Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[PearlSeeker]

Really, another straw man fallacy, read my post again?

Yes. You understand harm to be only if you feel it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. You understand harm to be only if you feel it?

No,, but for one to understand harm one needs a functioning brain. A fetus does not have that.

 

[Valjean]

"Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations." (Wiki)

Personhood or personality is the status of being a person. (Wiki)

Did you mean any other meaning?

"personality, a characteristic way of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Personality embraces moods, attitudes, and opinions and is most clearly expressed in interactions with other people. It includes behavioral characteristics, both inherent and acquired, that distinguish one person from another and that can be observed in people’s relations to the environment and to the social group." -- Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[Valjean]

A fœtus is not aware that it exists, It's not aware of existence at all. It's not aware of time or futurity. Thus, it has no self interest; does not care whether it exists or will continue to exist. It can't conceive of the concept of either existence or continuity. It's essentially mindless.
What confers a right to life on a mindless mass of cells? How do you harm or violate an unconscious non-entity, that neither cares about nor is aware it even exists?

 

[leroy]

But, in your own words, her body, her choice.
She has the right to refuse a third party to inhabit / make use of her body.

And by that logic, she can also refuse to have 20 fingers inhabitting inside her body, so why can she mutilate the fetus's fingers? (Her body her choice right? She descides if she wants 20 or 10 or 5 fingers inside the womb)

When she refuses you to use her body (with a kidney or whatever, or even just a blood transfusion) to treat some illness you have and you die as a result, then she did not kill e
.

Grate example, I have the right to damage my kidney so that I no longer become a viable donante. Right. (Even if that causes suffering in other humans)

So by that logic, why can a woman harm the fetus, for some selfish purpose? Perhaps mothers get extra government support if the baby is burn handicapped in a given country or state.

2. messing with the embryo has great consequences for the person once it's born that will resonate throughout his / her life.

And who cares about other persons, it's her body, she can do whatever she wants, regardless if other persons suffer or not

Or does the mother has to take in to consideration other persons? Which one is it

1 the mother can do whatever she wants with the embryo or fetus, if she descides to abort she has the right to do it, independientently if other persons suffer ir not (say the husband)

2 the mother cant do whatever she wants with the embryo or fetus, she has to consuder other oersons and their potencial suffering?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And by that logic, she can also refuse to have 20 fingers inhabitting inside her body, so why can she mutilate the fetus's fingers? (Her body her choice right? She descides if she wants 20 or 10 or 5 fingers inside the womb)




Grate example, I have the right to damage my kidney so that I no longer become a viable donante. Right. (Even if that causes suffering in other humans)

So by that logic, why can a woman harm the fetus, for some selfish purpose? Perhaps mothers get extra government support if the baby is burn handicapped in a given country or state.



And who cares about other persons, it's her body, she can do whatever she wants, regardless if other persons suffer or not

Or does the mother has to take in to consideration other persons? Which one is it

1 the mother can do whatever she wants with the embryo or fetus, if she descides to abort she has the right to do it, independientently if other persons suffer ir not (say the husband)

2 the mother cant do whatever she wants with the embryo or fetus, she has to consuder other oersons and their potencial suffering?

If the fetus is to be aborted she could probably do anything to the body that she wanted to.

Too bad that you never properly answered my question isn't it. Of course you might know the 7th grade level error that you made. Though I have my doubts.

 

[PearlSeeker]

To use the language of the anti-choice crowd, the fetus isn't a "person." Unlike your next door neighbor, for example, it's just mindless tissue. It has no personality, no memories. That difference doesn't matter to many, but it does to many more. As the Allman Brothers said, you can't lose what you never had.

Are you saying only your past matters? You can't be deprived of your future experiences? My neighbor next door was a fetus before. If he didn't survive as a fetus there would be someone else my neighbor.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No,, but for one to understand harm one needs a functioning brain. A fetus does not have that.

A fœtus is not aware that it exists, It's not aware of existence at all. It's not aware of time or futurity. Thus, it has no self interest; does not care whether it exists or will continue to exist. It can't conceive of the concept of either existence or continuity. It's essentially mindless.
What confers a right to life on a mindless mass of cells? How do you harm or violate an unconscious non-entity, that neither cares about nor is aware it even exists?

So it's no harm if you kill someone when she/he becomes mindless mass of cells (not fully functioning brain) every night during deep sleep? Just be careful to not wake him/her up.

 

[Sheldon]

I've read it. I have just picked the earliest minimum requirement when a human becomes a sentient being (is able to sense something).

So you haven't read it then, just cherry picked one part, and misunderstood what it means. It refutes your claim a foetus is sentient, and I even quoted it doing so, yet you repeat the false claim. I even quoted the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stating unequivocally that a foetus remains insentient until child birth, and you ignored that. So what else can one infer but bias, and poor research on your part.

A foetus is not sentient...

Touch sense is not sentience..

 

[Sheldon]

Strawman. My quote: "personality is partly linked to genetics".

Exactly the point I'd made, do you think disingenuous editing out my post to remove context is sound argument. Or did you not understand it, you did say English is not your first language, so I will cut you some slack, go back and read it more carefully please.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you saying only your past matters?

Not even remotely what he said?

You can't be deprived of your future experiences?

There are none until your sentient, and a foetus isn't. As I explained if my mother had terminated her pregnancy before I was born, I wouldn't ever have been aware of it, there was in fact no me to experience it.


My neighbor next door was a fetus before. If he didn't survive as a fetus there would be someone else my neighbor.

 

[Sheldon]

My neighbor next door was a fetus before. If he didn't survive as a fetus there would be someone else my neighbor.

And he would never have been aware of that, as he didn't exist as a sentient person before being born.

 

[Sheldon]

So it's no harm if you kill someone when she/he becomes mindless mass of cells (not fully functioning brain) every night during deep sleep? Just be careful to not wake him/her up.

Hasn't this false equivalence been answered enough times already?

 

[PearlSeeker]

"personality, a characteristic way of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Personality embraces moods, attitudes, and opinions and is most clearly expressed in interactions with other people. It includes behavioral characteristics, both inherent and acquired, that distinguish one person from another and that can be observed in people’s relations to the environment and to the social group." -- Encyclopedia Britannica.

So this what distinguishes one person from another is already written in the genetic code and in the process of developing and can later be observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it's no harm if you kill someone when she/he becomes mindless mass of cells (not fully functioning brain) every night during deep sleep? Just be careful to not wake him/her up.

Bad analogy. Your brain at sleep is nothing like that of a fetus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hasn't this false equivalence been answered enough times already?

Sadly probably not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And by that logic, she can also refuse to have 20 fingers inhabitting inside her body, so why can she mutilate the fetus's fingers? (Her body her choice right? She descides if she wants 20 or 10 or 5 fingers inside the womb)

You're being so ridiculously obtuse, I can't take you seriously.
This nonsense was already addressed in the very post you are replying to.

Grate example, I have the right to damage my kidney so that I no longer become a viable donante. Right.

Huh?
You don't have to damage anything. You can just refuse to donate.
You have that right. Nobody can force you to let third parties use your body to stay alive.

So by that logic, why can a woman harm the fetus, for some selfish purpose?

Abortion is not the "harming of a fetus".
Just like refusing to donate my kidney to someone who dies without said kidney, is not murder.

Perhaps mothers get extra government support if the baby is burn handicapped in a given country or state.

Mothers who purposefully maim their babies, will rather get medical care for their psychiatric disorder and those babies will be taken away from them for their own safety.

And who cares about other persons, it's her body, she can do whatever she wants, regardless if other persons suffer or not

Why do you continue with the false assumptions after I already corrected them?

I have already rejected the idea that the fetus is "her" body. It's rather a third party INSIDE her body.
She has the right to refuse foreign entities inside her body. She has the right to refuse having her body used by a third party.

However if she agrees to have it stay there to grow and eventually be born, then she takes on a responsibility of care.

