Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[leroy]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Well as you said (and I agree) label the fetus/embryo as person or giving it an other label is irrelevant.

The point is that the embryo/fetus is a human (as any DNA test can show) with potential consciousness and other mental states. Like a new born, a person in comma, or a person sleeping.

So if you always value the life of other humans with potential consciousness and you would never support killing them to avoid 9 months of discomfort, why making an arbitrary exception with a fetus/embryo? .......

Why is it wrong to kill a new born / even if his existence represents and obstacle to you life. ?

Why is it ok to kill an embryo/fetus?

What relevant difference do you see between a new born and a fetus?

Under your view, is abortion ok at any stage ? If not at what point is it wrong to abort? 12 weeks 15weeks 24 weeks?


I am not trying to impose my opinion and morality rather all I am saying is that if you apply your own morality consistently, you should be pro life.......if you think its wrong to kill a new born baby..... and if there is no relevant difference between a fetus and a new born......you should conclude that abortion is wrong.

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

New born babies are easy to give in to adoption// there are Thousands of unfertile partners with good stable jobs , in a waiting list, hoping to adopt a baby

So almost certainly, the baby will be raised in a nice and stable home ....... but noooooo prochoicers say that it is better to jusy kill him

 

[crossfire]

<...>
New born babies are easy to give in to adoption// there are Thousands of unfertile partners with good stable jobs , in a waiting list, hoping to adopt a baby

So almost certainly, the baby will be raised in a nice and stable home ....... but noooooo prochoicers say that it is better to jusy kill him

You do understand that the draconian abortion bans that are being instituted will lead to a drop in the fertility rate? Aftercare for a miscarriage is the same procedure as an abortion, which is being denied to women who miscarry. Which means more sterility due to lack of care. That means even fewer babies for adoption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

I could if I cared to, but it would do no good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like a pathetic excuse to avoid supporting your claims

It is not pathetic. Your method of debating is pathetic which is why you are on corrections only. If I care to provide evidence that is my option. If there was some way to hold you accountable I would gladly provide evidence when asked for. But until we figure that out we are stuck where we are.

I think that you know if you argue rationally and logically even you know that you will lose. That is why you use the methods of debate that you use.

 

[leroy]

It is not pathetic. Your method of debating is pathetic which is why you are on corrections only. If I care to provide evidence that is my option. If there was some way to hold you accountable I would gladly provide evidence when asked for. But until we figure that out we are stuck where we are.

I think that you know if you argue rationally and logically even you know that you will lose. That is why you use the methods of debate that you use.

You are the one who is using dishonest debate tactics

1 Avoid the burden prove at all cost

2 paly semantics

3 don’t answer questions directly

4 claim that I am wrong, but not quoting the mistake

5 claim that I made logical fallacies, but not quoting nor explaining the logic}ical fallacy

6 claim that you already refuted “X” claim but not providing a quote for such refutation

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one who is using dishonest debate tactics

1 Avoid the burden prove at all cost

2 paly semantics

3 don’t answer questions directly

4 claim that I am wrong, but not quoting the mistake

5 claim that I made logical fallacies, but not quoting nor explaining the logic}ical fallacy

6 claim that you already refuted “X” claim but not providing a quote for such refutation

No, all you have to do is to argue properly and that will change. You know that. I know that. And over half of that list are examples of what you do.

Can you debate using proper logic that does not change? Can you respond to the questions that you are asked and not the questions that you wish that you were asked? Also, no false assumptions in your questions.

In other words an honest debate is appreciated by both sides. You might even learn something.

 

[leroy]

No, all you have to do is to argue properly and that will change. You know that. I know that. And over half of that list are examples of what you do.

Can you debate using proper logic that does not change? Can you respond to the questions that you are asked and not the questions that you wish that you were asked? Also, no false assumptions in your questions.

In other words an honest debate is appreciated by both sides. You might even learn something.

Is there any question that I haven’t answered to your satisfaction? care to repeat that question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there any question that I haven’t answered to your satisfaction? care to repeat that question?

