Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[PearlSeeker]

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

Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists

"/.../ Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemical environment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"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

Now that is not a reliable source. Plus the supposed data is extremely old and crude. The interpretation appears to be only that of the author.

In the sciences for an experiment to have any validity it has to be repeatable or its observations have to be repeatable. That is not the case here. We have a graph. It is not even clear what the graph is of. Was it from the fetus? Was it from an adult? Why aren't both of them there so that we can compare them?

This article is a complete failure. It is "not even wrong".

By using such poor examples you are telling us that either you do not understand the sciences at all or else if you do that there is no evidence for your beliefs. There is also a strong possibility that you neither understand the sciences nor is there any evidence for your beliefs. That was sadly a dishonest article whose target audience was the scientifically illiterate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant that was not my question


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

Oh my! It is just too too funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sleep like. That only means low activity. Even in sleep your memories exist. You exist. That does not exist in a fetus.

And just a reminder. The debate is about previability fetuses. After twenty one weeks abortions on demand almost never occur. I do not oppose abortion limitations, as long as they cannot be abused for fetuses that far along. I am willing to grant that they are well enough developed that there is a very slight chance that they are a person at that stage.

EDIT: Wow! Your quote was incredibly misleading since the very next sentence refuted your implication:

. "This state can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observation highlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties of extrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus."

In other words the fetus never has the brain working in a way that it could be called a person. Just because you do not read articles you should not assume that others do not. When context is added that article supported my claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because you keep contradicting yourself

I'm not. Instead, you keep misrepresenting what I say. No matter how many times I correct you.

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)

This is again a dishonest thing you are saying.
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not the killing of anything.
That the embryo dies as a result is a consequence, not a goal.

A c-section is ALSO an abortion, for example.

And yes, a human has the final say over his / her own body. Nobody can force someone to have his body be used in the service of another person.
I get to refuse a third party to use my body to stay alive (by for example using me as a dialysis device) - even only for a little while and without it impacting me whatsoever - and a woman gets to refuse a third party to inhabit her body.

It's the exact same thing in terms of individual rights.

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

Because once you agree to that "social contract", if you wish, you take on responsibilities.

For example, if I agree that you can use my body for a medical purpose, I too take on a responsibility. One such responsibility, may for example be that I can't use heroin as that would then end up in your body which would kill you. If I do that on purpose with the intend to harm you during the procedure, then I am responsible for that.

Again, how can you not understand this.............................................

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

The husband is not part of the point being discussed.
And I will refuse making sweeping statements here, because such matters are extremely contextual and the world is not black and white. Unlike what you seem to think.

My question is, can the woman can do whatever she wants with her body, (end of story)

Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that she has the final say and rights of bodily autonomy.
No in the sense that certain behavior will raise red flags and might mean that the woman has a mental disorder which might mean that she'll be put away and in therapy to protect her for her own safety.

And as I have said half a dozen times by now... if the person engages in a social contract where that person takes willingly on certain responsibilities towards another person, then that person's behavior should reflect those responsibilities.

Anyone with some basic sense of ethics would understand this.

..... or does she has to consider other persons that might suffer before doing something that might kill or harm the embryo?

In the case of pregnancy without prior agreed upon social contracts, the answer is no.

The woman has the final say over her body.
When I refuse to donate blood or organs or what-have-you, and the patient dies as a direct result then surely that patient's family and loved ones will also suffer.

Do you think that is a good enough reason to pin me down, knock me out, and harness one of my kidney's against my will?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Instead of engaging in 6th grade ad hominins, perhaps just answer his question.

 

[leroy]

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

Why not?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Sleep like. That only means low activity. Even in sleep your memories exist. You exist. That does not exist in a fetus.

And just a reminder. The debate is about previability fetuses. After twenty one weeks abortions on demand almost never occur. I do not oppose abortion limitations, as long as they cannot be abused for fetuses that far along. I am willing to grant that they are well enough developed that there is a very slight chance that they are a person at that stage.

EDIT: Wow! Your quote was incredibly misleading since the very next sentence refuted your implication:

. "This state can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observation highlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties of extrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus."

In other words the fetus never has the brain working in a way that it could be called a person. Just because you do not read articles you should not assume that others do not. When context is added that article supported my claim.

The context is irrelevant. It just explains that fetal sleep like state is different from born (and preterm born) brain activity...

Ok. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement about later stage fetus. But where is the limit? Is an universal limit even possible?

