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

[jayjacobus]

You're a moron.

You bring up slavery as an anology.

Then later say that doesn't fit.

Nothing that you bring up fits because you are a moron.

[henry quirk]

Your question still stands: "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]

Nor will you ever, but to a different audience .........

Ladies,

If I've strengtened you arguments, give me no thanks.

Take them to court. Stay way from these cranks.

[Lacewing]

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.

No, those are not the only options. But that's all you can see because you ignore all else -- so there you sit. Try to look beyond simple labels, Henry. One reason for simple labels is so that you can PICK ONE and CONDEMN THE OTHER. But what a shallow and small platform. Like a child playing with blocks... picking one shape and sticking with it... trying to make it fit everything.

What a pregnant woman carries is the same stuff that we are ALL made of. You know, the same stuff that you frequently threaten to shoot or destroy. For some reason you don't recognize the value of much of anything, except what you've labeled inside of a woman's pregnant belly. It's absurd. There is no difference. It's all the same stuff, and it's naturally and continually created and destroyed. If you think terminating a pregnancy is immoral, step back and take a broader look at all parties involved...and what their "cosmic"/spiritual agreement might be if given the opportunity. And why don't you resolve your own violent tendencies instead of acting like you are some great judge of what has value in life? Your views are skewed to please yourself.

[Lacewing]

I think all that crystal-rubbin' & tree-huggin' is silly,

Well, it's the cartoon you've made up in your head, so yeah it is silly.

but if it gets Lace through the day...

I don't just "get through the day", Henry. Is that what YOUR life is like? You have no clue what my life is like. It might just blow your mind. I play well because I've worked well, and I'm light-hearted because I see many options, and I see much to be grateful for. Every day is an opportunity to enjoy and create and love and experience. I don't feel inclined to rub crystals or hug trees or hum or worship a god. I love and embrace life. Simple.

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.

And yet, you feel entitled to tell people what to do. So while the peaceful, contemplative types are communing with Gaia, dumbshit destructive types are blowing things up.

[-1-]

Your question still stands: "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.

I don't think anyone says "it's a person". It's religion's dictates that make people say that.

Religion used to be the opiate of the masses. Now it is the poison of the masses: It creates friction, intolerance, dissent, violent protest, hatred and evil. Typical thought of the religious type: "You are different: God will punish you for it. If HE does not, I will. Where is my frekkin' gun."

What the religious type sees as evil can be summed up this way: "Walk in the woods. Meditate. Breathe in the precious air. Don't worry. Be happy." This are the actions that really rile a religious person up. How dare a person enjoy his or her life peacefully? THIS IS AMERICA!! CUT THAT OUT AT ONCE!

[jayjacobus]

Your question still stands: "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.

But do you even experience it?

Give us your experiences.

What do you call a fetus when you talk to them?

Do you call them Sweatheart, Honey Bun, Precious?

Do you change them, feed them, teach them, play with them?

Are you a baby doctor, wet nurse, fetus sitter, baptizer?

How do you interact with a fetus?

There is a middle ground between a forester and a lumberjack but if you think only in black and white the middle ground can't be realized.

[jayjacobus]

One time a friend of mine talked about an abortion she had had.

She was tormented by the realization of what she had done.

But, before the abortion, she had weighed the consequences of having an abortion or having a baby and then made her decision.

I gave her my sympathy and confirmed that she had been reasonable with herself.

I cannot be sympathetic with the anti-abortionists because they will never suffer any consequences whatsoever.

[Greta]

You and Henry adopt strong PC stances when it suits you.

That's pretty funny. I've been accused of many things, but kowtowing to PCness is not one of them. I must file that one away.

Henry will like that, too.

Good, because his double standards when it comes to PC are obvious too.

Just one mention of what are essentially microbes being killed and you boys get up in arms - NOOOOO! IT'S LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE FISHY THING (WHEN IT'S VISIBLE) BUT IT IS A SOOOOUUUL!

Yet neither of you give a stuff about innocent souls suffering and dying due to lack of universal health that you both politically correctly oppose. Again, without logic or reason - just PC conservative ideology.

Again, never any reasoning, No logic. Just a politically correct stance for conservatives and tricky rhetorical games.

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

You've assumed your conclusion, and begged the question there. You've smuggled in the phrase "insensate piece of protoplasm" instead of "human child." That's a no-no. There's no question at all that, say, third-trimester abortions are about more than "protoplasm," and that that "piece" is fully sensate. And second and first-term ones are not much clearer in that regard.

Let's unpack your ignorant rubbish.

Obviously third trimester is not under debate.

Your claim regarding first trimester betrays your utter ignorance in this area. The first trimester foetus is in no way a "child".

