Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Sheldon]

The main thing about abortion, that gets to me the most, is how hard and cold hearted some women have become.

As opposed to men who make comments like that you mean. And who seem determined to enslave and control women.

 

[Sheldon]

Pregnancy is not like COVID, which you can get without your knowledge or consent.

You can't become pregnant without knowing it, or without consenting to it?

That is a spectacularly stupid claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Meh. Evil can't see it's own nature. This is the real problem. It will always side with the ambiguous over the clear and take falsehood side on issues due to blindness of intelligence. He proved the foundation is bogus in the OP. You can not see it because you love conjecture and rely on it.

Holy books are useful in seeing those who set things aright and those corrupt and cause havoc in the land.

But keep God out of your legislation and put devil worshipers to legislate, and see where your society will go.

What is the collective noun for circular reasoning fallacies? There's a string of unevidenced assumptions in there.

 

[Link]

No. It's not her body. It's a new person. Unless there are some definitive evidence that the foetus is not a person yet.

This is a better argument. And it's true. But the OP is just trying to show how absurd their argument is IF we take it as true.

 

[Link]

What is the collective noun for circular reasoning fallacies? There's a string of unevidenced assumptions in there.

Sheldon, fallacies is your favorite word? First word you said as a baby? Just wondering.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Meh. Evil can't see it's own nature. This is the real problem. It will always side with the ambiguous over the clear and take falsehood side on issues due to blindness of intelligence. He proved the foundation is bogus in the OP. You can not see it because you love conjecture and rely on it.

Holy books are useful in seeing those who set things aright and those corrupt and cause havoc in the land.

But keep God out of your legislation and put devil worshipers to legislate, and see where your society will go.

I would consider sticking dogmatically to an ancient book written by a few men from an ancient era, all with their own cultural biases, and trying to apply it to the modern state of humanity across the planet, is the more evil and less wise choice.

As for holy books… Who says that they are “holy” other than the book itself (along with those who have clung to it over the centuries, believing that it will answer all of their questions)?
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps evil cannot see its own nature.

So….. if the OP showed that the uterus and it’s endometrial lining are NOT part of a woman’s body in the OP, then please educate me by quoting the text from the OP.

 

[Link]

I would consider sticking dogmatically to an ancient book written by a few men from an ancient era, all with their own cultural biases, and trying to apply it to the modern state of humanity across the planet, is the more evil and less wise choice.

As for holy books… Who says that they are “holy” other than the book itself (along with those who have clung to it over the centuries, believing that it will answer all of their questions)?
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps evil cannot see its own nature.

So….. if the OP showed that the uterus and it’s endometrial lining are NOT part of a woman’s body in the OP, then please educate me by quoting the text from the OP.

Even if part, they are their own being as well, and even if their part, it does not follow you can kill it just as it does not follow you can cut off parts of it.

So we left with two conclusions:

(1) If baby is part of the woman body, the implication that you can kill it is false just as the other implication is not true as shown in the OP.
(2) Its hiddenly best seen its better to see it as in you and baby is in you, and independent being or you get absurdities as he shown in the OP.

He proved 1, 2 is hiddenly implied, but yes not argued for.

If any arguments are going to be made, this baby is part of her one doesn't justify it.

 

[Koldo]

Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

1 Let’s start with something uncontroversial that everybody should agree with, you can hurt your own body if you want, your body your choice, if you decide you want to mutilate your fingers, cut your legs or cut your pennies because you feel like a woman, you should have the right to do it … this is not even a hypothetical example, many people descide to hurt themselves and even mutilate their body simply because they feel pleasure by doing so

2 so if the fetus / embryo is part of the mothers body, she should have the right to hurt (but not kill ) the fetus, for example if the fetus is a boy and the mother wanted a girl, she should have the legal right to cut the fetus’s pennies , or perhaps just for fun she should have the right to cut the fetus´s legs simply because she likes the idea of having a child that will always be dependent on her.

It´s horrible but it´s her body and her choice, so she should be legally protected by the law if she decides to do any of that stuff.

3 Or another way to see it, is if the mother has the right to kill the embryo, then mutilating it´s body (and not kill it) should also be ok.

So it seems to be that if you are “pro choice” you should also be in favor of women hurting and mutilating the fetus/embryo

So ether

A) Bite the bullet and grant this right to the mothers (hopping that few if any woman would do it)

B) Provide and argument that would justify abortion and at the same time justify not hurting the embryo, in other words explain why is it ok to kill it and not ok to hurt it.

I will take the B route.
The central problem surrounding abortion revolves around a clash between the fetus' right to life and the woman's bodily autonomy.
My position is thus: When fetus is at its' early stages of pregnancy it is unable to experience distress and suffering. Therefore, at this stage the well-being of the woman should take precedence, and if that involves killing the fetus to stop a pregnancy then so be it.
So, how would the well-being of the mother improve by hurting the fetus? It wouldn't, and therefore there wouldn't be a justification to do it.

 

[Link]

I would consider sticking dogmatically to an ancient book written by a few men from an ancient era, all with their own cultural biases, and trying to apply it to the modern state of humanity across the planet, is the more evil and less wise choice.

Ancient or recent, we need a book from God and guidance from him especially and more so then other things for government and human right issues. Better then the idiots ruling and legislating now.

To say everyone can have discourse in matters of justice and government except God, is extreme secularism gone haywire.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

No. It's not her body. It's a new person. Unless there are some definitive evidence that the foetus is not a person yet.

This is a better argument. And it's true. But the OP is just trying to show how absurd their argument is IF we take it as true.

Again. First and foremost. A newly fertilized embryo is NOT a person. In fact it is not even a human. It is a pluripotent collection of cells, like the pluripotent stem cells that can be collected from your bone marrow and even free in your bloodstream. Given the right environment, any of them can be tweaked to grow a full human being. That said, with only a couple of extra steps, I can take pretty much ANY cell from your body and grow a full human being from it. So, it is clear that a fertilized egg is nothing special. Like any cell of the pregnant woman, including cancer cells, it depends completely on a blood supply from the woman for their continued existence.

Even if we falsely and against the teachings of almost all religions, go ahead and have a fit of anti-religious zealotry to consider the embryo as a person in and of its own. The uterus and endometrium inside it are still the woman’s. Her body, her choice. If she elects to have a hysterectomy, then keep your anti-religious religion out of her body. If she decides to have just the inner lining of her uterus removed, then keep your anti-religious religion out of her body.
There will never be a logical, spiritual, holy-text guided, or other defense of taking away the will of the pregnant woman over your false beliefs in the “rights” of a clump of cells feeding off of her blood.

 

[Link]

Again. First and foremost. A newly fertilized embryo is NOT a person. In fact it is not even a human. It is a pluripotent collection of cells, like the pluripotent stem cells that can be collected from your bone marrow and even free in your bloodstream. Given the right environment, any of them can be tweaked to grow a full human being. That said, with only a couple of extra steps, I can take pretty much ANY cell from your body and grow a full human being from it. So, it is clear that a fertilized egg is nothing special. Like any cell of the pregnant woman, including cancer cells, it depends completely on a blood supply from the woman for their continued existence.

Even if we falsely and against the teachings of almost all religions, go ahead and have a fit of anti-religious zealotry to consider the embryo as a person in and of its own. The uterus and endometrium inside it are still the woman’s. Her body, her choice. If she elects to have a hysterectomy, then keep your anti-religious religion out of her body. If she decides to have just the inner lining of her uterus removed, then keep your anti-religious religion out of her body.
There will never be a logical, spiritual, holy-text guided, or other defense of taking away the will of the pregnant woman over your false beliefs in the “rights” of a clump of cells feeding off of her blood.

When is it a person?

 

[Subduction Zone]

the topic is:

should mothers have the right to mulilate the fetus (but not kill it) such that he woudl be born without leggs.


will I recieve a direct yes/no answer from you?

Admit that it is a stupid and pointless question on your part and I will answer it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither do you, otherwise you would have pointed the error

Nope. When it comes to matter of logic and evidence you are currently on correction only. When you change your ways then your demands will be respected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When is it a person?

Legally? After birth. According to the Bible? Perhaps after the age of 2 months. According to the Quran? I have no idea..

EDIT: It appears that after 120 days it is thought to be a person in Islam. I cannot link various sources right now since my mouse is caput. Tomorrow the new mouse arrives.

 

[Link]

Legally? After birth. According to the Bible? Perhaps after the age of 2 months. According to the Quran? I have no idea..

The Quran says God knows us best from when we in the wombs till now. So.. Quran is clear, it's before birth. I'm asking @Daemon Sophic when they believe it's a person and alive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Quran says God knows us best from when we in the wombs till now. So.. Quran is clear, it's before birth. I'm asking @Daemon Sophic when they believe it's a person and alive.

Does it? You may be misinterpreting it as those that read certain verses in the Bible do. There are also verses in the Bible that claim God knew people before they were even conceived. That might justify rape if one believed that nonsense.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Ancient or recent, we need a book from God and guidance from him especially and more so then other things for government and human right issues. Better then the idiots ruling and legislating now.

To say everyone can have discourse in matters of justice and government except God, is extreme secularism gone haywire.

And here, you and I will have to disagree. As my signature indicates, there is no proof (so far) for the existence of any Divine, particularly from the viewpoint of any of Humanity’s religions.

From your prior writings, I take it that you are Islamic. In that religion abortions are allowed (usually without question) in most areas, out to 120 days post-conception. Per the considered opinions of Quranic scholars/Imams/Islamic governments. Or am I mistaken in that belief?

Also, I write from the US, where no religion is to play in the workings of the law. Admittedly, Christianity often tries to overrule the will of the people, but we keep them in their place (out of the courts) as much as we can. So I’m writing from that perspective (of the courts/government) turning women into baby-growing slaves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here, you and I will have to disagree. As my signature indicates, there is no proof (so far) for the existence of any Divine, particularly from the viewpoint of any of Humanity’s religions.

From your prior writings, I take it that you are Islamic. In that religion abortions are allowed (usually without question) in most areas, out to 120 days post-conception. Per the considered opinions of Quranic scholars/Imams/Islamic governments. Or am I mistaken in that belief?

Also, I write from the US, where no religion is to play in the workings of the law. Admittedly, Christianity often tries to overrule the will of the people, but we keep them in their place (out of the courts) as much as we can. So I’m writing from that perspective (of the courts/government) turning women into baby-growing slaves.

Sorry for the aside, but your post reminded me that the Republicans now seem to be the pro-slavery party. Not just when it comes to women. But if you see someone that opposes taking down statues of Confederate traitors they are almost all Republicans. If you see someone opposing teaching critical race theory, or even an accurate history of the US and how we treated slaves, they are almost all Republicans.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The Quran says God knows us best from when we in the wombs till now. So.. Quran is clear, it's before birth. I'm asking @Daemon Sophic when they believe it's a person and alive.

Thank you. The cells that donate their DNA before the egg is fertilized are both alive. Any cell in our bodies can become a self-aware human being, so while “alive” means nothing at all for their “rights” over their owner/host.

The real question is when do I consider a developing fetus to be a person, with rights? And my answer remains as it always has been…..when it becomes a ”sentient non-obligate parasite”. I.e. - when it can live and develop detached from the woman.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Sorry for the aside, but your post reminded me that the Republicans now seem to be the pro-slavery party. Not just when it comes to women. But if you see someone that opposes taking down statues of Confederate traitors they are almost all Republicans. If you see someone opposing teaching critical race theory, or even an accurate history of the US and how we treated slaves, they are almost all Republicans.

I absolutely agree.