Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Subduction Zone]

Which is irrelevant because you support abortion independently if the fetus is a person or not ....right?

What a woman does with her body and with the fetus is none of your bussiness right?

So under what bases do you reject her right to mutilate the fetus ?


O wait i forgot you dont answer questions .....

No, you did not answer my question fully. You only answered half of it.

But I did notice in your fantasy world that you would just shoot the fetus. Or that was how you answered an earlier post of mine.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I find it perplexing that everybody accepts that a baby that was born premature at 25 weeks is a person with rights who deserves to live.

But if that same being is geografically located inside the womb then "magically" and for no reason , he is a "non person".

Exactly. Prematurely born fetus connected to machines is a person and can't be killed but unborn fetus of the same age connected to mother is not a person and can be killed.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The real point of discussion all along has been, when exactly does an embryo/fetus gain personhood and with it, rights?

What do you think? And why?

 

[PearlSeeker]

the only fair thing is to leave it to the person who has most skin in the game, the woman.

The fetus has his/hers existence in the game.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. Prematurely born fetus connected to machines is a person and can't be killed but unborn fetus of the same age connected to mother is not a person and can be killed.

And arguing using the not very common exceptions is not proper either. When it comes to those sorts of abortions they are very rare and usually done due to serious health concerns for the pregnant women. Or sometimes the fetus is doomed to death by a severe birth defect. A Louisiana woman has to Leave Louisiana since her fetus, without a skull, cannot be aborted any longer by the new state law. The fetus will die shortly after birth. It is rather cruel to force a woman to continue a pregnancy knowing that when she is given her baby that it will very soon die a painful death.

I thought my mouse was going to be here today, I was off by one on the delivery. Search Louisiana Fatal Fetal Defect Abortion and you should be able to see hat story. There are almost no late term abortions done for convenience.

 

[Valjean]

Can a mother hurt an embryo?
Embryos are exquisitely delicate structures. Almost anything can hurt an embryo.

 

[PearlSeeker]

And arguing using the not very common exceptions is not proper either. When it comes to those sorts of abortions they are very rare and usually done due to serious health concerns for the pregnant women. Or sometimes the fetus is doomed to death by a severe birth defect. A Louisiana woman has to Leave Louisiana since her fetus, without a skull, cannot be aborted any longer by the new state law. The fetus will die shortly after birth. It is rather cruel to force a woman to continue a pregnancy knowing that when she is given her baby that it will very soon die a painful death.

I thought my mouse was going to be here today, I was off by one on the delivery. Search Louisiana Fatal Fetal Defect Abortion and you should be able to see hat story. There are almost no late term abortions done for convenience.

Still, the point holds. A person is a person.

 

[Sheldon]

It is true, what you say.

That's odd, I made the same point, that a baby is biologically independent in a way a foetus is not, and all I got was trolling about a word definition? Hey ho...

But the issue that precipitated the question was when is the child in the womb officially a child.

Ordinarily I'd suggest referencing a dictionary, but you seem to have some weird antipathy using them.

Whether fed by one or many, the baby isn't independent before or after.

Only if you ignore the context here, and assume independent is an absolute, which of course would make the word meaningless as no one would be absolutely independent of anything. Are you independent? Grown your own food then, make your own clothes, generate your own power, built your own house, never received medical care or had a job etc etc etc..

The baby inside is still influenced by what the mother goes through. What she intakes, her emotions, her laughter, it all is taken in by the baby.

it's not a baby, and it is topologically connected, and shares the woman's immune system, and her metabolism, and gets its oxygen and nutrition directly from the woman's blood, a baby is independent of all that, just like other all other human beings, from babies through infants children and adults. One might even infer something has occurred, like oh I don't know, child birth, to sever that connection and cause this change.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, this is what it looks like when someone backpedaled after the realization of wrong logic.

I'm glad you realized your error.

Ah, more vapid trolling, care to quote the error, or me acknowledging any, or back-pedalling at all from my original claim? I'm guessing we will get the same reticence when I asked you to quote a straw man fallacy you claimed I'd used, and for the same reason. Tell us again about digging a pit of your own making deeper.

 

[Sheldon]

Still, the point holds. A person is a person.

While a blastocyst is not, correct.

Blastocyst

person

See the difference?

 

[Kenny]

And you are back t personal insults. You can do better than this.

The fact that you cannot argue properly is very relevant. It tells us that you know that you do not have a valid case. All you have are emotions. Emotions are fine, in their place. They do not apply when you are trying to decide whether you are going to ruin a young woman's life or not.

Actually it is the other way around.

 

[Kenny]

I find it perplexing that everybody accepts that a baby that was born premature at 25 weeks is a person with rights who deserves to live.

But if that same being is geografically located inside the womb then "magically" and for no reason , he is a "non person".

Logical, empirical and verifiable.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
In the womb there are no babies. They're either a blastocyst or a foetus. They are not an independent of the woman's body.

Independent
noun

1. an independent person or body.

Ahhhhhh.... an intellectual answer with no basis of logic. Because you say so, it is written, it is true.

Quoting the dictionary is irrational to you? That explains a lot.

 

[Sheldon]

Logical, empirical and verifiable.

So not one of your posts then.

 

[Sheldon]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Why do you call a fetus, embryo, or blastosphere a child or baby? It appears that you know that you have no argument if you use proper terminology. No one is stuffing babies or children into uteruses so that they can kill them.

I knew you would appear. You have that knack to bring irrelevancy into the picture as you miss the subject completely.

hint: you might want to go back and look at the context

He said ignoring the topic completely and resorting yet again to broad ad hominem. Note you offer no explanation of why his post about the definitions of blastocysts and foetuses as opposed to babies children and infants is off topic exactly. You are the one ignoring context, as you have done here again.

But I do give you a "10" on supporting those of like mind. You are a good friend.

Ah ad hominem fallacy, how many is that now, while laughably telling everyone who dares disagree that they are ignoring the context of the thread.

 

[Sheldon]

And you are back t personal insults. You can do better than this.

I hate to disagree with you, but while the first part is true , the evidence suggest the second part is unlikely.

 

[Sheldon]

I knew you would appear.

In a public debate forum? That's uncanny... Perhaps you'd prefer dissenting opinions were silenced, just as you'd like to silence to voice of women about how their bodies are used.

 

[Sheldon]

Exactly. Prematurely born fetus connected to machines is a person and can't be killed but unborn fetus of the same age connected to mother is not a person and can be killed.

Not hard really is it, now try hard and see if you notice the difference. Lets try an analogy, I'm not really a fan, but theist seem to love these.

Someone stops you in the street, and forcibly cuts your hair, to use the hair to make wigs. Now that's assault right? They had no right take away your bodily autonomy without your consent.

Now you cut your hair and give the hair to someone to make wigs. See the hair has not really changed, but how you can treat it when it's part of someone's body differs legally and morally to how you can treat it when it is not, odd that?

 

[Kenny]

He said ignoring the topic completely and resorting yet again to broad ad hominem. Note you offer no explanation of why his post about the definitions of blastocysts and foetuses as opposed to babies children and infants is off topic exactly. You are the one ignoring context, as you have done here again.


Ah ad hominem fallacy, how many is that now, while laughably telling everyone who dares disagree that they are ignoring the context of the thread.

When you don't have a leg to stand on...

create a new leg.

 

[Sheldon]

The fetus has his/hers existence in the game.

As does the woman, and she is a sentient independent person, and the blastocyst or foetus is not.