A theological argument FOR abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter R_Daneel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R_Daneel said:
It is very simple and straightforward.

Take a zygote, freshly impregnated, before it even leaves for the trip to the uterus. According to the theists, it (definitely not a “he” or a “she”)
Click to expand...
Setting aside for the moment the body of your screed, this is already an error.

The “zygote” (as someone has pointed out, this is a false dilemma, abortions are not done on zygotes) already has the full genetic material that that human being will carry to HIS or HER death bed (and, presumably, will before then have propagated through children). It is the genes that make someone a “he” or “she” even if the sexual architecture has not yet made its appearance. The genes are already there.

ICXC NIKA
 
Sair said:
Some questions…

You stop a beating heart every time you kill a fly or a mosquito. What makes a foetal human heart more valuable than these?
Click to expand...
Because the human fetal heart will, in the course of its development, pump blood through a human head, a mind that can come to know God?
Why is a heartbeat more important than sentience? Why must the life of the foetus be valued when the foetus cannot value its own life?
Click to expand...
Because while sentience is physically impossible at that stage, it will normally emerge in the biological development of the body. Temporary lack of sentience does not negate the value of a human being. If it did, you could morally be killed whenever you were asleep or unconscious.

ICXC NIKA.
 
JohnDamian said:
By your argument; it would be a mercy to kill all people who are in a state of grace.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That actually does appear to be what the Catholic position suggests. Of course I understand that intention matters, and that the immortal soul of the perpetrator is believed to be at stake. However, it must also be said that the Catholic (and perhaps general Christian) ethic holds sacrifice for one’s neighbour in the highest regard. Why is it not greater to sacrifice one’s immortal soul for the sake of another than to sacrifice any worldly good? And why is compassionate intention not considered relevant in such a circumstance? I don’t say this to be insolent, but because I am genuinely curious - such questions really never came up when I was growing up Catholic.

My own answer, as an atheist, would be that it is wrong to commit an act of assault or violence against any person against their will; is the Catholic position the same? If so, why?
 
ONly an insane person nwould come up with argument. Me thinks this is a joke trying to get us angry. Better to ignore it;)
 
mercygate said:
The Christian answer would be that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, while a mosquito is not. It thus has intrinsic value that non-humans have not.

Objectively taken, human life is valuable in itself. Sentience is a developmental concomitant of the human condition, but not definitive of it in individual cases. The non-sentient human deserves the protection of those who are sentient out of respect for the objective value of human life. “Sentience” comes on a continuum. The human foetus can react to light and sound and feel pain very early in gestation. The protection of the weak is a mark of civilization. If by “sentience” you mean capable of doing calculus, then you might as well kill me right now.
Click to expand...
I’m still not sure - and still have not received any non-arbitrary answer - why human life is to be objectively (as opposed to subjectively) valued above any other life, sentient or otherwise (since humans, at different stages of development and of life, are either sentient or insentient).

I understand that the concept of ‘made in the image of God’ is important to Christians, but supposing you were trying to convince secularists - or at the extreme thereof, atheists - of the intrinsic value of human life, what argument would you use?
 
Lycorth, you said,

Killing people just so that they can get to Heaven would make the killer a murderer, as killing for anything other than self-defense or in a just war is a mortal sin, and thus the argument of the OP cannot be justified in light of Catholic teaching. We do not follow a God who teaches that the ends justify the means or that acceptable motives make unacceptable actions acceptable.

This piqued my interest, because I have seen/read some Christians try to justify Biblical acts of genocide by saying that it was perfectly acceptable for God to command the murder of morally innocent babies (as recorded in the OT) because said babies’ souls would be received into heaven upon their deaths.

First of all, I wonder how it is rationally possible to justify the acts of genocide recorded in the Bible (at least without supposing that God dictates a different moral code than that to which He Himself adheres); is this not a case of ends being held to justify means?

Secondly, and to open a different avenue of inquiry, I wonder how martyrdom for belief in God/Christ is necessarily different from suicide for any other reason, apart from the overriding intent of the individual committing or knowingly inviting the act - is this not the same degree of difference one would find between murder and compassionate killing?
 
GEddie said:
Because the human fetal heart will, in the course of its development, pump blood through a human head, a mind that can come to know God?

Because while sentience is physically impossible at that stage, it will normally emerge in the biological development of the body. Temporary lack of sentience does not negate the value of a human being. If it did, you could morally be killed whenever you were asleep or unconscious.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
This still doesn’t answer the question of why human life is to be valued above any other kind of sentient life - you obviously feel that the potential to know your God is important, but do you have any other way of justifying your value for human life above other life that would make sense to someone who doesn’t believe in any gods?
 
The OP’s argument is essentially “negative utilitarianism”. The extreme form is that mankind can prevent the greatest quantity of future suffering by wiping itself out… then all those people in the future who would be raped, tortured, etc. will never exist in the first place. So they won’t suffer. It is ultimately about as anti-life as you can get.

It all falls down on the premise of Consequentialism, of course. That acts receive their moral justification based on their outcomes. This is a commonplace of Liberalism, but it is a degenerated and disreputable principle.

