Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[KWED]

Ohhhh once again avoiding direct answers

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

Your ridiculous hypothetical didn't involve early-stage abortion, so it is irrelevant.

 

[KWED]

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

Oh dear god. Let's try again. I'll type really slowly.

Elective, early-stage abortion is considered both legal and medically ethical.
It is both illegal and medically unethical to kill "a person".
Therefore an early-stage foetus is not medically or legally "a person".
QED.

Now, which parts of that are you having trouble understanding? It it the words? The concepts?

 

[KWED]

Save

So you admit that a 5 year old child is of more "value" and deserves more consideration than an early-stage foetus.
Therefore a 20 year old pregnant woman is also of more "value" and deserves more consideration than an early-stage foetus.
Erm, that's it really. You have nowhere left to go.

 

[KWED]

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.

And punishing sinful women.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That has been answered and you keep repeating your mistakes.

it is not analogous

It is. You require use of my body to stay alive.
That's the analogy.

in the case of the woman the donation was already done, the woman already donated her womb (willingly or not) a correct analogy would be to recover your kidney once it has been donated.

If you wish to extend it that far, then an actual correct analogy would be for me to wake up one day and find out I'm hooked with tubes to your body, and you are using my kidneys as a dialysis device. And you need to do this for 9 months which is when you can go into surgery to fix whatever problem you have.
So you are saying that I should just suck it up and can't demand to be unhooked?

So what do you think are the rights of the parties involved in such a situation?

And you haven’t answer.

I guess I just did.

If I refuse to donate a kidney to my 3yo daughter that would otherwise die……………would you say I am a horrible person and a moral monster…….. (obviously yes) so shouldn’t you have the same opinion about mothers that decide not to donate their womb to their sons?

What would you think about pinning the dad down and putting him to sleep to forcibly take his kidney?
I guess that's what you are suggesting then ha?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Morally speaking does the embryo has the same value as a parasite? Yes or no?

That question doesn't compute with me.
Morality pertains to behaviour.

Anyhow, the facts are the facts - regardless of whatever emotional plea you wish to turn it into.
I merely stated that superficially, it fits the definition of parasite.
It lives in/on a host and gets its food at the expense of said host.

Do you disagree?

As for the value, that would be subjective.
A woman who's been trying to get pregnant for years is going to value it extremely highly.
The one who got pregnant after a gang-rape - not so much.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I disagree

You disagree about what our point it?
You can disagree with the actual point, but now you seem to be saying that you don't agree that out point is what we say it is? Huh?

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?

Now, you are truly grasping.

I also find it amusing to now think about the many times that christians have told me that "god made you, so he can destroy you whenever he likes"

If you think this is not analogous, please explain why

Unwanted pregnancies.
What's in a name.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

/facepalm

The whole point of your comparison is to compare embryo's with born babies.
You know.... like....how the perceived value of it differs in different stages of human development.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

9 months of disconfort.

Seriously, I cringe every time you say that.

You really do live in your own little world, do you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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".

I wish I could give this 20x winner ratings.
You hit the nail on the head there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would personally pick my 5yo son

why

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 ?

They can't be wrong about things they never claimed.
You have been nothing but dishonest throughout this thread.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

When do foetuses become "people"?

 

[crossfire]

Again, the claim is that geography doesn’t matter when determining personhood.

So ether agree or refute the claim, but please do not answer with a strawman.

Alright, if geography does not matter when determining personhood:

Fertility clinics deal with blastocytes all the time. The owners of said blastocytes can choose to:

1. use them immediately
2. freeze them for later use
3. donate them to others seeking fertility treatments
4. donate them to science for research
5. have the clinic dispose of them

If these blastocytes are persons, then options 3 and 4, and possibly option 5, would be human trafficking.

If these blastocytes outside of a woman's body are not persons, then neither are blastocytes inside a woman's body, because geography does not matter!

 

[Sheldon]

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

It's no surprise really that anti-choicers who shed crocodile tears over a clump of insentient cells, don't seem to care in any practical sense about the suffering caused to unwanted and unplanned children.

 

[KWED]

When do foetuses become "people"?

That is pretty subjective. To some it is at the moment of conception. To others it is with sentience or survivability. Some think it is at birth.
The law and medical ethics consider elective abortion acceptable before 24 weeks.
Take your pick.

 

[leroy]

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.

Burden proof for what ? Specifically what argument of mine requires a burden proof.........? O yea you don't answer questions

 

[Sheldon]

That is pretty subjective. To some it is at the moment of conception. To others it is with sentience or survivability. Some think it is at birth.
The law and medical ethics consider elective abortion acceptable before 24 weeks.
Take your pick.

There you go again, with your sound rationale and facts, that's hardly fair is it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Burden proof for what ? Specifically what argument of mine requires a burden proof.........? O yea you don't answer questions

Really? You don't even know what you are debating about?

I will answer if you openly admit that you have no idea what you are debating about.

 

[KWED]

Really? You don't even know what you are debating about?

That has long been self-evident