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

[henry quirk]

"If we are truly valuing this human thing for having intent, making decisions and taking actions, then we must leave them to make difficult choices somewhere along the line or there is no point. I think this is one that you simply can't make for somebody else."

I agree.

Jane is pregnant by rape. I get her conundrum. She should have the choice.

Emily is pregnant, wants the baby, but simply is too frail to carry it. I get her conundrum. She should have the choice.

Eloise is pregnant. She wasn't raped, she's healthy, she wants to abort soley cuz havin' the baby is inconvenient. She has no real conundrum. What she has is a lack of character. Eloise willingly, with glee, chose to have sex with a man of her own choosing, chose to forgo protections, chose to allow her partner to forgo protections. Both she and her partner willingly, knowingly, did the nasty, and both -- I think -- are on the hook for what they both know is the natural & normal consequence of doin' the nasty. Neither should be allowed (after week 12, at least) to divest themselves by rubbin' out lil fetus person.

[Immanuel Can]

lil fetus person

My new favourite phrase for "unborn child." Love it.

[henry quirk]

*a heathen Cromist

[Walker]

Currently, raped women have the option of abortion, and this option has not stopped rape.

Therefore logically, we can hypothesize that if abortion was illegal and the law was enforced to prevent fashionable, sanctuary-like ignoring of the law, then:

- Where women have political power, rape would soon end.

- Where raped women and their lil’ fetus people are subsidized by the government in the manner that meets each woman’s subjective, quality-of-life standards, rape would soon increase.

[Belinda]

"If we are truly valuing this human thing for having intent, making decisions and taking actions, then we must leave them to make difficult choices somewhere along the line or there is no point. I think this is one that you simply can't make for somebody else."

I agree.

Jane is pregnant by rape. I get her conundrum. She should have the choice.

Emily is pregnant, wants the baby, but simply is too frail to carry it. I get her conundrum. She should have the choice.

Eloise is pregnant. She wasn't raped, she's healthy, she wants to abort soley cuz havin' the baby is inconvenient. She has no real conundrum. What she has is a lack of character. Eloise willingly, with glee, chose to have sex with a man of her own choosing, chose to forgo protections, chose to allow her partner to forgo protections. Both she and her partner willingly, knowingly, did the nasty, and both -- I think -- are on the hook for what they both know is the natural & normal consequence of doin' the nasty. Neither should be allowed (after week 12, at least) to divest themselves by rubbin' out lil fetus person.

Right, Henry, except that being punitive to Eloise won't be good for the baby. The man has probably ditched her anyway and even if not he is not the pregnant one.

[FlashDangerpants]

*With apologies to all you atheists, I'm gonna dip into my deism here: I believe in the soul, in ensoulment. Unlike Mannie, I don't think the soul gets installed at conception but probably closer to week 12. My thinkin' is: you can't install complicated software on simple or nonexistant hardware. About the earliest I figure the soul (the animating spark, the non-deterministic algorithm, the will) can take hold is 12 weeks (mebbe a bit before). From my deistic stand, the foundation for potential comes at conception, but the potential itself (the personhood) comes with the installation (or mebbe the generation) of the soul.

You have not only got the standard dualist problem - how an immaterial soul can interface with the fleshy lumpen portion of the human at all - but made it exponentially worse by making it somehow dependent on the material lump for its operation there. Is this some sort of soul that expires on death, or does it somehow become immaterial later?

[Immanuel Can]

Right, Henry, except that being punitive to Eloise won't be good for the baby. The man has probably ditched her anyway and even if not he is not the pregnant one.

This is a typical pro-abortionist strategy: locate the few problem cases, and attempt to use them to excuse the 93% of abortions that are elective. But all it means is that the speaker wants to kill babies (or lil fetus persons) without being called on it.

But answer me this: when is it more right to butcher a child than to let him/her be adopted?

[FlashDangerpants]

That's why this entire thread is a waste of effort.
See previous answer.

[Immanuel Can]

That's why this entire thread is a waste of effort. Zero respect shown for the fact that others don't consider that butchery, or achild.

It's not a question of "respect." One ought not to "respect" an immoral position. And I think that you would probably agree that if, say, the question was, can we toss toddlers into meat-grinders, then "respect" would be an immoral response, no?

On the other hand, one may "respect" the person articulating a bad view, but that does not mean you "respect" the bad view itself. Instead, the moral thing to do is to oppose the view, while continuing to treat the person as a person.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yeah, that just further makes my point for me. This discussion should always have been in the religion sub, it is masquerading as a question of ethics.

