Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[KWED]

maybe

Nice.
Define "guilty".
And how much harm do you consider to be acceptable?

 

[KWED]

Well my argument is:
1 i´ts wrong to kill innocent persons

You need to define "innocent" and "person".

2 abortion implies killing innocent persons

Not as far as the law is concerned, nor medical ethics, nor my opinion. So you seem to be out on a limb there.

Therefore abortion is wrong

Non sequitur. Your first premise is unclear and your second is wrong, so you cannot draw any valid conclusions.

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

As "a human" refers to a sentience-capable and viably independent organism of the species Homo sapiens, then it cannot apply to an early-stage foetus.

 

[KWED]

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

There is no controversy.
Either you consider it acceptable to deliberately kill other non-combatants, or you don't. You seem to want to have it both ways.

 

[KWED]

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....

Indeed. Without sentience and agency, the concept of "innocence" is incoherent. I wonder if these anti-choicers only cut down guilty trees, or are all trees innocent?

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

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

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." (I. Kant)

An involuntary organ "donor" would be used as a means to an end. And this (living) donor is harmed - becomes a patient for the sake of an other patient.

It seems that it's the same with a woman pregnant against her own will. Is it? The connection between the unborn child and mother is biological. You can't say the nature is using someone as a means to an end. And normal pregnancy is not harming - making the mother to become a patient.

 

[PearlSeeker]

a worm or maggot is an "individual organism" so this is another so what moment.

A worm doesn't have human DNA.

 

[leroy]

Yet again, you seem hopelessly confused or wilfully dishonest.
It is not "location" that determines personhood.

Well that is my point

Why did you reply in disagreement to the comment if you also agree with the statement?

It is development. This has been explained repeatedly.

Ok so where do you draw the line, what level of development is required for someone to become a person?

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.

Why is this relevant?

You can´t (or shouldn’t) quote my comments if you are going to address something irrelevant, rather than the comment that you are replying to.

We are trying to determine if the fetus/embryo is a person

Weather if it deserves to live or not, or the laws, would be a different issue

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An involuntary organ "donor" would be used as a means to an end.

As would an involuntary woman's womb.

And this (living) donor is harmed - becomes a patient for the sake of an other patient.

Pregnancy is also a medical condition. One so risky that it requires very regular checkups and follow up.

It seems that it's the same with a woman pregnant against her own will. Is it?

Yes, it is.

The connection between the unborn child and mother is biological.

So is the connection between a host and a parasite.
Again not an argument.

You can't say the nature is using someone as a means to an end.

Parasites do just that.

And normal pregnancy is not harming - making the mother to become a patient.

I can only LOL at that.

I have 2 children. I can assure you that BOTH did incredible harm to my wife's body.
Her metabolism is all out of wack as compared to before.
She has scar tissue all over. Her hips are damaged.
She's become less resistant to sunlight and burns easily whereas she didn't before.

And those are just some of the consequences 3 years after the last child.

During the pregnancy, she suffered greatly. There were also all kinds of food things that were trivial before and which now were potentially poisonous. She had to seriously alter her lifestyle in all kinds of ways. And not just for being fit, but instead to avoid serious direct medical consequences, as a direct result of her medical condition commonly known as "pregnant".

And that doesn't even cover the physical hardship of pregnancy. The lower back pains, the stress on the hips, the knees,...

People, especially those that don't have kids or where it was so long ago that they don't remember it, like to romanticize pregnancy but I assure you, it is everything but a walk in the park... With permanent physical / biological consequences.


But not that it matters if the person's who's body is being used suffers from it or not. You don't suffer from donating blood, but even that can't happen without your permission.


In fact............. Even after you are DEAD people can't just harvest your organs.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

It is the nature (not the stage/manifestation of its features) that is considered. What about a disabled person?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so where do you draw the line, what level of development is required for someone to become a person?

That's like asking at which point in human evolutionary history can we speak about "homo sapiens".
Due to the gradual nature of it, it can't really be done.

Whatever line / level / generation you propose, it's always going to be semi-trivial.

We are trying to determine if the fetus/embryo is a person

Explain again why you consider that so important?
In context of the topic of abortion, why is it relevant?

Weather if it deserves to live or not, or the laws, would be a different issue

Right. So it's a moot point anyway in context of the larger discussion.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It's like groundhog day.

05:59
06:00 I GOT YOU BABE...

 

[leroy]

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.

Abortion is the act of doing something actively with the intend of killing a person.

Not donating an organ is “not doing something” to prevent a death.

I do see a moral difference between these 2

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?

Yes I would say that you don’t have the right to unhook yourself.

And if there where millions of hooked people, I am pretty sure there would be “not unhooking laws” to prevent people from removing the hook

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.

You didn’t answer my question,

If I refuse to donate my kidney to my daughter, would you say that I am a horrible person? (despite the fact that legally I have the right to not donate?)

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

Well we are talking about embryos that are in a jar, and that are unlikely to ever become conscious…… but yes of the sake of discussion and as a general rule, a borned person has more value than an embryo

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.

Yes, so what? Nobody is saying “kill the mother and safe the embryo”
I don’t argue that the life of the embryo is more important than the mother (who knows I see arguments on both sides)

The pro life argument doesn’t committee you to the view that an embryo is as important as a born child, all we say is that the life an embryo trumps the mothers the discomfort that mothers have when they are pregnant.

