Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am only interested in you answering the question and having a conversation around you answer.

Yes, I know. That's the problem here. That's why we've arrived at this communications standstill.

Don’t expect me to deal with other stuff.

I don't. Same problem. I expect dead air from you regarding the interest of others.

But that doesn't mean that I don't find you very interesting. I do. But it's your posting behavior that is interesting, not your questions. I still haven't given up hope that you can be reached.

 

[leroy]

She has the right to either manage her pregnancy or end her pregnancy, just like any other medical condition.

But what gives pregnant woman this license to kill? Why is it that only pregnant woman can kill other humans that cause discomfort.

I would like you to develop an ethical theory that would explain this.

It was addressing your claim that you can't terminate a pregnancy because embryos are potential consciousness. You can't lose what you never had.

Well babies dont have consciousness until 5 months , so a 1 month old baby has no consciousness

1 is 1 month old borned baby worth less than a fully concious teenager?

2 do I have the right to kill any 1 month old baby whose existence causes discomfort in my life?

Source
New research shows that babies display glimmers of consciousness and memory as early as 5 months old.
Science | AAAS.

The point is that we do value current and potential consciousness, you are just making an arbitrary exception with the fetus .....

 

[leroy]

Yes, I know. That's the problem here. That's why we've arrived at this communications standstill.



I don't. Same problem. I expect dead air from you regarding the interest of others.

But that doesn't mean that I don't find you very interesting. I do. But it's your posting behavior that is interesting, not your questions. I still haven't given up hope that you can be reached.

There is no problem if you dont have the time, the interest or the willingness to answer a question. .... its just inapropieate to lie and claim that you already answered when you didn't.

 

[leroy]

You are absolutely and unequivocally a troll who has no interest in honest debate.
I am baffled as to what you think you are achieving here. You only serve to weaken the anti-abortion position.
Well done!

The fact that you avoid adressing my points and make personal attacks strongly suggest that my arguments are actually very good

 

[KWED]

The fact that you avoid adressing my points and make personal attacks strongly suggest that my arguments are actually very good

Get back under your bridge!

 

[crossfire]

But what gives pregnant woman this license to kill? Why is it that only pregnant woman can kill other humans that cause discomfort.

I would like you to develop an ethical theory that would explain this.

Like I wrote earlier: no special licence needed. If you happen to have an embryo in your body you don't want there, you have the right to have it removed.

Well babies dont have consciousness until 5 months , so a 1 month old baby has no consciousness

Newborns are aware of their surroundings and can convey when they need care. They have all of the sense base systems in place and functioning.

1 is 1 month old borned baby worth less than a fully concious teenager?


2 do I have the right to kill any 1 month old baby whose existence causes discomfort in my life?

It is not inside your body, so no.

Source
New research shows that babies display glimmers of consciousness and memory as early as 5 months old.

Science | AAAS.

The point is that we do value current and potential consciousness, you are just making an arbitrary exception with the fetus .....

LOL, the mother is currently conscious and has all of the sensory bases intact and functioning. A blastocyst does not.

 

[leroy]

Newborns are aware of their surroundings and can convey when they need care. .

Well not according to the source, they are not aware of anything, they simply react .

It is not inside your body, so no.

Yes but why is it ethically relevant? Why is being insude the body the only exception where someone innocent losses the right to live?

 

[crossfire]

Well not according to the source, they are not aware of anything, they simply react .


Yes but why is it ethically relevant? Why is being insude the body the only exception where someone innocent losses the right to live?

While it is inside the body it is directly connected to any medical conditions of the mother that might arise. After viability, if any problems arise, labor can be induced early and both may survive. However, there are some rather sad situations that might arise in late pregnancy that may require some rather gruesome choices if either one is going to survive. (Like severe hydrocephalus.) After the pregnancy, the child is no longer directly connected to the mother's body and directly connected to any medical conditions in the mother's body.

 

[leroy]

While it is inside the body it is directly connected to any medical conditions of the mother that might arise. After viability, if any problems arise, labor can be induced early and both may survive. However, there are some rather sad situations that might arise in late pregnancy that may require some rather gruesome choices if either one is going to survive. (Like severe hydrocephalus.) After the pregnancy, the child is no longer directly connected to the mother's body and directly connected to any medical conditions in the mother's body.

