Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[leroy]

Her son? Of course not. But that was not the topic of this thread.

the topic is:

should mothers have the right to mulilate the fetus (but not kill it) such that he woudl be born without leggs.


will I recieve a direct yes/no answer from you?

 

[leroy]

Too bad that you do not see the huge logical error that you are making here.

Neither do you, otherwise you would have pointed the error

 

[Koldo]

I don't think there is a medical procedure for that, which is what such a thing would require. If she wants to continue the pregnancy, breaching the membranes would put the pregnancy at risk.

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.

 

[leroy]

I don't think there is a medical procedure for that, which is what such a thing would require. If she wants to continue the pregnancy, breaching the membranes would put the pregnancy at risk.

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?

 

[ChristineM]

A woman has the legal right to terminate a pregnancy, at least in most civilised countries and those not dictated to by religious bigotry

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[/QUOTE]


They have the legal right in many civilised countries that don't impose bronze age religion dogma on their civilisation.

And legally a fetus is not a person so please get you legality right before you impose personal religion and emotion other people

And you didn't answer mine... Stalemate i think.

 

[Link]

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.

Salam

You are correct. But do you think anyone will change views because of this? A more compassionate approach is needed in my view.

Killing babies has always been a thing. In all times. Polytheists often killed their babies as sacrifices but really it was often out of fear of poverty or not wanting to raise the kid or not wanting a specific gender, and they used their religion as a means to do the selfish.

Now, we have technology. No need to kill the baby when it's born. Just kill it while its part of the woman body and make dull arguments as to why they should kill another human life. So the arguments are more complicated, but at the end, truth stands clear from error, and "what after the truth is there but error" - Surah Yonus, Quran.

 

[Link]

Note: This is my first time in a killing fetus/baby debate thing.

Take it easy on me. I usually opt out not to participate.

 

[HonestJoe]

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 dislike catch-all labels so don't consider myself "pro-choice" as such but I do think abortion needs to be fairly freely available, at least at early term, for largely practical reasons. High minded principles are fine to a point, but the real world is rarely neat and simple enough for them to just work without complication or conflicts.

I believe there are circumstances where abortion is certainly necessary and plenty of circumstances where abortion could be seen as the least worst option overall. There is clearly lots of difficulty determining exactly what those circumstances might be though and, even if we could all agree on each individual case, it would still be all but impossible to write any set of laws or regulations to permit all the ones that should be permitted and prevent all the ones that shouldn't.

Therefore, I think the best conclusion is to have limited rules covering the most obvious situations and general principles but largely rely on the individual patients and doctors actually involved in each case, and therefore fully aware of all the individual circumstances. In extreme cases where there can be no agreement, the courts can provide a definitive ruling, but that should really be a last resort.

Your "hurting" the embryo concept isn't really the same thing, since there is no rational reason a woman would need or want to cause physical harm to the embryo but still give birth. There can be rational reasons for abortion (even if you disagree on the conclusions, you have to recognise the theoretical concept).

Interestingly, medicine is at the point where some forms of surgical intervention can actually be carried out on a child in the womb. Obviously this kind of thing is intended to benefit to the child rather than harming them but it will still be serious and potentially harmful, the kind of thing an adult patient would need to consent to. In general, the overall risk/benefit consideration is made between the patient and their doctors, just like with abortion.

 

[Link]

There can be rational reasons for abortion (even if you disagree on the conclusions, you have to recognise the theoretical concept).

His point is, it can't be based on the argument "fetus belongs to me and is part of my body". So the arguments have to be looked different than that one. You are correct, its not the same thing as there is no reason to harm a baby. But I would argue, that stopping a baby from living and coming out the world is as equally evil but for different reasons.

So we have to look at reasons. Not just say "baby is part of her body" argument. The OP showed that cannot be used.

 

[sayak83]

Does the mother have the right to mutilate the fetus´s legs? Yes or no and why?

I will answer your question.

General Motors has the right to halt production midway and cancel preorders of its cars. But it does not have the right to sell half built unsafe cars to customers.

Reflect on this and the answer would become clear to you.

 

[paradox]

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

people who hurt them self are called "auto destructive" which suggests mental problems.

Self-destructive behavior is often associated with mental illnesses such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia.

Self-destructive behavior - Wikipedia

Thus what you're doing here is promoting a dangerous behavior.

 

[Alien826]

I had to think about this, it's not simple.

The main difference I see is that after cutting off the fetus' legs you then allow it to develop and be born, when it will suffer a life without legs. Aborting the fetus prevents it from becoming a sentient being at all. I need to think more about it.

Incidentally, surgery in the womb may be something for the future, but so is gene therapy. With a lot more science, we could diagnose inherited conditions in the fertilized "egg" and adjust accordingly. Down's Syndrome? Gone. But also, short people? Ugly people? Dark haired people where parents prefer blonds? Dwarfs? Circumcision? Where does it end?

I'm not sure that last thing has a lot of relevance to the OP, but it came to mind.

 

[leroy]

The failure of your flawed “logic” is that you have (in your church-indoctrinated mind) already given full personhood (with all rights included) to the gamete as soon as the sperm hit the human egg.

Why did you do that?

