2 Deep PRO-LIFE Questions from an atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter naylordaisy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
midori said:
(Yeah, I know that ignores anyone who has a chromosomal disorder…
Click to expand...
In fact, midori, it doesn’t ignore them. The assumption we can make is that the atheist is saying ‘Given a normal conception …’
In that case, we can point out that Adam and Eve were created to live forever (corollary of Gen 2:16,17). That means no genetic or other diseases.

Having said that, does the 4000-year-old (written) Bible have anything to say besides superstition and such?

Try Ps 139:14-16, in the KJV. We use that becaise it dates to a time when science believed in the homunculus and humours. (Henry VIII kept changing wives because their humours kept changing his homunculi into girls.)
Look it over and tell me what you think.
 
Yeah! I’m getting it! 😂

So are these conjoined twins babies or above the age of reason?

Since we can not get a free willed answer from babies, this decision is the parents, right?

If above the age of reason, what happens if one wants to separate and the other doesn’t? Without thinking of all possible legal issues,my gut says tat they should be separated even if one of them doesn’t want to because they each have a right to autonomy which overrides the one that doesn’t. I could change my mind on this with good reasons, though.

It’s an interesting question!
 
Pattylt said:
If above the age of reason, what happens if one wants to separate and the other doesn’t? Without thinking of all possible legal issues,my gut says tat they should be separated even if one of them doesn’t want to because they each have a right to autonomy which overrides the one that doesn’t. I could change my mind on this with good reasons, though.
Click to expand...
Assume they are old enough to make medical decisions

If surgery is performed immediately one will die and the other will survive
If the surgery is performed in 9 months both have a good chance of survival

The twin who will survive want the surgery performed immediately.

Should they be forced to wait 9 months?
 
Your first ¶ is exactly right.

A problem with letting science choose abortion “dates” is that they keep changing via scientific progress in handling neonates. So, the age when even science calls it murder keeps moving backward. Most of us would prefer a time-certain, which the Bible gives us, and that is back to conception.
 
You won’t like my answer…remember, I’m not religious.

If the medical community can not convince the living twin to wait the nine months and the living twin isn’t violating any law by demanding immediate surgery…it won’t be considered a legal murder and the living twin is willing to live with the knowledge, then the surgery should happen. It’s an interesting thought experiment even though I can’t ever foresee it happening. Most conjoined twins are very attached to each other…pun not intended.

Because they are living outside a womb, I do believe this would be construed as murder, however…just as killing a 1 day post birth child would be. And to clarify, I am anti abortion and I do understand the point you are making and that my thoughts on this are…conflicted to say the least.
 
It was a good thought experiment! Part of me wants to scream that, of course surviving twin should wait! But, I also feel very strongly that each of us has a basic right to body autonomy and right now, we have that legal right whether anyone considers it immoral or not.

I want to change the value we place on the unborn to equal the rights of the born but changing laws won’t accomplish that. Sadly.
 
Pattylt said:
May I ask?

How will putting someone in jail change their value of the unborn?
Click to expand...
The same way making slavery illegal and giving black people civil rights made the people of the time see that black people have equal value.

Note: It’s not the value of the unborn that needs to be changed. It’s societies perception of it.
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
Note: It’s not the value of the unborn that needs to be changed. It’s societies perception of it.
Click to expand...
Both, I think.
I would argue that the anti slavery laws didn’t change anyone’s value of blacks. Time did that, but I see your point.
 
Jesus said the meek would inherit the earth. Many take that to mean teachable, which seems not to apply to your contact. If that’s the case, you’re free to move on, having followed 1Peter 3:15.

OR, you could show him Ps 139:14-16 in the “primitive” KJV, my favorite starting point for this.
V. 14 is something most OB/GYNs agree with.

15,16: “substance” is a good word for our century, but not for James’. His time believed in the homunculus, a sort of stick figure of a man that was implanted in the womb. Then the woman’s “humours” took over. If they were strong, a girl was born; if not, male development continued.

V. 15: A poetic view of the womb during gestation. Without ultrasound, only a god- better yet, the creator- could see that. And, being “made” from that ‘unformed substance’ implies what we come to next.

V.16: The first two weeks of our lives are spent as a blastula, a round mass of dividing cells that are indistinguishable from each other. Yet, science knows that the potential for developing limbs, eyelashes, tonsils, a personality and so on is there, in the DNA. ‘All our members are written’. Written, as in a code. A genetic code, millions of words long, using a four letter alphabet. (Code and letters are the words used by reproductive scientists, but rarely if ever by Bronze Age Kings who were raised as shepherds.)
From blastula to recognizable human; the members grew in continuance, from when there was none of them.

Wonderfully made, indeed, and well written, David.
There is more in the Bible about reproduction, none of it superstitious, but this may be rejected by your guy. If so, move on. No more pearls for him.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
May I ask?

How will putting someone in jail change their value of the unborn?
Click to expand...
In theory it accomplishes nothing. Punishment does not save a child after the fact, or save another child per se.
What it does do in practicality is possibly deter others, and so indirectly it protects other innocent lives.

I am not in favor of punishing those who abort their children. What I am in favor is our society having sanity, and having a legal system that reflects that sanity.

At the very least, our legal code ought to recognize truth and justice. Punishment (for me anyway) is tangential to that.
 
