Defund Planned Parenthood

Quote: Nareed

That's not in the same solar system as the definition of "autonomy"

Can the mother control the development of the embryo? Why does this not fit your definition of "autonomy"?

Quote: FrGamble

Can the mother control the development of the embryo?

Crudely.

Quote:

Why does this not fit your definition of "autonomy"?

What can an embryo or first trimester fetus do of its own accord and initiative?

Let's cut through the minutiae and lay down the fundamentals.

The one unique quality of an embryo as opposed to all other living things, is that it alone can develop from one cell to a complete organism. So stop harping about how it's alive and has a genome. It is and it does, but it shares those qualities with every bacterium and cancer cell in existence.

Next, an embryo can potentially become a complete organism. The key word here is potential. It needs the right environment, conditions, and luck to develop.

Luck? Hell yes. Studies indicate human embryos don't always attach to the womb (precisely why in-vitro clinics implant multiple embryos). When this happens, the embryo leaves the body at the end of the menstrual cycle.

This is hardly surprising. Biology at the cellular level is largely statistical in nature. For instance, not every glucose molecule in the blood gets used up. Only those that manage to hit the right receptor in the right cell at the right time. The same goes for drugs, digested food, poisons, and even infectious bacteria and viruses (also why some bacteria are harmless if ingested, but deadly if aspirated).

If it manages to attach itself to the womb, then it will develop if things go well. Chronic malnutrition can lead to a miscarriage, as can numerous other things, including trauma and disease.

The embryo requires a lot of resources. A woman pretty much needs to grow an organ, the placenta, to keep the developing embryo alive and fed. This process alters the woman's metabolism and overall condition. Risks for adverse conditions increase, which range from inconvenience to death. Lots of care is required to keep both the woman and fetus healthy. Birth carries risks of its own, too (but we've gotten pretty good at reducing these). Undeniably the whole thing is massively inconvenient.

All this to keep a potential person alive. And this, I repeat, is the key. A human fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one. The woman carrying it is an actual person. Therefore her rights are paramount and come ahead of those of the fetus.

Quote: Evenbob

Unborn children are killed out of convenience.
To be an abortionist, I can't think of a nastier
or more abhorrent job. How would you live
with yourself, killing humans as an occupation.

Is that worse to you than say, operating drone aircraft and bombing wedding parties, or bombing hospitals?

It is a tough judgement choice. A lot of jobs would turn peoples stomach's if they had to perform them. Working in a paper mill or sewage plant can almost make you heave.

I suppose those performing the service just dis- associate themselves from considering a handful of tissue as a human being? How do oncologists deal with mouth tumors? How do obygn's do their duty? Different strokes for different folks.

I'm not promoting abortion. I'm also for strong parental rights. It's an ugly job, but it is needed for many women's sanity and safety. Hopefully they learn and do things differently, but do you want these unwanted baby's turned lose on society? What kind of people will they turn out to be if the mothers hate them already?

Quote: Nareed

What can an embryo or first trimester fetus do of its own accord and initiative?

Continue to develop into a unique human person.

Quote: FrGamble

Continue to develop into a unique human person.

You're actually saying this seriously and not as some kind of joke?

Quote: petroglyph

Is that worse to you than say, operating drone aircraft and bombing wedding parties, or bombing hospitals?

Killing is killing. If you target non combatants,
you should be punished.

Quote: Nareed

Undeniably the whole thing is massively inconvenient.

All this to keep a potential person alive. And this, I repeat, is the key. A human fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one. The woman carrying it is an actual person. Therefore her rights are paramount and come ahead of those of the fetus.

I hate to cut your excellent and honest post down to just these few lines but we don't need to repeat the whole thing. I'm very glad we are in agreement that the human embryo can uniquely develop into a complete human being. I also grant that it requires sacrifice on the part of the mother. That is why your line about the developing person being so "massively inconvenient" is so massively important. Doesn't really all the many reasons why someone is going to have an abortion boil down to this? For many reasons, some of being the mother's health others being the mother's social life, a baby would be an inconvenience. I am aware of that and as I said earlier I empathize. However, I fail to see how being an inconvenience deserves death.

In regards to your idea that an embryo is a potential person I wonder how and when you make that distinction. You once were a potential person then as well, when did you become an actual person?

Quote: Nareed

You're actually saying this seriously and not as some kind of joke?

Do you think somehow the mother is initiating the development and can stop it on her own?

I went to the store and bought a dozen eggs. They charged me for 12 live chickens.

I said, screw you, you can charge the pro-life chicken lovers that much.

Fake story. But much like Jesus parable.