Page 48 of 54
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
Kunts like this aren't 'exceptions'; they are the rule. The only reason male kristian anti-choicers want males to have a say in personal abortion decisions is so that they can force their mistresses to have them:
Since you were on the subject of 'principles':
I take it you think a man should be able to force a woman to abort a foetus in order to avoid child support payments.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:40 am
by Walker
I take it you support killing a baby to avoid feeding it, raising it, loving it.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:19 pm
by bahman
Complexity of life in embrio is a gradual process. It is simple form of life which turns into a complex one.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:18 am
by gaffo
meat until the 24th week.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am
by gaffo
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:36 am
24 weeks and prior "meat"
post 24 weeks a baby.
clear enough?
That's your view.
Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
why week 12?
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:23 am
by gaffo
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:31 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:36 am
24 weeks and prior "meat"
post 24 weeks a baby.
clear enough?
That's your view.
Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
Whilst I would argue for the earliest possible abortion, and agree that 12 weeks would be a better time to aim for than 24 weeks. Foetuses are no "persons" until they are named and certified by live birth.
Premature births at 24 weeks are survivable, though the children can face serious medical conditions. I would try to convince any prospective mother to keep any child over 22 weeks.
Gaffo should take a look at this.
https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/ ... ek-24.aspx
my position has been clear from day one. its the same as the Supreme Court.
Viability. to date AFIAK its 24th week...............if it is 22nd week, fine, the meat become baby at 22nd week.
as science advances, the week pregresses, and i shall amend the meat vs baby with the science.
its not rocket science.
gaffo
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am
by henry quirk
gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:36 am
24 weeks and prior "meat"
post 24 weeks a baby.
clear enough?
That's your view.
Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
why week 12?
Cuz by then all the biological machinery that seems to be necessary for a person to
be a person is in place. Before that, not so much.
Re: gaffo
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:52 am
by gaffo
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am
That's your view.
Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
why week 12?
Cuz by then all the biological machinery that seems to be necessary for a person to
be a person is in place. Before that, not so much.
ok, but science to date is not able to keep that fetus alive?
if so, then your view is not mine sadly.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 am
by -1-
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 am
...a man should be able to force a woman to abort a foetus in order to avoid child support payments.
I never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. The guy is responsible for the child 50%. Yet she has to live with the consequences. Why can't he? He should be forced to live with the consequences equally, which means, that he should also be in a position to order an abortion.
The woman's body belongs strictly to the woman. She has absolute sovereignty over it. But the fetus she carries is 50% somebody else. The father must not only have equal say to KEEP the child, as the woman, he must also have equal say to NOT keep the child, as the woman.
Nobody else should have a say in this, but the father and the mother equally. The fetus is THEIRS, not hers, not his, but THEIRS.
And definitely not anyone else's, like a congressman's or a congresswoman's.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:26 am
by -1-
gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:23 am
my position has been clear from day one. its the same as the Supreme Court.
Viability. to date AFIAK its 24th week...............if it is 22nd week, fine, the meat become baby at 22nd week.
as science advances, the week pregresses, and i shall amend the meat vs baby with the science.
its not rocket science.
As science advances, we'll see a day, theoretically, when every sperm is sacred.
The house will be full of human polliwogs. A married couple will run out of first names before the tea pot boils.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:44 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
-1- wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 am
...a man should be able to force a woman to abort a foetus in order to avoid child support payments.
I never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. The guy is responsible for the child 50%. Yet she has to live with the consequences. Why can't he? He should be forced to live with the consequences equally, which means, that he should also be in a position to order an abortion.
The woman's body belongs strictly to the woman. She has absolute sovereignty over it. But the fetus she carries is 50% somebody else. The father must not only have equal say to KEEP the child, as the woman, he must also have equal say to NOT keep the child, as the woman.
Nobody else should have a say in this, but the father and the mother equally. The fetus is THEIRS, not hers, not his, but THEIRS.
