Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Sheldon]

I haven't followed all of this, but I'll throw this in for what it's worth.

There is one thing where the fetus is different from every other part of the woman. It has different DNA (yes, yes, half of it). That would seem to suggest a separate organism, not a part, like her liver.

Have I missed the point?

Genetically different doesn't stop it being part of the woman's body, why would it? Nor would it not being part of a woman's body be a moral reason to insist the woman's body be used against her will to develop it, and give birth.

If someone needed a kidney, and you were a match, there is no denying you and that person's DNA were not identical, but that wouldn't justify forcing you to use your body so they could survive. So why would we grant such rights to an insentient blastocyst or developing foetus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok
But you didn't answer to the op

Do women have the right to mutilate the fetus/embryo? Such that he would later be born without legs?

Yes / no why?



Ok and if i feel threatened and i have a gun I have the right to

1 kill the thief
Or
2 hurt him (say shooting a leg) ... (after all i would rather not to have a dead man in my conscience)

Right? (Yes)

So by analogy, .... it seems to me that you are saying that a mother can kill or hurt the fetus if she wants.

Why do you keep forgetting the conditions given when you demand an answer. Go back and try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Was that really the question? I guess you understand the implication by your answer

You asked a poorly formed question and the implication is that you cannot understand the answer.

You need to understand that a fetus is not a person. That is all that matters when it comes to the right to an abortion. And even if it was "person" the woman still probably has a right to "kill" it. At least according to @leroy

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ofcourse is a stupid question, nobody has the right to harm innocent people.

Sorry, wrong answer, try again. But you almost got it.

 

[leroy]

She can certainly have a non-viable fetus removed from her body.


Knowingly? She would probably need psychological help if she knowingly wanted to do this.

Still you haven't answered, should woman have the right to hurt or mutilate the fetus? (In the same way the have the right to mutilate any other part of their body or any other parasitein their body)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes most humans die naturally anyway, does that mean that murdering humans should be allowed by the law?

I honestly don’t understand why pro choice people repeat that argument over and over again , honestly cant you note the flaw of that logic.


No, but doctors and researchers should (and most do) figure out what happened, why the natural abortion occurred, and try to prevent it on the future.


Which means that doctors are too stupid and can’t find a way to prevent such abortions , all this shows is that we need more knowledge and more research to prevent such abortions.

How do you go from

1 sometimes the embryo/fetus dies naturally

To

3 therefore it is ok to willingly kill a fetus/embryo?

There are obviously some missing premises in your argument, so please elaborate your argument

Most spontaneous abortions happen because the fetus is not viable. others because of a problem with the mother.

Elective abortions are a matter for the mother to decide, however they are a small minority of all abortions.

The human population of the world is growing at an exponential rate. Abortions are only a minor way to correct this balance. Starvation, and premature deaths from poor health and conflict far out weigh the contribution from abortions.

I can see no logical reason to prevent children being born as unwanted and probably deprived children.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I men want to be the ones to decide the question for women becoming pregnant or not. Then let them be sterilised after fathering their first or second child. And be fully responsible for their offsprings upbringing without the help of women.

Which is what often happens to women now.

 

[Kenny]

Biologically of its mother's body, yes. You have seen a baby right? They are not topologically connected, they no longer share an immune system or metabolism, and don't get nutrition and oxygen via the woman's blood, in the way a foetus must. Thus are independent in that context.

FINALLY!

An honest, up front, cogent answer. WHEW! That was hard to get from you!

Yours is not the definition:

independent
ĭn″dĭ-pĕn′dənt
adjective

1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant.
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent.

The baby is not independent


In the womb, the baby is fed by the mother. Likewise outside of the womb
In the womb, the baby is under the influence of the mother, likewise outside the womb.
In the womb, the baby is not self-reliant and outside it is not self-reliant
In the womb the baby is contingent, influenced and determined by someone else and likewise outside the womb.

therefore,

The answer to "when is it a baby" is not determined by location.

 

[Sheldon]

You asked a poorly formed question and the implication is that you cannot understand the answer.

To be fair he gives poorly formed answers as well. So a certain symmetry to that at least.

You need to understand that a fetus is not a person.

You're asking him to familiarise himself with a cursory read and understanding of simple word definitions, I'm not holding my breath to be honest.

That is all that matters when it comes to the right to an abortion. And even if it was "person" the woman still probably has a right to "kill" it. At least according to @leroy

Get ready for a long rambling shifting of the goal posts.

 

[Sheldon]

FINALLY!

Not to any semi literate person, you obviously don't understand the context. Just read your question and my answer carefully, I don't know what else to suggest:

KenS said: ↑
But when does it become a human being...

After it is born and becomes an independent sentient human, obviously.

Yours is not the definition: The baby is not independent

It is biologically as it is no longer topologically connected to a woman, sharing her immune system, and metabolism, and deriving all nutrition and oxygen directly from her blood through an umbilical. It seem you still don't grasp your facile absolute is nothing to do with my post, it's just a straw man you've created.

 

[Sheldon]

In the womb, the baby is fed by the mother. In the womb, the baby is under the influence of the mother, In the womb, the baby is not self-reliant, In the womb the baby is contingent, influenced and determined by someone else

In the womb there are no babies. They're either a blastocyst or a foetus. They are not an independent of the woman's body.

Independent
noun

1. an independent person or body.

Literacy 101...you failed, not to worry, you'll do better next time, maybe?

 

[crossfire]

Still you haven't answered, should woman have the right to hurt or mutilate the fetus? (In the same way the have the right to mutilate any other part of their body or any other parasitein their body)

Let's put it this way: personally, I don't think it would be ethical.

As for what the government thinks about it, I'm not aware of any regulations regarding this (see previous post about deaf couple wanting to have a deaf child.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's put it this way: personally, I don't think it would be ethical.

As for what the government thinks about it, I'm not aware of any regulations regarding this (see previous post about deaf couple wanting to have a deaf child.)

It would be immoral, but I do not think that the antiabortion people will be able to understand why. Intent is what matters here. The OP's analogy. wait it is not even that, the OP's intent is to argue against abortion. The fetus is not a person yet, but he is taking a case where one intends to take the pregnancy to term and then have a mutilated child. Since the woman in his example intends to give birth the woman intends to harm another. Does it matter if that person does not exist right now?

 

[crossfire]

It would be immoral, but I do not think that the antiabortion people will be able to understand why. Intent is what matters here. The OP's analogy. wait it is not even that, the OP's intent is to argue against abortion. The fetus is not a person yet, but he is taking a case where one intends to take the pregnancy to term and then have a mutilated child. Since the woman in his example intends to give birth the woman intends to harm another. Does it matter if that person does not exist right now?

One might make the argument on cultural grounds that deaf parents want a deaf child to be part of the deaf culture. Personally, I don't find this ethical, as cultural ties are arbitrary to me.
However, culturally minded people (who value culture over the individual) might be fine with it. {shudders}

 

[Alien826]

Genetically different doesn't stop it being part of the woman's body, why would it?

If you were given an anonymous chunk of meat and asked to decide if it was part of a given animal, wouldn't DNA be the ultimate determining factor? Can you name another part of the body that doesn't (naturally) have DNA that matches the other parts? Serious question.

Nor would it not being part of a woman's body be a moral reason to insist the woman's body be used against her will to develop it, and give birth.

If an organ is part of someone's body, the question doesn't arise, does it? I don't agonize over whether I am forced to support my liver. Nor does it magically turn into a separate person after a while. And I don't disagree with the moral part of what you said.

If someone needed a kidney, and you were a match, there is no denying you and that person's DNA were not identical, but that wouldn't justify forcing you to use your body so they could survive. So why would we grant such rights to an insentient blastocyst or developing foetus?