Even Christianity supports the use of induced abortions. Just read your Bible, and ignore the conservative human church speaker up there at the podium when they blaspheme against the written words of God. (Just FYI - The Christian religion actually names that priest up there at the podium, as the guy who should be conducting the abortion. )


Until it is capable of being a sentient non-obligate parasite, then the embryo is still just a part of the pregnant woman, just like sperm, eggs, and pluripotent cells. Cells which, by their very nature, may be expelled from her body (like skin or GI slough and lost hairs). And yes, she can do with it as she sees fit for any portion of her body. However, if her intent is to carry it across the threshold to real personhood (I.e. it can be removed from her and be reasonably expected to survive), then she should just deliver it and be done with it, without mutilating it (including drinking, smoking, drug abuse, and so much more).

Delivery after the attainment of personhood is why I mentioned that anti-choice anti-Christianity zealots should invest in adopting abandoned and orphaned kids (of which there are many tens of thousands in the USA alone ), and even future tech of artificial uteri.
I fully support adoptions. I think it is a loving, noble, and even Earth-friendly act, that takes true grit. Plus, of course there are millions of LGBTQ (as well as straight) couples who cannot get pregnant, regardless of how stupid you think doctors and researchers are.

Well what is the point of quoting a comment if you are not going to address the actual point made in that comment?...........all I am saying is that the fact that embryos die naturally doesnt imply that we can kill them

As for your comment,

Well if a baby that was born premature at 25 weeks is considered a person with rights , why wouldn’t a 25 weeks fetus be also a person with rights? …. One doesn’t stops being a person just because it´s geographically located in another place (inside the rather than in a hospitals incubator for example)

 

[leroy]

Therefore, I think the best conclusion is to have limited rules covering the most obvious situations and general principles but largely rely on the individual patients and doctors actually involved in each case, and therefore fully aware of all the individual circumstances. In extreme cases where there can be no agreement, the courts can provide a definitive ruling, but that should really be a last resort.

ion.

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

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Actually, it is. But more importantly, the child you refer to is alive, independently alive outside the biological mother. Therefore, it no longer the bio-mom’s tissue to make calls about. However, she does have the lioness’ share of legal claim on parenthood over the child. Like any newborn or older child, the bio-mom can legally give up the right to lay claim to the child as her own; at which point the child becomes the ward of the state, which may in turn demand that the bio-mom make payments to help support the child, or find adoptive parent(s), etc…etc….

Remember, the fetus (pre-capability for independent life) is a parasite, getting all of its warmth, air, and nourishment from the pregnant woman’s endometrium.

edited in PS - I am now at least the 2nd person who both answered your questions, and whose questions you are attempting to evade. Unless you answer questions in turn, during a conversation, then you will be considered as a pointless fast-talking huckster. Please go back and answer our questions.

 

[leroy]

I will answer your question.

General Motors has the right to halt production midway and cancel preorders of its cars. But it does not have the right to sell half built unsafe cars to customers.

Reflect on this and the answer would become clear to you.

But it does not have the right to sell half built unsafe cars

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)

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Note: This is my first time in a killing fetus/baby debate thing.

Take it easy on me. I usually opt out not to participate.

OK. I will be gentle.

Just an FYI, in regards to your post #26 above. There have been contraceptives and abortifacients for many, many centuries. The Christian bible describes priests conducting abortions Numbers 5, 19-22.
And before that Egyptian texts back to the 1500’s BCE discuss abortions and contraceptives.

His point is, it can't be based on the argument "fetus belongs to me and is part of my body". So the arguments have to be looked different than that one. You are correct, its not the same thing as there is no reason to harm a baby. But I would argue, that stopping a baby from living and coming out the world is as equally evil but for different reasons.

So we have to look at reasons. Not just say "baby is part of her body" argument. The OP showed that cannot be used.

The OP did not show that in any way. The endometrium of her uterus, is her body, and her’s to do with as she wills. That is the very core of the abortion debate.
Once again, if you wish to make future-tech artificial uteri, and collect fertilized eggs from willing couples who also don’t want to have the future fetus or child,……well then, have at it!

Until then, keep personal religion out of our courts and our bodies. Period.

 

[Link]

OK. I will be gentle.

Just an FYI, in regards to your post #26 above. There have been contraceptives and abortifacients for many, many centuries. The Christian bible describes priests conducting abortions Numbers 5, 19-22.
And before that Egyptian texts back to the 1500’s BCE discuss abortions and contraceptives.

The OP did not show that in any way. The endometrium of her uterus, is her body, and her’s to do with as she wills. That is the very core of the abortion debate.
Once again, if you wish to make future-tech artificial uteri, and collect fertilized eggs from willing couples who also don’t want to have the future fetus or child,……well then, have at it!

Until then, keep personal religion out of our courts and our bodies. Period.

Meh. Evil can't see it's own nature. This is the real problem. It will always side with the ambiguous over the clear and take falsehood side on issues due to blindness of intelligence. He proved the foundation is bogus in the OP. You can not see it because you love conjecture and rely on it.

Holy books are useful in seeing those who set things aright and those corrupt and cause havoc in the land.

But keep God out of your legislation and put devil worshipers to legislate, and see where your society will go.

 

[Sheldon]

If we took an aborted embryo or fetus and did forensic DNA analysis on it, the evidence would say that the remains were human.

As it would on hair, skin cells, or toe nail clippings, a very poor argument for enslaving the human woman, whose body that developing foetus had been a part of.

 

[firedragon]

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.

No. It's not her body. It's a new person. Unless there are some definitive evidence that the foetus is not a person yet.