And definitely not anyone else's, like a congressman's or a congresswoman's.
Shallow thinking. Completely ridiculous and unenforceable (from both perspectives). A foetus is not dependent on the male for it's survival. As far as nature is concerned, after impregnation the male's job is done (and nature doesn't give a flying fuck about human opinions or habits). Why don't you try to give it a little more thought?
Re: gaffo
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:13 pm
by Sculptor
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:26 am
That's your view.
Mine (again): As I say several times up-thread (with accompanying explanation): I'm thinkin' lil fetus person becomes a person no later than week 12 (and probably a helluva lot earlier than that).
why week 12?
Cuz by then all the biological machinery that seems to be necessary for a person to
be a person is in place. Before that, not so much.
Usual ignorance.
The biological machinery for life is in place at conception. The timeline is therefore arbitrary. Personhood is when the baby is born and named.
Sculptor
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:29 pm
by henry quirk
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:13 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:19 am
why week 12?
Cuz by then all the biological machinery that seems to be necessary for a person to
be a person is in place. Before that, not so much.
Usual ignorance.
The biological machinery for life is in place at conception. The timeline is therefore arbitrary. Personhood is when the baby is born and named.
Yes, the machinery for
life is in place at conception, but what seems to be necessary for
personhood is not. I'm talkin' about organs, organ systems, etc, not just rapidly dividing cells. And, of course, I disagree with your notion about the beginning of personhood.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:03 am
by -1-
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:44 am
Shallow thinking. Completely ridiculous and unenforceable (from both perspectives). A foetus is not dependent on the male for it's survival. As far as nature is concerned, after impregnation the male's job is done (and nature doesn't give a flying fuck about human opinions or habits). Why don't you try to give it a little more thought?
This does not address the issue I raised at all. You make three claims, that are either false, or else have nothing to do with the issues.
Your claims with my responses:
1. The idea is unenforceable. But it is enforceable! Haven't you heard of abortions?
2. Foetus survival depends on the mother alone. Not true. The mother alone in historical times was not able to raise children by herself. Or support a developing foetus biologically. Have you ever seen a mother before, during, and after birth, produce food in all phases of food production and raw material procurement? No you haven't. You haven't seen pregnant women in their last month run after gazelles and kill them. Or chop wood. Or harvest wheat with scites. Or build houses for shelter. Or build fireplaces to bake bread or to cook in / with. The foetus depends on the father as much as on the mother for survival. In our modern societies, it depends on social safety net (if there is one), or on the financial support of the father (if there is one around) for survival.
3. Nature does not give a fuck. This is true, and makes no difference at all in my argument.
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:14 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
-1- wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:03 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:44 am
Shallow thinking. Completely ridiculous and unenforceable (from both perspectives). A foetus is not dependent on the male for it's survival. As far as nature is concerned, after impregnation the male's job is done (and nature doesn't give a flying fuck about human opinions or habits). Why don't you try to give it a little more thought?
This does not address the issue I raised at all. You make three claims, that are either false, or else have nothing to do with the issues.
Your claims with my responses:
1. The idea is unenforceable. But it is enforceable! Haven't you heard of abortions?
2. Foetus survival depends on the mother alone. Not true. The mother alone in historical times was not able to raise children by herself. Or support a developing foetus biologically. Have you ever seen a mother before, during, and after birth, produce food in all phases of food production and raw material procurement? No you haven't. You haven't seen pregnant women in their last month run after gazelles and kill them. Or chop wood. Or harvest wheat with scites. Or build houses for shelter. Or build fireplaces to bake bread or to cook in / with. The foetus depends on the father as much as on the mother for survival. In our modern societies, it depends on social safety net (if there is one), or on the financial support of the father (if there is one around) for survival.
3. Nature does not give a fuck. This is true, and makes no difference at all in my argument.
I don't know why I bother--so I won't
