Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[crossfire]

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.

In a free society, one is usually at liberty to seek out cures and resolutions to such harms, and the right to do so is widely acknowledged. If you happen to be under the authority of a government that prohibits this, then you are not in a free society.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Well you are of course entitled to offer a subjective opinion, as am I and I roundly disagree. Biological facts that are salient have no need of emotion.

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.

Sorry but that is manifestly untrue. Human societies differ drastically for a start.

That can't be determined by science, because it isn't a scientific question.

Again I disagree, one only has to make a cursory reading of the anti-choicer's arguments to see that much of it is indeed refuted by scientific biological facts.

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.

Nope, the woo woo of souls might be subjective, but the biological scientific fact that a foetus remains insentient in utero, or that it doesn't even develop the neural connections to the brain until 24 weeks gestation that make registering pain possible, are not remotely based on emotion. Agnone denying such scientific facts is lying.

"Personhood" is decided by feelings, not science.

Well for anti-choicers maybe, but this is not true for everyone.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Paradoxically none of us choose to be born, so it's bizarre reasoning that anti-choicers use, to keep falsely claiming an insentient blastocyst or foetus is have something taken away?

 

[Valjean]

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

Are all things equally valuable? In what sense are you using "valuable?"
Please list some features that confer value on a thing.

 

[Valjean]

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.

How are you defining "person?"
How are you defining "human?"

 

[Alien826]

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)

You are making my point for me. Nothing else matters (to you).

And so many things, an interrupted education, possibly never to be resumed. A child born to a family that is already strained to support the children it has. A possibility of serious physical damage. And so on and on. All boiled down to "9 months of discomfort". Why, who could object to that?

 

[Valjean]

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 Location doesn't confer personhood.
2 because it is not fully developed Developmental level is an incidental factor, salient only because of its relation to sentience &al.
3 because it is not sentient Sentience is practically definitive of personhood.
4 because it can´t survive outside the womb Again, location. I can't survive outside the atmosphere, but that doesn't affect my personhood.

My suggestion sis that the fetus/embryo is a person because
1 it´s a human What does species have to do with it? If a non-human extraterrestrials landed in your back yard, would you not consider them persons?
2 at least potentially it has consciousness and other mental states What does potential have to do with it? Even gametes have this potential. Is a sperm cell a person?

Feel free to suggest a better criteria I have, in multiple threads.

 

[Valjean]

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)

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive criteria.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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!

Good job on just undermining plenty of your very own arguments concerning harm and the donation of a kidney vs pregnancy.

Pregnancy is, btw, way more harmful and risky then a kidney removal.

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

Sounds like an argument to force humans to donate body parts to others who need them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

We were talking about the born vs the unborn, embryo's in particular.
You are moving the goalpost.

Probably because you have no argument against the actual point being raised concerning the value of embryo's vs the value of already born people.

In fact, you yourself have already agreed to said point. So I wonder why you continue doubling down to apparently simply conceal that which you have already acknowledged.

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

I, and others, have already explained to you that it isn't.
The important part of the debate is the question "can a third party use your body without your permission".
And my answer is a clear sounding NO.

It doesn't matter what the age of the third party is.

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

1. as said multiple times: abortion is not the killing of anything. it is merely the termination of a pregnancy. the refusal to let a third party use your body

2. pregnancy is not just "discomfort". it is life changing and highly risky and comes with permanent lasting damage to the physical body and the very biological makeup of it. Carrying through a pregnancy is LOADS more harmful and risky then donating a kidney.

3. it is not upto you to decide for others what levels of "discomfort" are acceptable to them. Especially when it concerns the "discomfort" of a pregnant woman while you are someone with a penis.



Honestly, what you said there is just mindblowingly ignorant and misogynistic beyond belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Says the guy who in that very reply COMPLETELY ignored the main points of the post you were replying to.......

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

You contradict yourself.
Earlier you yourself already stated that the 1000 embryo's are less valueable then 1 born baby.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

9 months of discomfort

Dude.... just stop it.

What are some common complications of pregnancy? | NICHD - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (nih.gov)

"discomfort"....

For crying out loud.

