act upon yourselves?

Do you NOT see yourselves as human beings solely?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
God forbids murder, and forbids it to everyone.
Who/what is this 'God' thing? Why is It separate from human beings? How does It forbid murder to every one? And, how do you know God forbids murder? Also, murder to who or what?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
That REALLY does NOT answer my questions at all.

The first three are just the studying of things, and the last, without an example, says absolutely nothing at all.

Saying, I know what is right, or true, because of logic, means nothing. Although all of you adult human beings TRY this tactic it just does NOT work.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
What is your definition for the word 'person'?
A human being.
So, the words 'human', 'person', and 'human being' all mean the exact same thing to you, or do they mean different things, to you?

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). [/quote]

Who cares what "others" argue. You are TRYING TO prove that what you are saying here is absolutely true, right, and correct, true?

If yes, then you will NEED to be able to justify what you are saying through definitions, and by explaining what you are actually meaning by what you are saying. You NEED to be able to do this from the very first word all the way to the very last full stop. So far you are failing miserably.

So far what I have got from you is that a pregnant female of the human species is carrying a human AND a person within the womb, and that 'we' ALL know that. Besides the fact that the last part is blatantly and obviously WRONG, I am still unclear of what a human AND a person is, to you.

If no, (you are NOT trying to prove what you are saying here is absolutely true, right, and correct, then what are you trying to do here now?

By the way the 'fetus' is seen to be by some not just of the human species, as well as only coming into existence at a particular stage of development.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
So what? You ALSO TRY TO use some words, in some particular ways, to TRY TO "justify" your very own WRONG and EVIL ways. If you can do it, why can they not?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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).
Why do you LOOK AT what "others" do and care about this?

Why do you NOT LOOK AT what you do, which causes and allows many children to die?

LOOKING AT "others" and the WRONG they do, hoping that you will feel "better" about the WRONG that you, yourself, do, is NOT helping you nor any one else in any real way.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
To NOT provide YOUR definition for the word 'person', and then also to NOT provide YOUR defining exact moment this 'person' begins to exist it could be said is NOT rationally defensible either.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
By who, or what?

Who/what gives the label 'morally bad people'?

And how and where is 'objectively' perceived from EXACTLY.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
Noted.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
So, to you, there are some jurisdictions where it is completely permissible to kill the young of the human species while it is still in the womb BUT you will never be right to do that.

Can you spot the, OBVIOUS to me, contradiction here?

Another contradiction is you say we are NOT free to abort but also we are free to abort.

Are you able to elaborate and clear this up exactly. Are you human beings free to abort or are you NOT free to abort? Could you also provide some examples of when you are free and NOT free to abort?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
My intended clarifying question was completely taken out of context here, but as I say that is MY FAULT, and WHY I need to keep learning how to communicate better. What I meant was; Is it only the killing of the young of the human animal which is evil? Meaning, is the killing of the young of the nonhuman animal NOT evil and it is only evil to kill the young of the human animal?

Hopeful that works this time around.

You missed quoting and answering my next clarifying question, which is NOT uncommon at all by the way in this forum, but anyway you obviously do NOT want to LOOK AT that one, or just completely missed it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
Some people say that what you say is evil and wrong also.
Well, let's see what the Creator says.
Who or what is a 'Creator'?

What does this so called 'Creator' create?

Does this 'Creator' say things in human language? If yes, then which one of the thousands of different languages that you human beings use does this 'Creator' use and speak in?

Do you BELIEVE that you, yourself, does NOT do evil AND wrong?

And, how long do we have to wait to see what this 'Creator' says?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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? "
Are you being moral while you are actually "performing an act", which is ACTUALLY causing and creating the death of the young of the human species?

There is NO use TRYING 'thought experiments' when YOU are ACTUALLY killing human children right now.

Would you like to LOOK AT this issue? Or, would you prefer that we detract away from this?

YOU are actually causing the death of children let alone MAY BE doing it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
So strip away all the particulars (sacks, guns, etc.), and your answer would be...what?
No my answer would NOT be 'what?'

