Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Valjean]

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.

The potential of a personality, and personhood, is there, but it's not yet manifest. A potential carries no right-to-life.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Would you be ok with someone deciding they believe that your body could be used against your will to sustain a person who has lost consciousness?

It's impossible for me to imagine I would be against helping my child. Even if I would have no contact with the child before.

That's blatant straw man, as it is not remotely what I asked, try again, and note the words against your will.

 

[Sheldon]

That's right. Biologically/genetically the fetus is a sepatate person/individuum.

That is topologically connected, uses the woman's immune system and her metabolism, derives all nutrition and oxygen directly from her blood, is insentient, and doesn't develop the neural pathways to the brain that can register pain until 24 weeks, and even then the evidence suggests it's insentient state means it can't feel pain.

You can call it an individual but it becomes meaningless if you ignore all that. However the woman is an individual and has to have the right of bodily autonomy. You wouldn't give it up, why should any woman. If people don't like abortions they need never have one, or be involved in directly helping anyone have one, just don't insist others must live by your beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

↑
I'm sorry... what features is it lacking?

Independence would be one.

Indeed, then there's sentience, the ability to experience emptions, or pain, or store memories or form attachments. It can't even breath, or provide itself with oxygen, and has to use the mother's immune system and metabolism, and can only get nutrients directly from her blood.

 

[Sheldon]

Person is not a biological or genetic term, so . . . no. It is not since that is a nonsensical statement.

Very true, and it's risible to suggest it is biological indepenatant anyway, that is utter nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

For example:
What Your Baby Can Feel in Utero

You didn't read that all did you? Here's a quote from your link that is germane to the discussion:

"Even when a developing fetus can sense a light touch, he doesn’t feel pain the way you do. That requires not only touch receptors, but also the necessary molecules and pathways in the brain to process a pain signal. The neural connections and the brain structures necessary to sense pain don’t develop until at least week 24 of pregnancy.

Simply having the physical structures in place still doesn’t mean a fetus can experience pain. The complex neural circuitry necessary to tell the difference between regular touch and painful touch doesn’t develop until the end of the third trimester.

Researchers using brain scanning methods on unborn babies think that fetuses probably feel pain around the same time that the somatosensory system finishes its development — about week 29 or week 30 of pregnancy. Before then, a fetus reacts to touch with a change in heart rate or hormone levels, but the pain center of the brain doesn't receive or consciously recognize the message."

 

[Sheldon]

a baby isn't independent... toe pick.

It is biologically independent, do you think rehashing the same false equivalence is sound reasoning? By that rationale no one is indepenatant, do you grow your own food, make your own clothes, shun all medical assistance, did you make your own car, house, etc etc? A blastocyst or foetus is not biologically independent, but a baby is. Nor is that the only major differences of course.

 

[Sheldon]

BTW. the fetus is sentient.

No it isn't. Even the link you posted pointed this out.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you saying if you pull someone out of the incubator you don't kill?

It's no longer an insentient blastocyst or foetus if it's in an incubator, and not connected to or dependant on a woman's body for survival. It is an individual person. helping to survive also doesn't violate someone else's bodily autonomy, so this seems like another false equivalence.

 

[Sheldon]

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).

Individual humans are not topologically connected to, and dependant on the body of another.

 

[Sheldon]

You two are just too funny.

I wondered how long before you veered off topic into ad hominem yet again. Have you nothing to say on topic then, maybe offer something to support your claim @Subduction Zone's post was irrational, or offer some defence for the false equivalence fallacy you used that I pointed out? At least you can be glib about the topic, usually I'm drowning in the crocodile tears of anti-choicers in these debates on abortion.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

All you are doing is demonstrating it is not yet a person. if it were it wouldn't be developing into one, would it? If it were a person you wouldn't be describing it as "already having part of personhood".

 

[Sheldon]

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

They don't violate anyone's bodily autonomy in helping it survive either. It's also an individual sentient human being, capable of experiencing emotional and physical suffering, and not topologically connected to and dependant on another person's body.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

His own link pointed out the neural pathways necessary to experience pain don't form until the 24th week, and even then most medical experts agree it is unlikely to feel pain, as it remains in an insentient state.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

I just picked a random source. It seemed reliable enough... Different sources claim that fetus developes senses (not all at once). So fetus is sentient.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

If you put someone to "sleep" without feeling any pain then it's no harm? The harm is that someone cannot live anymore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

His own link pointed out the neural pathways necessary to experience pain don't form until the 24th week, and even then most medical experts agree it is unlikely to feel pain, as it remains in an insentient state.

I saw that an I was kicking myself a bit. Usually I do read other people's links, but it was late at night for me. Often I find, as you did, that the link refutes their claims.

Mea culpa.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just picked a random source. It seemed reliable enough... Different sources claim that fetus developes senses (not all at once). So fetus is sentient.

Actually your source refuted your claims. The fetus does not develop those senses into very late into the pregnancy. Long past the time that over 99% of abortions are done. Abortions done at that time in a pregnancy are almost always due to a medical need and are not done as birth control.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you put someone to "sleep" without feeling any pain then it's no harm? The harm is that someone cannot live anymore.

Once again, this has never been "someone". I can see a limit on third trimester abortions, but doing that will not affect the abortion rate measurably.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

Personhood is not biological. It is sociological.

Really?

"While it has already been established that personality is partly linked to genetics, recent genome-wide association studies like this will allow researchers to take a closer look at which parts of our DNA code affect certain aspects of our character."

Source:
Scientists Have Found Genetic Links Between Personality Traits And Psychiatric Diseases