I hadn't thought of of organ transplants. In that case, permission is given on both sides (or should be) and more important, there is no possibility of unintentionally being a donor. I don't think that's a particularly strong analogy.

Look, I'm on the pro-choice side, but I don't think this "part of the body" argument gets much traction. Like the "life begins at conception" claim it's too technical for most people. The fact is that a sperm and egg go in one end and a baby comes out of the other (don't take that too literally, I know it's the same end!). Some people think it's OK to interrupt that process up to a given stage and others don't.

What I see is a difference in attitudes based on desire. To a woman who's trying to have a child that fetus is infinitely precious. To one that isn't it is (or can be) a huge problem. In both cases the mechanics are the same, but the emotions vary enormously. I see both sides (really) but I think the issue is so clouded by emotion that the only fair thing is to leave it to the person who has most skin in the game, the woman.

And then let's put every effort into developing the perfect contraceptive.

 

[Alien826]

Yours is not the definition:

independent
ĭn″dĭ-pĕn′dənt
adjective

1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant.
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent.

The baby is not independent


In the womb, the baby is fed by the mother. Likewise outside of the womb
In the womb, the baby is under the influence of the mother, likewise outside the womb.
In the womb, the baby is not self-reliant and outside it is not self-reliant
In the womb the baby is contingent, influenced and determined by someone else and likewise outside the womb.

therefore,

The answer to "when is it a baby" is not determined by location.

I really can't let this go by without challenge.

In the womb, the baby is fed by the mother and only can be. Outside the womb anyone can feed it.

In the womb the baby is totally dependent on the mother (not sure what you meant by "under the influence"). Outside the womb it is subject to many influences (here it makes sense).

Inside the womb the baby is not at all self-reliant. Outside the womb it develops self-reliance, and even at birth has a degree of control over its environment (ever tried to ignore a crying baby?).

It's a matter of degree, which I suspect is at the heart of this point.

 

[Alien826]

One might make the argument on cultural grounds that deaf parents want a deaf child to be part of the deaf culture. Personally, I don't find this ethical, as cultural ties are arbitrary to me.
However, culturally minded people (who value culture over the individual) might be fine with it. {shudders}

Probably analogous to female circumcision.

 

[Kenny]

I really can't let this go by without challenge.

In the womb, the baby is fed by the mother and only can be. Outside the womb anyone can feed it.

In the womb the baby is totally dependent on the mother (not sure what you meant by "under the influence"). Outside the womb it is subject to many influences (here it makes sense).

Inside the womb the baby is not at all self-reliant. Outside the womb it develops self-reliance, and even at birth has a degree of control over its environment (ever tried to ignore a crying baby?).

It's a matter of degree, which I suspect is at the heart of this point.

It is true, what you say. But the issue that precipitated the question was when is the child in the womb officially a child. Whether fed by one or many, the baby isn't independent before or after.

The baby inside is still influenced by what the mother goes through. What she intakes, her emotions, her laughter, it all is taken in by the baby.

 

[Kenny]

Not to any semi literate person, you obviously don't understand the context. Just read your question and my answer carefully, I don't know what else to suggest:





It is biologically as it is no longer topologically connected to a woman, sharing her immune system, and metabolism, and deriving all nutrition and oxygen directly from her blood through an umbilical. It seem you still don't grasp your facile absolute is nothing to do with my post, it's just a straw man you've created.

Well, this is what it looks like when someone backpedaled after the realization of wrong logic.

I'm glad you realized your error.

 

[Kenny]

In the womb there are no babies. They're either a blastocyst or a foetus. They are not an independent of the woman's body.

Independent
noun

1. an independent person or body.

Literacy 101...you failed, not to worry, you'll do better next time, maybe?

Ahhhhhh.... an intellectual answer with no basis of logic. Because you say so, it is written, it is true.