I pointed it out al long time ago when you did that. I am not going on a wild goose chase for you. Just promise to try to do better in the future and I may give you another chance. I do regularly supply evidence to serious debaters. You have to know that. It is only when people will not follow proper rules of debate that I start to refuse demands of evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

I know, it's hard to imagine such a tenuous and poorly argued position unravelling that fast. Game over, "a pet is worth more than a person", but abortion is wrong, because it is a person, wow! The mind boggles at such idiocy.

 

[leroy]

I pointed it out al long time ago when you did that. I am not going on a wild goose chase for you. Just promise to try to do better in the future and I may give you another chance. I do regularly supply evidence to serious debaters. You have to know that. It is only when people will not follow proper rules of debate that I start to refuse demands of evidence.

Again that is just a pathetic attempt to avoid providing evidence, and to avoid demonstrating that your accusations against me are correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again that is just a pathetic attempt to avoid providing evidence, and to avoid demonstrating that your accusations against me are correct.

No. I am merely holding you accountable. Are you saying that it is pathetic to expect you to debate honestly? I think that I will just keep trying to hold you accountable rather than say that.

 

[leroy]

No. I am merely holding you accountable. Are you saying that it is pathetic to expect you to debate honestly? I think that I will just keep trying to hold you accountable rather than say that.

Well can you quote anywhere where i was deshonest? Nooooo

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well can you quote anywhere where i was deshonest? Nooooo

If I did I would get in trouble here. I will leave that up to others who would not get in trouble. Meanwhile I will do my best to try to hold you accountable.

 

[Willamena]

Well can you quote anywhere where i was deshonest? Nooooo

Referring to an embryo as "potential consciousness" is dishonest.
Referring to pregnancy as "9 months of discomfort" is dishonest.
Suggesting that there is no difference between a fetus and a newborn is dishonest.
Suggesting that you're not trying to impose your morality is dishonest.

 

[leroy]

Referring to an embryo as "potential consciousness" is dishonest.
.

Why is it dishonest to refer to an embryo as a potential consciousness?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

He already did.

You're simply playing the ostrich again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is it wrong to kill a new born / even if his existence represents and obstacle to you life. ?

Why is it ok to kill an embryo/fetus?

What relevant difference do you see between a new born and a fetus?

This is why I have lost all respect for you.
You completely ignore what people tell you.
You completely misrepresent them.
You poison subjects such as this one with dishonest appeals to emotion.


I have told you countless of times what the actual issue is.
The issue is an issue of RIGHTS.

A point you consistently ignore and instead you just double down on the nonsense that people have already pointed out are irrelevant. By doubling down, you move from "misunderstanding the opposition" into "intellectually dishonest debate tactics".

Clearly you will not change your ways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2 paly semantics

Says the guy who keeps insisting on calling abortions "the killing of children"
Eventhough it's been point out to you countless times that an abortion is not the killing of ANYTHING and that is just "termination of pregnancy", which means that a c-section is also an abortion.

The hypocrisy is amazing.

4 claim that I am wrong, but not quoting the mistake

5 claim that I made logical fallacies, but not quoting nor explaining the logic}ical fallacy

False.

@Subduction Zone always provides his reasoning from what I have seen, immediatly at the first mention of a fallacy or mistake. Off course, your tactic is to then ramble on with bluster and doubling down of nonsense for X pages and then - when the original counter point has been burried under pages and pages of bluster - you then start accusing him of not having provided it.

You always do that. And when it really becomes to much, you disappear for a few weeks. And then come back and create a thread and again double down on all the nonsense that's been addressed already. But off course, by then in threads that have died and which have retreated to page 6 or 7 of the thread overview.

You have been doing that for years.

6 claim that you already refuted “X” claim but not providing a quote for such refutation

You're the one who burries those posts under pages of nonsense.
You go back and read it yourself.

Or you know... respond the first time it's posted instead of rambling on until it gets lost in a pile of cow droppings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it dishonest to refer to an embryo as a potential consciousness?

Actually you might be right there. The problem is that a potential does not have any rights. Try suing someone based upon losing "potential profits". It ain't gonna happen. Of course every sperm that you have is a "potential consciousness" so you better be afraid, you better be very afraid.