BUT you might be thinking 'what?' in relation to my accusation of YOU causing the death of children right now.

The amount of clarifying questions you now ask will SHOW if you have any REAL interest in morality or not.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
I do NOT judge.
Why not?
Because there is NO need to AND I already understand WHY all human beings do what they do, good AND bad, right AND wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
Surely you do have normal faculties of judgment, do you not?
That would all depend on what YOUR definition of 'NORMAL faculties of judgment' actually means.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
Or is "never judge" a sort of informal moral imperative you've adopted for some reason?
What do you actually mean when you say, 'a sort of informal moral imperative', which I have adopted for some reason.

I just do NOT judge because I ALREADY KNOW, and thus UNDERSTAND why you human beings behave and misbehave the way you do. What naturally follows on from this UNDERSTANDING and comes with that UNDERSTANDING is a NON judgmental view of ALL people.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
Or did somebody convince you that having some judgment was a bad idea?
No.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
What's your hesitation?
There is NO hesitation. There is just NO need.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
I would have thought that to know the difference between good and bad (i.e. be able to judge) was rather a good thing.
When you KNOW the difference between the two, then you just KNOW, so there is obviously NO need to judge.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
And if you agree, then you do judge...you simply may not act on your judgment.
Well i do NOT agree, so the rest is moot.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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"?
I define my view of 'right' and 'wrong' as; from what I have experienced and observed I can see what is right in Life and what is wrong in Life.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
Okay, that is great. That is EXACTLY what I intended, so thank you for the feedback. Just maybe I am learning how to communicate better.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
I'm curious as to what paradigm or criteria you personally employ to achieve that feat.
First, it is NOT a 'feat' as it is VERY simple and easy to achieve and reach.

Second, the criteria is just 'that' what IS in agreement with and by ALL.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:27 pm
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.
Firstly, I am different as I do NOT 'insist' any thing.

Secondly, I use the objective perspective to SEE and REACH what is right in Life and what is wrong in Life.

Age
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age

Post by Age » Sun May 19, 2019 2:21 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 4:11 pm
"It is called a foetus."

Sure, but is it a person?
I did NOT say that. Some one else wrote those words.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Age

Post by henry quirk » Sun May 19, 2019 4:47 am

You're right: that was Mr. Seagull.

My apologies.

Age
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age

Post by Age » Sun May 19, 2019 6:16 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 4:47 am
You're right: that was Mr. Seagull.

My apologies.
No need to. All good. But thanks anyway.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

anyone?

Post by henry quirk » Mon May 20, 2019 3:32 pm

What a pregnant woman carries: is it a person? When does it become a person? If it's a person, shouldn't it be accorded the same consideration as any other person?

gaffo
Posts: 2290
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Gaffo

Post by gaffo » Mon May 20, 2019 11:56 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:25 pm
I asked: 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?


You responded: 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 countered: 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.


You responded: i do not see the relivance of the above to abortion.


If 'viability outside the womb' is dividing line between a clump of cells and a person, then June Wisenheimer, with her decrepitude (her lack of viability) might be considered just a clump of aged cells not deserving of life-extending or -preserving care. Sounds silly, but it is the logical conclusion if 'viability outside the womb' is the litmus test. If we abort, based on inviability then we have no good reason to provide care to the inviable outside the womb.
i understand now. thanks for reply.

i do not agree with it -apples/oranges - but i understand your point now.

hard to say, but sometimes (not saying the gal you refer is one of them) - but sometimes extending life for its own sake is cruel. yes there is such a thing as mercy killing - should never be legalized (for gov power to become corrupt is too great) - but would not convict a person accused of that if given cercumstances as a juror on a trial of the accussed.

per a story about a gal that was beaten then set on fire by a serial killer - cop found the girl in the woods - he did not kill her to put her out of her missery (but i would have aquited him if i were a juror and he was on trial for killing her - he conforted her 90-pecent burnd 3rd degree body and of course she died a few hours later in the hospital.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests