Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Sheldon]

A person would have to be a complete idiot, denying all manner of objective scientific evidence to imagine a 5 year old child is of the same value as an embryo or blastocyst. I simply don't believe the claim when theists make it, all I hear is more "lies for Jesus".

 

[KWED]

Jaja nice try

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

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.

The current legal and medical position us that an early-stage foetus is not "a person" and termination under a controlled system should be allowed, for a variety of reasons based on medical science and rational argument.
This has been explained to you many times.
Now, do you want another fishy?

 

[KWED]

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

You said that no one wants to adopt a 3 year old, but you want to save a foetus.
Therefore you value the foetus over the 3 year old.
QED

 

[KWED]

A person would have to be a complete idiot, denying all manner of objective scientific evidence to imagine a 5 year old child is of the same value as an embryo or blastocyst. I simply don't believe the claim when theists make it, all I hear is more "lies for Jesus".

And @leroy just admitted it by saying that anti-abortionists don't care what happens to 3 year old children.

 

[Alien826]

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.

Absolutely. Maybe you missed the sarcasm in my post.

 

[Alien826]

Which is why it boils down to 9 months of discomfort


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..... ?

Once again it's just discomfort. And the fetus is a "child". Don't you see that the pro-choice position is based on those two statements being a gross over simplification?

In your scenario, I'd choose the green button, then after Joker had let me go I'd laugh at him, because I don't have a son. Just kidding.

Seriously, your scenario is so weighted in favor of your position that only one answer is possible (red button). If I had the patience I'd reword it to be more in line with the real world, but you'd just say "9 months of discomfort" again.

 

[KWED]

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..... ?

Still with the dishonest debating I see? You clearly have nothing else.
I will correct your analogy for you.

You have to choose between killing your five year old son or aborting your five day old twin foetuses.
Which do you do?

(No doubt you will continue to avoid answering these questions)

 

[leroy]

" and termination under a controlled system should be allowed, for a variety of reasons based on medical science and rational argument.
This has been explained to you many times.
Now, do you want another fishy?

The current medical position us that an early-stage foetus is not "a person

I would love to see evidence for this

 

[leroy]

You said that no one wants to adopt a 3 year old, but you want to save a foetus.
Therefore you value the foetus over the 3 year old.
QED

I presented a fact

People usually want to adopt babies not 3yo+ children. This doesn't mean that 3yo wirth less, its hust a matter if personal preference


The reason for why I mentioned that is to show that pregnant woman can easily give the new born to adoption, finding parents wouñd be easy.


I am just presenting adoption as a better solution than abortion// so ether agree or refute this point

 

[leroy]

And @leroy just admitted it by saying that anti-abortionists don't care what happens to 3 year old children.

The fact that you have to invent those lies and strawman shows that you are cornered and cant refute the actual points.

 

[KWED]

I would love to see evidence for this

The evidence is that the current medical position that elective abortions of early-stage foetuses are ethically acceptable. It would be both unethical and illegal for a doctor to knowingly kill a person. Therefore medical ethics and the law do not consider such foetuses to be "people".

As I pointed out, there are people who disagree with medical ethics and the law (pedophiles, for example), but we dismiss their opinions as irrelevant, or even dangerous.

 

[leroy]

Once again it's just discomfort. And the fetus is a "child". Don't you see that the pro-choice position is based on those two statements being a gross over simplification?

In your scenario, I'd choose the green button, then after Joker had let me go I'd laugh at him, because I don't have a son. Just kidding.

Seriously, your scenario is so weighted in favor of your position that only one answer is possible (red button). If I had the patience I'd reword it to be more in line with the real world, but you'd just say "9 months of discomfort" again.

Well change "9 months of discomfort " for a combination of words that you think better describes the average unwhanted pregnancy.

Would you pick tbe red button? Do you think it should be a moral obligation to pick the red button?

If this where common with millions of jokers doing this experiment, do you think there should be laws that give you the right to press ether button? Or should the green button be against the law except for extreme life threatening circumstances?

 

[KWED]

I presented a fact
People usually want to adopt babies not 3yo+ children. This doesn't mean that 3yo wirth less, its hust a matter if personal preference

So you admit that the "value" placed on "a person" is just a matter or preference.

However, to the anti-abortionist who claims that their concern is purely about the welfare of the child, and all children are of the same value and need or protection, etc, why are there still any 3 year olds left in the care system? Why haven't they all been adopted by anti-abortionists?

The reason for why I mentioned that is to show that pregnant woman can easily give the new born to adoption, finding parents wouñd be easy.
I am just presenting adoption as a better solution than abortion// so ether agree or refute this point

But early-stage abortion of an unwanted foetus is easier, cheaper, and causes less actual and potential harm, so why insist on one over the other? Why not let the woman choose?

 

[leroy]

Still with the dishonest debating I see? You clearly have nothing else.
I will correct your analogy for you.

You have to choose between killing your five year old son or aborting your five day old twin foetuses.
Which do you do?

(No doubt you will continue to avoid answering these questions)

I would personally pick my 5yo son ...... uuuuu wow a direct answer

Why cant you do the same ?

 

[KWED]

The fact that you have to invent those lies and strawman shows that you are cornered and cant refute the actual points.

If they cared, they would adopt them. You admitted that they consider them as an unacceptable option.
You just don't have the capacity to always understand the implications of what you are saying. This is because you base your arguments on dogma and emotion rather than rational thinking.

 

[KWED]

Well change "9 months of discomfort " for a combination of words that you think better describes the average unwhanted pregnancy.

More dishonesty.
You have been told that women don't have abortions because they think having the baby might be "uncomfortable". It is usually because they never intended to get pregnant and do not want to have a baby.

Would you pick tbe red button? Do you think it should be a moral obligation to pick the red button?

If this where common with millions of jokers doing this experiment, do you think there should be laws that give you the right to press ether button? Or should the green button be against the law except for extreme life threatening circumstances?

Your hypothetical is meaningless because it bears no relation the the circumstance of deciding to have an early-stage abortion. Your ridiculous appeals to emotion might work on the intellectually unsophisticated religionists, but not on rational thinkers.

 

[leroy]

The evidence is that the current medical position that elective abortions of early-stage foetuses are ethically acceptable. It would be both unethical and illegal for a doctor to knowingly kill a person. Therefore medical ethics and the law do not consider such foetuses to be "people".

As I pointed out, there are people who disagree with medical ethics and the law (pedophiles, for example), but we dismiss their opinions as irrelevant, or even dangerous.

Again provide evidence that the medical consensus is that the fetus is not a person.

It would be both unethical and illegal for a doctor to knowingly kill a person.

Some (perhaps most) pro choicers disagree, they wouls say that it is ok to kill the fetus even if it where a person.

People like @TagliatelliMonster and @Subduction Zone would claim that.

Are they wrong ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again provide evidence that the medical consensus is that the fetus is not a person.




Some (perhaps most) pro choicers disagree, they wouls say that it is ok to kill the fetus even if it where a person.

People like @TagliatelliMonster and @Subduction Zone would claim that.

Are they wrong ?

That is not a medical question. Why would you ask for it?

 

[KWED]

I would personally pick my 5yo son ...... uuuuu wow a direct answer

Pick him to kill or save?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still with the dishonest debating I see? You clearly have nothing else.
I will correct your analogy for you.

You have to choose between killing your five year old son or aborting your five day old twin foetuses.
Which do you do?

(No doubt you will continue to avoid answering these questions)

Good question, but I hope that you meant blastocysts.