But if I understood you well, you are pro-abortion regardless if there is a complicated medical situation or not.

I just find your ethics arbitrary

1 if a person is 10 meters away of the woman, she can’t kill him

2 if the person in touching the woman she can’t kill him

3 oooh but if the person is inside the body , you can kill it, despite the fact that the mother caused the person to be located inside her body.

Assume that 1,2 and 3 are causing the exact same level of suffering , pain and discomfort why is it ok to kill 3 and not 1 and 2?


what is your opinion Siamese twins (also called Conjoined twins )
Do they have the right to kill their tween brother?

Imagine that within 9 months a medical procedure would be done to divide both brothers, and the probability of success is 99+%

If one kills his brother would you say that he is a horrible person?

It seems to me that this is analogous to abortion, so by your logic it seems to me that you should be defending ones right to kill his tween brother.

 

[crossfire]

But if I understood you well, you are pro-abortion regardless if there is a complicated medical situation or not.

I just find your ethics arbitrary

1 if a person is 10 meters away of the woman, she can’t kill him

2 if the person in touching the woman she can’t kill him

3 oooh but if the person is inside the body , you can kill it, despite the fact that the mother caused the person to be located inside her body.

Assume that 1,2 and 3 are causing the exact same level of suffering , pain and discomfort why is it ok to kill 3 and not 1 and 2?

Let me clarify: I am pro-choice because polititians are not health care providers, nor are health care providers lawyers. How a woman chooses to either manage a pregnancy or end a pregnancy is between her and her doctor. Politicians will only get in the way and further complicate an already complicated situation in a way that can only wind up causing more harm than if the doctor and patient were allowed to handle it without the politicians making bad laws.

what is your opinion Siamese twins (also called Conjoined twins )
Do they have the right to kill their tween brother?

Imagine that within 9 months a medical procedure would be done to divide both brothers, and the probability of success is 99+%

If one kills his brother would you say that he is a horrible person?

That would be between them to work out, not me.

It seems to me that this is analogous to abortion, so by your logic it seems to me that you should be defending ones right to kill his tween brother.

If you have an undeveloped twin within your body, you have the right to have it removed.

 

[leroy]

Let me clarify: I am pro-choice because polititians are not health care providers, nor are health care providers lawyers. How a woman chooses to either manage a pregnancy or end a pregnancy is between her and her doctor. Politicians will only get in the way and further complicate an already complicated situation in a way that can only wind up causing more harm than if the doctor and patient were allowed to handle it without the politicians making bad laws.

Well I disagree but I appreciate your honest interaction

If you have an undeveloped twin within your body, you have the right to have it removed.

But if you have a conscious tween you can’t kill it, especially if the problem will be solved in 9 months.

 

[crossfire]

Well I disagree but I appreciate your honest interaction

Thank you.

But if you have a conscious tween you can’t kill it, especially if the problem will be solved in 9 months.

Like I wrote, that is something the two conscious beings would have to resolve between themselves.

 

[KWED]

Well not according to the source, they are not aware of anything, they simply react .

Like a plant or mollusc then. So why do you have a problem with killing it?

 

[KWED]

But if you have a conscious tween you can’t kill it, especially if the problem will be solved in 9 months.

According to you, you can kill it up to 5 month old because it's not yet human, just an unconscious organism that merely reacts to stimuli, like a plant or primitive arthropod. And you wouldn't hesitate to kill one of those.

 

[leroy]

Like a plant or mollusc then. So why do you have a problem with killing it?

Uuu whatch out, we are talking about 1 month born babies. (before jumping to a discussion you should reads the full conversation)

They don’t have consciousness, they are not aware, they simply react.(according to the source)

Why do I have a problem? Well for the same reason you have a problem, non of us would ever support the murdering of a 1 month old baby just because he has no conscience in this particular moment

 

[leroy]

According to you, you can kill it up to 5 month old because it's not yet human, just an unconscious organism that merely reacts to stimuli, like a plant or primitive arthropod. And you wouldn't hesitate to kill one of those.