[henry quirk]

"Currently, raped women have the option of abortion, and this option has not stopped rape."

But abortion is not meant to stop rape. It's just an unappealing option that ought be offered to a woman who has been raped (a pretty serious violation of self), who -- in the first trimester -- can't bear the idea of carrying her rapist's child.

I'm not keen on it, accept the idea of it only grudgingly, and would love to see the woman choose otherwise.

###

Belinda,

"being punitive to Eloise won't be good for the baby."

No, probably not. Being of low character, she'd find a way to rub out lil fetus-person. But, as I say, I reluctantly accept the notion that lil fetus-person isn't a person till around week 12, so that gives Eloise roughly three months (or from when she discovers she's pregnant) to attend to the 'problem'. Better: use the morning after solution. Better: have norplant installed.

#

"The man has probably ditched her anyway and even if not he is not the pregnant one."

Eloise should pursue his keister, get him to pony up.

###

Flash,

"You have not only got the standard dualist problem - how an immaterial soul can interface with the fleshy lumpen portion of the human at all - but made it exponentially worse by making it somehow dependent on the material lump for its operation there. Is this some sort of soul that expires on death, or does it somehow become immaterial later?"

You're right, and as a Deist I got no scriptures to consult, no body of thinkin' to refer to. It's all inference and guesswork for me. However, in context, it's moot. As I say: I've mostly lingered in the materialist sphere to support my reasoning why abortion, for most of a pregnany, ought not be tolerated (any more than we ought tolerate offing old folks, damaged children, deranged adults, etc.).

#

"That's why this entire thread is a waste of effort."

I disagree: I find this thread helpful to me.

#

"Zero respect shown for the fact that others don't consider that butchery, or achild."

Seems to me, as I review the thread, the bulk of the 'disrespect' comes from the other side.

#

"This discussion should always have been in the religion sub, it is masquerading as a question of ethics."

I put it here, not to promote religion (though, after a fashion, I've done that), but because -- as a natural rights libertarian -- I see the question 'person or meat?' as ethical inquiry. Again: my position in-thread is complemented by my notions of a prime mover, but deism is not the foundation for my position in-thread.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah, that just further makes my point for me. This discussion should always have been in the religion sub, it is masquerading as a question of ethics.

It's interesting how Atheists sometimes argue that people who have a "religious" view simply don't have the right to speak. (Maybe that's to be expected, though, because every Atheist regime has also turned that position into public policy, and persecuted religious people violently. It seems to be a "house style" for Atheism).

But it's especially ironic in a thread on a moral question, since Atheism (as a belief) has zero in moral content, and thus has absolutely no power to sort out any moral questions at all.

It's almost like they're saying, "Shut up, because we're so utterly inept at this."

[FlashDangerpants]

Yeah, that just further makes my point for me. This discussion should always have been in the religion sub, it is masquerading as a question of ethics.

It's interesting how Atheists sometimes argue that people who have a "religious" view simply don't have the right to speak. (Maybe that's to be expected, though, because every Atheist regime has also turned that position into public policy, and persecuted religious people violently. It seems to be a "house style" for Atheism).

But it's especially ironic in a thread on a moral question, since Atheism (as a belief) has zero in moral content, and thus has absolutely no power to sort out any moral questions at all.

It's almost like they're saying, "Shut up, because we're so utterly inept at this."

Thanks for your usual complete misrepresentation of my point. I was saying that there is insurmountable mutual incomprehension built into the topic. I wasn't telling anyone, even you, to shut up. I wasn't even saying anybody was immoral or even mistaken to hold a different view to my own. The entire thing is a matter of individual conscience.

I will however mention that you are a sanctimonius, oily little twat, and nobody with your continuing honesty deficit has any business getting as high and mighty as you invariably do.

[Immanuel Can]

I was saying that there is insurmountable mutual incomprehension built into the topic.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all.

I think we know exactly what we're talking about. And I think the abortionists are 100% clear on that point. The whole purpose of an abortion is to stop a human life from continuing. If it were not, then there would be no abortions, because I'll bet the procedure isn't fun -- and it's way too darn dangerous, both physically and psychologically, to do gratuitously.

Two questions to the abortionist clarify this perfectly:

1. How do you justify killing this child when you know it will be a person, and can't establish when it's not?

2. When is it better for a baby to be killed than adopted?

The refusal to answer these questions signals a guilty conscience. They KNOW what they're doing is evil...they just want to do it anyway.

[FlashDangerpants]

That is the purest expression of outright fanaticism I have ever seen on this forum.