And "9 months"... it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
3 years after our second kid, my wife is still suffering. Pelvic bone aches, hips acting up, knees destroyed, metabolism out of wack, skin problems, hormone problems, scar tissue all over,...

Most of these will likely be permanent.

Please inform yourself.


Having said that... AGAIN: the "level of discomfort" is IRRELEVANT.

The "level of discomfort" that donating blood brings is almost nihil. Yet, I can't be forced to give blood to anyone. Including to those who would die without it.

If you wish to be consistent in your drivel, you would have to also support pinning people down to harvest organs or blood or what-have-you, at least as long as the risks of the precedure are at max as high as with pregnancy. And since pregnancy is quite risky, that opens the door for a LOT of procedures.

So, are you willing to go down that route?
Are you fine with authorities pinning you down and taking your kidney against your will to put it in my body and save my life by doing so?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Superficially it fits the basic definition of a parasite "an organism that lives in or on a host and gets its it food from or at the expense of that host".


There are some differences though. Like usually the parasite is of another species then the host.
So I wouldn't call it a parasite per say. But it certainly has parasite properties / similarities.

 

[leroy]

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 on elf 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...[

Agree Which means that the my body my choice argument is mere hypocrisy, the issue not “9 months of slavement” but rather the child once he is born right?

Agree yes?

Of Couse ill say that adoption would largely solve the problem, there are many unfertile people that would love to adopt a child,

All we need is a better adoption system, and accept adoption in my culture (do not shame woman for giving their child to adoption for example)

You still haven't explained why you want to bring unwanted children into the world. What good does it do? Who benefits?

I just think that it is wrogn to kill someone just because he is unwhanted, you agree with this statement, you would never ever support a policy of killing unwanted children in say an orphan……….you are just making an arbitrary exception with embryos and fetus

 

[leroy]

Dude
So, are you willing to go down that route?
Are you fine with authorities pinning you down and taking your kidney against your will to put it in my body and save my life by doing so?

That has been answered and you keep repeating your mistakes.

it is not analogous

in the case of the woman the donation was already done, the woman already donated her womb (willingly or not)

a correct analogy would be to recover your kidney once it has been donated.


And you haven’t answer.

If I refuse to donate a kidney to my 3yo daughter that would otherwise die……………would you say I am a horrible person and a moral monster…….. (obviously yes) so shouldn’t you have the same opinion about mothers that decide not to donate their womb to their sons?

 

[leroy]

Superficially it fits the basic definition of a parasite "an organism that lives in or on a host and gets its it food from or at the expense of that host".


There are some differences though. Like usually the parasite is of another species then the host.
So I wouldn't call it a parasite per say. But it certainly has parasite properties / similarities.

Morally speaking does the embryo has the same value as a parasite? Yes or no?

 

[leroy]

How are you defining "person?"
How are you defining "human?"

In this context

A person is a human with actual or potential consciousness and mental states

A human is just a member of our specie (DNA tests can corroborate this)

 

[leroy]

You are making my point for me. Nothing else matters (to you).

And so many things, an interrupted education, possibly never to be resumed. A child born to a family that is already strained to support the children it has. A possibility of serious physical damage. And so on and on. All boiled down to "9 months of discomfort". Why, who could object to that?

Woman can give their child to adoption , so it really boils down to 9 months of discomfort.

 

[KWED]

The point that I made is that being more developed doesn’t makes you more valuable

It can do.
Value is subjective so there is no definitive answer. However, most people would value their own 5 year old child over someone else's 5 week foetus, or even their own 5 week foetus. It's only natural.

In the example of a raging fire at a laboratory, the choice to save one 5 year old child from certain death, or a case with 10 fertilised eggs, everyone choses the child over the eggs, including you (anyone who says they'd choose the eggs is clearly lying). This proves that people value actual children more than embryos.
QED.

 

[KWED]

Here's a test for the female anti-abortionists who claim a fertilised egg is a "person" just as much as a 5 year old child...

You have a five year old child and you are also 5 days pregnant with twins.
You have to either take a pill that gives you a miscarriage, or give a pill to your child that kills them.
Which do you choose?