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

jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

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

Post by jayjacobus »

I'm saying, that in a negotiation, each side is trying to get to a resolution. There must be appeals to the other party's wants and needs. In the end the resolution has a kind of balance.

What appeals can be made to address the other party's wants and needs?

"My choice, your consequences" is a losing position.

If you bring carrots into the negotiation, you will have inducements. If you bring sticks into a negotiation, you will have aversions. Which is more effective?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9083
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by Immanuel Can »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:42 pm "When society is split relativitly evenly, don't we need a law that recognizes both perspectives?

To think black and white when many colors exist is to create an oppression when oppress does not need to be.
Let's consider what would happen if we were to do what you suggest: "recognize both perspectives" when "society is split."

So now we're in the 19th Century America. Half the country believes in slavery, and half does not.

Would you be contend to "recognize both perspectives" in law, and say that the North can have no slaves, and the South should be legally protected in having them?

So how much worse is it when you say, if a woman wants to believe her child doesn't matter, she can kill it; if she thinks it matters, she doesn't?

"Give and take" is sometimes a good idea. Here, it is clearly not moral, one way or the other.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Mannie

Post by henry quirk »

Look here...

to prioritise an embryo, an insensate piece of protoplasm, over an adult woman only reveals ignorance and prejudice.

If life or sentience mattered to you as much as you pretended in anti-abortion threads, then you would not eat meat. So it's not life or sentience

...two pieces of valuable info offered by the enemy.

In the first, Greta is clear: what a pregnant woman carries is just meat, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

In the second, Greta makes no distinction between 'man' and -- for example --- 'cow'.

The sum of It: man is meat with literally no intrinsic value.

This is why I see folks like Greta as 'enemy'.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Belinda

Post by henry quirk »

"So don't be scornful about people who hug trees"

Was I scornful?

I think all that crystal-rubbin' & tree-huggin' is silly, yeah, but if it gets Lace through the day, then, by Crom, she ought to that.

So: no, I don't frown on Lace's psyche-feedin' activities. I figure if she's off doin' 'that' mebbe she'll refrain from gettin' up in other people's biz.

In fact: I encourage all the commie types to 'get spirtual'. Please, meditate, take loooong walks in the woods, spend hours gazing into the depths of wiccan tea cups, lay nekkid in the middle of your prayer circles communin' with Gaia. the more of that you folks do, the less time & energy you got for diggin' 'round in the other guy's affairs.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

jay

Post by henry quirk »

"Pregnant women do not oppress in any sense of the word."

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person, and she chooses to end that person in the womb, she's ain't oppressin': she's murderin'.

#

"When society is split relativitly evenly, don't we need a law that recognizes both perspectives?"

In the context of this thread, here's the split: one side sez what a pregnant woman carries is a person; the other side sez what a pregnant woman carries is meat.

Please: find the middle ground for me (the place where law can be derived), cuz I ain't seein' it.
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by jayjacobus »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:26 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:42 pm "When society is split relativitly evenly, don't we need a law that recognizes both perspectives?

To think black and white when many colors exist is to create an oppression when oppress does not need to be.
Let's consider what would happen if we were to do what you suggest: "recognize both perspectives" when "society is split."

So now we're in the 19th Century America. Half the country believes in slavery, and half does not.

Would you be contend to "recognize both perspectives" in law, and say that the North can have no slaves, and the South should be legally protected in having them?

So how much worse is it when you say, if a woman wants to believe her child doesn't matter, she can kill it; if she thinks it matters, she doesn't?

"Give and take" is sometimes a good idea. Here, it is clearly not moral, one way or the other.
Let's see. Negotiation vs. civil war. Which do you prefer? Even if negotiating slavery is morally wrong, it should move the practice in the right direction. What did the North offer the South to convince them to change?

"Clearly not moral" or subjectively not moral? What are you offerring to get to your subjective position?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9083
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by Immanuel Can »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:15 pm Let's see. Negotiation vs. civil war. Which do you prefer?
I knew you'd argue that. But you've missed the important point; and that's that in human rights questions, "split the difference" means slavery wins.

It's the same in abortion. Since 93% of abortions are merely elective, and not associated with any extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest or health of the mother, that means that the vast majority of aborters are choosing to do it.