If a foetus is viable, at about 24-25 weeks, then take it to term. After nine weeks or so there is a nervous system, but then again microscopic worms have nervous systems too.

Moreover, you've skipped the point that the child, if not aborted, will definitely become a full adult in every sense that your putative "adult woman" is. So that's one heck of an oversight.

Who cares? Every time you masturbate (apparently to a callus-generating degree) you waste the potential of full adults being born. So just stop doing it, okay?

Why do you approve of sending troops to the middle east to slaughter hundreds of thousands of brown skinned people who don't speak English but a go gooey over a potentially white American early term foetus - a mindless thing at the dawn of life that doesn't even have a proper nervous system.

Let's not forget that you happily slaughter intelligent animals - far more intelligent and sensate than any foetus, including late term - with established relationships in the herd.

You pretend to take the rhetorical high road while lying through your teeth. You know very well that a first term foetuses far from being a "child" yet you try to cast doubt on the science of nervous system development to suit your ideological goals.

And yes, your main aim is clearly to control women. As I say, if you cared about life you'd be staunchly in favour of universal health. You'd be strongly in favour of well funded public education. Your inconsistency betrays the lies behind your claims.

[-1-]

Greta, it's the religion thing. You can't talk reason against religion. These people are so scared shitless of an infinitely good God who will make them burn in hellfire in horrible pain for all eternity if they accept logic over dogma, that they will go to extreme lengths to talk rubbish and nonsense.

There is no defence against religious dogma. Not legal, not logical. The truly devoted will go to their deaths for their beliefs, and they will make themselves a public nuisance (spelling?) on philosophy forums.

Religious people are like rabid dogs. They know one code, and that code stands, without regard to anything else in this world. Evidence is the least of things they will bend for.

Only education, and making young people realize how misguided religious people are will get the American nation away from this horrible disease which religion is. No amount of rhetoric or threat to their safety will change them. Well, not that there is any threat to their physical safety... there are threats only to their ideological stability, which they ought to fear greatly.

[Belinda]

I wish, -1-, you would find another word or phrase instead of 'religion' for what you describe above. I agree with you of course.

[-1-]

I wish, -1-, you would find another word or phrase instead of 'religion' for what you describe above. I agree with you of course.

I am very glad and grateful for your support, Belinda.

Can you help me find another word? Please understand that I don't consider spirituality necessarily a part of any religion. You can be spiritual and completely religion free, this is part of my view.

How can someone be spiritual without dogma, without the bounds of religion? By experiencing religious ecstasy (of one form or another), not via a relationship with a god in whom one has faith, but via an enthusiastic burst of ecstasy triggered by the physical universe, or any significant (to the person) part of it.

This trigger can be the call of the morning dove (had been for me for decades), the green of the grass, the starry sky, a soulful song, a cigarette or glass of wine while watching a sunset, a kiss, a little drop of tear from the eye.

[jayjacobus]

I wish, -1-, you would find another word or phrase instead of 'religion' for what you describe above. I agree with you of course.

I am very glad and grateful for your support, Belinda.

Can you help me find another word? Please understand that I don't consider spirituality necessarily a part of any religion. You can be spiritual and completely religion free, this is part of my view.

How can someone be spiritual without dogma, without the bounds of religion? By experiencing religious ecstasy (of one form or another), not via a relationship with a god in whom one has faith, but via an enthusiastic burst of ecstasy triggered by the physical universe, or any significant (to the person) part of it.

This trigger can be the call of the morning dove (had been for me for decades), the green of the grass, the starry sky, a soulful song, a cigarette or glass of wine while watching a sunset, a kiss, a little drop of tear from the eye.

Pardon me for interfering but I have a thought. Beneath your interpretation of experiences you have definitions and preferences. Your interpretations are subjective interpretations which are a stretch for people with different definitions and preferences. We all have uplifting, depressing and bland experiences but our subjective interpretations are different. "How can you you think otherwise?" you might say. "But how can you not?" someone else might say.

When Henry asks a question in a very subjective way and you answer in your subjective way, you two drive the issue away from a conclusion in any way.

[Belinda]

-1- you had written:

You can't talk reason against religion. These people are so scared shitless of an infinitely good God who will make them burn in hellfire in horrible pain for all eternity if they accept logic over dogma, that they will go to extreme le

Religion can be more reasonable than that. Look, we must believe that religion can be more reasonable than some outdated dogma of social control. No society can survive without religion and other arts which is why we have to find a better religion than you describe. So I'd rather not call what you describe 'religion' and instead call it legalism.

Legalism: strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code. Merriam Webster

or maybe call it politicised religion.

[jayjacobus]

No one here has a legal foundation. But the courts may have that foundation.

If you fear legalism, you want a solution without the courts but instead you are driving the issue toward a biased legal jury.