10 things that suggest pro-lifers are not consistent in treating the unborn as human, in the sense that born people are human

[Freddy]

0Scarlett_nidiyilii:

The issue is, do people recognize this personhood.

I think you kind of missed my point. We can’t assign personhood at any point after conception. The only logical time is at conception.

It might have been another thread where I pointed out that in around 15% of cases, when the egg fertilises, nothing further happens. What implants is effectively an empty sac. There is nothing there.

Where is ‘the person’ then?

 

[fhansen]

It might have been another thread where I pointed out that in around 15% of cases, when the egg fertilises, nothing further happens. What implants is effectively an empty sac. There is nothing there.

Where is ‘the person’ then?

Who’s going to decide?- but either way there’s nothing to abort/kill in that case.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It might have been another thread where I pointed out that in around 15% of cases, when the egg fertilises, nothing further happens. What implants is effectively an empty sac. There is nothing there.

Where is ‘the person’ then?

Who’s going to decide?- but either way there’s nothing to abort/kill in that case.

So conception cannot be used to determine if life has begun. You can’t say ‘a person has come into existence at this point’.

 

[fhansen]

When we know there’s no personal life then there’s nothing to abort. If we don’t yet know then we can’t act on that ignorance.

 

[Freddy]

When we know there’s no personal life then there’s nothing to abort. If we don’t yet know then we can’t act on that ignorance.

The point I am making is that some would like there to be a definite point when we have a new ‘person’. And conception would qualify. But it doesn’t. So where does that lead us?

You could have two women both of whom have an egg fertilised. One pregnancy goes on to develop into a full grown baby - and the claim is that that person came into existence at the moment it was fertilised. Which must obviously be true for the second woman. But in her case, nothing exists.

So if that is not the point at which a person comes into being then when is it?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

When the egg is fertilized, you have a human being with their own distinct set of chromosomes.

The science is settled.

The politics around it are not,

 

[Freddy]

When the egg is fertilized, you have a human being with their own distinct set of chromosomes.

In an anembryonic pregnancy that’s not the case. Nothing develops. The egg fertilises but all you have is an empty sac. Where is the ‘human being with their own distinct set of chromosomes’?

‘A blighted ovum is a pregnancy where a sac and placenta grow, but a baby does not. It is also called an ‘anembryonic pregnancy’ as there is no embryo (developing baby)’. Blighted ovum | Pregnancy Birth and Baby

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

In an anembryonic pregnancy that’s not the case. Nothing develops. The egg fertilises but all you have is an empty sac. Where is the ‘human being with their own distinct set of chromosomes’?

You are aware that this is an anomaly?
Not the way development is supposed to happen?
I’m afraid the existence of an anomaly doesn’t de-humanize embryos.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

In an anembryonic pregnancy that’s not the case. Nothing develops. The egg fertilises but all you have is an empty sac. Where is the ‘human being with their own distinct set of chromosomes’?

You are aware that this is an anomaly?
Not the way development is supposed to happen?
I’m afraid the existence of an anomaly doesn’t de-humanize embryos.

Obviously an anomaly. But as I said earlier, if two women have fertilised eggs and one has a normal pregnancy and the other has nothing at all, then one cannot claim that fertilisation is the point at which a person comes into existence. Because in the second case there is nothing there after fertilisation.

And an embryo doesn’t exist until after we have long past fertilisation and have moved from zygote to the implanted blastocyst to the embryo. At what point do we ‘humanize’ whatever is there?

I say that it’s gradual. Others say there is a point. If it’s not gradual and there is a specific point and it can’t be fertilisation, then when is it?

 

[ReaderT]

It’s a combination of many criteria and not everyone will agree on the criteria themselves let alone the degree to which they are important.

Isn’t each one a subjective decision? What if you and I disagree on one criteria? Do the others still count?

there is no bright line

What I get from reading all of the above is, it’s a highly debated and unresolved issue whether or not the entity is a person, and not even the determining criteria are agreed upon. If that’s the case, then all the more reason why we should play it safe and not terminate what may very well be human beings. I seriously don’t understand how anyone can say “there’s no bright line” - it may be taking an innocent life (i.e. murder), maybe not - but we’re gonna do it anyway.

 

[ReaderT]

Obviously an anomaly. But as I said earlier, if two women have fertilised eggs and one has a normal pregnancy and the other has nothing at all, then one cannot claim that fertilisation is the point at which a person comes into existence. Because in the second case there is nothing there after fertilisation.

And an embryo doesn’t exist until after we have long past fertilisation and have moved from zygote to the implanted blastocyst to the embryo. At what point do we ‘humanize’ whatever is there?

I say that it’s gradual. Others say there is a point. If it’s not gradual and there is a specific point and it can’t be fertilisation, then when is it?

A human zygote can die at any point, just as a human fetus can, just as a born human can. The fact that - due to a genetic anomaly - it stops developing normally does not make it less human. Many people outside the womb die from genetic anomalies also.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

And an embryo doesn’t exist until after we have long past fertilisation and have moved from zygote to the implanted blastocyst to the embryo.