How can you not understand this? And why do you insist on ignoring what I say and simply repeat the assumptions I already rejected multiple times now?

Or does the mother has to take in to consideration other persons? Which one is it

The mother has bodily autonomy and can refuse foreign entities making use of her body.
If she agrees to carry through the pregnancy, then she takes on a responsibility of care.

1 the mother can do whatever she wants with the embryo or fetus, if she descides to abort she has the right to do it, independientently if other persons suffer ir not (say the husband)

Another dishonest point of you. Nobody ever spoke about the husband. So don't pretend to know what I think about that because I never told you.

Secondly, she can't do what she wants with the embryo. She can do what she wants with her body.
And as I told you multiple times now, the embryo and the woman are 2 different entities and the first inhabits the latter. The latter has the right to refuse having a third party use her body.

2 the mother cant do whatever she wants with the embryo or fetus, she has to consuder other oersons and their potencial suffering?

If she decides to carry through the pregnancy, indeed.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Bad analogy. Your brain at sleep is nothing like that of a fetus.

"Normally developing fetuses, healthy preterm infants, and full-term newborns show two main EEG patterns: “discontinuous” activity and “trace-alternant” activity (9). Discontinuous activity is a mixture of slow-wave activity and bursts that resemble event-related potentials. Trace-alternant activity refers to sharp bursts of electrical activity followed by multiple rhythms with high amplitude. Scientists have posited that trace-alternant activity represents quiet sleep, and discontinuous activity represents wakefulness or rapid eye movement sleep."

Source:
Fetal EEGs: Signals from the Dawn of Life - Charlotte Lozier Institute

 

[leroy]

You're being so ridiculously obtuse, I can't take you seriously.
This nonsense was already addressed in the very post you are replying to.




Huh?
You don't have to damage anything. You can just refuse to donate.
You have that right. Nobody can force you to let third parties use your body to stay alive.




Abortion is not the "harming of a fetus".
Just like refusing to donate my kidney to someone who dies without said kidney, is not murder.



Mothers who purposefully maim their babies, will rather get medical care for their psychiatric disorder and those babies will be taken away from them for their own safety.



Why do you continue with the false assumptions after I already corrected them?

I have already rejected the idea that the fetus is "her" body. It's rather a third party INSIDE her body.
She has the right to refuse foreign entities inside her body. She has the right to refuse having her body used by a third party.

However if she agrees to have it stay there to grow and eventually be born, then she takes on a responsibility of care.

How can you not understand this? And why do you insist on ignoring what I say and simply repeat the assumptions I already rejected multiple times now?




The mother has bodily autonomy and can refuse foreign entities making use of her body.
If she agrees to carry through the pregnancy, then she takes on a responsibility of care.



Another dishonest point of you. Nobody ever spoke about the husband. So don't pretend to know what I think about that because I never told you.

Secondly, she can't do what she wants with the embryo. She can do what she wants with her body.
And as I told you multiple times now, the embryo and the woman are 2 different entities and the first inhabits the latter. The latter has the right to refuse having a third party use her body.



If she decides to carry through the pregnancy, indeed.

How can you not understand this? And why do you insist on ignoring what I say and simply repeat the assumptions I already rejected multiple times now?

Because you keep contradicting yourself

1 if the mother has the moral and legal right to do whatever she whants with her body, // including things that would kill the embryo. (Abortion for example)

2 why cant the mother do whatever she wants with her body, including things that would harm but not kill the embryo ?

Another dishonest point of you. Nobody ever spoke about the husband. So don't pretend to know what I think about that because I never told you.

The husband is just an example of someone that might suffer if the woman aborts.


My question is, can the woman can do whatever she wants with her body, (end of story)..... or does she has to consider other persons that might suffer before doing something that might kill or harm the embryo?

 

[leroy]

If the fetus is to be aborted she could probably do anything to the body that she wanted to.

Irrelevant that was not my question

Too bad that you never properly answered my question isn't it. Of course you might know the 7th grade level error that you made. Though I have my doubts.

I find it unlikely that someone like you would find a 7th grade error.