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
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: gaffo

Post by -1- » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:09 am

gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:26 am
"e plurs unim(sp). is a good thing pregmatically, and something i support -
Why do you support it?

It means "out of many, one". This is a complete non sequitur. It means nothing in and by itself. Out of many whats? One what? Or one who? What the fuck does this mean? It has no meaning, because it makes no sense.

But it's a great American tradition nevertheless, much like bibleism, KKK, and killing the yellow man, to support a belief in, and a lifestyle based on, absolute nonsense.

If you don't believe me, just to take a look at Dachshund and Henry Quirk.

"In God we trust. Everyone else pays cash." -- this is more pragmatic methinks.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
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- » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:27 am

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:58 am

-1-,

Veggie suffers from chronic emotional impulsivity and severe emotional lability. This is why she loses her temper all the time on the forum and blurts out so many disgusting expletive-laden posts (most of them are enough to make a sailor blush!). I think she has a congenital frontal lobe disorder, or maybe she was dropped on her head as a baby ? ( but I'm afraid to mention it in case I get verbally abused !).


Do you remember that "Warner Brothers" cartoon character called "Tassy" - the Tasmanian Devil that would get itself whipped into a ferocious, whirling, violent rage at the slightest provocation ? Well that's basically Veggie's problem. She needs to see her GP for a referral to a shrink and a script for some high-strength "Lithicarb" or "Tegretol" or some other kind of mood stabilizer. Then again, maybe Valium suppositories would be more appropriate ? (One to be inserted four times a day and when necessary). I mean, she can't keep carrying on like this - it's positively antisocial !

Regards


Dachshund
You may be right, Dachshund, or you may be wrong, but I don't care, because I actually like VegetarianTaxidermy. She shows respect for me, and I respect that. A person can't hurt someone they like. So I shall gratuitously ignore your post here, but please don't take that gesture of mine personally. Thanks.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Skepdick » Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:55 pm
Words are social constructs. They don't constitute reality; they attempt only to describe it. And when they fail in that mission, objective facts are not altered.

Oy vey.
Here's an interesting observation by the way.

The very concept of a 'belief' (and the concept of a 'concept') are social constructs too. But lets suppose that our beliefs/concepts exist objectively (in our heads) for the sake of argument.

According to you - failing to accurately describe a beliefs doesn't alter a beliefs.

How then do you determine whether a description of a beliefs is accurate?

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

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

Post by Dachshund » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:45 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:27 am


-1-,

Veggie suffers from chronic emotional impulsivity and severe emotional lability. This is why she loses her temper all the time on the forum and blurts out so many disgusting expletive-laden posts (most of them are enough to make a sailor blush!). I think she has a congenital frontal lobe disorder, or maybe she was dropped on her head as a baby ? ( but I'm afraid to mention it in case I get verbally abused !).


Do you remember that "Warner Brothers" cartoon character called "Tassy" - the Tasmanian Devil that would get itself whipped into a ferocious, whirling, violent rage at the slightest provocation ? Well that's basically Veggie's problem. She needs to see her GP for a referral to a shrink and a script for some high-strength "Lithicarb" or "Tegretol" or some other kind of mood stabilizer. Then again, maybe Valium suppositories would be more appropriate ? (One to be inserted four times a day and when necessary). I mean, she can't keep carrying on like this - it's positively antisocial !

Regards


Dachshund


You may be right, Dachshund, or you may be wrong, but I don't care, because I actually like VegetarianTaxidermy. She shows respect for me, and I respect that. A person can't hurt someone they like. So I shall gratuitously ignore your post here, but please don't take that gesture of mine personally. Thanks.

Dear - 1 -,


A person CAN indeed hurt someone they like or love. As a matter of fact, in the case of love, they ALWAYS do.


Consider the following famous verses...



"For each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword.
Some kill their love when they are young
And some when they are old;
Some strangle with the hands of Lust
Some with hands of Gold;
They kindest use a knife, because,
The dead so soon grow cold.
Some love too little, some too long,
Some sell and others buy;
Some do the deed with many tears,
Some without a sigh.
Yet each man kills the thing he loves,
Yet each man does not die."




From: "The Ballad of Reading Goal."

by Oscar Wilde, 1897.

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Dachshund » Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:23 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:09 am


It means "out of many, one". This is a complete non sequitur. It means nothing in and by itself. Out of many whats? One what? Or one who? What the fuck does this mean? It has no meaning, because it makes no sense.

E Pluribus Unum is a latin phrase that means: "Out of many, one." You've got that correct. Well done.

