Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[KWED]

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.

That was not the issue. You asked for evidence that medical opinion was that an early-stage foetus is not "a person". I provided that.

However, it is your argument that relies on the foetus being "a person". The pro-choice position is that it is better for women to have the right to chose to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy at an early stage than to force her to carry it to term and then have an unwanted child to deal with, along with all the associated harm. "Personhood" doesn't come into it.

 

[KWED]

Good question, but I hope that you meant blastocysts.

Yes, but I have realised that it is better to keep things simple with @leroy, even if technically incorrect.

 

[leroy]

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?]

And why do pro choicers go to Starbucks and spend $8 usd for an unecesary coffe , instead of donating the money to an institution that helps raped woman ? ...

We are all selfish and we care more about our own personal preferences, but that doesn't do anything agains the actually arguments agains abortion that have been presented

]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?

Because you haven't shown that the fetus is not a person so unless you provide conclusive evidence your solution is analogous to "its cheaper and easier to kill all the poor and needed people, that to provide support for them"

If aborting would imply killing a person, would you still be pro abortion?


So we have a problem
"Some woman are pregnant and dont want to be mothers "

And 2 solutions
1 Abortion: something that may or may not imply killing and innocent person (we dont know) since there is no conclusive evidence on ether side.

2 give the child to adoption/ give him a good a joyful life with 2 parents that would love him and support him.

Isent "2" by far the best solution?

 

[leroy]

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.

I learned my leasson, next time I will use your tactic of "not answering questions directly " so that I can avoid the implications of what i said.

 

[leroy]

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.

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.

Ohhhh once again avoiding direct answers

What button would you pick ? Which would be the best option (morally speacking)

 

[leroy]

That was not the issue. You asked for evidence that medical opinion was that an early-stage foetus is not "a person". I provided that.[E]

Yes and am still waiting for the evidence,


And once again you ignored my question.
if the fetus where a person would you be pro abortion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why do pro choicers go to Starbucks and spend $8 usd for an unecesary coffe , instead of donating the money to an institution that helps raped woman ? ...

We are all selfish and we care more about our own personal preferences, but that doesn't do anything agains the actually arguments agains abortion that have been presented



Because you haven't shown that the fetus is not a person so unless you provide conclusive evidence your solution is analogous to "its cheaper and easier to kill all the poor and needed people, that to provide support for them"

If aborting would imply killing a person, would you still be pro abortion?


So we have a problem
"Some woman are pregnant and dont want to be mothers "

And 2 solutions
1 Abortion: something that may or may not imply killing and innocent person (we dont know) since there is no conclusive evidence on ether side.

2 give the child to adoption/ give him a good a joyful life with 2 parents that would love him and support him.

Isent "2" by far the best solution?

The burden of proof is upon the person making a positive claim. Why assume that it is a person? The pregnant women does not believe it to be one and it is her body. And even if it was you still lose, but we can get into that after you prove that a fetus is a person.

 

[leroy]

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

This is why I am extra curious

@KWED claims to have evidence that the medical consensus is that the fetus is not a person

 

[leroy]

Pick him to kill or save?

Save

 

[leroy]

The burden of proof is upon the person making a positive claim. Why assume that it is a person? The pregnant women does not believe it to be one and it is her body. And even if it was you still lose, but we can get into that after you prove that a fetus is a person.

1 and i accepted the burden proof and provide arguments and evidence, the fact that this was ignored strongly suggests that the arguments where good......otherse you (plural) would have refuted my arguments rather than asking irrelevant questions on why I don't adopt a child

2 in the context of a debate I do have the burden proof, but in the real practical world, one should treat the fetus as a person untill proven otherwise



Btw
Will you ever answer to the OP? Can a mother harm (but not kill) the fetus if she wants?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is why I am extra curious

@KWED claims to have evidence that the medical consensus is that the fetus is not a person

I don't think that is quite what he said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 and i accepted the burden proof and provide arguments and evidence, the fact that this was ignored strongly suggests that the arguments where good......otherse you (plural) would have refuted my arguments rather than asking irrelevant questions on why I don't adopt a child

2 in the context of a debate I do have the burden proof, but in the real practical world, one should treat the fetus as a person untill proven otherwise

I didn't ask you about adopting a child. And you have not provided your burden of proof.

You are the one that wants to limit the bodily autonomy of another. That puts the burden of proof on you.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

This leaps out in a lot of religious apologetics, how little the morality seem to focus on, or even care about preventing suffering. It's far more concerned with pleasing an imaginary deity.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Another bullseye, it's absolutely true.

 

[crossfire]

This is why I am extra curious

@KWED claims to have evidence that the medical consensus is that the fetus is not a person

Fertility clinics {medical clinics for producing babies} routinely dispose of unused 5-day-old blastocysts all the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fertility clinics {medical clinics for producing babies} routinely dispose of unused 5-day-old blastocysts all the time.

And countless Christians use those services. Most are probably not being hypocrites because even among Christians, and especially younger Christians, prochoice appears to be their position.

 

[Alien826]

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?

I've answered all these questions in the post you replied to. My point is that your story about the Joker does not line up with the real life abortion situation.

I won't be saying it all over again.

 

[KWED]

Yes and am still waiting for the evidence,

I provided it. You just didn't understand it. Or chose to ignore it.

And once again you ignored my question.

I answered it. You just didn't understand it. Or chose to ignore it.

if the fetus where a person would you be pro abortion?

The issue of "foetus personhood" is irrelevant to the issue of abortion, so your question is meaningless. It is merely an issue that you are obsessed with.

Think of it this way - the foetus is not "a person" so why are you anti-abortion?

 

[KWED]

And why do pro choicers go to Starbucks and spend $8 usd for an unecesary coffe , instead of donating the money to an institution that helps raped woman ? ...

I have literally no idea what point you thought you were making there.
Genuinely baffled.

We are all selfish and we care more about our own personal preferences, but that doesn't do anything agains the actually arguments agains abortion that have been presented

But you haven't presented any "argument" against abortion. You have merely asserted that an early-stage foetus is a child and deserves the same treatment as a 3 year old. But you then admit that your selfishness means that you don't really care about what happened to 3 year olds.

Because you haven't shown that the fetus is not a person so unless you provide conclusive evidence your solution is analogous to "its cheaper and easier to kill all the poor and needed people, that to provide support for them"

It is your argument that an early-stage foetus is "a person" so it is your responsibility to prove it. Simply relegating "BuT iT iS a PeRsOn!!" is not evidence by any definition.

If aborting would imply killing a person, would you still be pro abortion?

If my auntie had bollocks, would I still call her auntie?

So we have a problem
"Some woman are pregnant and dont want to be mothers "

Yes. There are two basic solutions.
1. Safe, controlled, regulated, quick, easy, early-stage abortion (98% of them long before the foetus is sentient).
2. Force a woman (on pain of imprisonment and physical restraint, presumably) to carry the foetus to term against her will, give birth, and then leave it in the hands of social services while the woman has likely suffered permanent physical and mental damage. Not to mention the issue of a world already facing disastrous overpopulation.

Hmm. Such a difficult one that.

I am guessing that your regime would also prohibit free and easy access to contraception as well. And probably prohibit meaningful sex education in schools.

 

[KWED]

I learned my leasson, next time I will use your tactic of "not answering questions directly " so that I can avoid the implications of what i said.

It is irrelevant whether you answer questions directly or not, whatever you say will have implications that you probably don't understand.