Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[PearlSeeker]

Well that's your argument, I've yet to be convinced as to why we'd grant rights to an insentient blastocyst to use another person's body against their will, when we don't grant sentient individual such rights?

Nobody grants a right to use another person's body against their will. It's granting the right to live (this right is securing the physical existence).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then let's just say the right to live.

A person's right to live does not override another person's right of bodily autonomy.

Which is why you can't just pick someone out and forcibly harvest their organs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody grants a right to use another person's body against their will.

Eum.... that's exactly what you are proposing.
The body of the woman belongs to the woman.
The embryo, a third party, wants / needs to inhabit that body.

If the woman doesn't want that, then the embryo is using another person's body against their will.

It's granting the right to live (this right is securing the physical existence).

At the expense of the woman's right of bodily autonomy.
Again, you seem to be in favor of saying that the right to live overrides other people's rights of body autonomy?

So, if you need a kidney and I'm a match, then my willingness to donate a kidney, or not, is irrelevant?
You feel like you should be able to just forcibly harvest my kidney?

After all, it's about your right to live, right?
And one person's right to live supposedly should override another person's right of bodily autonomy, correct?


What a can of worms ey?

 

[PearlSeeker]

A person's right to live does not override another person's right of bodily autonomy.

Why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why not?

Because then you end up in a world where I get to forcibly have your kidney removed or bone marrow extracted or whatever else, because I need it to live. And supposedly my right to life takes priority over your rights of bodily autonomy.

So I get to harvest whatever body parts I require to survive, as long as the harvesting procedure doesn't kill you (eventhough pregnancy is potentially fatal and mothers die during labor far too often still, even in western highly developed countries - so since that's apparently okay, I guess we can also include a reasonable risk factor of a few % chance of you not surviving the procedure, right?).

 

[crossfire]

Then let's just say the right to live. Without providing this right enjoying of all other rights is impossible.

There is no enjoying without sentience.

 

[crossfire]

Nobody grants a right to use another person's body against their will.

Um, forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is doing exactly that, no matter how much you may deny it.

It's granting the right to live (this right is securing the physical existence).

If it can live outside of someone else's body.

 

[crossfire]

Because then you end up in a world where I get to forcibly have your kidney removed or bone marrow extracted or whatever else, because I need it to live. And supposedly my right to life takes priority over your rights of bodily autonomy.

So I get to harvest whatever body parts I require to survive, as long as the harvesting procedure doesn't kill you (eventhough pregnancy is potentially fatal and mothers die during labor far too often still, even in western highly developed countries - so since that's apparently okay, I guess we can also include a reasonable risk factor of a few % chance of you not surviving the procedure, right?).

AND the donor gets no say in the matter. Even a corpse has more rights!

 

[PearlSeeker]

Because then you end up in a world where I get to forcibly have your kidney removed or bone marrow extracted or whatever else, because I need it to live. And supposedly my right to life takes priority over your rights of bodily autonomy.

No. There is an essential difference. Refusing to donate is not killing. Removing from womb is killing.

What about siamese twins? Who is using whose body?

 

[PearlSeeker]

There is no enjoying without sentience.

Equivocation fallacy. If you "enjoy" something such as a right, benefit, or privilege, you have it.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Um, forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is doing exactly that, no matter how much you may deny it.

The purpose of prohibiting (some) abortions is protecting life. Using others body is not the purpose. It's collateral.

 

[leroy]

No you are the user of strawman arguments. Those arguing against you have probably racked up 1,000 freebies. Quit using that argument.




Thank you for an almost honest answer. The reason that you would pick the child is because you do realize that those embryos are not people. They are not persons. if you thought that they were then you would have done a terrible evil to allow 1,000 to die when you saved one.

The rest of your post was refuted directly above.

However me saving the child doesn’t imply that any of the 2 premises of the argument is true // so even if you successfully showed that I am a hypocrite, the argument against abortion still stands on solid grounds.

In other words your clinic analogy doesn’t refute any of the premises of the argument, so it doesn’t matter if I pick the child or the eggs, non of the premises is refuted and therefore the conclusion flows.

They are not persons.

If you are on a building on fire and have the option to safe 1000 patients with terminal cancer or a single healthy child, who would you safe?

Who knows, it´s a good question, but even if you pick the child you are not impliying that those other 1000 patients are not persons.

Thank you for an almost honest answer.

I am the first to admit that my decision would be based on emotional and subjective feelings, and not based on reason........... what can be more honest than that?

I would safe my daughter before saving 100 strangers I would probably safe my pet before saving a stranger , but that doesn’t mean that strangers are not persons.


Gush even if I where a 12yo girl who was raped, with no support from my family, I would probably abort, but my own personal decisions do nothing to falsify the pro life argument

 

[PearlSeeker]

I guess we can also include a reasonable risk factor of a few % chance of you not surviving the procedure, right?).

Sometimes this risk factor is high. I am not against all abortions.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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?

A difficult question. It reminds me of the famous trolley problem.

 

[leroy]

Here's the same logic:

1. it's wrong to kill innocent people

2. refusing to donate a kidney implies killing innocent people

3. therefor not donating is wrong

I would reject premise 2 (uuuu clear and direct answers once again why cant you do the same)

There is a moral difference between “killing” and “letting die”, not donating is an example of letting die abortion is an example of killing

Besides if my daughter is dying and can only be saved if I donate my kidney, and I refuse to donate it, you would say that I am a horrible person, right?

According to your very own logic, picking the child would mean that you sacrificed 1000 lives to save one, while you could have sacrificed 1 to save 1000.

