Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Alien826]

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.

And the law would be decided democratically, that is by the loudest voices, with science very much in the background!

 

[Alien826]

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

It can't be adopted until it's born! And I see you conveniently ignored my examples of bad stuff that can happen to the woman while pregnant or the general effect on her life.

I suggest you don't go into a meeting of pregnant ladies and say "it's just 9 months of discomfort". You may not get out alive!

 

[crossfire]

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

----

That would more accurately describe freezing excess embryos with liquid nitrogen that have implanted from an in vitro fertilization procedure. A regular pregnancy would be where the blastocyte wandered in and attached itself.

 

[crossfire]

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.

Actually, before we had baby formula and babies were totally dependent on their mothers for breast milk, women were sometimes faced with this choice, as it is very difficult to maintain lactation while you are pregnant.

 

[leroy]

It can't be adopted until it's born!
E]

Which is why it boils down to 9 months of discomfort

And I see you conveniently ignored my examples of bad stuff that can happen to the woman while pregnant or the general effect on her life.

Sure if the woman's life is at risk or something really bad can happen , abortion would be justified. (No pro life to my knowledge would disagree)

But talking about the average pregnancy, 8 months of discomfort it doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to kill an innocent person.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario.

You are kidnapped by a crazy man (someone like the Joker from batman)

He tells you that he will let you go but before you have 2 pick between pressing 2 buttons

1 green button; if you press this button an innocent child will die (your son)

2 red button, you will suffer from 9 months of discomfort, gain weight, nauceus, difficulty to walk etc.


Do you honestly think that pressing the green button is morally justifiable..... ?

 

[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".

Well what can i say...... the unborn baby doesn't have the fault..

All that mental and physical suffering doesn't seem to me enough justification to kill an innocent person.

In general terms you agree, you wouldn't support killing innocent people , for the sake of avoiding discomfort , you are just making an arbitrary exception with the unborn baby.

In any case , an unwanted borned baby causes more discomfort than an embryo, but you wouldn't support killing a borned baby ....... so atleast if you grant that the unborn is a person you shouldn't be pro choice.

 

[leroy]

Why?

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.

That is because nobody wants to adopt 3yo+children.

But newborns are adopted very easily.

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.

The arguments against abortion flow equally good indepently if i am a hypocrite or not.

]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.

Well morally what is the difference between a fetus and a 5yo?


If there where no fundamental difference between a 5yo and a fetus in terms of personhood and moral value.....would you be prolife? Or would you support abortion anyway?

 

[KWED]

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.

Yes, you're starting to understand how development works.
So, the 21 year old can drive vote, get married, etc but the 12 year old can't.
The 12 year old can do things that the 1 year old can't.

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

And it has been settled. An early-stage foetus is not a person.
You disagree, but your opinion is irrelevant in this context, just as the opinion of a pedophile that they should be allowed to have sex with a child is irrelevant.

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

There you go with the same dishonest, bad-faith debating again.
You really have no shame, do you?

 

[KWED]

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

Oh dear. You really are struggling now.

 

[KWED]

So what?

So, it is a rebuttal to your argument. That's what.
You'd do well as a defence attorney...
"We have CCTV footage and DNA evidence that proves your client committed the crime".
"So what?"

The abortion debate is not an issue of killing child vs killing an embryo

Erm, that is precisely what you have been attempting to make it about. Your argument is based solely on the claim that an early stage foetus should have the same value, rights, etc as a 5 year old child.

 

[KWED]

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.

You don't really understand what's going on here, do you? Even your own arguments seem to baffle you.

 

[KWED]

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?

More dishonesty and bad faith debating.
You are essentially admitting defeat here.

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?

How do you think this relates to a pregnant woman aborting an unwanted, early-stage foetus?

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.

I literally have no idea what point you think you are making here.

 

[KWED]

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?

What you are doing is known as "sea-lioning".

The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate". Sealioning - Wikipedia

 

[KWED]

And the law would be decided democratically, that is by the loudest voices, with science very much in the background!

In the US the law is being decided by a minority with unwarranted power and a religious agenda, against the wishes of the majority, and in the face of medical opinion. It's basically authoritarianism.

 

[KWED]

That is because nobody wants to adopt 3yo+children.

So you are admitting that to the anti-abortionist, a foetus has more value than a 3 year old child.
But we already knew that.

The arguments against abortion flow equally good indepently if i am a hypocrite or not.

Wrong.
You base your argument on an early-stage foetus being a person with the same value as a 3 year old child, but then you admit that the 3 year old has less value, so your argument falls apart.

Well morally what is the difference between a fetus and a 5yo?

That question doesn't make sense.

If there where no fundamental difference between a 5yo and a fetus in terms of personhood and moral value

If my auntie had bollocks, would she be my uncle?

.....would you be prolife? Or would you support abortion anyway?

Of course I am pro-life (is being "anti-life" even a thing?). I also support the right for a woman to abort an early-stage foetus when deemed necessary, under a legally controlled and medically supervised system.

Just out of interest, how long can you keep that ball balanced on your nose?

 

[leroy]

So, it is a rebuttal to your argument. That's what.
You'd do well as a defence attorney...
"We have CCTV footage and DNA evidence that proves your client committed the crime".
"So what?"

Jaja nice try

Quote my acctual argument and the rebuttal.....

Erm, that is precisely what you have been attempting to make it about. Your argument is based solely on the claim that an early stage foetus should have the same value, rights, etc as a 5 year old child.

Yes as a general rule a fetus should have the same value than a 5yo.

And arguments have been presented (and ignored) in support of that claim.

It is your burden to provide arguments showing that a fetus is not worthy of human rights.

 

[leroy]

I literally have no idea what point you think you are making here.

Well then read the whole conversation that @TagliatelliMonster and i have been having. That way you will understand what am i talking about.


He made the claim that woman have the right to abort their sons for the sane reason you can refuse to donate organs to your son causing his dead

My replies intended to show that it is not analogous

If you whant to join the conversation it would be nice if you actually reed the whole conversation before commenting

 

[leroy]

What you are doing is known as "sea-lioning".

The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate". Sealioning - Wikipedia

Once again refusing to answer my question // why do you avoid clear and direct answers about your view?

 

[leroy]

So you are admitting that to the anti-abortionist, a foetus has more value than a 3 year old child.
But we already knew that.

Wrong.
You base your argument on an early-stage foetus being a person with the same value as a 3 year old child, but then you admit that the 3 year old has less value, so your argument falls apart.
?

That is a lie. I never said something like that,

 

[Sheldon]

Your argument is based solely on the claim that an early stage foetus should have the same value, rights, etc as a 5 year old child.

More rights in fact, we wouldn't let a chid use a person's body against their will, but the antichoicers want to allow this for an insentient clump of cells.