So "split the difference," in practice, would mean that all the same babies would still be killed, and only those who wouldn't do it anyway would not do it. That's a 100% loss for the pro-life side, NOT a negotiation. But equally importantly, every baby murdered would still be a human being.

So what you're proposing is a 100% win for the cause of baby murder, and a human rights disaster. What a bad proposal that is!
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by jayjacobus »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:20 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:15 pm Let's see. Negotiation vs. civil war. Which do you prefer?
I knew you'd argue that. But you've missed the important point; and that's that in human rights questions, "split the difference" means slavery wins.
I doubt it.

Slavery could exist with laws pertaining to slaves for:

Health, education and welfare

Wages

Fair housing

NAACP

Good working conditions

Etc.

The changes could not be realized completely because of the North's victory and none of the humanizing issues were created.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9083
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by Immanuel Can »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:16 pmI doubt it.
It doesn't really matter, in this case: the subject is abortion, to which slavery was only an analogy. We can ignore slaves for the moment.

More pressingly, you didn't even address the abortion point: your "negotiation" amounts to 100% capitulation to baby murder. That's a pretty bad "negotiation," don't you think?

So if that's what you had in mind, why don't you explain what a reasonable concession to baby murder would look like?

Would it be legally enshrining that 50% of the women can have any abortion they wanted, and legally turning 50% away and saying, "No abortion for you"?

How do you think that "compromise" would go over with both sides?

But if it's not that, then exactly what IS your "compromise" position?
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by jayjacobus »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:39 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:16 pmI doubt it.
It doesn't really matter, in this case: the subject is abortion, to which slavery was only an analogy. We can ignore slaves for the moment.

More pressingly, you didn't even address the abortion point: your "negotiation" amounts to 100% capitulation to baby murder. That's a pretty bad "negotiation," don't you think?

So if that's what you had in mind, why don't you explain what a reasonable concession to baby murder would look like?

Would it be legally enshrining that 50% of the women can have any abortion they wanted, and legally turning 50% away and saying, "No abortion for you"?

How do you think that "compromise" would go over with both sides?

But if it's not that, then exactly what IS your "compromise" position?
I'm not a party to the negotiation.

I only advocate negotiation.

If you have no offers, than you can't be a negotiator either.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Lace & jay

Post by -1- »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:45 pm
I'm not a party to the negotiation.

I only advocate negotiation.

If you have no offers, than you can't be a negotiator either.
But you could be an arbitrator. Many a time a negotiation is decided not by ideas or solutions presented by the parties to the negotiation, but by ideas or solutions presented by the arbitrator.

You presented the solution without being a party. You had already put yourself in a position as an arbitrator. Now finish your job, svp.
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

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

Post by jayjacobus »

Got it.

Both sides have dug in their heals. That can never result in any resolution other than them dissing each other.

Each side needs to open their minds.

Perhaps putting a value on their positions is a start. While money isn't the issue, thinking in terms of money may lead to a start.

What is each of you willing to spend to get your position adopted?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9083
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by Immanuel Can »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:45 pm I only advocate negotiation.
Why do you advocate that which you can't even imagine a way to make fair, just or right?

Are you secretly just an advocate of a 100% capitulation to the abortionists? Because that's exactly what your negotiation "solution" entails, it would seem.
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by jayjacobus »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:38 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:45 pm I only advocate negotiation.
Why do you advocate that which you can't even imagine a way to make fair, just or right?

Are you secretly just an advocate of a 100% capitulation to the abortionists? Because that's exactly what your negotiation "solution" entails, it would seem.
If you cast me in the role of Portia, I can be Portia's intent.

But if you cast me in the role of arbitrer, I can have that intent.

What is fair? You need to define my intent.

What is your fair criteria?

I cannot understand your intent.

Yes I can. You are unfair.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9083
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lace & jay

Post by Immanuel Can »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:54 pm What is fair? You need to define my intent.
Heck, no.

All I have to do is ask you what you think your "negotiated" solution would look like, other than a 100% concession to murdering babies. And you have no answer, apparently, or will not say what it is.

Your intent is immaterial to the question. The only question that matters is, is your argument on this point rational? And since you can't specify any solution, it's not. It won't work.

That's not surprising. It is not possible to negotiate "reasonable" levels of slavery, a "negotiated solution" to rape, or "balanced concessions" to someone who is bent on murdering children. Some things are just plain wicked, and for them, there can be only one policy.
Post Reply