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

[jayjacobus]

In a negotiation, if it is successful, the issues are resolved once and for all. Each party gains something and "loses" something but the resolution will stand. Roe v Wade was not negotiated so the conflict was not resolved.

[Lacewing]

You can't talk reason against religion.

At first I felt agreement with you...then I thought more about it when I read Belinda's response. There are (of course) variations and extremes to just about everything. Some people follow their religion very sweetly, and are able to accept others who do differently. For them, religion is an inspiring guidepost -- and they only want to share it for good. Then there are people (naturally) who use religion as a platform for their own glory and ego -- and they use it to divide and condemn.

So maybe it's more precise to say: you can't talk reason against holy egos. I don't think such religious types actually fear fires of Hell... nor do they even appear to be very spiritual. The "holy show" is simply a tool for them. Mr. Can appears to speak as if from some holy mountain of authority and supreme rightness. He puts on a good show. He has crafted it well. But, as typically happens (from what I've seen of such shows), cracks develop and widen under the pressure of rigidity, since it's NATURALLY false and limited (life isn't naturally so contorted) -- and as the facade falls away, the show and self-deception must be intensified to keep everything in place.

There are big shows and self-deception in all kinds of places throughout the human experience -- but religion (I think) is some of the most fertile ground for it.

[henry quirk]

"When Henry asks a question in a very subjective way"

I don't think the way I ask the question (Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?) is all that subjective. Blunt, mebbe bordering on the vulgar, but not subjective.

What a pregnant woman carries has to be one or the other. Absolutely, it could be, probably is, that she carries nuthin' more than human cells ('meat') for part of the pregnancy and a human being ('person') for the other part of the pregnancy (*and we can dick around with when we all think that transition from one to the other happens), but that weighty detail doesn't change the fact a pregnant woman is carrying a chunk of human meat or a person.

And -- again -- if what a pregnant woman carries (for part or all the pregnancy) is 'meat', then she can do with it as she likes

But, if what she carries (for part or all of her pregnancy) is 'person', then -- in the same way she owns herself -- that unborn person owns him(her)self.

Now, if someone wants to challenge the notion of 'self-ownership' we can argue it out, but -- as I describe it above -- 'person or meat?' isn't disputable.

You can frown on my language but you can't dismiss the question (which must be answered 'before' restraining policies are enacted and before the 'right to choose' can be taken seriously).









*as I say in this thread or the BOLLOCKS thread: I'm inclined to see what a pregnant woman carries as 'meat' in the first eight to twelve weeks; as 'person' from then on

[-1-]

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.

No problem with the interfering. This is all what an open discussion is all about.

I would not be frank if I said I understood what you meant, and what you said, Jayjacobus. I have no clue what you are referring to, and I have no clue where you drew your conclusion from, and furthermore I don't even understand your conclusion.

Interesting.

[Lacewing]

What a pregnant woman carries has to be one or the other.

According to your brain. Fortunately, not all of us are inflicted with your mental limitations.

[henry quirk]

Ok, educate me: if what a pregnant woman carries is not 'person', not 'meat', then what?

[Lacewing]

Ok, educate me: if what a pregnant woman carries is not 'person', not 'meat', then what?

First lesson: Contemplate/explore the reality of a world where organic matter (even if "inside" of someone) doesn't have to fit either of the TWO labels you've come up with.

[henry quirk]

C'mon, be a sweetheart: tell a guy what it is a pregnant woman carries if, as you say, it ain't 'person' or 'meat', and be plain about it, cuz this...

Contemplate/explore the reality of a world where organic matter doesn't have to fit either of the TWO labels you've come up with.

...don't cut it.

[Lacewing]

Your labels limit you. They are your god, and you serve them... because they serve you. There is more to EVERYTHING than TWO options. Such limited options/questions (as yours) are meant to confine the limits of the world/reality to something you can wrestle with and oppose and command. Your game being limited to your narrow terms is delusional. Be grateful for the generous feedback you've already received instead of demanding that everything fit your limited language and thinking.

[henry quirk]

Okay. Let's try one last time. I say what a pregnant woman carries is a 'person' or just human 'meat' (or, a human individual or just human cells, if you prefer). You say what a pregnant woman carries is not 'person', not 'meat'. So, Lace, what does a pregnant woman carry if not 'person' or 'meat'?