Seems that you do. The thing is, as I just explained, that my underlying point concerns "value" - not labels.

Sure an embryo has more value than the mothers discomfort of being pregnant.- tha is what I would argue

You agree embryo's are less valuable then born people.

I am not sure, but yes for the sake of argument.

But keep in mind that the original analogy involved embryos in a jar, that are unlikely to ever become conscious

So the analogy it´s like comparing a person in coma with few possibilities of waking up in the future vs a healthy person …. Who would you safe? Does the healthy man has more value than the other man?

In normal circumstances, do you have the right to kill the man in coma just because his existence is an obstacle in your life?

 

[leroy]

That's like asking at which point in human evolutionary history can we speak about "homo sapiens".
Due to the gradual nature of it, it can't really be done.

Ok so a 21 man is more developed than a 12 child a 12yo is more developed than a 1yo baby and a 1yo baby is more developed than a fetus or an embryo.

Does this means that say a 21yo has more value than a 12yo?............(obviously not) so development is not a relevant criteria ether

Explain again why you consider that so important?
In context of the topic of abortion, why is it relevant?

Well weather if the fetus is a person or not seems to me to be the most important part of the debate.

Being pregnant and 9 months of discomfort doesn’t justify killing a person, but 9 months of discomfort justifies killing a non human parasite or a tumor,

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." (I. Kant)

An involuntary organ "donor" would be used as a means to an end. And this (living) donor is harmed - becomes a patient for the sake of an other patient.

It seems that it's the same with a woman pregnant against her own will. Is it? The connection between the unborn child and mother is biological. You can't say the nature is using someone as a means to an end. And normal pregnancy is not harming - making the mother to become a patient.

That appears to be only handwaving and an unjustified assumption on your end.

Not everyone that is pregnant wants to be pregnant. One does not need to have been raped to be pregnant against one's will.

And yes, normal pregnancy is harming. Ask any woman that has had a baby. Ask a man that has been with the same woman from before she had here first kid until after. A pregnancy changes a woman's body irreversibly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so a 21 man is more developed than a 12 child a 12yo is more developed than a 1yo baby and a 1yo baby is more developed than a fetus or an embryo.

Does this means that say a 21yo has more value than a 12yo?............(obviously not) so development is not a relevant criteria ether






Well weather if the fetus is a person or not seems to me to be the most important part of the debate.

Being pregnant and 9 months of discomfort doesn’t justify killing a person, but 9 months of discomfort justifies killing a non human parasite or a tumor,

A blastocyst is not a person. Nor is an embryo. Nor is a fetus. Being a person is more than just being a mass of cells. Even the Bible tells you that a fetus is not a person.

 

[Alien826]

I think that "entirely dependent on" is more accurate than "a part of", and probably the concept held by most pro-choice supporters, but that wouldn't suit the OP's position.

Yes, I have no problem with that definition.

 

[leroy]

A blastocyst is not a person. Nor is an embryo. Nor is a fetus. Being a person is more than just being a mass of cells. Even the Bible tells you that a fetus is not a person.

OK but focus on the comment you are replying to and reply to such comment

The point that I made is that being more developed doesn’t makes you more valuable…. So ether agree or refute this point

 

[leroy]

You need to define "innocent" and "person".

Not as far as the law is concerned, nor medical ethics, nor my opinion. So you seem to be out on a limb there.

Non sequitur. Your first premise is unclear and your second is wrong, so you cannot draw any valid conclusions.

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

As "a human" refers to a sentience-capable and viably independent organism of the species Homo sapiens, then it cannot apply to an early-stage foetus.

Well I defined person in the post that you are replying too

Innocent simply means that he is not intentionally causing any harm.

 

[Alien826]

Obviously I am not talking about being 100% sure, I am talking abut “knowing” beyond reasonable doubt.

If there is reasonable doubt on whether if that shadows belongs to a human, on wouldn’t demolish the building until the doubt is removed with additional evidence

So the point is that given that there is reasonable doubt on whether the embryo is a person or not we should play safe and not kill it, until we know beyond reasonable doubt that it is not a human






Well it doesn’t has to be science necessarily,

We manage to establish beyond reasonable doubt that blacks, woman, jews, etc. are persons worthy of human rights, despite the fact that these where controversial in the past

So perhaps in the future we could solve beyond reasonable doubt if the fetus is a person or not




Well most woman don’t regret not having an abortion, it´s hard to imagine a woman with a 5yo child claiming “I wish I would have aborted this child”

But sure John could feel some guilt, just not as much the one who caused the death of so many innocent persons.

All I am saying in is that given the controversy and given that “we don’t know” if it´s a person or not, not aborting is the safe alternative with more potential goods and less potential bads , than aborting.

Yes, I do understand where you are going with this. And if the potential "person" was the only thing that mattered, or, as you seem to be implying, that its needs can be said to automatically override the needs of everyone else involved, then I'd agree.

But I don't.

 

[Alien826]

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

Just to add to the confusion, let's take a short trip to "Brave New World". In that novel, women were not involved in the birth process at all other than as egg donors. The fetuses/ children/ persons were grown in artificial wombs. Do all these arguments apply to that situation? Is there a point where it is wrong to terminate the process, but OK before that?

(Not as described in the book, where life had very little value, but if it applied here in this society).