Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[crossfire]

"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.

Well, I guess torture and extreme pain (to the sentient being--the mother) of childbirth that can result in trauma, maiming or even fatal complications (not to mention medical expenses, loss of wage, temporary loss of sexual ability and other disabilities) doesn't count as "harm" by your authoritative proclamation.
How much would a jury award someone who was subjected to that sort of pain and torture caused by another "person" in different circumstances? (keeping in mind that a the legal (courts) defininition of person is an entity that can be sued?)

 

[Alien826]

My thoughts on the use of the word "person" ...

It seems to have come in as a convenient placeholder for something that is difficult to define. Just about every argument for or against choice in the context of abortion, has a counter argument, all carefully rehearsed. Though many feel it's all simple, it really isn't, because the subject is probably unique in the area of ethics. Why unique? One answer is that pregnancy is the method that humans use to produce more humans. It is so built into our physical and mental being that it is close to impossible to have a detached opinion on it.

So what does "personhood" mean in actual usage? It means something that we, as a society, bestow on a human that gives it the right to continue to live. That can't be determined by science, because it isn't a scientific question. Oh we can natter on about souls, heartbeats, survivability outside the womb, brain development and such, but all these things just help us to make up our minds, or even simply justify, our decision, which is essentially emotional and subjective.

"Personhood" is decided by feelings, not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

It is not a point. It is a pointless claim. Or what I like to call a "So what?" argument. It does not help you if your claim is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

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

Another "So what?" argument. Intentional or not a pregnancy that goes to term does harm to the mother.

 

[leroy]

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.

was the only thing that mattered

What else could matter?

9 months of discomfort seems to be a minor thing compared to the possibility of killing an innocent person (let alone your son)

 

[leroy]

It is not a point. It is a pointless claim. Or what I like to call a "So what?" argument. It does not help you if your claim is true.

Well if your answer is “so what” ¿ then why participatting in the conversation?

I am responding to the claim that a fetus is not a person because it is not a fully developed creature.

 

[leroy]

Another "So what?" argument. Intentional or not a pregnancy that goes to term does harm to the mother.

Again I was asked to define a term, it´s funny how you reply to many of my comments, but never ever answer my questions directly

 

[PearlSeeker]

I have 2 children. I can assure you that BOTH did incredible harm to my wife's body.

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.

Well, I guess torture and extreme pain (to the sentient being--the mother) of childbirth that can result in trauma, maiming or even fatal complications (not to mention medical expenses, loss of wage, temporary loss of sexual ability and other disabilities) doesn't count as "harm" by your authoritative proclamation.

There is also happiness if pregnancy/child is wanted but yes, generally it's a great burden. I've witnessed it myself several times. Hats off to mothers!

Life itself also has harm built in. Periods, menopause, aging, dying... But it's still good to be. And others to be.

 

[KWED]

Well that is my point

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

Because you were presenting a straw man.

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

You really aren't event pretending to debate in good faith, are you?
For the last time, in the context of abortions from a medico-legal standpoint, it is the point at which medical scientific consensus determines that sentience is not present, plus the inability to survive unaided outside the womb. Currently 24 weeks.

Why is this relevant?

Because it determines the stage at which it is deemed ethically acceptable to electively terminate a pregnancy. Which is the whole point of this thread.

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.

I can quote you however and whenever I like. Although presumably you would like to remove that basic right.

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

By what other means do you propose determining when a foetus becomes a "person" with "rights" other than by medico-legal consensus?

 

[KWED]

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

As is the case with most religious anti-abortionists, you have nothing but transparent and irrational appeals to emotion.
And I agree with you to an extent. Abortions can be unpleasant. Ideally no one would have one. I would prefer it if every conception was planned and carried to term without any problems.
However, it is vital that free access to safe, regulated abortion is available to women who feel it is the best option for them. My utopian ideals are irrelevant to their actual lives. This is something you really should try and learn.

 

[leroy]

Because you were presenting a straw man.

You really aren't event pretending to debate in good faith, are you?
For the last time, in the context of abortions from a medico-legal standpoint, it is the point at which medical scientific consensus determines that sentience is not present, plus the inability to survive unaided outside the womb. Currently 24 weeks.

Ok so what isn’t the fetus/embryo a person? (regardless if i´ts ok to kill it or not)

1 Because it is located inside the womb

2 because it is not fully developed

3 because it is not sentient

4 because it can´t survive outside the womb

5 something else

Why don’t you answer directly so that I don’t committee an other straw man?

My suggestion sis that the fetus/embryo is a person because

1 it´s a human

2 at least potentially it has consciousness and other mental states

Feel free to suggest a better criteria

By what other means do you propose determining when a foetus becomes a "person" with "rights" other than by medico-legal consensus?

Well we are discussing on what the consensus should be right?

 

[KWED]

Being pregnant and 9 months of discomfort doesn’t justify killing a person,

No it doesn't.
However, women don't decide to get pregnant and then request an abortion because they find out it might be uncomfortable (another of your bizarre claims).
Women generally want abortions because they do not want to have a child (or another one) for whatever reason - financial, emotional, environmental, etc...
The vast majority are unwanted pregnancies, which means an unwanted child.
You still haven't explained why you want to bring unwanted children into the world. What good does it do? Who benefits?

 

[leroy]

As is the case with most religious anti-abortionists, you have nothing but transparent and irrational appeals to emotion.
And I agree with you to an extent. Abortions can be unpleasant. Ideally no one would have one. I would prefer it if every conception was planned and carried to term without any problems.
However, it is vital that free access to safe, regulated abortion is available to women who feel it is the best option for them. My utopian ideals are irrelevant to their actual lives. This is something you really should try and learn.

Well that depends on what your view is

1 Is the fetus part of the woman’s body (like a tumor)
2 is it just a parasite (like an intestine worm)
3 is it a person (like you and me)

4 perhaps something else? (explain)

which one is it under your view?

 

[Sheldon]

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

It's ironic but anti-choicers use the same reasoning as religious apologists, they seem to think weak and failed arguments can be lined up in tandem, and this somehow makes them credible, quantity not quality as it were.

It's a person, oh doesn't matter if it's not a person since it's alive, oh it doesn't matter if it's alive as it's sentient, oh it doesn't matter if it's not sentient as it's innocent, oh it doesn't matter if it's absurd to label insentience as innocent as it's human, oh it doesn't matter if it's human as it has a right to exist, oh it doesn't matter if it doesn't yet exist as it has the right to use a woman's body, against her will, oh it doesn't matter if they don't want their bodies used against their will as they're not murdering babies, oh it doesn't matter if they are murdering sentient people in kidney failure as....well you get the idea, it's dizzying nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Cognitive dissonance is to be expected.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Are toenails innocent to anti-choicers? Toenails have unique DNA, they must be human? What happens when science perfects human cloning, if indeed they haven't already Ahhhh those heathens...then a toenail has the potential to be a human, oh the horror, every time you scratch your arse it's mass murder. Innocent cells slaughtered needlessly.... what would Jesus say.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Like a pregnant woman then, and childbirth has far more risk to life than donating a kidney, so you're ok with us strapping you down and taking one? You do have two after all, seems selfish of you to murder innocent babies with kidney failure.

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

The sheer ignorance of that statement is crashing your argument down with aplomb.

Anti-choicers who make sweeping claims about pregnancy, might as well say the truth, they don't care about women, or any risk or suffering or injury they might incur, because all they really care is that their magic sky fairy wants babies for them to indoctrinate, and women for them to control, JUST AS THEIR DEITY INTENDED....

Don't have an abortion if you don't agree with them, don't help others to, but keep your woo woo magic beans to yourself, and let others live their lives as they see fit.

 

[Sheldon]

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

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

A worm doesn't have human DNA.

Couldn't hear you sorry, the noise of you shifting the goal posts was deafening.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Are they born and sentient?

Short post sorry, I was regaining my balance after your slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Not everyone that is pregnant wants to be pregnant.

It's odd how the simplest facts escape anti-choicers isn't it? Every single woman who is unfortunate enough to have to seek a termination "DOES NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT" that's axiomatic. Just as not everyone cares what religious apologists think their imaginary deity wants.