It still appears clearly printed on the American $1 bill, and it still appears on the Great Seal of the United States, where it can be seen written on a streaming banner that is clenched in the beak of an iconic American Eagle.

The term "E Pluribus Unum" was coined in the 18th century in North America and references the fact that the cohesive, single American nation was formed as the result of 13 smaller colonies joining together. This is "what the fuck" E Pluribus Unum means, -1-, and it makes perfect sense to moi.

Do you have a problem understanding this meaning ?

If so, I'm afraid I cannot help you any further, as it is possible you may have an Intellectual Deficit Disorder, and I am not a practising psychiatric therapist.



Regards

Dachshund.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

-1-

Post by henry quirk » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:46 pm

-1- wrote:
gaffo wrote:"e plurs unim(sp). is a good thing pregmatically, and something i support -
Why do you support it?

It means "out of many, one". This is a complete non sequitur. It means nothing in and by itself. Out of many whats? One what? Or one who? What the fuck does this mean? It has no meaning, because it makes no sense.

But it's a great American tradition nevertheless, much like bibleism, KKK, and killing the yellow man, to support a belief in, and a lifestyle based on, absolute nonsense

If you don't believe me, just to take a look at Dachshund and Henry Quirk.

"In God we trust. Everyone else pays cash." -- this is more pragmatic methinks.
Why're you givin' me grief? None of this ("bibleism, KKK, killing the yellow man") has anything to do with me. And: how does me self-directing and -relying lead to "a lifestyle based on, absolute nonsense"?

I'm thinkin' you got me mixed up with someone else.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Sculptor » Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:59 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:54 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:01 pm
-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:19 am


The biological machinery for life is in place always, and the only time the biological machinery was started was the formation of the first life form that was capable of replicating itself developing in the primordial soup. The rhythm of life has been placed in place in the machinery, and since it has been a continuous flow of life continuing. The machinery is not placed in place with each conception. Without the parents' zygotes, the conception would not happen. So Zygote is the placement of life in in the machinery? No, because zygotes could not be produced without sexually mature adults. So sexually mature adults are the point in which life's machinery is placed? NO, childhood precedes adulthood; without children, there would be no adults. Children are etc etc etc.

To claim that life starts at inception, is false. Life started some beeeeelyuns of years ago, and it never stopped happening. In one continuous connectedness, but in many different threads.
When a life starts, and when personhood is established are SOCIALLY defined categories.
Unless you want to say that there is nothing to distinguish a virus from an elephant because they are all "life", you will have to accept that individual lives have a beginning and an end.

I agree, however, that personhood starts at an arbitrarily designated spot in the development of the fetus, or at birth, or at 18 when you can get married, vote, consume alcohol and drive a car, and own a gun. I mean, what other proof do you need to personhood than the ability to be responsible before the law. You can never charge a chair or a carpet with murder or with embezzlement, and put it to jail, can you. The same with a foetus, and to a lesser degree, the same with a child.

Children are adults with limited liabilities, when you consider who is and who is not a person.
No. Calling a child an adult is an abuse of language. You might as well call an egg, a Harvard professor.

But that's the law. If you talk about philosophy, however, and you are trying to define on philosophical considerations when personhood starts, your definition is as good as anyone else's.
Indeed.
Sculptor,
You made several non sequiturs in your response.

You claimed I called all life equal, and therefore you said, quote, "Unless you want to say that there is nothing to distinguish a virus from an elephant because they are all "life", you will have to accept that individual lives have a beginning and an end." This is nonsense in relation to what I said, because it has no relation to what I said.
1. I did not claim that all individual lives are equal.
2. I did not claim that individual lives do not have a beginning and an end.

I claimed that that machinery of life has been started a long time ago, presumably once, but now I claim also, possibly more than once.

You made the mistake of not distinguishing between the concepts of "life", "individual life" and "biological machinery". You made the mistake of taking all three and making them equal, or claiming that I made all three equal. Well, I never did.

You made another mistake in reading my post. You claimed that my statement was wrong, by saying this, I quote you: "No. Calling a child an adult is an abuse of language. You might as well call an egg, a Harvard professor." Calling a child an adult is wrong. But calling a child an adult is not wrong if proper delimiters of qualifications (or descriptions of differences) are given. Much like calling a chair a table is an abuse of language, but you can say "A chair has four legs like a table, but you sit on a chair and you put plates on a table." Both can have four legs, and as long as you give a properly delimiting description of their differences, starting at a common place that "they both have four legs" is not a mistake, abuse, or wrongness.