Now let's get a step further. The body with memories and so on may not be killed. But If you terminate a body before it is able to have brain activity, experience, memories, relationships... then you also erase the future human who would be the same body at later age. And even if the body doesn't reach human potential:

What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. ...A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.
(Francis Beckwith: "Abortion, Bioethics, and Personhood: A Philosophical Reflection - quoted in Wiki)
​

 

[leroy]

I'm not. Instead, you keep misrepresenting what I say. No matter how many times I correct you.



This is again a dishonest thing you are saying.
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not the killing of anything.
That the embryo dies as a result is a consequence, not a goal.

A c-section is ALSO an abortion, for example.

And yes, a human has the final say over his / her own body. Nobody can force someone to have his body be used in the service of another person.
I get to refuse a third party to use my body to stay alive (by for example using me as a dialysis device) - even only for a little while and without it impacting me whatsoever - and a woman gets to refuse a third party to inhabit her body.

It's the exact same thing in terms of individual rights.



Because once you agree to that "social contract", if you wish, you take on responsibilities.

For example, if I agree that you can use my body for a medical purpose, I too take on a responsibility. One such responsibility, may for example be that I can't use heroin as that would then end up in your body which would kill you. If I do that on purpose with the intend to harm you during the procedure, then I am responsible for that.

Again, how can you not understand this.............................................



The husband is not part of the point being discussed.
And I will refuse making sweeping statements here, because such matters are extremely contextual and the world is not black and white. Unlike what you seem to think.



Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that she has the final say and rights of bodily autonomy.
No in the sense that certain behavior will raise red flags and might mean that the woman has a mental disorder which might mean that she'll be put away and in therapy to protect her for her own safety.

And as I have said half a dozen times by now... if the person engages in a social contract where that person takes willingly on certain responsibilities towards another person, then that person's behavior should reflect those responsibilities.

Anyone with some basic sense of ethics would understand this.




In the case of pregnancy without prior agreed upon social contracts, the answer is no.

The woman has the final say over her body.
When I refuse to donate blood or organs or what-have-you, and the patient dies as a direct result then surely that patient's family and loved ones will also suffer.

Do you think that is a good enough reason to pin me down, knock me out, and harness one of my kidney's against my will?

In the case of pregnancy without prior agreed upon social contracts, the answer is no.

Ok so uf the woman agreed with being pregnant, and then changed her mind, she has no right to abort?

The woman has the final say over her body.

Ok so she has the final say, she descides if she whants to do something that would harm the embryo. ..... you are contracting yourself if she has the final say then you shouldn't stop her from doing stuff that would harm the embryo

.. if the person engages in a social contract where that person takes willingly on certain responsibilities towards another person,

What can i say..... the woman agreed to be pregnant, and be a mother, but she didn't agreed to stop smoking, stop drinking alcohol , or stop taking that legal drug that would certainly cause long term harm in the fetus.

Should she have the right to do both (accept the pregnancy and take that legal drug?)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The context is irrelevant. It just explains that fetal sleep like state is different from born (and preterm born) brain activity...

Ok. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement about later stage fetus. But where is the limit? Is an universal limit even possible?

Now let's get a step further. The body with memories and so on may not be killed. But If you terminate a body before it is able to have brain activity, experience, memories, relationships... then you also erase the future human who would be the same body at later age. Even if the body doesn't reach human potential:

What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. ...A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.
(Francis Beckwith: "Abortion, Bioethics, and Personhood: A Philosophical Reflection - quoted in Wiki)
​

None of this matters.
The only purpose this point serves, is to turn it into an emotional argument.

The matter of bodily autonomy is not affected by any of this.
Whether you wish to call the embryo a "person" or not, the rights of bodily autonomy of another individual is not impacted by it.

Humans get to refuse third party persons making use of their body for whatever reason.

If this means the third party can't survive, then the human refusing the use of his/her body did not commit murder.

If you require a kidney and me refusing to donate one means certain death for you, then I did not kill you.

If an embryo needs a woman's womb to survive and the woman refuses, she did not kill the embryo either.
The fact that it already attached and that it needs to be detached, does not change that.
If you hook me up to your body for a direct blood transfusion and then ask me if I'm okay with it... I get to still say no and unhook myself.

 

[leroy]

Instead of engaging in 6th grade ad hominins, perhaps just answer his question.

Because he is not asking any questions

 

[leroy]

No. If you're intending to argue that they are essentially the same thing but differ by degree only, and that therefore if one supports (or rejects) one, he needs to support (or reject) both, you need not. I disagree.



ng.

Why not ?
If a woman can do whatever she whants with her body , including doing something that would end up killing the embryo.......... why cant she do stuff like smoking drink alcohol, or take legal drugs that would casuse long term harm to the embryo?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so uf the woman agreed with being pregnant, and then changed her mind, she has no right to abort?

Depends. As I said, such things are very contextual. You can't make sweeping statements here.
There are scenario's where it might be and there are where it might not be.

Personally, I'm a guy who values prior engagement. Let's say I'm a man of honor, lol. Prior engagements should mean something, right. But then again, there are situations where the other party doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, which might make the whole thing void.
As said... it all depends.

Ok so she has the final say, she descides if she whants to do something that would harm the embryo. ..... you are contracting yourself

I'm not contradicting myself.
You just keep on ignoring that I said multiple times now that the embryo is not part of her body.
It's a third party that inhabits it. Big difference.

I'll just say it like I would to a child:
- If you don't want it there, have it removed.
- If you decide to keep it: treat it well.

Capice?

if she has the final say then you shouldn't stop her from doing stuff that would harm the embryo

Do you even read the posts you reply to?
I'm going to repeat myself only so many times though...

If you keep it, you treat it well and nurture it.
You act in context of the responsibility you decided to take on.

If I decide to donate blood to you, then I won't be consuming loads of alcohol and taking a heroin shot right before the donation.

You are truly grasping.

What can i say..... the woman agreed to be pregnant, and be a mother,

That is not at all the case in many many pregnancies. If not most.
And even if it is, it matters not. Things can change. People can change their minds.
Complications can occur (both biological as well as sociological)

but she didn't agreed to stop smoking, stop drinking alcohol , or stop taking that legal drug that would certainly cause long term harm in the fetus.

Yes that's horrible. I can't for the life of me understand why some people would do that.
I'm not sure what the laws are about that. But imo, there should be some kind of enforcement there. For me, it falls under neglect. Kids get taken away from parents in case of neglect.

Should she have the right to do both (accept the pregnancy and take that legal drug?)

It's a bit unclear to me how one could enforce such laws.
But on the other hand, we also already have quite some laws that only serve to protect kids from their parent's unhealthy habits.

Like for example in Belgium, it has become illegal to smoke in a car while there are minors in it.
You could enforce such a thing in public through social control and stuff, but what are you going to do about what people do indoors in the privacy of their home?

I guess you could have gynecologists' perform tests on visits, but you'll only get a snapshot and many positives are likely also going to be false positives.

So not sure about that, that's above my paygrade.


Purely morally, I consider it deeply immoral to decide to carry through the pregnancy and have the baby and then live a lifestyle that is harmful to it.

I also consider it immoral to neglect your born children. Or just not provide an as healthy lifestyle as possible. For example, people who take their kids to McDonalds every other day, knowing how bad it is for them. Parents who keep their kids up way to late, who don't help with their school work, who don't keep them clean, etc etc etc etc etc.

I'm the kind of guy who thinks like "If you are going to do something, then do it well "

 

[PearlSeeker]

None of this matters.
The only purpose this point serves, is to turn it into an emotional argument.

The matter of bodily autonomy is not affected by any of this.
Whether you wish to call the embryo a "person" or not, the rights of bodily autonomy of another individual is not impacted by it.

Humans get to refuse third party persons making use of their body for whatever reason.

If this means the third party can't survive, then the human refusing the use of his/her body did not commit murder.

If you require a kidney and me refusing to donate one means certain death for you, then I did not kill you.

If an embryo needs a woman's womb to survive and the woman refuses, she did not kill the embryo either.
The fact that it already attached and that it needs to be detached, does not change that.
If you hook me up to your body for a direct blood transfusion and then ask me if I'm okay with it... I get to still say no and unhook myself.

OK. Let's put the personhood question aside. Then we have a situation where there is a conflict of rights - "a competing human rights situation".

I don't deny the right to bodily integrity of the woman. Involuntary pregnancy and birth is horrible. But it's not the "third party person's" fault that this has happened. And this person also has the same right. Why would women's right outweigh the other person's right? No rights are absolute.

You are probably asking why would the other person's right prevail? Because to the the woman unwanted pregnancy is not the end. She can still continue to live and give the baby for adoption... For the other person abortion is more fatal - it's the absolute end. Unwanted pregnancy effects the body integrity less than abortion. A key legal principle in such situations is: "The core of a right is more protected than its periphery."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK. Let's put the personhood question aside. Then we have a situation where there is a conflict of rights - "a competing human rights situation".

