Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[firedragon]

Again. First and foremost. A newly fertilized embryo is NOT a person. In fact it is not even a human.

Even if we falsely and against the teachings of almost all religions, go ahead and have a fit of anti-religious zealotry to consider the embryo as a person in and of its own.

You mean on the first hour of fertilisation, one week, two weeks, months? When does it "become" a human? On what basis? Is there any definitive scientific evidence? It will be interesting to read up on the conclusive scientific facts on this topic if you could please point out.

Thanks.

 

[crossfire]

I think it is still a pertinent question as a thought experiment. We could switch around the question to talk about willfully taking teratogenic medication without a medical necessity.

The issue is simple

1 the woman has the right to kill the fetus right?

2 so should by that logic should she have the right to hurt the fetus ? (without killing it but causing serious long term harm?)

In both cases “it´s her body her choice” so why not?

Alright, a true case has bubbled up from my memory.
A deaf couple wanted to have a deaf child, as they wanted the child to be exclusively part of the deaf community, and not part of the hearing community, and were looking for ways to ensure that the child would be born deaf.

This is something I can wrap my brain around.

I don't see this as being linked to abortion at all. Abortion is more like erasing a life before it can be brought into this world and participate in the different cultures, experience the different sights, sounds, tastes, form opinions, etc. A deaf couple wanting a deaf child would be manipulating the child's capacity to experience these things.

I'm not sure how to answer this. This would be a cultural question. Personally, being from the Left Hand Path persuasion, I see the individual as way more important than the culture, and I see cultural customs as arbitrary, so there is no way I would personally seek out something like this.

Right Hand Path people may see culture/societal rules as more important than any individual, and might just justify collateral damage to and/or persecution of individuals in order to get them to conform to the culture in question, as the deaf couple who wanted a deaf child.

(I suppose the question about outlawing abortion might be a form of cultural enforcement, so there might be some overlap after all.)

 

[SomeRandom]

Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

1 Let’s start with something uncontroversial that everybody should agree with, you can hurt your own body if you want, your body your choice, if you decide you want to mutilate your fingers, cut your legs or cut your pennies because you feel like a woman, you should have the right to do it … this is not even a hypothetical example, many people descide to hurt themselves and even mutilate their body simply because they feel pleasure by doing so

2 so if the fetus / embryo is part of the mothers body, she should have the right to hurt (but not kill ) the fetus, for example if the fetus is a boy and the mother wanted a girl, she should have the legal right to cut the fetus’s pennies , or perhaps just for fun she should have the right to cut the fetus´s legs simply because she likes the idea of having a child that will always be dependent on her.

It´s horrible but it´s her body and her choice, so she should be legally protected by the law if she decides to do any of that stuff.

3 Or another way to see it, is if the mother has the right to kill the embryo, then mutilating it´s body (and not kill it) should also be ok.

So it seems to be that if you are “pro choice” you should also be in favor of women hurting and mutilating the fetus/embryo

So ether

A) Bite the bullet and grant this right to the mothers (hopping that few if any woman would do it)

B) Provide and argument that would justify abortion and at the same time justify not hurting the embryo, in other words explain why is it ok to kill it and not ok to hurt it.

Self harm (or self mutilation if you prefer) typically lands a person in a mental health facility. If it’s not a sexual fetish, which I think is the one exception, since it’s not to the extreme of cutting one’s limbs off.
Regardless. Mutilating oneself is not really something we ignore as a society. It’s typically seen as a “red flag” that a person requires urgent medical assistance. At least where I live.
Is this a thing in the US? Really?
Y’all might need to invest more in mental health care, if that’s the case. Because that is beyond disturbing. Jeez!

 

[leroy]

I will take the B route.
The central problem surrounding abortion revolves around a clash between the fetus' right to life and the woman's bodily autonomy.
My position is thus: When fetus is at its' early stages of pregnancy it is unable to experience distress and suffering. Therefore, at this stage the well-being of the woman should take precedence, and if that involves killing the fetus to stop a pregnancy then so be it.
So, how would the well-being of the mother improve by hurting the fetus? It wouldn't, and therefore there wouldn't be a justification to do it.

