Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[leroy]

Remember that you have already admitted that you would abort twin embryos to save a single 3 year old, thus demonstrating that you assign different value to different developmental stages.

Do not put words in my mouth,

I didn’t say that I would save my 3yo daughter over a fetus based on the level of development.

I said that I would save her, because I have a strong emotional bond with my daughter that I wouldn’t have for the fetus.

this has nothign to do with develpmental stages

 

[KWED]

You are dealing with my own personal and subjective feelings and opinions,

Indeed. That is what your entire argument is based on!

ofcourse I would pick my 3yo daughter over a fetus

But it was your own foetuses, two of them. By your argument, you would kill the one 3 year old person to save two -8 month old people.

but that is because I have a personal and stronger bond with her than with a fetus, but it doesn’t follow that objectively one has more value than the other …

Who said the value was objective. It is obviously subjective, as you have now acknowledged. You have admitted that your argument doesn't hold water.

I would also pick my pet over a 3yo Stranger. But that doesn’t mean that objectivley a Dog is worth more than a human,

Whoah!
So you would make a distressed woman carry an unwanted baby to term because it is "a person" and has the same value as a 3 year old, and "killing a person" is always and objectively wrong - but you would also kill a 3 year old child to save your pet?

Well, your entire argument is now in smouldering ribbons around your feet. Nothing you can say on the issue now has any value or meaning.
Your callous hypocrisy is beyond distasteful. Off you ****!

 

[leroy]

But your lack of concern for 3 year old children does invalidate your argument that all children must be valued and treated the same, regardless of developmental stage.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I would say that “level of development” has nothing to do with how valuable a person is............agree? yes?

I don't recognise that as the definition of a person, and it spent correspond to any in any dictionary or medical or legal test book.
You have obviously constructed your own definition to cover every possibility you want.
Well, here's my definition of "a person" - a human after it has been born.
See how easy that was?

Well If I am the one who is making that argument, then I am the one who decides which defintions to use right?

But feel free to label it differently; what word should I use instead of person?

Here is the argument without the term "person"

1 It is wrong to kill a human with actual or potential consciousness and other mental states

2 abortion implies killing a human with potential or actual consciousness and other mental states

3 therefore abortion is wrong

So can you please tell me which of the premises do you deny so that we can focus on the points of disagreement?

Do they? How do they define "person"? And in what circumstances do they say it would be acceptable?

well ask people like @TagliatelliMonster or @Subduction Zone
They claim that abortion would be ok, even if the fetus where a person, they would be willing to grant that a fetus and a 3yo are the same in terms of intrinsic value, and they would support abortion anyway.

So the point is that I am asking a valid question “if the fetus where a person, would you be pro abortion? Some pro choicers would answer yes other no, ………… so why cant you answer to this question directly with a yes or no? (we are using my definition of person)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When do foetuses become "people"?

That depends how one defines people. Everybody who was ever born is or was a person to me, and I never refer to the unborn as people, although it's not important to me if others do. It changes nothing with me, including the moral status of abortion. As I use the word person, abortion isn't an issue. People have already been born. If others care to use the word differently and apply it to the unborn, it won't affect my view on the moral status of abortion. No words do.

And I'll bet that most people who think about it will agree. Consider any act that one considers moral or immoral, and see if changing any words without changing what they describe matter to your moral assessment. Call a eight-year old girl an adult woman, and see if that changes how you feel about her being married or being sexually active. Your question is analogous to asking when she becomes a woman, and the answer is the same - that depends on how one defines woman, but however you do, intercourse with her is immoral if she's prepubescent.

so why isn’t the fetus/embryo a person? (regardless if it's ok to kill it or not)

I still don't know why persist in this. Go ahead and call it a person if you like. Call it the king of the universe. Issue it a Social Security card and and a passport. Give it the right to free speech and to bear arms. It doesn't matter. If it's presentient, it can be ethically aborted whatever you call it.

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

I disagree. It's about how they are different, and why only one is moral because of that difference. And it is about who gets to decide the fate of the pregnancy, the potential mother, or the church using the power of the state to enforce its theocratic proclivities against otherwise autonomous citizens, which makes it a First Amendment and Fourth Amendment issue as well.

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

It's an opinion. It is neither correct nor incorrect, and thus can't be proven or disproven (refuted). I prefer abortion over adding another unwanted baby to the roles of foster children in an overpopulated world if a woman doesn't want her baby. You can't refute that, either. You can only say that you feel differently. You value one more life on the planet whatever its fate, others one fewer.

The claim is that the fetus is worth more than the woman’s desire to avoid 9 months of discomfort

And that is your opinion. It informs your choices. But her pregnancy has nothing to do with you. It is her opinions that matter, and she needn't justify them to you or anybody else. Personally, if I were a woman and found myself pregnant, I would want an abortion for a variety of reasons, none having to do with discomfort or inconvenience.

That's the anti-choicer's framing of a deeply personal decision with significant ramifications if allowed to go to term that would cause someone like me considerable regret. What if I can't give it up out of a sense of responsibility and I have to raise a child I didn't want and possible can't afford? If I give it up, what will this child's life be like? Will it be tossed about the foster care system until ready to take its revenge on society? Will it be gunned down in a church or school? Will it become a climate refugee? Will it live under tyranny?

This is why YOU (and the state on behalf of the church and its dogma) should not be the ones to make these decisions for others, and why humanists advocate for choice. You and they have no interest in her, or in the fate of the child - just that your deity be served with yet another live birth however unwanted by its mother. You have no argument with those who don't share your religious or other beliefs. You can only say what YOU would do, not what others should do, and hope that you can persuade them to agree with you.

