Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[leroy]

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.

Well I disagree

We are talking about a person that the woman forced in to state of dependency again his will.

Imagine that I

1 Kidnap you

2 connect you to my body (such that you are dependent on me)

Would it be ethical if I change my mind and kill you, because I no longer want you to be connected to me?

Please answer yes or no

If you think this is not analogous, please explain why

----

 

[KWED]

It's like groundhog day.

They should announce a sequel to Groundhog Day, and then just re-release the original.

 

[leroy]

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

It’s not a contradiction

I provided 3 reasons for why I value more a child than an embryo in a jar, non of them has to do with “development”

Why dindt you refuted those 3 reasons rather than presenting a straw man?

 

[KWED]

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

So anyone campaigning to prohibit abortion is "not innocent" as their intention is to deprive women of a service that can reduce harm.

 

[KWED]

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).

Firstly, there is no need to terminate any of the "pregnancies" because there are no artificial wombs accidentally pregnant who do not with want to carry the baby to term, etc.
But other than that, I would say the same principle applies; a combination of sentience and ability to survive outside the womb.

 

[KWED]

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.

In the context of legal time limits on abortion, the issue is kinda resolved by science, on the basis of sentience and survivability. Otherwise, everyone would have their own time limit based on emotion, ideology, etc - as we are unfortunately seeing in the US.

 

[leroy]

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.

So what?

The abortion debate is not an issue of killing child vs killing an embryo // th elaboratory analogy provides a false dilema

The issue is Killing an embryo vs 9 months of disconfort.

So assuming that an embryo is a person you should value more the embryo than the 9 months of discomfort.

You would never kill an innocent person to avoid 9 months of discomfort, and you would never support killing a person to avoid 9 months of disconfort, so why making an arbitrary exception with an embryo.

So atelast if you grant that the embryo is a person, you should be pro life in my opinion.

 

[leroy]

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?

Even if you interesting question,

But irrelevant to the abortion issue.

Usually you don’t have to pick}k between saving the embryo and killing an other person.

 

[KWED]

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)

And here you demonstrate your lack of concern for anything other than an ideological point.
The general dangers and damage of pregnancy and childbirth notwithstanding, there is the mental damage of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus and give birth to the resulting baby. Then there is the emotional and physical harm suffered by the unwanted child either with a parent unable or unwilling to care for the child, or at the hands of a care system already unable to cope with the current numbers. Then there is the knock-on effect of others who have to deal with the fall-out from the aforementioned issue.

But of course, you don't really care about the child once it's born, do you? It's just about controlling women and punishing the "sinful".

 

[KWED]

There is also happiness if pregnancy/child is wanted

Good point!
If only there was some quick and relatively painless way of avoiding the harm and misery of unwanted pregnancies and children.

 

[KWED]

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?

I have already explained several times.
You know what my position is. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

My suggestion sis that the fetus/embryo is a person because
1 it´s a human

Question begging.
The issue is "when does a foetus become "a human", so you can't simply assert, "It's a human".

2 at least potentially it has consciousness and other mental states

But it doesn't at the point in time in question.

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

No. I am pointing out what the consensus actually is. You are simply saying that you don't agree with it, but don't seem to be able to offer any cogent argument for why it is wrong.

 

[KWED]

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?

None of the above.
My view is that it is an easy-stage foetus that can be aborted on request, under medical and legal regulation, before a certain cut-off time.
Which part of that are you having difficulty with, and why?

 

[KWED]

Agree Which means that the my body my choice argument is mere hypocrisy,

Why?
If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, it is her body that carries the foetus and her choice whether or not to have the abortion. Really don't see what point you thought you were making there.

the issue not “9 months of slavement” but rather the child once he is born right? Agree yes?

That is unintelligible.

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

But it clearly doesn't because there are thousands of unwanted children in the care system. You are the one guilty of hypocrisy here. If every anti-abortionist really did care about "the person" rather than just controlling women, then there would be no children in care.

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)

The adoption system is probably ok. The issue is with all the anti-abortionists who refuse to adopt the unwanted children already in the system. If all abortion was stopped, think how many more there would be. The system would collapse and who would suffer the most? Correct. The children you pretend to care so much about.

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

Look, if you keep pretending that there is not a fundamental difference between an early-stage foetus and a five year old child, there is little point in you making these threads.

 

[leroy]

And here you demonstrate your lack of concern for anything other than an ideological point.
The general dangers and damage of pregnancy and childbirth notwithstanding, there is the mental damage of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus and give birth to the resulting baby. Then there is the emotional and physical harm suffered by the unwanted child either with a parent unable or unwilling to care for the child, or at the hands of a care system already unable to cope with the current numbers. Then there is the knock-on effect of others who have to deal with the fall-out from the aforementioned issue.

But of course, you don't really care about the child once it's born, do you? It's just about controlling women and punishing the "sinful".

Answer honestly

If you where in a situation where you alternatives are

1 kill an innocent person

2 suffer as much as a pregnant woman will suffer


What would you do? What should anyone do?


Imagine that you are in a situation where the hospital made a mistake and removed a kidney from your body for a donation. (You were not a voluntary donor, it was a mistake made by the doctor who removed your kidney instead of removing the kidney of the actual voluntary)


Do you have the right to kill the person that received your kidney, so that you can get your kidney back?

So in this analogy

1 losing a kidney is equivalent to being pregnant in terms of suffering and discomfort

2 this suffering would go away if you kill another person.

 

[leroy]

I have already explained several times.
You know what my position is. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

.

It´s an honest question

Whats your tactic?

1 Keep your answers vague and ambiguous

2 accuse me for making a straw man

In terms of moral value where would you locate an embryo/fetus?

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Whilst I agree the comment you quoted is facile reasoning, it also misses the point entirely. As it would be a contradictory rationale that claimed to be pro choice, but then tried to decide when and how that choice can be utilised.

 

[leroy]

None of the above.
My view is that it is an easy-stage foetus that can be aborted on request, under medical and legal regulation, before a certain cut-off time.
Which part of that are you having difficulty with, and why?

I want to understand your view

Would you say

1 yes the fetus is a person like you and I, but you can abort anyway

2 the fetus is a parasite (like a intestine worm) you can kill it for the same reason you can kill a worm

whcih of these 2 points is closest to your view?

 

[Sheldon]

So anyone campaigning to prohibit abortion is "not innocent" as their intention is to deprive women of a service that can reduce harm.

Innocence

noun

1. the state, quality, or fact of being innocent of a crime or offence.
   "they must prove their innocence"

Describing an insentient clump of cells as innocent is meaningless, one might as well claim my toe nail clippings as innocent. They have unique DNA as well, and I shed them regularly and without mercy...oh the horror...

 

[Alien826]

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.

Yes, scientific facts are facts (well... ) and should be as free from emotion as possible. My point is that once we have all the facts we still have a decision to make. If it's a simple choice, like go this way or that, there's no problem using science to determine which way is quicker (if that is the determining factor). But many things are not that simple, and that's where emotions come in. We don't always choose based on pure logic, supported by facts. Abortion is an example. In the end it all comes down to a value judgment, doesn't it?

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

Not sure what you mean.

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.

I agree. Individual claims, like whether a fetus at a certain stage has a particular characteristic are reasonably easily settled. But what science do you invoke when someone introduces the fact that an abortion at any stage destroys the chance that the particular fetus will ever become a developed human being? You can counter with arguments about the needs of the woman and so on, but in the end it comes down to how highly do you value each thing (the woman's needs or the potentiality of the fetus). I've been going back and forth with @leroy on this and no matter what I say he keeps returning to "9 months of discomfort".

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. [Anyone] denying such scientific facts is lying.

Correct. I hope I've explained my position better now.

 

[Alien826]

Firstly, there is no need to terminate any of the "pregnancies" because there are no artificial wombs accidentally pregnant who do not with want to carry the baby to term, etc.
But other than that, I would say the same principle applies; a combination of sentience and ability to survive outside the womb.

True, but let's say there was a power failure that endangered the hatchery and also some adults on life support? I suspect in the book they would just throw away that batch and start over.

As to your second response, I suppose so, but it seems that removing a live woman from the equation would have some effect on the decision?