Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Sheldon]

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

Tedious isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do they (or should they) have the right to take a unnecessary medication with the intend of harming (but not killing) the embryo?

I see that you still do not understand the consequences of intent. This is something that a seventh grader could understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I don't get it.
Please explain what you mean.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly, if the human is unconscious in this exact moment, (but will be conscious in the future) then nobody would kill this human, everybody would regard him as a person, and nobody should kill him, even if his existence bothers someone else. (assuming that this human is not a criminal or something like that)

So the same should be said about the embryo,

1 the embryo is a human (DNA test show this)

2 and it will be conscious in the future (in most of the cases)

So if the combination of 1 and 2 is not enough to establish personhood what else are we missing?

It doesn't matter if it's a person or not.
It doesn't override another person's rights to their own bodies.

 

[Sheldon]

It doesn't matter if it's a person or not.
It doesn't override another person's rights to their own bodies.

It never fails to astound me, that people can't separate an argument that a foetus isn't a person, and the argument that a person shouldn't get to decide how another person uses their body. Baffling...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Due to a raging hangnail on your left pinky finger you will only be able to rescue one.

That cracked me up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So do they (or should they) have the right to take a unnecessary medication with the intend of harming (but not killing) the embryo?

Just out of curiosity...
Is there actually anybody who's demanding such rights?

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don't get it.
Please explain what you mean.

The conflict is women's right to bodily integrity vs. embryo's/fetus' right to bodily integrity. (there is no right to use someone else's body).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

- If you don't want it there, have it removed.
- If you decide to keep it: treat it well.

ok

I guess that covers it then.
So if you agree to that and / or understand it, then why do you keep on yapping about intentionally harming the fetus while not killing it?

Who even would want to do that and why?

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

I never said that.
I was merely speaking about moral implications.

Consider my analogy of blood transfusion or kidney donation.
Suppose you actually don't care one bit about donating blood or a kidney. You just refuse because you can't stand the guy who needs it and are glad he's going to die.

To the rights issue, your reason does not matter.

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.

The embryo doesn't have the right to be in the body.
It is granted that right by the owner of said body.
Such rights can be refused, granted and/or revoked.


Just like you don't have the right to take my kidneys.
I can grant you that right. I can also refuse it. Or revoke it.

And I need not to give you a valid explanation either, regardless of what I choose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The conflict is women's right to bodily integrity vs. embryo's/fetus' right to bodily integrity. (there is no right to use someone else's body).

I'm not seeing it.
The embryo requires use of the woman's body.
Not the other way round.

It's the woman's bodily autonomy rights that are being violated here.

Not the fetus'. (which, btw, doesn't actually have rights yet, but putting that aside for the sake of argument.......)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The conflict is women's right to bodily integrity vs. embryo's/fetus' right to bodily integrity. (there is no right to use someone else's body).

The proper term would be "bodily autonomy". The fetus has none over the woman.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The fetus is only a potential person. If I rape a young girl she could potentially get pregnant. You are opposing the existence of that person. You are murdering that person. Granted it is only a potential person. But then so is a fetus. I do not think that potential persons have rights. You seem to disagree.

Sorry, I still don't understand you. A new individual/organism (and all its potentials) starts to exist as a zygote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I still don't understand you. A new individual/organism (and all its potentials) starts to exist as a zygote.

That is rather arbitrary. You moved the goalposts from birth, I am just moving them even more. You have not been able to justify your moving of the goalposts so there is no need for me to justify my moving them even further back. I am merely applying your "logic".

 

[leroy]

This has already been explained to you. Time to admit that you do not understand and move on.

Since you refuse to understand you need to answer a question. And remember you did not answer my previous one fully, so this one will be easier for you.

Yes but you explained based on a strawman

All I am saying is that location doesn’t determine personhood, and given that you haven’t claimed the opposite, I will assume that you agree, if you have a different point such as “it doesn’t matter you can kill it anyway” it would be irrelevant for this particular point

For some odd reason you are in a fertility clinic. All of a sudden a fire breaks out. People are panicking and fleeing the building. You are about to do the same when you hear a crying child in the next room. You open the door and there is a kid in wheelchair frightened to death. He can not get out on his own. As you begin to take him out you see a large flask that says "1,000 live frozen embryos". Now here is the problem. Due to a raging hangnail on your left pinky finger you will only be able to rescue one. Do you rescue the child or do you recognize what you claim to be 1,000 human lives?

