Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[leroy]

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.

 

[ChristineM]

Smoking and drinking hurt the fetus.
Sexually transmitted diseases hurt the fetus.
Falling down stairs hurts the fetus
Car accidents cab hurt the fetus.
Idiots with guns can hurt the fetus

When you find ways to prevent these then come back and get off your emotional horse

 

[wellwisher]

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

The main thing about abortion, that gets to me the most, is how hard and cold hearted some women have become. Many of the same people get upset at hunters shooting animals but they have no problem creating human remains. It is quite bizarre that they see no hypocrisy.

It is almost like they live on the surface of reality. Their minds and hearts are not very deep all the way to instinct. To them the budding of human life becomes properly, like old shoes, that they can discard at will. Or the unborn is like body fat, they can remove, with liposuction. They is no awe of human life.

Pregnancy is not like COVID, which you can get without your knowledge or consent. Pregnancy is predictable and any small child in public schools can tell you how this works. Yet, the "this is my property syndrome", keeps this all in the shallows. I am not sure if such women are responsible enough to make such an important decision for the unborn. Then again imagine such a shallow self centered person being a mother. I am not sure what the lessor of two evils is.

When I was younger women were the ones with the bigger hearts. What has caused the hearts of the women to shrink into cold stone? I would guess a Progressive indoctrination angle that spoils natural instinct.

 

[syo]

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.

Do you know the act of ''rape''?

 

[VoidCat]

*Blinks in what now?*

 

[Daemon Sophic]

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

The main thing about abortion, that gets to me the most, is how hard and cold hearted some women have become. Many of the same people get upset at hunters shooting animals but they have no problem creating human remains. It is quite bizarre that they see no hypocrisy.

It is almost like they live on the surface of reality. Their minds and hearts are not very deep all the way to instinct. To them the budding of human life becomes properly, like old shoes, that they can discard at will. Or the unborn is like body fat, they can remove, with liposuction. They is no awe of human life.

Pregnancy is not like COVID, which you can get without your knowledge or consent. Pregnancy is predictable and any small child in public schools can tell you how this works. Yet, the "this is my property syndrome", keeps this all in the shallows. I am not sure if such women are responsible enough to make such an important decision for the unborn. Then again imagine such a shallow self centered person being a mother. I am not sure what the lessor of two evils is.

When I was younger women were the ones with the bigger hearts. What has caused the hearts of the women to shrink into cold stone? I would guess a Progressive indoctrination angle that spoils natural instinct.

You two would be funny, if not for the threat your thinking on this issue poses to society and the human race.

No @leroy , people who carry out self-mutilation are NOT simply allowed to do that. They are restrained and treated for their own psychological well-being. That’s a damn twisted hole that you’re desperately throwing out as a straw-man argument.
Continuing your “logic”, people should be banned from getting haircuts, spitting, defecating or (horror of horrors!! ) allowing men to ejaculate or women to menstruate.

And @wellwisher , most abortions are naturally occurring. Shall we call CSI every time nature/God kills a fetus? One third of all human fertilizations end in spontaneous abortion.
Oh, yeah. Your poop has your cells with human DNA in them. So does your spit, and so does the menstrual debris from a woman. Your train of thought follows that of @leroy , off the rails.
Also, you lament women becoming somehow more cold-hearted because you have heard more about abortions in recent decades. Yet, induced abortions are less common now than when the precedent of Roe-v-Wade was first decided.

So to suggest that would be hypocritical at best: especially considering how the rates were rising so fast before 1973. Gee whiz, those (now) 70+ year-old women were vicious.

Women’s bodies are their own. If they wish to evacuate their own endometrial linings at any time, it is up to them.
If you wish to get the government to fund adoption and homeless shelters, then you go right ahead. Heck, go ahead and fund research into artificial uteri (keeping in mind our current over-population of the Earth of course). But if you’re going to try this nonsense as an anti-free-choice gambit….…..then come back when you have an argument.

 

[leroy]

Smoking and drinking hurt the fetus.
Sexually transmitted diseases hurt the fetus.
Falling down stairs hurts the fetus
Car accidents cab hurt the fetus.
Idiots with guns can hurt the fetus

When you find ways to prevent these then come back and get off your emotional horse

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

 

[leroy]

You two would be funny, if not for the threat your thinking on this issue poses to society and the human race.

No @leroy , people who carry out self-mutilation are NOT simply allowed to do that. They are restrained and treated for their own psychological well-being. That’s a damn twisted hole that you’re desperately throwing out as a straw-man argument.
Continuing your “logic”, people should be banned from getting haircuts, spitting, defecating or (horror of horrors!! ) allowing men to ejaculate or women to menstruate.

And @wellwisher , most abortions are naturally occurring. Shall we call CSI every time nature/God kills a fetus? One third of all human fertilizations end in spontaneous abortion.
Oh, yeah. Your poop has your cells with human DNA in them. So does your spit, and so does the menstrual debris from a woman. Your train of thought follows that of @leroy , off the rails.
Also, you lament women becoming somehow more cold-hearted because you have heard more about abortions in recent decades. Yet, induced abortions are less common now than when the precedent of Roe-v-Wade was first decided.

