Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[crossfire]

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

Please explain exactly what you mean by "It's collateral." Thank you.

 

[leroy]

But it is ok to harm "guilty people"?

maybe

 

[crossfire]

But it is ok to harm "guilty people"?

maybe

So, if the mother determines that the fetus is guilty of trespassing the sanctum of her body without her permission, then it might be ok for her to harm the fetus in such a manner as described in the OP?

 

[leroy]

You are. I'm avoiding the term in discussions of the ethics of abortion except with you,

Well then why did you responded to a comment about me defending the claim that the fetus/embryo is a person.?

If personhood means immunity from abortion, then location matters very much, as does mental status

.

There are 2 separate questions

1 is the fetus a person?

2 is it ok to kill the fetus?

Many prochoicers grant that the embryo is a person, but they claim that it is ok to kill it anyway, not sure if this represents you

Why are you persisting in this line of inquiry? I've already explained to you that whatever you mean by personhood isn't relevant to me. It doesn't matter to me for the present purpose who you call a person or a nonperson. No more references to personhood, please.

Again

1 I made a post defending the claim that the embryo is a person

2 you replied to that post

If you want a different line of inquiry, then why quoting a comment that doesn’t have the line of inquiry that you care about?



but anyway, what line of inquery to you whant to explore? / you pick the topic

But not this. We're stuck in a loop here, and the choices are to keep repeating ourselves indefinitely as we talk past one another, or change the rules of engagement and try something else. How about you making your argument using the words like presentient, embryo, and fetus instead of person, since those are the parameters I use in deciding such issues. If you can't or won't do that - if you intend to return to personhood - then we're done.

Well my argument is:

1 i´ts wrong to kill innocent persons

2 abortion implies killing innocent persons

Therefore abortion is wrong

I don’t understand why is the word “person” banned but with person I mean

Person: Any human that has( or potencially could have) consciousness and other mental states. // feel free to change the word person for all that series of words in the definition is that makes you feel more comfortable

 

[Sheldon]

Zygote is not just potential. It's an actual new individual organism.

Sigh, it is inside of, and dependant on a woman's body, so it is her choice as to whether to let this continue. I don't happen to agree that it's an individual of course, as a blastocyst or foetus is topologically connected to a woman, and uses her immune system and metabolism, and derives all oxygen and nutrition directly from her blood, but that said a worm or maggot is an "individual organism" so this is another so what moment.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
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.

That is what anti-choicers want to do though, obviously.

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

By using a woman's body against her will, why do you keep repeating mutually exclusive positions as if they are not? If the blastocyst can live without the woman's body then crack on, but it is her body and her choice to terminate the pregnancy for whatever reason she sees fit, and she doesn't have to justify this. Anymore than you have to justify not handing over a kidney against your will, to avoid "murdering someone" and taking away their right to live, your rationale applied there.

 

[Sheldon]

Why not?

It's like groundhog day. WOULD YOU BE OK WITH SOMEONE HARVESTING ONE OF YOUR KIDNEYS AGAINST YOUR WILL, TO AVOID YOU MURDERING THEM, AND TAKING AWAY THEIR "RIGHT TO LIVE"?

The answer has been no until now, so your question is already answered.

 

[Sheldon]

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

What a bizarre contradiction, are you saying refusing to let your kidney be taken against your will doesn't kill the person who needs it? Only it quite manifestly does. Remember this is your rationale, that the "right to live" trumps bodily autonomy, so why is this now not true when it's your body and not that of a pregnant woman?

 

[leroy]

So, if the mother determines that the fetus is guilty of trespassing the sanctum of her body without her permission, then it might be ok for her to harm the fetus in such a manner as described in the OP?

In this context I would define guilty as someone who willingly causes harm to another person (willingly is the key word)

But why is this relevant anyway?


The only reason I included the word innocent is to avoid the controversy on if we should kill criminals or not

 

[Sheldon]

What about siamese twins? Who is using whose body?

Now that's a false equivalence fallacy, since both of them are using the same body, because they are both sentient. Unlike a blastocyst or foetus of course.

 

[Sheldon]

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

The purpose of harvesting your kidney is protecting life. Using your body is not the purpose. It's collateral.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Harvesting one of your kidneys is pretty low risk by comparison, so I guess you're ok with someone taking it against your will then, or we will have to pass a law that stops you wilfully murdering innocent patients in need of a kidney.

 

[Valjean]

Zygote is not just potential. It's an actual new individual organism.

OK, and it's also a potential person--provided it's a human zygote we're talking about. As a zygote in has none of the features that would entitle it to moral consideration. It has no right-to-life.

If, at a later date, it becomes an adult person, then it has a right to life, inasmuch as the features entitling a right-to-life have developed along with its body.

 

[Sheldon]

But it is ok to harm "guilty people"?