I can tell you which one or ones I rescue and why, which one do you rescue?

I would rescue the child

See how easy it is to provide clear and direct answers ?

Would you like a justificacion?

Well the pro life arguments says

1 It´s wrong to kill innocent people

2 abortion implies killing innocent people

3 therefore abortion is wrong.

So as you can see it doesn’t matter if I pick the child or the 1000 embryos, none of the premises would be affected in either case, and the conclusion would still follow.

Why would I pick the child?

1like everyone else I have an emotional link with children that I don’t have with a fertilized egg, (I would also save a Dog rather than 1000 rats for the same reason)… if one of those eggs happens to be my son I might change my mind, who knows.

2 I would have no idea what to do with the eggs anyway, so what is the point of saving them, if they are going to die anyway.

3 even if I save them i´ll bet that there are no 1000 uterus waiting to support those eggs, so saving them would be almost pointless if they are going to die soon anyway.

I might be wrong, perhaps the best option is to save the 1000 eggs, but even I am wrong that does nothing to falsify the argument above (in red)

Seeeeeee, clear and direct answers are easy to provide, why cant you?

 

[leroy]

That is rather arbitrary. You moved the goalposts from birth, I am just moving them even more. You have not been able to justify your moving of the goalposts so there is no need for me to justify my moving them even further back. I am merely applying your "logic".

@PearlSeeker

There is a moral difference between killing someone and preventing a life to occur.

Killing a fetus or embryo implies:

1 killign a human (DNA shows)

2 that has (or will have) conscious and other mental states in the future

A person worthy of human rights is anyone that that 1 and 2


This is not analogous to “not raping a woman”

 

[PearlSeeker]

I'm not seeing it.
The embryo requires use of the woman's body.
Not the other way round.

It's the woman's bodily autonomy rights that are being violated here.

Not the fetus'. (which, btw, doesn't actually have rights yet, but putting that aside for the sake of argument.......)

Yes, and with abortion you violate bodily integrity of the embryo/fetus/...

 

[PearlSeeker]

The proper term would be "bodily autonomy". The fetus has none over the woman.

Bodily integrity - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and with abortion you violate bodily integrity of the embryo/fetus/...

Nope. It does not have that right. It is voided since for it to have such a right it would have to take away that right from the host.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but you explained based on a strawman

All I am saying is that location doesn’t determine personhood, and given that you haven’t claimed the opposite, I will assume that you agree, if you have a different point such as “it doesn’t matter you can kill it anyway” it would be irrelevant for this particular point




I would rescue the child

See how easy it is to provide clear and direct answers ?

Would you like a justificacion?

Well the pro life arguments says

1 It´s wrong to kill innocent people

2 abortion implies killing innocent people

3 therefore abortion is wrong.

So as you can see it doesn’t matter if I pick the child or the 1000 embryos, none of the premises would be affected in either case, and the conclusion would still follow.

Why would I pick the child?

1like everyone else I have an emotional link with children that I don’t have with a fertilized egg, (I would also save a Dog rather than 1000 rats for the same reason)… if one of those eggs happens to be my son I might change my mind, who knows.

2 I would have no idea what to do with the eggs anyway, so what is the point of saving them, if they are going to die anyway.

3 even if I save them i´ll bet that there are no 1000 uterus waiting to support those eggs, so saving them would be almost pointless if they are going to die soon anyway.

I might be wrong, perhaps the best option is to save the 1000 eggs, but even I am wrong that does nothing to falsify the argument above (in red)

Seeeeeee, clear and direct answers are easy to provide, why cant you?

Try again without the false claim that you began your post with. I stopped there.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That is rather arbitrary. You moved the goalposts from birth, I am just moving them even more. You have not been able to justify your moving of the goalposts so there is no need for me to justify my moving them even further back. I am merely applying your "logic".

You can't move it beyond that point.