Well the argument in the OP only applies for those who say that the fetus is part of the mother and not an independent human being,(or proto human) so this argument doesn’t apply to you

It only applies for those who say “my body my choice”, therefore I can do whatever I want with the fetus without having to provide moral justification

 

[crossfire]

Alright, here is a recent case (there are multiple cases) where a deaf couple wanted a deaf child, and how people weighed in with their opinions regarding it:

backstory and questionnaire:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/ethics/82570

questionnaire results and discussion:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/ethics/82690

Welcome to Ethics Consult -- an opportunity to discuss, debate (respectfully), and learn together. We select an ethical dilemma from a true, but anonymized, patient care case, and then we seek an expert ruling.

Last week, you voted on the case of deaf parents wanting deaf children, and asking to use in vitro fertilization and embryo selection to guarantee it. Here are the results from 1,341 votes:


Should the doctor implant a deaf embryo intentionally, so that the couple will have a deaf baby?

Yes: 19.99%

No: 80.01%

Is selecting for a disability more acceptable than traits perceived as more positive?

Yes: 10.44%

No: 89.56%

And now, bioethicist Jacob M. Appel, MD, JD, weighs in with an excerpt from his new book, Who Says You're Dead?:

Deaf culture refers to a series of traditions, social norms, and values embraced by individuals with varying degrees of limited hearing acuity. Many members of the deaf community do not consider their deafness to be a disability at all. For them, having a child who can share their distinctive culture is an asset, not a liability. Similar reasoning is used by some deaf couples to reject cochlear implants for their children.

What complicates this scenario is that Jim and Janice want to use modern reproductive technologies to create a child who exhibits a condition that many nondeaf individuals do view as a disability. If one accepts their choice, one must then explain how the case differs from a deaf couple who give birth to a hearing infant but, wanting a deaf child, ask the physicians to sever nerves in her ears to render her deaf.


The moral distinction between choosing to create a deaf embryo or painlessly deafening an infant is somewhat arbitrary, often resorting to the fallacy of appealing to nature, and is generally hard to defend philosophically. At the same time, many people viscerally react to the cases differently -- and the law clearly views the latter sort of intervention as a form of child abuse.

There is no way of knowing in advance whether any particular child would be better served with or without the selected trait. One cannot wait until the child turns 18 and then take her hearing away, nor can one deny the child hearing until age 18 and then restore it.

In 2008, a deaf British couple, Tomato Lichy and Paula Garfield, who already had a deaf child, sought to use IVF to select for a second deaf child from a mix of deaf and hearing embryos. Parliament responded by passing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which prevents using reproductive technologies to select for an embryo with a "serious physical or mental disability." Whether deafness qualifies as a serious disability remains an open question. (Of note, Lichy and Garfield ended up having a second daughter the old-fashioned way; by chance, she is also deaf.)


In the United States, such selection is generally unregulated. One can imagine that few physicians would agree to select for an embryo that all would agree was severely disabled or carried a serious disease -- such as intentionally implanting an embryo with a higher risk of cancer. Yet if society were to accept deafness as a legitimate trait for selection, one could make similar cases for blindness, dwarfism, and a host of other traits that threaten to limit the offspring in some manner.

It should be obvious, but we'll say it anyway -- this is not to be construed in any way as legal or medical advice. Any similarity to actual people is coincidental unless stated otherwise.

Jacob M. Appel, MD, JD, is director of ethics education in psychiatry and a member of the institutional review board at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. He holds an MD from Columbia University, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a bioethics MA from Albany Medical College. Appel is the author of the new book, Who Says You're Dead? Medical & Ethical Dilemmas for the Curious & Concerned.
​

 

[leroy]

Alright, a true case has bubbled up from my memory.
A deaf couple wanted to have a deaf child, as they wanted the child to be exclusively part of the deaf community, and not part of the hearing community, and were looking for ways to ensure that the child would be born deaf.

This is something I can wrap my brain around.

I don't see this as being linked to abortion at all. Abortion is more like erasing a life before it can be brought into this world and participate in the different cultures, experience the different sights, sounds, tastes, form opinions, etc. A deaf couple wanting a deaf child would be manipulating the child's capacity to experience these things.

I'm not sure how to answer this. This would be a cultural question. Personally, being from the Left Hand Path persuasion, I see the individual as way more important than the culture, and I see cultural customs as arbitrary, so there is no way I would personally seek out something like this.

Right Hand Path people may see culture/societal rules as more important than any individual, and might just justify collateral damage to and/or persecution of individuals in order to get them to conform to the culture in question, as the deaf couple who wanted a deaf child.

(I suppose the question about outlawing abortion might be a form of cultural enforcement, so there might be some overlap after all.)

Simple

1 If the fetus is part of the woman’s body

2 and if women can do whatever they want with their own body

3 Then women can do whatever they want with the fetus, including things like hurting their ears or mutilating their legs

So those who accept “1” and “2” necessarily have to accept “3”………. The issue is that many pro choicers accept both 1 and 2 (not sure if this includes you)

 

[crossfire]

Simple

1 If the fetus is part of the woman’s body

2 and if women can do whatever they want with their own body

3 Then women can do whatever they want with the fetus, including things like hurting their ears or mutilating their legs

So those who accept “1” and “2” necessarily have to accept “3”………. The issue is that many pro choicers accept both 1 and 2 (not sure if this includes you)

Sorry, I'm an individual with my own thoughts and opinions, and while I am pro-choice, I am not a member of any "pro-choice" tribe.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon, fallacies is your favorite word? First word you said as a baby? Just wondering.

That one is called an ad hominem fallacy. The word has a significance for all arguments, but many theists are either ignorant of this, or don't care that their arguments are irrational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the argument in the OP only applies for those who say that the fetus is part of the mother and not an independent human being,(or proto human) so this argument doesn’t apply to you

It only applies for those who say “my body my choice”, therefore I can do whatever I want with the fetus without having to provide moral justification

You still do not see the clear error in your OP. An embryo or fetus itself is not part of a woman's body. It looks like you are using a strawman argument again. But that does not mean that a woman cannot do as she wishes with her own body. That means if there is some foreign tissue in it she is free to have it removed. This is much more personal than you going for a walk and coming back to your house finding that someone had moved in because you closed the door, but left it unlocked. And yet, if someone did so with your house I am betting that you would be calling the cops to have that person or persons removed in a New York Minute. If it happened with your body you would be even quicker.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a better argument. And it's true. But the OP is just trying to show how absurd their argument is IF we take it as true.

No, the OP is merely a silly strawman. It fails once you see that.

 

[Koldo]

Alright, a true case has bubbled up from my memory.
A deaf couple wanted to have a deaf child, as they wanted the child to be exclusively part of the deaf community, and not part of the hearing community, and were looking for ways to ensure that the child would be born deaf.

This is something I can wrap my brain around.

I don't see this as being linked to abortion at all. Abortion is more like erasing a life before it can be brought into this world and participate in the different cultures, experience the different sights, sounds, tastes, form opinions, etc. A deaf couple wanting a deaf child would be manipulating the child's capacity to experience these things.

I'm not sure how to answer this. This would be a cultural question. Personally, being from the Left Hand Path persuasion, I see the individual as way more important than the culture, and I see cultural customs as arbitrary, so there is no way I would personally seek out something like this.

Right Hand Path people may see culture/societal rules as more important than any individual, and might just justify collateral damage to and/or persecution of individuals in order to get them to conform to the culture in question, as the deaf couple who wanted a deaf child.

(I suppose the question about outlawing abortion might be a form of cultural enforcement, so there might be some overlap after all.)

I was thinking of something like taking Roaccutane during pregnancy. It is the top-notch treatment for acne, but it also happens to screw up fetal development really badly.

 

[Koldo]

You still do not see the clear error in your OP. An embryo or fetus itself is not part of a woman's body. It looks like you are using a strawman argument again. But that does not mean that a woman cannot do as she wishes with her own body. That means if there is some foreign tissue in it she is free to have it removed. This is much more personal than you going for a walk and coming back to your house finding that someone had moved in because you closed the door, but left it unlocked. And yet, if someone did so with your house I am betting that you would be calling the cops to have that person or persons removed in a New York Minute. If it happened with your body you would be even quicker.

Actually, it is not a strawman... I have debated with at least one person in this very forum that holds the position that the fetus is part of the woman's body. I suspect it is an uncommon position to hold though...

 

[crossfire]

I was thinking of something like taking Roaccutane during pregnancy. It is the top-notch treatment for acne, but it also happens to screw up fetal development really badly.

Well, if her goal is to go through with the pregnancy, then taking this drug would be contrary to that decision.