Calling a child an adult in the LEGAL sense is properly given when one says "a child is an adult with limited liability." I shan't go into details why it's not wrong, but if you respond and insist that I do, I just might (no promises that I will, however).
I think you may be a waste of oxygen.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: gaffo

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:13 am

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:59 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:54 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:01 pm

When a life starts, and when personhood is established are SOCIALLY defined categories.
Unless you want to say that there is nothing to distinguish a virus from an elephant because they are all "life", you will have to accept that individual lives have a beginning and an end.

No. Calling a child an adult is an abuse of language. You might as well call an egg, a Harvard professor.

Indeed.
Sculptor,
You made several non sequiturs in your response.

You claimed I called all life equal, and therefore you said, quote, "Unless you want to say that there is nothing to distinguish a virus from an elephant because they are all "life", you will have to accept that individual lives have a beginning and an end." This is nonsense in relation to what I said, because it has no relation to what I said.
1. I did not claim that all individual lives are equal.
2. I did not claim that individual lives do not have a beginning and an end.

I claimed that that machinery of life has been started a long time ago, presumably once, but now I claim also, possibly more than once.

You made the mistake of not distinguishing between the concepts of "life", "individual life" and "biological machinery". You made the mistake of taking all three and making them equal, or claiming that I made all three equal. Well, I never did.

You made another mistake in reading my post. You claimed that my statement was wrong, by saying this, I quote you: "No. Calling a child an adult is an abuse of language. You might as well call an egg, a Harvard professor." Calling a child an adult is wrong. But calling a child an adult is not wrong if proper delimiters of qualifications (or descriptions of differences) are given. Much like calling a chair a table is an abuse of language, but you can say "A chair has four legs like a table, but you sit on a chair and you put plates on a table." Both can have four legs, and as long as you give a properly delimiting description of their differences, starting at a common place that "they both have four legs" is not a mistake, abuse, or wrongness.

Calling a child an adult in the LEGAL sense is properly given when one says "a child is an adult with limited liability." I shan't go into details why it's not wrong, but if you respond and insist that I do, I just might (no promises that I will, however).
I think you may be a waste of oxygen.
What you, Sculptor, think, is of little concern to me or to anyone else, because everyone knows you are mother-fucking kunt.

It may come to you as a surprise: how can a kunt fuck his mother, when he has no dick? You, however, somehow managed the art of it.

Maybe you jam your shit into her and call it "love-making". I dunno.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Sculptor » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:48 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:13 am
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:59 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:54 am

Sculptor,
You made several non sequiturs in your response.

You claimed I called all life equal, and therefore you said, quote, "Unless you want to say that there is nothing to distinguish a virus from an elephant because they are all "life", you will have to accept that individual lives have a beginning and an end." This is nonsense in relation to what I said, because it has no relation to what I said.
1. I did not claim that all individual lives are equal.
2. I did not claim that individual lives do not have a beginning and an end.

I claimed that that machinery of life has been started a long time ago, presumably once, but now I claim also, possibly more than once.

You made the mistake of not distinguishing between the concepts of "life", "individual life" and "biological machinery". You made the mistake of taking all three and making them equal, or claiming that I made all three equal. Well, I never did.

You made another mistake in reading my post. You claimed that my statement was wrong, by saying this, I quote you: "No. Calling a child an adult is an abuse of language. You might as well call an egg, a Harvard professor." Calling a child an adult is wrong. But calling a child an adult is not wrong if proper delimiters of qualifications (or descriptions of differences) are given. Much like calling a chair a table is an abuse of language, but you can say "A chair has four legs like a table, but you sit on a chair and you put plates on a table." Both can have four legs, and as long as you give a properly delimiting description of their differences, starting at a common place that "they both have four legs" is not a mistake, abuse, or wrongness.

Calling a child an adult in the LEGAL sense is properly given when one says "a child is an adult with limited liability." I shan't go into details why it's not wrong, but if you respond and insist that I do, I just might (no promises that I will, however).
I think you may be a waste of oxygen.
What you, Sculptor, think, is of little concern to me or to anyone else, because everyone knows you are mother-fucking kunt.

It may come to you as a surprise: how can a kunt fuck his mother, when he has no dick? You, however, somehow managed the art of it.

Maybe you jam your shit into her and call it "love-making". I dunno.
Not only a waste of oxygen, but a waste of bandwidth.

gaffo
Posts: 2451
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:22 am

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:12 am
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:26 am
i was just clarifingn historical fact here Sir.

in don't like Multiculturalism nor agree with it (it tribal ego-filth), I'm a Melting Pot Univeral Humanist.

assimalation (as an imigrant into whatever nation/culture/etc) is a good thing.