It simply follows that some life’s are worth more than others.

But it doesn’t imply that any of them are non-persons

If you can pick between saving a healthy child or 1000 patients with a terminal disease, who would you safe?

(assuming that you saved the child)

Does that mean that you are claiming that the other patients are not persons? (NO)

If you disagree with that, then that means that you don't even agree with your own logic.

No, I don’t agree with you strawman version of my logic

Everybody is going to die anyway. Both the born and the unborn.

Ok good point, perhaps if you keep providign good points I might change my mind, and pick the eggs………….so what? what difference does it makes? The argument against abortion still stands in both cases, it doesn’t matter if I pick the eggs or the child, both premises in the argument remain unaffected.

It exposes that you don't fully support your own argument involving "personhood" etc.
If you did, you'ld consider 1000 human embryo's more valueable then 1 human.

And I provided 3 arguments for I would pick the child, none of these denies that the embryos are persons.

If my arguments get refuted, and if you provide arguemnts for saving the eggs, then I would have to be intellectually obligated to pick the eggs-------- but so what? none of the premises in the argument would be affected ether way.

 

[leroy]

A difficult question. It reminds me of the famous trolley problem.

Yes it´s a difficult problem, but like the trolley problem, it doesn’t matte rif you press the button or not, in ether case, you are not failing to recognize that all the individuals in the problem are persons.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The OP only applies for those who say “her body her choice” (end of story) (intend is irrelevant) (nobody can judge except for the woman)

Disagree. You asked, "Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?" I answered no, and gave my reason. If you only intended those who agree with you that the two acts are equivalent, then perhaps you shouldn't have asked for other opinions.

Well what can I say, I simply disagree

Yes. Why hasn't that been enough for you when others say the same, as I have? Your values are not mine. What you consider wrong I consider right and vice versa. You consider personhood something inherent in the conceptus, I consider it an arbitrary designation of interest to the law but not biology. You seem to think that personhood precludes ethical abortion. I don't.

1 being inside or outside the womb - the first one seems absurd, do I really need to justify it?

You don't need to justify any of your opinions unless you are trying to persuade. If not, how things seem to you is relevant to you, but not others.

You consider the difference between being in utero and living outside of a host irrelevant. Many others seem to disagree. If one could remove a fetus without killing it, the moral calculus changes.

When I find a cockroach in my home, I kill it. If I find one stuck in the dog's bowl, I release it outdoors. Why? Because I recognize the creature's right to live, but not in my home. In the first case, I cannot remove it from my home without killing it, and so I do. In the second, I have an option, and I reject gratuitous killing. The moral calculus has changed.

2 being or not sentient (in this exact moment) - The second, would force you to conclude that a someone in coma is not a person, or even if the baby is born unconscious (and needs medical support immediately) he will still be a person,

Being sentient in this moment is not the pro-choicer's argument for why abortion of a presentient embryo or fetus is moral. We can make a distinction between a presentient conceptus and a temporarily (or possibly temporarily) unconscious "person," and have different standards for the ethical treatment of them.

Nobody grants a right to use another person's body against their will.

The American Supreme Court granted the states the right to do just that if they like.

 

[leroy]

In case you did not know Exodus 21 22 is about two men striving and a pregnant woman getting accidentally struck. Before Roe v Wade almost all Christian Bibles interpreted what happened next as a miscarriage. A lost of a fetus or embryo. They would not have notices the loss of a blastocyst. If there was only a miscarriage the penalty was to be a fine. But after Roe v Wade it was changed to "premature birth" because Christians could see that a miscarriage, the death of a fetus, ending in only a fine meant that the Bible did not think that fetuses were people.
.

And what do scholars say about that passage?, those who understand the original language in the proper context, what do they say about it?

Care to site a single scholar who concludes that the bible is supporting abortion?

O wait I forgot you don’t answer questions,

 

[KWED]

Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

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

2 so if the fetus / embryo is part of the mothers 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.

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.

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

So ether

A) Bite the bullet and grant this right to the mothers (hopping that few if any woman would do it)

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.

You seem horribly confused here.
Women are only allowed an abortion with the approval of two medical practitioners who agree that it is in the woman's best interests. And it must be carried out or supervised by qualified medical professionals. She can't simply do it herself.

And it's "penis", not "pennies".

Hope this helped.

 

[KWED]

If we took an aborted embryo or fetus and did forensic DNA analysis on it, the evidence would say that the remains were human.

The main thing about abortion, that gets to me the most, is how hard and cold hearted some women have become. Many of the same people get upset at hunters shooting animals but they have no problem creating human remains. It is quite bizarre that they see no hypocrisy.

It is almost like they live on the surface of reality. Their minds and hearts are not very deep all the way to instinct. To them the budding of human life becomes properly, like old shoes, that they can discard at will. Or the unborn is like body fat, they can remove, with liposuction. They is no awe of human life.

Pregnancy is not like COVID, which you can get without your knowledge or consent. Pregnancy is predictable and any small child in public schools can tell you how this works. Yet, the "this is my property syndrome", keeps this all in the shallows. I am not sure if such women are responsible enough to make such an important decision for the unborn. Then again imagine such a shallow self centered person being a mother. I am not sure what the lessor of two evils is.

When I was younger women were the ones with the bigger hearts. What has caused the hearts of the women to shrink into cold stone? I would guess a Progressive indoctrination angle that spoils natural instinct.

An early-stage foetus is not the same thing as a sentient animal able to survive outside the womb.
Once you understand this, the whole issue becomes easier to understand.