Thank you everyone for your responses. An additional issue my atheist debater may raise and one which this topic has brought to my attention is that the Catholic Church does not support ‘making’ humans in the lab by manipulating embryos in test tubes. In particular fertilized embryos can be destroyed once one has been selected. At its very core my atheist contact describes a scenario of embryo manipulation in the lab. A short description of this issue is provided in the link,

What does the Church teach about IVF?
https://www.catholicscomehome.org/what-does-the-church-teach-about-ivf/

I mention this because he may argue that if the Church does not support IVF then why should it care if human embryos are destroyed and so doing this would not be murder nor an abortion (he is very wily which I have learned from past debates with him).
 
naylordaisy said:
I mention this because he may argue that if the Church does not support IVF then why should it care if human embryos are destroyed and so doing this would not be murder nor an abortion (he is very wily which I have learned from past debates with him).
Click to expand...
This is just really bad logic on his part. The moral argument makes not one iota of logical sense. Some of these are so vacuous that they are actually harder to rebut than arguments that have shreds of logic at least.
This bogus scenario is akin to saying “The Catholic Church does not believe in rape, so why should anyone care for rape victims?” It’s just a stupid argument.

How do you disprove an obvious farce?
I really believe that much of Catholic apologetics gives too much credence to silly arguments by trying to debate the absurd.

Sometimes you just have to say “that is really stupid”, show the obvious hole in the argument, and not give it the dignity of a complicated argument.
 
Last edited:
If something is put on the cell to cause it to die; then it would be a deliberate act of extermination of the potentiality of the very beginning of the life of a baby (human).
Woman and Man become one out of love for one another which at the same time; equals and “openness” to the possibility of another life.
When I was of child bearing years, I remember learning about surrogacy. It occurred to me that I couldn’t participate in something like that because I felt a protection for the eggs I carried within me. I could only think of one other way I would become a surrogate for someone and it would’ve “maybe” been for my sister. But even then, I scrutinized this idea because, as I said, I felt a extreme protection for my own eggs. I think as life has become more and more de-valued, it’s easy to think of abortion as an option.
 
Damian said:
the woman is not accepting the role of parent for the fetus using her body.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that constitute bad parenting, as well? You’ve already acknowledged that the embryo/fetus is as human as the born child.

What if a pregnant woman is a drug addict? If she’s intending to have the baby, should she have to give up her bodily autonomy for forced addiction treatment?
Damian said:
The fact that women’s bodies are designed to carry a fetus to term is irrelevant to the argument of bodily autonomy. Women’s bodies are designed to physically accept sex from a man, but without consent, its rape.
Click to expand...
Ah! Consent is the issue! Bodily autonomy applies differently to pregnancy than, say, the plugged-in violinist argument because in most cases, assuming consensual sex was involved, the woman actually did something to cause the existence of another human being.

Now you can claim that that she used birth control, so the pregnancy was unintended. But in the bodily autonomy context, it’s not about intention. Imagine saying, “I’m wearing my seatbelt, so I don’t consent to dying in a fatal car crash,” or “I’m boarding this plane, but I don’t consent to a hijacking.” When we make free and willful decisions, we take willful ownership over the potential risks . . . or benefits.
Damian said:
Again, this is why we don’t force people to be organ donors, we don’t force men to give up their body to save their child after its born, etc.
Click to expand...
Well, since pro-choicers so frequently allude to the violinist in my link, here’s my own made-up scenario.

Suppose that I’m riding in an airplane with my breastfed, two-month-old baby. The plane crashes on a mountaintop, and miraculously, we are the only two to survive. It will be days before help comes or we find our way down the mountain, and we are miles from civilization.

Now, in case you’re unaware, breastfeeding does involve some bodily sacrifice that can include painful conditions like thrush and mastitis. Women who choose to breastfeed their babies willfully give up some of their bodily autonomy. In this scenario, however, I’m miles away from civilization, i.e. formula.

Am I under any moral obligation to breastfeed the baby? Or am I morally justified in claiming bodily autonomy and withholding my breastmilk, thereby starving and dehydrating the baby?

The law and CPS would certainly say that I am NOT. But do our legal codes reflect what is ethical in this scenario?
Damian said:
The fetus is a perfect stranger to her and she has not taken on or accepted the role of parent to that child.
Click to expand...
Now suppose I survive the plane crash with somebody else’s baby. I don’t know the baby. I don’t necessarily feel an emotional attachment to the baby. Am I under any moral obligation to breastfeed in this scenario?
 
Last edited:
I think I might understand what you are trying to convey, but the example of conjoined twins that share a vital organ isn’t going to result in an individual who can just wait 9 months without any medical issues before the other twin is ready for surgery. Conjoined twins with shared internal organs possess a unique autonomy to their “shared body”. And their “shared body” is shared to the benefit or detriment of the body unit.

So doctors will wait to perform a separation if it isn’t going to impact survival rates. However, if one of the twin’s is having health issues, the situation will affect both twins. At this point, the surgical team and the twins need to make a decision on how to proceed.

I guess what I’m saying is, medically, if there is a medical deficiency in one twin, it will affect both twins. The organs of the healthier twin will have to compensate for the weaker twin. There will be some type of decline in the health of the entire body unit since they have shared organs and it will impact both twins. If these are infant conjoined twins, the decision would be up to the parents, guardian, or the state, given the circumstances.

In a set of adult conjoined twins, the doctors are required to receive informed consent before they can operate on the twins since the twins have one or more shared organs.

Conjoined twins where one is parasitic, doctors remove the parasitic twin.

Btw, there are many ethical dilemmas regarding separation of conjoined twins, especially conjoined twins who have a good chance of survival without separation surgery.
 
That’s different since the womb has already been given to the fetus and I presume organ donors can’t reclaim it after the transaction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top