That's not the most stupid aspect of the claim though, the apotheosis of idiocy is the reasoning that labels an insentient clump of cells innocent, which renders the word meaningless. I dispose of innocent cells daily in the billions, as do we all. Perhaps the anti-choicer might remember this the next time they pick their nose or scratch their arse. The uncaring mass murders....

 

[Valjean]

There are 2 separate questions

1 is the fetus a person?
2 is it ok to kill the fetus?

Many prochoicers grant that the embryo is a person, but they claim that it is ok to kill it...

Link?

1 I made a post defending the claim that the embryo is a person

That would interest me. What number post was that, please?

Well my argument is:

1 i´ts wrong to kill innocent persons
2 abortion implies killing innocent persons
Therefore abortion is wrong

OK, fair enough, but it hinges on whether the aborted fœtuses are persons.

I don’t understand why is the word “person” banned but with person I mean

Banned?! This whole thread is peppered with the word!

Person: Any human that has( or potencially could have) consciousness and other mental states.

This definition may be OK for casual reference, but for a serious discussion of the nature of personhood it is insufficient.
First, why "human?" Is it not possible for non-human inhabitants of other worlds to be considered persons, as well?
On The TV show Star Trek, aren't Whorf and Spock considered persons, even though the characters are non-human?

Q: What puts human in a special category, with this unique right-to-life?

Second, why did you add "potencially" [sic]? -- to conform with your definition of person? This would make a single-celled, human zygote a person, wouldn't it?

So: human and person are two different concepts, with different moral implications.

 

[leroy]

Li
First, why "human?" Is it not possible for non-human inhabitants of other worlds to be considered persons, as well?
On The TV show Star Trek, aren't Whorf and Spock considered persons, even though the characters are non-human?

well in this context this is what I mean by person, no definition will ever be perfect for any word. /// feel free to use a different label, feel free to give it an other name rather than person, but this is what I mean

Q: What puts human in a special category, with this unique right-to-life?

because humans are persons (usually)

Second, why did you add "potencially" [sic]? -- to conform with your definition of person? This would make a single-celled, human zygote a person, wouldn't it?

well because people in comma, people sleeping, people that fait etc are not conscious in this exact moment, (but will be in the future) but in my opinion they should be considered persons worthy of human rights. in other words killing a person in comma (who according to doctors is likely to wake up in the future) is wrong

 

[KWED]

a person is still a person inside the womb, and a none person would be a none person outside the womb. Any disagreement?...

Yet again, you seem hopelessly confused or wilfully dishonest.
It is not "location" that determines personhood. It is development. This has been explained repeatedly.
An early-stage foetus that has not developed sentience and cannot survive outside the womb is not a "person". If medical science develops so that 15 week foetuses regularly survive premature birth, then the laws on abortion will likely change.

Could you repeat this back to me in your own words so we know you understand the concepts involved? Thanks

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No.

Yes. That's exactly what you said.
You said right to life takes priority over right of bodily autonomy.

There is an essential difference. Refusing to donate is not killing. Removing from womb is killing.

Refusing to be pregnant is refusing to make your womb available to another.
There is no difference.

If you first forcibly hook me up to your body so you can use my kidneys as a dialysis machine and then only ask me if it's okay - I still get to say no and unhook myself. Even if that kills you.

I didn't kill you. I just removed something that was put there without my permission.

What about siamese twins? Who is using whose body?

That's an actual special case for obvious reasons. You are grasping.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

There is a serious risk factor in every pregnancy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I don't see how.
Abortion is the removal of a third party entity from a woman's womb. It is the termination of a pregnancy. The third party doesn't have to die at all. Again, as I have already told you multiple times, a c-section is also an abortion.

No definition of abortion reads like "the killing of....". Because that is not what the procedure is.


Say a person is hooked up to another sick person against his will, for the purpose of keeping that other person alive. Unhooking him would kill the sick person.

Are you saying that the person who's body is being used can not demand to be unhooked?

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?

Funny how when people give you such questions (cfr the 1000 embryo's vs the actual child), you complain about it being unfair because you have an emotional bond with a born person but not with an unborn one.

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

Right.
So you agree that embryo's are not like born people in terms of value.

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

Like I said: to me, or my argument, it matters not what you call it.

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)

The whole "personhood" point ultimately concerns the value of the entity.
This is represented as non-persons being "less valuable" then persons.
But it's the "value" part that is important here. Like you yourself just agreed to, embryo's are less valuable then the already born.

If you are trying to argue against this by slapping labels on them, then really you are just making a semantic argument - while apparently not even disagreeing with the underlying actual argument regarding value.

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

Seems that you do. The thing is, as I just explained, that my underlying point concerns "value" - not labels.
And you were talking about just the labels. You don't actually disagree with the value point.

You agree embryo's are less valuable then born people.
So we have no argument here.

Use whatever label you want to refer to the embryo. I'll just use "embryo" as it avoids confusion.
Because when you use the word "person", people tend to think about born humans - not embryos.

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

Yet all of them agree they are of less value.
Again, use whatever label you wish to refer to an "embryo". I'll just use "embryo".