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

[JimG]

A one year old child is a human being. A 30 year old man is a human being. A human being is a human being, regardless of youth or age or stage of development.

 

[Elf01]

A one year old child is not a man. But a thirty year old person is. Your question is akin to asking “why can’t you ‘remove’ manhood?”

The question makes no sense.

If you define personhood by attributes, it does.

 

[FiveLinden]

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.

What I meant by ‘construct’ was stipulate the circumstances and method by which the sacraments should be done, and can be done. The Church certainly does this.

My point about baptism is that if it is encouraged for new-borns in logic, if the unborn are also human persons in a state of original sin, the should be some provision made for them. Such provision is not made in the Church, even a ceremony to pray for ‘baptism of desire’. (This may happen somewhere just as other posters have pointed to practices I was unaware of about burials etc.)

This is one of the many ways in which I see imperfect consistency between those who believe the unborn to be persons and the way people act.

My OP was an attempt to list some of those points.

 

[FiveLinden]

It is clear Jesus was named right after conception

Was he? Matthew 1:21 seems to see the sequence of the naming following the birth:

“And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins”.

 

[PatK63]

That passage just reminds the reader that the name Jesus was already given and Mary and Joseph had already been told.

 

[knightfall]

A one year old child is not a man. But a thirty year old person is. Your question is akin to asking “why can’t you ‘remove’ manhood?”

The question makes no sense.

Your analogies are apples and oranges to the question being asked of you. A boy and a man are still both human beings. And more importantly, the distinction between boyhood and manhood does not result in the legal destruction of the boy.

Which is why the distinction between a human being / person and not a human being / person is so crucial. And if you don’t know when this is, you should be erring on the side of caution.

God bless.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A one year old child is not a man. But a thirty year old person is. Your question is akin to asking “why can’t you ‘remove’ manhood?”

The question makes no sense.

Your analogies are apples and oranges to the question being asked of you. A boy and a man are still both human beings. And more importantly, the distinction between boyhood and manhood does not result in the legal destruction of the boy.

Which is why the distinction between a human being / person and not a human being / person is so crucial. And if you don’t know when this is, you should be erring on the side of caution.

God bless.

If I had any doubt then I would agree that an abortion a week or so after conception should not take place. I don’t have any doubt.

If you don’t follow the analogy then I’m afraid I can’t help further.

 

[knightfall]

If you don’t follow the analogy then I’m afraid I can’t help further.

Hi Freddy

I follow the analogy. I just don’t agree with it. Either way, I guess there’s not much else to discuss.

God bless.