"e plurs unim(sp). is a good thing pregmatically, and something i support - and why i left the Democratic Party 20 yrs ago - who formerly supported this mindset, but later through it under the bus for multi-yugoslavian-culturalism.

never a Fascist so never had a mind to register as a Republican.
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:12 am

Dear Gaffo,


Please tell me all about how Muslims and Islamic faith-culture ASSIMILATED into what used to be called the white European West; into countries like the US for instance, or the UK or Sweden (now rape capital of the world).

And what is exactly is the "Melting Pot" world-view. Do tell us Gaffo ! Is it where all the white Anglo-Europeans in America are compelled to engage in a process of fucking all the coloured 3rd -world immigrants from Mexico, Africa, Guatemala, etc, until all of America ends up "brown-coloured" with an average IQ of 86. (Although it is very vulgar and absolutely not PC for me to actually say this , it is what a SHIT LOAD of native,white European Americans are actually very worried about right now !) If so Gaffo, I agree


- that's EXACTLY where're you're headed at this point in time, Bucko, and it's a bad destination ! IN short, well done. ! You took what was, up to 1965, a great, even remarkable, nation, and then just trashed it. You clowns ! The Founding Fathers would roll in their graves if they could see what people like LBJ, BIll Clinton and Barack (Marxist) Obama did to America
yep, we have the same understanding of "Melting Pot", and in American and Western nations like the UK, Western Europe, that means a Melting Pot with a unified culture of Locke's Enlightenment ideals (i.e the Founding Father's ideals/philosophy)

Were we diverge is you hate the melting pot and the brown man, and think they are lower beings and will lower our society, whereas i welcome the browning of america as anyone and everyone is welcome to come and liver here legally, and i hope will learn of and value and then assimilate into our Lockean culture we and my Founding Father's valued.



Clearly you are a multiculturalist - one for the White Man. you are no different than a Black Suppremist, who is also a mulitculturalist - just on your opposite side.

i condemn you both, for opposing Assimilation/Melting Pot concepts.

gaffo
Posts: 2451
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:33 am

-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:09 am
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:26 am
"e plurs unim(sp). is a good thing pregmatically, and something i support -
-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:09 am
Why do you support it?
because unity via a shared cultural philosophy, and so a shared sense of "self" - ie, i am my neighbor and vise versa promotes peace with and without . peace within America, and as an example for others to strive for as well seeing we are at peace internally affirming Enlighenmnet ideals culturally unified.
-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:09 am
It means "out of many, one". This is a complete non sequitur. It means nothing in and by itself. Out of many whats? One what? Or one who? What the fuck does this mean? It has no meaning, because it makes no sense.

don't play dumb, i know you are a smart man. it means "immigrants should come here and assimilate into our "western Lockean culture".

the last century of so that culture has devolved into mindless consumerism, and lately (since the 1980's) into Balkanist Tribal egocentric Multiculturalism, with little left of our originally intended Locke minded culture inherited from the 18th century brits.

sadly.

gaffo
Posts: 2451
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: -1-

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:38 am

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:46 pm
-1- wrote:
gaffo wrote:"e plurs unim(sp). is a good thing pregmatically, and something i support -
Why do you support it?

It means "out of many, one". This is a complete non sequitur. It means nothing in and by itself. Out of many whats? One what? Or one who? What the fuck does this mean? It has no meaning, because it makes no sense.

But it's a great American tradition nevertheless, much like bibleism, KKK, and killing the yellow man, to support a belief in, and a lifestyle based on, absolute nonsense

If you don't believe me, just to take a look at Dachshund and Henry Quirk.

"In God we trust. Everyone else pays cash." -- this is more pragmatic methinks.
Why're you givin' me grief? None of this ("bibleism, KKK, killing the yellow man") has anything to do with me. And: how does me self-directing and -relying lead to "a lifestyle based on, absolute nonsense"?

I'm thinkin' you got me mixed up with someone else.
I hope he has, i know you are none of those above things. we disagree politically, but you are no racist, and in fact affirm you know our constitution (more folks need to BTW!), value it and defend its principles.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

gaffo

Post by henry quirk » Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:23 am

i know you are none of those above things.
:thumbsup:

gaffo
Posts: 2451
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:41 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:23 am
i know you are none of those above things.
:thumbsup:
thanks for the affirmative Henry!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests