Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Why do you call a fetus, embryo, or blastosphere a child or baby? It appears that you know that you have no argument if you use proper terminology. No one is stuffing babies or children into uteruses so that they can kill them.

 

[Kenny]

Why do you call a fetus, embryo, or blastosphere a child or baby? It appears that you know that you have no argument if you use proper terminology. No one is stuffing babies or children into uteruses so that they can kill them.

I knew you would appear. You have that knack to bring irrelevancy into the picture as you miss the subject completely.

hint: you might want to go back and look at the context

But I do give you a "10" on supporting those of like mind. You are a good friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew you would appear. You have that knack to bring irrelevancy into the picture as you miss the subject completely.

hint: you might want to go back and look at the context

But I do give you a "10" on supporting those of like mind. You are a good friend.

And you are back t personal insults. You can do better than this.

The fact that you cannot argue properly is very relevant. It tells us that you know that you do not have a valid case. All you have are emotions. Emotions are fine, in their place. They do not apply when you are trying to decide whether you are going to ruin a young woman's life or not.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Why do you call a fetus, embryo, or blastosphere a child or baby? It appears that you know that you have no argument if you use proper terminology. No one is stuffing babies or children into uteruses so that they can kill them.

Why do we have to have this dull conversation over and over again? It does no good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do we have to have this dull conversation over and over again? It does no good.

I know. It never does any good. There should be times that one is allowed to point out when someone is not debating honestly.

 

[crossfire]

I'm wondering why the OP is insisting on keeping the conversation regarding this extremely shallow!

 

[leroy]

Admit that it is a stupid and pointless question on your part and I will answer it.

I already admitted that the question is stupid and yet you refuse to answer


So you are just a lier shame on you

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 7824252, member:]And even if it was "person" the woman still probably has a right to "kill" it. At least according to @leroy[/QUOTE]
An other lie , shame on you

 

[leroy]

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

I find it perplexing that everybody accepts that a baby that was born premature at 25 weeks is a person with rights who deserves to live.

But if that same being is geografically located inside the womb then "magically" and for no reason , he is a "non person".

 

[leroy]

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

d.)

Ok so mutilating a fetus is unethical


Then

What abot killing the fetus? Is that unethical too?

 

[leroy]

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?

The fetus is not a person yet

Which is irrelevant because you support abortion independently if the fetus is a person or not ....right?

What a woman does with her body and with the fetus is none of your bussiness right?

So under what bases do you reject her right to mutilate the fetus ?


O wait i forgot you dont answer questions .....

 

[crossfire]

Ok so mutilating a fetus is unethical


Then

What abot killing the fetus? Is that unethical too?

I've already explained my opinions regarding this upthread. Intention is a large part of it.

If you intend to bring a sentient being into this world, I do believe that mutilating it intentionally is unethical. However, some people (not me) might make a convincing argument for it on cultural grounds, such as wanting a deaf child.

If you do not intend to take the risks involved in bringing another sentient being into this world, it would be best to erase it before it gains viability, or sentience at the very least.

Is there any part you don't understand here? Am I clear enough for you?

 

[leroy]

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.

Sure some persons are more dependent than others, ,..... so what ? Being more o less dependent doesn't makes you more or less of a person.

So why making an arbitrary exception with those humans thst geographically are located inside the womb ?

 

[Alien826]

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.

I'm not particularly supporting the argument concerning independence one way or the other. I just think that arguments on both sides should stand up to logical criticism. I'm not sure about the baby (I use that term because you did, it doesn't matter what we call it) being influenced by the mother's emotions and so on, but maybe you have inadvertently come up with something. It seems to me that in order to be influenced like that a certain stage of development is required. A functioning brain, maybe?

I'll set out my position on all this for your interest. Let's examine both ends of the pregnancy. It starts with a single cell. I can't see how any form of logic would give a single cell any consideration compared to an adult human female. At the other end of the process, there's a child waiting to be born. I don't see how it has any less rights just before birth as it will have just after birth. Now, having marked out the limits, so to speak, where do we start giving the baby/fetus rights, and what rights? That I think is a valid area for discussion. I'm prepared to consider suggestions, with support, but I insist that the woman's rights are included at all times.

I'll add that I think this is almost unique in the area of moral dilemmas. It has features that other situations lack, which is why most attempts to arrive at a solution logically tend to fail. Let us pray/hope for wisdom, as that has been sadly lacking to this point.

 

[Alien826]

Sure some persons are more dependent than others, ,..... so what ? Being more o less dependent doesn't makes you more or less of a person.

So why making an arbitrary exception with those humans thst geographically are located inside the womb ?

See my reply to @KenS.

 

[leroy]

I've already explained my opinions regarding this upthread. Intention is a large part of it.

If you intend to bring a sentient being into this world, I do believe that mutilating it intentionally is unethical. However, some people (not me) might make a convincing argument for it on cultural grounds, such as wanting a deaf child.

If you do not intend to take the risks involved in bringing another sentient being into this world, it would be best to erase it before it gains viability, or sentience at the very least.

Is there any part you don't understand here? Am I clear enough for you?

Ok so basically , the woman can't (or shouldn't) do whatever ahe wants with her body and the embryo fetus.

It's a "case by case" thing .... the woman has to provide justification for killing or mutilating the fetus , and "some authority " decides if this justification is good enough?

Is this a correct interpretation of your view ?

 

[Alien826]

I already admitted that the question is stupid and yet you refuse to answer


So you are just a lier shame on you

This thread is getting out of hand. May I suggest to all that a few deep breaths might be in order?

 

[leroy]

I'm not particularly supporting the argument concerning independence one way or the other. I just think that arguments on both sides should stand up to logical criticism. I'm not sure about the baby (I use that term because you did, it doesn't matter what we call it) being influenced by the mother's emotions and so on, but maybe you have inadvertently come up with something. It seems to me that in order to be influenced like that a certain stage of development is required. A functioning brain, maybe?

I'll set out my position on all this for your interest. Let's examine both ends of the pregnancy. It starts with a single cell. I can't see how any form of logic would give a single cell any consideration compared to an adult human female. At the other end of the process, there's a child waiting to be born. I don't see how it has any less rights just before birth as it will have just after birth. Now, having marked out the limits, so to speak, where do we start giving the baby/fetus rights, and what rights? That I think is a valid area for discussion. I'm prepared to consider suggestions, with support, but I insist that the woman's rights are included at all times.

I'll add that I think this is almost unique in the area of moral dilemmas. It has features that other situations lack, which is why most attempts to arrive at a solution logically tend to fail. Let us pray/hope for wisdom, as that has been sadly lacking to this point.

That I think is a valid area for discussion

Well if that is a valid area of discussion , shouldn't we play safe and not kill any embryo/fetus untill we are nearly 100% sure that it is not a person who deserves rights?

In my opinion The fact that this is hard and controversial is good enough reason to be pro life / if we dont know if its a person or not, then dont kill it until you are sure.


Whats your opinion on that?

I can't see how any form of logic would give a single cell any consideration

Well what makes us persons worthy of the right to live?

Ill say that tjings like consciousness , free will , awareness etc

So any human with this atributes (ether potencial or actual) should be considered a person with rights. (People in comma dont have any of this atributes in this moment but potentially they might in the future)


A 2 celled embryo fits this criteria. So while it might sound strange and counterintuitive a 2 calles embryo should be considered a person.


Whats your opinion on that?

 

[crossfire]

Ok so basically , the woman can't (or shouldn't) do whatever ahe wants with her body and the embryo fetus.

It's a "case by case" thing .... the woman has to provide justification for killing or mutilating the fetus , and "some authority " decides if this justification is good enough?

Is this a correct interpretation of your view ?

Nope. The woman (of sound mind) has autonomy over her body. If she is of sound mind, she will come to sound decisions regarding pregnancy and childbirth, as she is the one who knows her intentions and the given circumstances surrounding it.

Having the authority over her own mind and body, and possing the liberty to make sound decisions and form sound intentions regarding this, she becomes engaged and more involved in the process, which is necessary in raising up healthy and sentient beings. If you take away this liberty, you may also take away her will to engage in the process of bringing up healthy and sentient beings. You take away this liberty, and she just might not care about what happens, as her own liberty over her own body had been taken away from her, as well as the ability to engage her mind meaningfully regarding this; enslaved by some faceless authoritarian power that refuses to engage with her as an individual and consider her individual circumstances, only offering up shallow orders or maxims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already admitted that the question is stupid and yet you refuse to answer


So you are just a lier shame on you

That was only part of what you had to do. So no, I did not lie. You did not do what you were supposed to do.