Which rights, exactly, are in conflict in your opinion?

I don't deny the right to bodily integrity of the woman. Involuntary pregnancy and birth is horrible. But it's not the "third party person's" fault that this has happened

So?
It's not the "third party's" fault either that I am the only match for a kidney.
I still get to refuse, even if it means certain death for that third party.

The right to live of the third party does not override my individual rights of bodily autonomy.

And this person also has the same right. Why would women's right outweigh the other person's right?

The third party has absolutely NO rights over the body of another. And most certainly not rights that override that person's rights concerning their own body.

So what are you talking about?

No rights are absolute.

You haven't demonstrated such.
Tell me, what would override my rights to my body?
What relatively common / imaginable context could possibly exist in which it would be morally okay for you to knock me out and harness one or more organs or blood or what not?

You are probably asking why would the other person's right prevail? Because to the the woman unwanted pregnancy is not the end.

Donating a kidney, skin tissue, stemcells, blood,... etc also "is not the end".
But refusing to do so might mean "the end" for the third party who wants to use your body.

Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to refuse?
Police should be able to knock me out and harness my organs or blood as long as it doesn't kill me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The context is irrelevant. It just explains that fetal sleep like state is different from born (and preterm born) brain activity...

Ok. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement about later stage fetus. But where is the limit? Is an universal limit even possible?

Now let's get a step further. The body with memories and so on may not be killed. But If you terminate a body before it is able to have brain activity, experience, memories, relationships... then you also erase the future human who would be the same body at later age. And even if the body doesn't reach human potential:

What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. ...A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.
(Francis Beckwith: "Abortion, Bioethics, and Personhood: A Philosophical Reflection - quoted in Wiki)
​

You only eliminate a " might have been". You do not eliminate a person. By your logic one could justify rape.

 

[crossfire]

OK. Let's put the personhood question aside. Then we have a situation where there is a conflict of rights - "a competing human rights situation".

I don't deny the right to bodily integrity of the woman. Involuntary pregnancy and birth is horrible. But it's not the "third party person's" fault that this has happened. And this person also has the same right. Why would women's right outweigh the other person's right? No rights are absolute.

A woman's body is her own territory. It can't be any one else's territory!

You are probably asking why would the other person's right prevail? Because to the the woman unwanted pregnancy is not the end. She can still continue to live and give the baby for adoption... For the other person abortion is more fatal - it's the absolute end. Unwanted pregnancy effects the body integrity less than abortion. A key legal principle in such situations is: "The core of a right is more protected than its periphery."

A person can generally designate who is an unwanted intruder in their home and who is a welcomed guest, and can expel unwanted intruders. That is no one else's choice, either.

 

[leroy]

Depends. As I said, such things are very contextual. You can't make sweeping statements here.
There are scenario's where it might be and there are where it might not be.

Personally, I'm a guy who values prior engagement. Let's say I'm a man of honor, lol. Prior engagements should mean something, right. But then again, there are situations where the other party doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, which might make the whole thing void.
As said... it all depends.

Ok, so you are not the type of pro choicer who claims that abortion is ok (or permissible) no matter what the situation is.

There are some cases where abortion is morally wrong, as you said “it depends”…….. is this a correct representation of your view?

If you answer Yes, then obviously the OP is not directed to you

I'll just say it like I would to a child:
- If you don't want it there, have it removed.
- If you decide to keep it: treat it well.

Capice?

ok

If I decide to donate blood to you, then I won't be consuming loads of alcohol and taking a heroin shot right before the donation.

You are truly grasping.

Yes I understand, as I said, this OP is not directed to people like you who would reject abortion at least in some situations.

This argument only applies for those who accept abortion no matter what

Of course I disagree with some of the stuff that you mentioned, in my opinion (and given the assumption that the embryo is a person). You don’t have the right to kill it even if it´s in your body.

But that is beyond the scope of the OP



...

 

[leroy]

A woman's body is her own territory. It can't be any one else's territory!


A person can generally designate who is an unwanted intruder in their home and who is a welcomed guest, and can expel unwanted intruders. That is no one else's choice, either.

Ok but related to the OP

This woman, has a problem with having a 2 legged intruder in her body, but she has no problem is he only has 1 leg.

Can she (should she) remove a leg from the fetus?

 

[PearlSeeker]

The third party has absolutely NO rights over the body of another.

Straw man fallacy. The same right means the right over one's own body.