Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Subduction Zone]

Just following his analogy...

But when does it become a human being...

Legally? When it is born. The Bible indicates that it may be even later since they do not put a monetary value on a person until the age of two months if I remember correctly.

 

[sayak83]

Why not? It´s his company, he can produce whatever he wants. You can produce as many unsafe cars as you want (as long as you don’t sell them as good complete cars)

Quite frankly the answer is simple

1 no a mother doesn’t have the right to hurt her son (even if it´s located inside the womb)

2 no the mother can’t kill her son


This is not suppose to be controversial, the problem is that by accepting abortion you give up rational thinking and immerse yourself in all sorts of absurdities.

If you can do whatever you want with your own body, why making an arbitrary exception with the fetus? (unless of course you reject the claim that the fetus is part of the mothers body)

Umm no. If an unsafe half built car is sold to a customer and a huge accident happens, the company is criminally liable. You know this. You are simply trying to avoid the obvious in order to avoid the conclusion that follows from there.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, because killing innocent people is wrong, (except when geographically they are located inside the womb apparently)

You didn’t answer the question, ¿should mothers have the right to hurt (but not kill the embryo/fetus)? Like cutting his legs for example

Your example is pretty forced, but they already do have the 'right', which is a weird way to put it.

Crack babies are a simple and actual example of this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is not a medical reason for that, the mother simply likes the idea of having a legless son.

I mean...in this completely made up example, human services are taking the baby off her after birth, so...she's an idiot.

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok
But you didn't answer to the op

Do women have the right to mutilate the fetus/embryo? Such that he would later be born without legs?

Yes / no why?

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.

Ok and if i feel threatened and i have a gun I have the right to

1 kill the thief
Or
2 hurt him (say shooting a leg) ... (after all i would rather not to have a dead man in my conscience)

Right? (Yes)

So by analogy, .... it seems to me that you are saying that a mother can kill or hurt the fetus if she wants.

 

[leroy]

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.

The question is

Should mothers have the right to :
1 kill the embryo/fetus
Or
2 mutilate his legs (but not kill him)


Obviously the answer is no for both questions

But if you answered yes to the first question it seems to me that you should answer yes to the second question too

 

[leroy]

Umm no. If an unsafe half built car is sold to a customer and a huge accident happens, the company is criminally liable. You know this. You are simply trying to avoid the obvious in order to avoid the conclusion that follows from there.

Again you shouldn't build a half unsafe car and sale it as a complete safe car .

But you can build a half car and keep it for yourself if you whant (exhibition cars are usually incomplete cars) and they are not illegal.


But what is your point? Why cant a mother mutilate the fetus?

 

[Kenny]

Legally? When it is born. The Bible indicates that it may be even later since they do not put a monetary value on a person until the age of two months if I remember correctly.

Really? Was that really the question? I guess you understand the implication by your answer

 

[Kenny]

The question is

Should mothers have the right to :
1 kill the embryo/fetus
Or
2 mutilate his legs (but not kill him)


Obviously the answer is no for both questions

But if you answered yes to the first question it seems to me that you should answer yes to the second question too

Great analogy.

 

[Sheldon]

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...

Actually the position is not that uncommon one among medical professionals, I even gave 8 biological factors that objectively evidenced this to be the case, but of course they were never addressed honestly, just dismissed with the usual emotive handwaving.

However it is still a straw man, since that argument supplied with sufficient objective evidence (see above) was offered to contradict the claim that a blastocyst or foetus is an independent human being, but not as a justification in and of itself for an abortion. Since I am pro-choice, and it's none of my business why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, why a woman seeks one is irrelevant. If a woman ever makes the choice to simply mutilate a foetus, and astonishingly a medical professional team agree to do it, with the intent to take the pregnancy to term, then I will address this use of reductio ad absurdum. Until then it is an irrelevant red herring that yet again tries to ignore cogent facts and rational argument with an appeal to emotion.

Women are not prosecuted for smoking or drinking during pregnancies though, so even though this is an obvious reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is not very compelling even without being manifestly irrational. At least this is the case in the UK anyway.

The OP is again simply comparing an insentient foetus or blastocyst with the rights we grant fully sentient humans, in a dishonest and emotive use of reductio ad absurdum. With an example that is manifestly a red herring. Women it seems already have this right, since they are not prosecuted for harming a foetus by things like alcohol and drug abuse, or smoking.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Actually it was not an argument for abortion either, it is being misrepresented as one. The 8 factors were offered in order to counter the claim a blastocyst or foetus is an independent human being, and not part of a woman's body. I am pro-choice, so it would be irrational to then try and decide for women how they choose.

The argument is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy of course, but it is also entirely moot.

 

[Sheldon]

cut your pennies because you feel like a woman, you should have the right to do it"

Do women "cut their pennies"? What does that involve exactly?

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Nope, in fact if memory serves Sir Ranulph Fiennes did just that to his own fingers when doctors refuse to remove the remnants of frost bite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-24951702

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

How does an embryo terminate itself?

 

[Sheldon]

But when does it become a human being...

After it is born and becomes an independent sentient human, obviously. Why does this question have to be answered over and over again? Is the so anti-choicers can leap to late term abortions, and pretend this is an argument against abortion?

 

[Kenny]

Do women "cut their pennies"? What does that involve exactly?

ask the person who first posted it. It was a quote

 

[Kenny]

After it is born and becomes an independent sentient human, obviously.

what is independent?

 

[Sheldon]

Great analogy.

A very poor analogy in fact, firstly it is manifestly a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, but beyond that is also a red herring, since it doesn't address abortion or life at all, Since a foetus without legs could theoretically survive no? So one is hard pressed to imagine an example that more clearly demonstrates this is not about being pro-life at all, but about taking away the rights of women to bodily autonomy. So a very poor analogy, a massive own goal in fact.

It has been clear that many anti-choicers simply don't even understand the core issue at all. Others don't care, and as is the case with other aspects of their beliefs, they value pleasing an imaginary deity above the wellbeing of others, even pregnant women, perhaps especially pregnant women. Controlling sex and reproduction seems a strong and pernicious part of a lot of archaic superstitions. It's not hard to see why either, given life then was barbaric struggle for survival for the tribe, group, society or nation, and individual rights came off a poor second best.

 

[Sheldon]

ask the person who first posted it. It was a quote

You quoted it, even though you don't know what it means?

 

[Sheldon]

what is independent?

All sorts of things I'd imagine.

 

[Kenny]

You quoted it, even though you don't know what it means?

Obviously, by your posts, you haven't read the thread.

Might want to keep it in context.