Not quite.

The zygote and the earliest cell divisions are undifferentiated cells.
All of which have all the requisite human chromosomes.

Broadly speaking, after this stage, some cells become everything we think of as “looking human”.
The other cells develop into supporting structures like placenta.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s a combination of many criteria and not everyone will agree on the criteria themselves let alone the degree to which they are important.

Isn’t each one a subjective decision? What if you and I disagree on one criteria? Do the others still count?

there is no bright line

What I get from reading all of the above is, it’s a highly debated and unresolved issue whether or not the entity is a person, and not even the determining criteria are agreed upon. If that’s the case, then all the more reason why we should play it safe and not terminate what may very well be human beings. I seriously don’t understand how anyone can say “there’s no bright line” - it may be taking an innocent life (i.e. murder), maybe not - but we’re gonna do it anyway.

You are entirely missing what I am saying. A fertilised egg is not a person. A zygote is not a person. A blastocyst is not a person. When it becomes a person is up for debate but in none of those cases is there any doubt (in my personal opinion). None whatsoever.

Again, your argument is akin to saying that as we can’t definitely say when a child becomes a man then it’s impossible to say when it’s a child or when it’s a man. Clearly a nonsensical position.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Obviously an anomaly. But as I said earlier, if two women have fertilised eggs and one has a normal pregnancy and the other has nothing at all, then one cannot claim that fertilisation is the point at which a person comes into existence. Because in the second case there is nothing there after fertilisation.

And an embryo doesn’t exist until after we have long past fertilisation and have moved from zygote to the implanted blastocyst to the embryo. At what point do we ‘humanize’ whatever is there?

I say that it’s gradual. Others say there is a point. If it’s not gradual and there is a specific point and it can’t be fertilisation, then when is it?

A human zygote can die at any point, just as a human fetus can, just as a born human can. The fact that - due to a genetic anomaly - it stops developing normally does not make it less human. Many people outside the womb die from genetic anomalies also.

It doesn’t stop developing because it doesn’t start developing. There is nothing there to to die. In a number of cases all you have is an empty sac. There’s nothing there to be human or to be less human.

You could operate on the woman and remove the sac (it will be passed eventually anyway) and where will the ‘person’ be?

 

[fhansen]

So if that is not the point at which a person comes into being then when is it?

That is the point for all persons who are conceived-there’s none other. And the problem is that if we can’t say when a person begins to exist then we cannot abort at any stage.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And an embryo doesn’t exist until after we have long past fertilisation and have moved from zygote to the implanted blastocyst to the embryo.

Not quite.

The zygote and the earliest cell divisions are undifferentiated cells.
All of which have all the requisite human chromosomes.

Broadly speaking, after this stage, some cells become everything we think of as “looking human”.
The other cells develop into supporting structures like placenta.

I’m using the scientific terms to describe the stages so that there is no confusion. An ‘embryo’ doesn’t come into being until it has passed through the earlier stages.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So if that is not the point at which a person comes into being then when is it?

That is the point for all persons who are conceived-there’s none other. And the problem is that if we can’t say when a person begins to exist then we cannot abort at any stage.

See post 53.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’m using the scientific terms to describe the stages so that there is no confusion. An ‘embryo’ doesn’t come into being until it has passed through the earlier stages.

You’re scientifically correct.

A lot of people aren’t familiar with all the terms, so I tend to stumble around it in trying to explain it.

 

[Annie]

Exactly my point. Why would a Church that accepted the full humanity of an unborn child deny the child access to baptism by constructing a rite with precludes such access. And if baptism is a ‘rebirth’ then surely the wrong term has been used and it should be a ‘reconception’ and people should be ‘reconceived in the spirit’?

I can’t read all theposts, so maybe someone responded more fully, but the Church does not “construct” sacraments. They are from God, so this is a point you need to take up with Him, even tho, iirc, you are an atheist who does not believe in God.

So, Catholics, who do believe in God, do not think we are able to change the sacraments we believe that He created.

As to many of your other points, it has only been in recent human history that we could know for certain that a woman was pregnant in the early stages of pregnancy, and many babies and mothers died in childbirth.

It may be that things will change. For example, we now have gender-reveal parties.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

It doesn’t stop developing because it doesn’t start developing. There is nothing there to to die. In a number of cases all you have is an empty sac. There’s nothing there to be human or to be less human.

You could operate on the woman and remove the sac (it will be passed eventually anyway) and where will the ‘person’ be?

Well, if we dial it back to the beginning, we need to remember that anybody at any time in their life, may stop developing properly, or develop a disease, and then die.

A zygote who starts and continues the process of cell division, is doing what he naturally supposed to do.

With a “blighted ovum”, something goes wrong with the process, and he dies.

He is no less human because he was sick and imperfect.

While you are scientifically and technically correct in saying “not an embryo”, that is not the same as “not a human being”. We don’t start as embryos, and we are not supposed to remain embryos.