 

[HonestJoe]

Sure, the argument only applies for those who say

“abortion is always ok because it’s my body my choice” type of thing or those who say that a woman has the right to abort without having to provide a justification,

If you are the type of person who claims “abortion just for those who have good and rational justification “ then this argument doesn’t apply

So you're not objecting to abortion, only to a particular "bad" argument for it?

 

[Koldo]

Well, if her goal is to go through with the pregnancy, then taking this drug would be contrary to that decision.

Sure, but what if she doesn't care about the outcome?

 

[crossfire]

Sure, but what if she doesn't care about the outcome?

Pregnancy and childbirth are not something one takes lightly. Those who don't care have likely had their personal power over the situation removed, possibly through authoritarian coercion.

 

[Kenny]

Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

1 Let’s start with something uncontroversial that everybody should agree with, you can hurt your own body if you want, your body your choice, if you decide you want to mutilate your fingers, cut your legs or cut your pennies because you feel like a woman, you should have the right to do it … this is not even a hypothetical example, many people descide to hurt themselves and even mutilate their body simply because they feel pleasure by doing so

2 so if the fetus / embryo is part of the mothers body, she should have the right to hurt (but not kill ) the fetus, for example if the fetus is a boy and the mother wanted a girl, she should have the legal right to cut the fetus’s pennies , or perhaps just for fun she should have the right to cut the fetus´s legs simply because she likes the idea of having a child that will always be dependent on her.

It´s horrible but it´s her body and her choice, so she should be legally protected by the law if she decides to do any of that stuff.

3 Or another way to see it, is if the mother has the right to kill the embryo, then mutilating it´s body (and not kill it) should also be ok.

So it seems to be that if you are “pro choice” you should also be in favor of women hurting and mutilating the fetus/embryo

So ether

A) Bite the bullet and grant this right to the mothers (hopping that few if any woman would do it)

B) Provide and argument that would justify abortion and at the same time justify not hurting the embryo, in other words explain why is it ok to kill it and not ok to hurt it.

If you "hurt your own body if you want, your body your choice, if you decide you want to mutilate your fingers, cut your legs or cut your pennies because you feel like a woman, you should have the right to do it"....

You are sent to a psychiatric ward.

Obviously if someone wants to take their life or anybody else's life, nothing really will stop them--embryo or fully grown.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you "hurt your own body if you want, your body your choice, if you decide you want to mutilate your fingers, cut your legs or cut your pennies because you feel like a woman, you should have the right to do it"....

You are sent to a psychiatric ward.

Obviously if someone wants to take their life or anybody else's life, nothing really will stop them--embryo or fully grown.

Except an embryo is not a "human being" it is a "human life form" but it is not a person yet. Even the Bible appears to agree with that,.

 

[Kenny]

Except an embryo is not a "human being" it is a "human life form" but it is not a person yet. Even the Bible appears to agree with that,.

Just following his analogy...

But when does it become a human being...

 

[blü 2]

Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

1 Let’s start with something uncontroversial that everybody should agree with, you can hurt your own body if you want, your body your choice, if you decide you want to mutilate your fingers, cut your legs or cut your pennies because you feel like a woman, you should have the right to do it … this is not even a hypothetical example, many people descide to hurt themselves and even mutilate their body simply because they feel pleasure by doing so

2 so if the fetus / embryo is part of the mothers body, she should have the right to hurt (but not kill ) the fetus, for example if the fetus is a boy and the mother wanted a girl, she should have the legal right to cut the fetus’s pennies , or perhaps just for fun she should have the right to cut the fetus´s legs simply because she likes the idea of having a child that will always be dependent on her.

It´s horrible but it´s her body and her choice, so she should be legally protected by the law if she decides to do any of that stuff.

3 Or another way to see it, is if the mother has the right to kill the embryo, then mutilating it´s body (and not kill it) should also be ok.

So it seems to be that if you are “pro choice” you should also be in favor of women hurting and mutilating the fetus/embryo

So ether

A) Bite the bullet and grant this right to the mothers (hopping that few if any woman would do it)

B) Provide and argument that would justify abortion and at the same time justify not hurting the embryo, in other words explain why is it ok to kill it and not ok to hurt it.

I remain of the view that Roe v Wade got it just about right on the duty owed to an embryo. Apparently a lot of Kansas voters agree.

And don't forget to take into account drug-taking and fetal alcohol syndrome and other such incidents of lifestyle.