In reality you do not have to worry unless you are dealing with actual consciousnesses. And embryos, fetuses, and blastocysts are not consciousnesses. Are you Christian? Even the Bible disagrees with you. In fact that the Bible disagrees with the prochoice crowd is so obvious that I can name a verse whose translation was changed in most Bibles. If you have a Bible that predates Roe v Wade the translation of Exodus 21 22 is different than most modern Bibles. It was not until a political opposition to Roe v Wade was organized that Bibles began to change. Don't trust me dig up an older Bible. I have quoted from a 1960's Catholic translation where the term used for when the man would only face a monetary penalty was "miscarriage". In more modern Bible they tried to change it to "premature birth". It is very hard to find older translations of Bibles on line, but when it comes to this verse I do have one:

Exodus 21:22 If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband demands and as the court allows.

Perhaps someone that works at Bible Hub has a bit of a conscious. Both a more modern and an older version of the NASB are included on this page. The 1977 translation says "miscarriage", the more modern one says "gave birth prematurely".

NASB 1995
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

NASB 1977
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.


This was at the time for "an eye for an eye" in legal terms. If someone caused a death he would have been put to death. Christians before the change would have interpreted that verse as telling us that a fetus was not a person.

If you want to discuss why the "miscarriage" interpretation is likely the correct one we can do that too.

 

[leroy]

Actually you might be right there. The problem is that a potential does not have any rights.

Well I disagree, am I dishonest just because I disagree with you?

If not, then can you quote an actual claim made by me that you would consider dishonest?

Try suing someone based upon losing "potential profits". It ain't gonna happen. Of course every sperm that you have is a "potential consciousness" so you better be afraid, you better be very afraid.

No they don’t, but I’ll wait for you to develop an actual argument so that I can show you why are you wrong

But the reason why I affirm that an embryo is worthy of humans rights (like the right to live) is because

1 it’s a human

+

2 it has potential consciousness

(you need both)

So even if you show through a semantic trick that a sperm ihas “2” my world view doesn’t forces me to conclude that the sperm is worthy of human rights because it still fails to have “1”

I would add

If you grant human rights to all humans with potential consciousness, babies, people in comma, people sleeping etc., why making an arbitrary exception with an embryo?

Honestly I think is a valid question, and your refusal to answer is evidence that you are cornered and don’t know how to answer without the collapse of your world view.

In reality you do not have to worry unless you are dealing with actual consciousnesses. And embryos, fetuses, and blastocysts are not consciousnesses.

Neither do people in coma have consciousness in this particular moment, but they are still considered persons worthy of human rights.................babies likely dont have concsiouness and
Far more ensalivng than a fetus,,,,,,,,,, so why not killing babies?



So potential consciousness seems to be enough to justify the right to life, so why making an arbitrary exception with the embryo?

Are you Christian? Even the Bible disagrees with you. In fact that the Bible disagrees with the prochoice crowd is so obvious that I can name a verse whose translation was changed in most Bibles. If you have a Bible that predates Roe v Wade the translation of Exodus 21 22 is different than most modern Bibles. It was not until a political opposition to Roe v Wade was organized that Bibles began to change. Don't trust me dig up an older Bible. I have quoted from a 1960's Catholic translation where the term used for when the man would only face a monetary penalty was "miscarriage". In more modern Bible they tried to change it to "premature birth". It is very hard to find older translations of Bibles on line, but when it comes to this verse I do have one:

Exodus 21:22 If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband demands and as the court allows.

Perhaps someone that works at Bible Hub has a bit of a conscious. Both a more modern and an older version of the NASB are included on this page. The 1977 translation says "miscarriage", the more modern one says "gave birth prematurely".

NASB 1995
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

NASB 1977
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.


This was at the time for "an eye for an eye" in legal terms. If someone caused a death he would have been put to death. Christians before the change would have interpreted that verse as telling us that a fetus was not a person.

If you want to discuss why the "miscarriage" interpretation is likely the correct one we can do that too.

If I were to bet, i´ll bet that you are wrong, but irrelevant, non of my argument is based on the bible, for the sake of discussion we can assume that the bible is wrong



---

You will not a few question marks (?) in this comment just for your information question marks indicate that the sentence is a question, and an answer is expected.