Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Subduction Zone]

The question was not if a person is incubator. It was about the word "to kill". So it is killing if you prematurely disconnect someone from an incubator.

Then kill is the wrong word. You are trying to pretend that a blastocyst is a person. It is merely being evicted. A person does not have a right to use another person as a source of food and shelter.

Bad example. A preborn doesn't move in by itself. A better example would be that you come home and see that someone has left a baby in a basket in your house. The baby is starving and it's freezing cold outside.

The person did not invite it in either. My analogy still applies if you want to pretend that it is a person.

In your new example dial 911. They come and pick up the baby.

You keep forgetting the permanent damage that giving birth does to a woman.

 

[Sheldon]

for that matter, if the person was unconscious, he would still be a person.

Of course, but again that's because he has achieved sentience, isnt part of someone else's body, topologically connected, deriving oxygen and nutrients directly from the blood of another person, and using their immune system and metabolism.

You seem determined to produce analogies that ignore the medical facts, now is that rational?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Only if one believes an insentient blastocyst should have rights that match a sentient woman, and I don't. In fact nor do you I suspect, as you wouldn't let a sentient adult use your body to preserve it's life, against your will.


I disagree, it's manifestly not better for women.

Why do you believe so?

As a man I can't be pregnant, much less with an adult inside.

If the unborn is not killed is better overall because it's less harm (despite less better for the woman).

You've just repeated your claim, and ignored my post? Clearly it's not better for the woman to have her body used against her express wishes. As I said you would not want that to happen to you either.

 

[Sheldon]

BTW. the fetus is sentient.

No it isn't...Hitchens's razor applied. The leading medical bodies in the field in both the UK and the US disagree, I'll go with medical science and objective evidence over unevidenced subjective opinion based on bias and emotion.

However to paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, "I don't care if it's in there writing poetry, it's a womans body, it's a woman's choice."

 

[Valjean]

Thanks for you explanation. I see you have a point.

What matters to you is sentience. Why is it moral to prevent/deprive someone from sentient experience before it even begins and not moral to end sentient experience of the same being?

A fœtus is not a someone, at best it's a potential someone.

BTW. the fetus is sentient.

Interesting claim. Please expand.

PearlSeeker said: ↑
Are you saying if you pull someone out of the incubator you don't kill?

Killing a "someone" is, in most cases, wrong. The disagreement lies in what a someone is, and whether it has a claim to moral consideration.

 

[Valjean]

Yes it is. Biologically/genetically a person is an individual organism consisting of living cells with human DNA (carrying genetic instructions for development of general and individual human features).

Not necessarily. Not all humans are persons, and not all persons are human. Personhood involves a constellation of features not directly related to genetics.

 

[Valjean]

Why do you believe so?

As a man I can't be pregnant, much less with an adult inside.

If the unborn is not killed is better overall because it's less harm (despite less better for the woman).

I think you're being short sighted.

Is a miserable life of poverty not a harm? Is the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars spent to support an impoverished family not a harm? Is the high crime rate of those in desperate circumstances not a harm?

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't quote that which was irrelevant and not applicable.The term "is" clear in my view.

The term was rhetoric, the term baby is used as a metaphor all the time, medical and clinical terms are more precise, and for a reason.

A sperm isn't said to be a baby, it lack an egg. An egg isn't said to be a baby, it lack a sperm.

So what, a foetus isn't a baby, but you still insist on calling it one.

What qualities define it?

CHILDBIRTH!

How many times???

Extremities and fingerprints are formed during the 3rd month. Different fingerprints than of parents.

The youngest premie to survive is about 21 weeks - 14.8 ounces. You DEFINITELY can call that a baby before it was birthed.

Nope. Babies are not topologically attached to the woman, they don't share an immune system and metabolism, they don't get nutrition and oxygen symbiotically directly from the mother's blood. Listing ways a foetus is similar to a baby doesn't make it a baby. You have two arms, a head, two legs two ears, a liver kidneys 2 eyes, I could go on and on here but is there any need, you're not a baby are you?

It wasn't a "fetus" and then SHAZAAM, it's a baby in a matter of seconds.

Literally untrue, when it is born, and topological connection of the umbilical is cut, and it takes its first breath, and becomes biologically independant of the mother, and becomes sentient and able to store memories in a fully functioning brain, then it is no longer a foetus, but a baby.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1 Let’s start with something uncontroversial that everybody should agree with, you can hurt your own body if you want, your body your choice, if you decide you want to mutilate your fingers, cut your legs or cut your pennies because you feel like a woman, you should have the right to do it … this is not even a hypothetical example, many people descide to hurt themselves and even mutilate their body simply because they feel pleasure by doing so

I feel you are being a bit too vague to flat out agree here.
But I will for the sake of argument.

2 so if the fetus / embryo is part of the mothers body,

It's not. It's inside here body, but it's not part of her body.

she should have the right to hurt (but not kill ) the fetus, for example if the fetus is a boy and the mother wanted a girl, she should have the legal right to cut the fetus’s pennies , or perhaps just for fun she should have the right to cut the fetus´s legs simply because she likes the idea of having a child that will always be dependent on her.
It´s horrible but it´s her body and her choice, so she should be legally protected by the law if she decides to do any of that stuff.

This falls apart completely simply by the fact that your first assumption is false.
It's not part of her body. It's a third party that resides inside her body.

But let's also give you that one, for the sake of argument.
Well-being needs to be taken into account here. Even if we consider it part of her body, it won't be X months later when it's born. And then it will have to live with the consequences, which would likely mean a life time of suffering.

So that's obviously not ok.

3 Or another way to see it, is if the mother has the right to kill the embryo, then mutilating it´s body (and not kill it) should also be ok.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
No "killing" is involved. That the unborn can't survive the procedure is unfortunate.

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.

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 you.

So it seems to be that if you are “pro choice” you should also be in favor of women hurting and mutilating the fetus/embryo

Only in case one agrees to all your false assumptions.

B) Provide and argument that would justify abortion and at the same time justify not hurting the embryo, in other words explain why is it ok to kill it and not ok to hurt it.

Well, I didn't even have to actually. Just pointing out your mistakes should be enough to discard your A/B here as a false dichotomy.

Anyhow, contained in my responses is the argument.
A summary:

1. The embryo is not part of her body. It's a third party that uses her body and takes it through a stressful period, which is not without danger at all, and which almost certainly will permanently change the body also in many aspects (changed metabolism, changed hormone balance, skin stuff, etc). And the rights to life of a third party do not override an individual's right to bodily autonomy.

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

 

[Sheldon]

That's true. But still, it's still less harm compared to one not having a chance to live.

Then I don't know what you mean by harm, since a blastocyst or foetus can't suffer it's own termination? If my mother had terminated her pregnancy before I was born, I'd never even be aware of it, there was no "me" to harm.

 

[Sheldon]

oops! logic failure... keep trying.

Care to offer anything beyond the bare claim, by explaining which principle of logic you are claiming @Subduction Zone's post violated, and how?

Or is this to be another claim that you make without the pretence of evidence or argument in support, and then refuse to revisit?

I think I know the answer already by now.

 

[Sheldon]

saying it twice doesn't make it any more logical.

toe pic

Straw man fallacy, since he never claimed it did. Are you going to support your claim it is irrational?

 

[Sheldon]

All you have is denial. Too bad that you do not have logic on your side. You made the error of cherry picking. That is all that is needed to refute your incredibly bad circular argument.

Newsflash: Not everyone has the intent of taking a pregnancy to term.

It was also a false equivalence fallacy, as he was comparing a scenario where no abortion was involved, to one where abortions are, in order to falsely imply metaphors used for the former are accurate in describing the latter.

 

[Kenny]

It was also a false equivalence fallacy, as he was comparing a scenario where no abortion was involved, to one where abortions are, in order to falsely imply metaphors used for the former are accurate in describing the latter.

You two are just too funny.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Nope. Once again "person" is not a biological term. When you repeat an error it is still an error.

Maybe I just wasn't accurate. Genetic information doesn't determine only the physical appearance but (to some extent) also personality. So part of personhood is already in the beginning organism. Also individual's capacity to develop all human features.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Citation needed.

For example:
What Your Baby Can Feel in Utero

 

[PearlSeeker]

In your new example dial 911. They come and pick up the baby.

But they don't kill the baby or let it die.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe I just wasn't accurate. Genetic information doesn't determine only the physical appearance but (to some extent) also personality. So part of personhood is already in the beginning organism. Also individual's capacity to develop all human features.

No. Personhood is not biological. It is sociological.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But they don't kill the baby or let it die.

They might. They have no food for the baby. Would not feeding it be allowing it to die?

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example:
What Your Baby Can Feel in Utero

Do you think that is a reliable source? Find an unbiased one. This has already been debated here.i. Pain does not begin to exist until some time after the 20th week.