Wrong, the point that I was making is that not being conscious in this moment, doesn’t makes you a non human , (not worthy of human rights) otherwise a 5 month old baby wouldn’t be a human

So if

1 you grant the science that supports that 5 months old babies are not conscious

And

2 you grant that a 5 month old baby is a person worthy of human rights

Then you should agree with me in this particular point , the point being that “not having consciousness in this moment doesn’t makes you a non human ………. Which means that the argument of “the embryo is not conscious therefore not a human fails)

 

[KWED]

Uuu whatch out, we are talking about 1 month born babies. (before jumping to a discussion you should reads the full conversation)

They don’t have consciousness, they are not aware, they simply react.(according to the source)

Why do I have a problem? Well for the same reason you have a problem, non of us would ever support the murdering of a 1 month old baby just because he has no conscience in this particular moment

Oh dear. Yet another example of a religionist not understanding the implications of what they say.

If a 1 month baby has no consciousness and is merely an organism reacting so stimuli (as you claim), then it is no different to a plant or primitive mollusc. So, why do you have a problem with killing it? It's clearly not a "person" by any definition. Or are you claiming that plants and barnacles are "people"?

 

[KWED]

So if
1 you grant the science that supports that 5 months old babies are not conscious
And

2 you grant that a 5 month old baby is a person worthy of human rights

Then you should agree with me in this particular point , the point being that “not having consciousness in this moment doesn’t makes you a non human ……….

I think you may be confusing "conscious" with "self aware". 5 month babies are clearly conscious.

adjective: aware of and responding to one's surroundings

Which means that the argument of “the embryo is not conscious therefore not a human fails)

Who makes that argument? Certainly not me. Not do the medical experts on whose advice laws are based.

It's always fun to pop back over were and watch you flailing about like a badly trained ninja.

 

[leroy]

Oh dear. Yet another example of a religionist not understanding the implications of what they say.

If a 1 month baby has no consciousness and is merely an organism reacting so stimuli (as you claim), then it is no different to a plant or primitive mollusc. So, why do you have a problem with killing it? It's clearly not a "person" by any definition. Or are you claiming that plants and barnacles are "people"?

My definition for person in this thread is and has always been:

Any human with actual or potencial consciousness.

A 1 month baby, a fetus, someone in coma, someone sleeping etc. are all persons by this definition.

A mollusk isn’t

I am simply responding to a previous argument

The argument was “ a fetus is not a person because it has no consciousness, my reply is nether do 5 month old babies (implying that not having conscious in this particular moment doesn’t makes you a non human)

So do you agree that the argument (in red) fails?

(as you claim),

That is what my peer reviewed source claims, feel free to refute it.

The point is that nobody knows when does a baby becomes conscious, perhaps at 5 month like my source claims, perhaps before, perhaps after, who knows, the point is that nobody would condone killing a baby on the basis that he might not be conscious in this moment

 

[KWED]

My definition for person in this thread is and has always been:

Your definition has been dismissed, with reasonable explanation.
Unless you also accept my definition: a human baby after it has been born.
Ok?

A 1 month baby, a fetus, someone in coma, someone sleeping etc. are all persons by this definition.

The foetus doesn't fit my description, so your argument fails.

The argument was “ a fetus is not a person because it has no consciousness,

As I said you are attacking a straw man.

That is what my peer reviewed source claims, feel free to refute it.

That used "conscious" meaning "self aware", not "aware of and responding to one's surroundings".
Remember it was you who claimed that it responds to its environment.
In fact, reading back you seem to have been even more confused that I first thought. You said..."they are not aware of anything, they simply react".
You cannot react to something if you are not aware of it.

Also, the typical dishonest cherry-picking of the religionists. You ignore the scientific medical community when they decide that early-stage abortion is ethical, and yet suddenly, scientific opinion is sacrosanct when you find something that you imagine supports your position.

The point is that nobody knows when does a baby becomes conscious, perhaps at 5 month like my source claims, perhaps before, perhaps after, who knows, the point is that nobody would condone killing a baby on the basis that he might not be conscious in this moment

I see you are still peddling your fundamentally dishonest claim that an early-stage abortion is "killing a baby".