 

[leroy]

Indeed. That is what your entire argument is based on!

But it was your own foetuses, two of them. By your argument, you would kill the one 3 year old person to save two -8 month old people.

Who said the value was objective. It is obviously subjective, as you have now acknowledged. You have admitted that your argument doesn't hold water.

Whoah!
So you would make a distressed woman carry an unwanted baby to term because it is "a person" and has the same value as a 3 year old, and "killing a person" is always and objectively wrong - but you would also kill a 3 year old child to save your pet?

Well, your entire argument is now in smouldering ribbons around your feet. Nothing you can say on the issue now has any value or meaning.
Your callous hypocrisy is beyond distasteful. Off you ****!

Ok yes I am an evil and hypocrite guy, would you ever interact with the actual arguments?


Yes if I am in a situation of who would I save, I would base my description based on the emotional bonds that I have with these persons or pets

but you would also kill a 3 year old child to save your pet?

No, that is a strawman, stop putting words in my mount

I said that I care more about my dog than a 3yo stranger……… for example I spend more money on dog food than on food for strangers……is that wrong or hypocrite? Maybe, but that has nothing to do with any of the arguments that have been presented

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I have supported all my positive claims (therefore meeting the burden proof) but if you think I made a claim that I haven’t support it, please let me know what claim is it

Nope, you have not. You practically never do that.

 

[leroy]

Nope, you have not. You practically never do that.

So our conversation looks like this

1 you: you have the burden proof for all the positive claims that you have made

2 me: sure, which claim do you think I haven’t supported?

3 you: no ,no I will not answer to your question

 

[crossfire]

Well íll say they are wrong, or perhaps just ignorant about how this clinics work.

A few years ago I went to a fertility clinic because my wife an I where unable to get pregnant,

They simply told us, “congratulations you can start the process of fertilization tomorrow all you have to do is pay $200,000 Mexican pesos ($10,000 USD) luckily I was unable to afford that amount of money, but nobody told me that they were going to create 3-6 embryos pick the best, and kill the other 2-5 embryos

My point is that maybe some pro choice are ignorant on what this clinics do.

They must be pretty good if they can successfully pick the 1 viable blastocyte out of 3 created, as 60%-75% of blastocytes naturally die soon after creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well íll say they are wrong, or perhaps just ignorant about how this clinics work.

A few years ago I went to a fertility clinic because my wife an I where unable to get pregnant,

They simply told us, “congratulations you can start the process of fertilization tomorrow all you have to do is pay $200,000 Mexican pesos ($10,000 USD) luckily I was unable to afford that amount of money, but nobody told me that they were going to create 3-6 embryos pick the best, and kill the other 2-5 embryos

My point is that maybe some pro choice are ignorant on what this clinics do.

I am fairly sure that American fertility clinics are a bit more thorough, just out of enlightened self interest.

And since you wanted to have children why did you draw the line at conception? It appears that you "killed a human being" by not allowing your wife to use the clinic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So our conversation looks like this

1 you: you have the burden proof for all the positive claims that you have made

2 me: sure, which claim do you think I haven’t supported?

3 you: no ,no I will not answer to your question

There you go using a strawman argument again. You never answered the question I asked you. You changed the subject instead. This is why you are unable to make demands.

 

[leroy]

I am fairly sure that American fertility clinics are a bit more thorough, just out of enlightened self interest.

And since you wanted to have children why did you draw the line at conception? It appears that you "killed a human being" by not allowing your wife to use the clinic.

I don’t understand how did you reached the conclusion that I killed a human?

 

[leroy]

There you go using a strawman argument again. You never answered the question I asked you. You changed the subject instead. This is why you are unable to make demands.

Well then why don’t you simply repeat the question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t understand how did you reached the conclusion that I killed a human?

That is because you do not understand your own logical fallacies. You moved personhood back to a fertilized egg, I moved it back to an intent. You can see that it is an error when I do it but not when you do the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then why don’t you simply repeat the question?

It would do no good.

 

[leroy]

That is because you do not understand your own logical fallacies. You moved personhood back to a fertilized egg, I moved it back to an intent. You can see that it is an error when I do it but not when you do the same thing.

So I made a logical fallacy because I didn’t move as far back as you did?


A fertilized egg is objectively a human and a different organism from the mother, as any DNA test can show.

“intend” is not a human this is why it´s different

 

[leroy]

It would do no good.

You: Leroy doesnt answer y questions
Me: ok what questions do you have
You: no no, I will not ask you again

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I made a logical fallacy because I didn’t move as far back as you did?


A fertilized egg is objectively a human and a different organism from the mother, as any DNA test can show.

“intend” is not a human this is why it´s different

Wow! Are you trying to be wrong again? This is why so many people eventually ignore you and why you have lost the right to demand evidence.

When an error of yours if pointed out acknowledge it and try to learn from it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You: Leroy doesnt answer y questions
Me: ok what questions do you have
You: no no, I will not ask you again

And there you go using a strawman argument again.

You do not answer questions properly. Answering them as they were asked would refute you and you know this. Once again this is why you are unable to demand evidence.

I sometimes get bored and respond to you, but I have never seen you debate properly. That is a sign of a person that is debating that knows that he is wrong.

 

[leroy]

.

When an error of yours if pointed out acknowledge it and try to learn from it.

But can you quote and explain my error? Noooooooo !!!

 

[leroy]

And there you go using a strawman argument again.

You do not answer questions properly. Answering them as they were asked would refute you and you know this. Once again this is why you are unable to demand evidence.

I sometimes get bored and respond to you, but I have never seen you debate properly. That is a sign of a person that is debating that knows that he is wrong.

Sounds like a pathetic excuse to avoid supporting your claims