So to suggest that would be hypocritical at best: especially considering how the rates were rising so fast before 1973. Gee whiz, those (now) 70+ year-old women were vicious.

Women’s bodies are their own. If they wish to evacuate their own endometrial linings at any time, it is up to them.
If you wish to get the government to fund adoption and homeless shelters, then you go right ahead. Heck, go ahead and fund research into artificial uteri (keeping in mind our current over-population of the Earth of course). But if you’re going to try this nonsense as an anti-free-choice gambit….…..then come back when you have an argument.

All that is very interestign but irrelevant.

My question is

Does the mother has the right to hurt the embryo or fetus? Like mutilating his legs for example (such that the fetus survived and will be born without legs?

 

[leroy]

Y

And @wellwisher , most abortions are naturally occurring. Shall we call CSI every time nature/God kills a fetus? One third of all human fertilizations end in spontaneous abortion.

.

Yes most humans die naturally anyway, does that mean that murdering humans should be allowed by the law?

I honestly don’t understand why pro choice people repeat that argument over and over again , honestly cant you note the flaw of that logic.

. Shall we call CSI

No, but doctors and researchers should (and most do) figure out what happened, why the natural abortion occurred, and try to prevent it on the future.

One third of all human fertilizations end in spontaneous abortion.

Which means that doctors are too stupid and can’t find a way to prevent such abortions , all this shows is that we need more knowledge and more research to prevent such abortions.

How do you go from

1 sometimes the embryo/fetus dies naturally

To

3 therefore it is ok to willingly kill a fetus/embryo?

There are obviously some missing premises in your argument, so please elaborate your argument

 

[crossfire]

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.

Pregnancy is a medical condition that can be either treated to end it or to manage it. Which medical condition would mutilating a fetus address?

 

[leroy]

Pregnancy is a medical condition that can be either treated to end it or to manage it. Which medical condition would mutilating a fetus address?

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

Does she have the right to mutilate her son?

It´s her body, so why would this be an issue? You can cut your own legs if you want and given that the fetus is part of the woman’s body, then she should have the right to cut the fetuses legs too.

 

[ChristineM]

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

Does a fool with a gun have the right to massacre a school?, Yes or no and why.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Does she have the right to mutilate her son?

It´s her body, so why would this be an issue? You can cut your own legs if you want and given that the fetus is part of the woman’s body, then she should have the right to cut the fetuses legs too.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

That's not an issue. Being human is not a factor at all in deciding whether aborting the embryo is unethical.

Nor is it an factor in deciding if cholecystectomy is unethical. If one took a surgically excised gall bladder and did forensic DNA analysis on it, the evidence would say that the remains were human. Assuming that you don't object to cholecystectomy on moral grounds despite the fact that the cells ALL contain human DNA, the humanness of the tissue is not an issue for you.

The main thing about abortion, that gets to me the most, is how hard and cold hearted some women have become.

There is nothing cold-hearted about abortion unless you've been conditioned to think otherwise, which is why anti-abortion opinions cluster among people who have been influenced by the church, and are rare among those who aren't. Anti-abortion outrage is manufactured. Authentic outrage cuts across all or almost all demographics. The world was outraged by Putin's treatment of Ukraine except for those subject to his indoctrination, Russian citizens. Christians play the role of the Russian citizens in this analogy - the lone demographic with a particular opinion.

Many of the same people get upset at hunters shooting animals but they have no problem creating human remains. It is quite bizarre that they see no hypocrisy.

That's because there is no hypocrisy there. Those are my feelings as well. A double standard is in order, since we are talking about two different kinds of creatures: sentient and insentient. Ethical treatment of them is different. What is ethical to do to an insentient chicken egg, like throwing it into a frying pan, would not be ethical to do to a sentient chicken.

Pregnancy is not like COVID, which you can get without your knowledge or consent.

Irrelevant as well as incorrect. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, many of which are surprises.

 

[Secret Chief]

Good grief.

 

[crossfire]

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

Does she have the right to mutilate her son?

It´s her body, so why would this be an issue? You can cut your own legs if you want and given that the fetus is part of the woman’s body, then she should have the right to cut the fetuses legs too.

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.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Yes most humans die naturally anyway, does that mean that murdering humans should be allowed by the law?

I honestly don’t understand why pro choice people repeat that argument over and over again , honestly cant you note the flaw of that logic.


No, but doctors and researchers should (and most do) figure out what happened, why the natural abortion occurred, and try to prevent it on the future.


Which means that doctors are too stupid and can’t find a way to prevent such abortions , all this shows is that we need more knowledge and more research to prevent such abortions.

How do you go from

1 sometimes the embryo/fetus dies naturally

To

3 therefore it is ok to willingly kill a fetus/embryo?

There are obviously some missing premises in your argument, so please elaborate your argument

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.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

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 can assure you, there is no such procedure.
Although you can get a newborn baby’s ears pierced , there is no procedure for piercing the ears of a fetus.

 

[leroy]

Does a fool with a gun have the right to massacre a school?, Yes or no and why.

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