[Greta]

It's a false dichotomy. Trying to apply B&W labels on a continuous, non-binary situation.

What is personhood? It's certainly not about having a nervous system because many animals that we eat have a far more sophisticated sentience than any human infant, let alone foetus.

Nor is it the capacity for reason, so often touted as the key difference between humans and other species, because infants and toddlers and the very young are less reasonable than my dog.

I am curious about Henry's concern about this issue because removing humans from the gene pool is normally something he applauds. He doesn't want universal education or healthcare because he doesn't care about the suffering and death caused by scrimping in these areas.

That's fine. The world is overpopulated and our numbers are not sustainable without both technological revolutions and a psychological revolution that involves westerners surrendering some freedom and individuality for collective interest like the Chinese. (That does not suit me, BTW, but that's realistically the emerging situation).

So, in context, fewer births and more death is good. Who should not be born and who should die? That is the question. In nature, infants often ended up as food. While I don't recommend that Heinz baby food contain Soylent babies, the point is that nature deprioritises infants. Why? Because they have received less "investment" - they are undeveloped. When a foetus (or infant) is lost, in terms of natural accounting, that is a much smaller loss than that of an older child or adult. Of course that doesn't account for emotions.

So, accounting for emotions, if we are to decide who is to die amongst us, it is better that a foetus dies than an infant or child because the latter have developed emotional attachments.

Of course, if euthanasia and assisted dying were treated more humanely and realistically, population pressure would ease somewhat.

Ultimately, we are swimming against a stream that involves a splitting of the human race, literally into the minority technologically advanced haves and majority have-nots. How we twiddle around the edges mostly just makes a difference on a personal level - which is why I believe governments (and others) should mind their own business more and allow for more individual freedom.

Best to enjoy a little freedom now before it goes away. Most of us don't want the kind of oppressive controls that Henry and others advocate in our democracies. We value freedom.

[henry quirk]

"It's a false dichotomy. Trying to apply B&W labels on a continuous, non-binary situation."

What pregnant woman carries is 'human'. All I'm askin': is it 'person' (human individual) or just 'meat' (just human cells)?

Not seein' how I'm settin' up a false contrast.

#

"I am curious about Henry's concern..."

Yeah, I addressed that 'curiosity' up-thread.

[henry quirk]

"I believe governments (and others) should mind their own business more and allow for more individual freedom."

The only legit role of government (as proxy, as employee) is to protect the individual's life, liberty, and property (specifically when the individual isn't able to do so for himself). So, yeah, we're kinda on the same page (which surprises me cuz you seem to advocate for more intrusive government by way of, for example, universal healthcare [which is all about third party control]).

#

"Most of us don't want the kind of oppressive controls that Henry and others advocate in our democracies."

Where, in this thread or any other, have I advocated for oppressive controls?

[Lacewing]

Okay. Let's try one last time. I say what a pregnant woman carries is a 'person' or just human 'meat' (or, a human individual or just human cells, if you prefer). You say what a pregnant woman carries is not 'person', not 'meat'. So, Lace, what does a pregnant woman carry if not 'person' or 'meat'?

Organic substance that is neither person nor meat. I already suggested that you consider this along with your two options.

[Dubious]

What pregnant woman carries is 'human'. All I'm askin': is it 'person' (human individual) or just 'meat' (just human cells)?

Isn't the obvious, obvious enough for you yet? Nitty gritty, yes, the fetus is human in process of development and becomes a person when born (even if it doesn't know it yet) just as a dog fetus becomes a dog and a cat fetus becomes a cat, etc. For all they know they can be one or the other at that stage. It's survival depends completely on the parents under whose care it gradually develops its own personality as a distinct being if not for some reason foreshortened which used to be so common.

As for just being meat or human cells that's what we all are; we are meat as are all biological entities from fertilization till death. All biological entities are material beings made of a substance we label as meat whose chemistry is extremely complex. We've eaten every kind of animal including ourselves. What was it if it wasn't meat?

As someone who's so eager to simplify everything why are you so confused about this?