In Catholic theology we recognize the Moral Object. The Moral Object is the act that is done. It may or may not have an intrinsic moral value, depending on its form. Rape, for example, is a moral object which is intrinsically evil. Supposing that you’re a counter-terrorism guy trying to stop the bomb from going off, and the terrorist in your custody is too tough for torture but is a devoted family man, you cannot rape his family in front of him to coerce him into telling you where the bomb is. That is because rape is intrinsically evil… the absolutely prohibited nature of the moral object in this case renders the consequence utterly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if the bomb will destroy the whole planet… it is better that all should die rather than a rape be committed.

That’s what moral absolutes actually turn out to mean. The OP is just selling Consequentialism as an alternative to Moral Absolutism (the Catholic Faith), but he’s not couching it in those terms of course.
 
How can an unbaptized person go to heaven? The zygote still has original sin, thus it goes to hell (limbo). To think otherwise renders what happened on Calvary an act of a mad man.
 
R_Daneel said:
It is very simple and straightforward.

…

So, go and abort all your children. It is in the best interest of the child, and in the best interest of the mother. Be careful, however, not to be selfish, and do not perform the abortion for some temporal gain. Always cast your eyes on the heaven. God will understand your motive, and will reward for it.
Click to expand...
Are you saddened that your mother failed to have your best interest in mind at your conception? 🤷

FYI “Limbo” was only a theological possibility … Limbo was never “Doctrine” …

Theologians will try to answer every question placed before them [as in how many angels can dance on th head of a pin?] … Parents who love their children even though lost to miscarriage before birth, were still birth or before receiving baptism asked … What happens to my child? Are they [will they] be in heaven? … Limbo was one possibility … in reality - this answer gave comfort to some and not to others …

In reality, the best answer is that they are at the mercy of a loving and just God … a God who gave His life for the remission of sin - to save a fallen people … Given the proff of His love for us - we can be arrured that these inncents will receive that same love in abundance …

However that assurance should not be a “fFree Pass” for another to take their lives … Life is God given and only is to take … as other posters have stated - the “ends do not justufy the means” and killing another person through abortion is always an intrinsic evil - no matter the good/bad intensions … it is always a selfish action meted upon another …

I suggest you go speak with your mother about your issues - therapy perhaps :cool:
 
Sair said:
This still doesn’t answer the question of why human life is to be valued above any other kind of sentient life - you obviously feel that the potential to know your God is important, but do you have any other way of justifying your value for human life above other life that would make sense to someone who doesn’t believe in any gods?
Click to expand...
Do you mean to say that if you had before you an annoying mosquito and your own annoying child you would feel equally sanguine about killing them? Do you have anyway of justifying your value of your child’s life above that of a mosquito? (assuming you are not a psychopath of course)
Sair said:
That actually does appear to be what the Catholic position suggests. Of course I understand that intention matters, and that the immortal soul of the perpetrator is believed to be at stake. However, it must also be said that the Catholic (and perhaps general Christian) ethic holds sacrifice for one’s neighbour in the highest regard. Why is it not greater to sacrifice one’s immortal soul for the sake of another than to sacrifice any worldly good? And why is compassionate intention not considered relevant in such a circumstance? I don’t say this to be insolent, but because I am genuinely curious - such questions really never came up when I was growing up Catholic.

My own answer, as an atheist, would be that it is wrong to commit an act of assault or violence against any person against their will; is the Catholic position the same? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Good intentions do not matter if evil (i.e. murder) is committed. To quote (again) the Catechism of the Catholic Church
“One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM
 
Sair said:
I’m still not sure - and still have not received any non-arbitrary answer - why human life is to be objectively (as opposed to subjectively) valued above any other life, sentient or otherwise (since humans, at different stages of development and of life, are either sentient or insentient).

I understand that the concept of ‘made in the image of God’ is important to Christians, but supposing you were trying to convince secularists - or at the extreme thereof, atheists - of the intrinsic value of human life, what argument would you use?
Click to expand...
It isn’t a philosophical issue. Since ALL life prefers its own “kind” over others, the burden is on you to argue “why” a human being should value another human being equally or less than nonhuman life.
 
seagal said:
Do you mean to say that if you had before you an annoying mosquito and your own annoying child you would feel equally sanguine about killing them? Do you have anyway of justifying your value of your child’s life above that of a mosquito? (assuming you are not a psychopath of course)
Click to expand...
Clearly you have yet to read my posts to other threads regarding this issue. My point in comparing the heartbeat of a nonsentient human foetus with the heartbeat of a mosquito was simply to query why one form of nonsentient life is to be valued above another form of nonsentient life (if indeed flies and mosquitoes are to be supposed nonsentient).

Notice that this has nothing to do with personal preference, but is a question of what moral absolutists adjudge ‘intrinsic’ value - why does a human foetus, prior to developing sentience, when it is a cluster of cells, have more value than any other cluster of cells?
Good intentions do not matter if evil (i.e. murder) is committed. To quote (again) the Catechism of the Catholic Church
“One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM
Click to expand...
How does one determine the moral worth of an action - intentions aside - apart from its consequence? Certainly if one intends harm for the sake of harm, that ought to be condemned; but if there is an honest evaluation of circumstances, and one determines that the best overall outcome is to be achieved by killing - how does one evaluate the morality of such an action? Where’s the black-and-white rule here? Is it better to risk extensive harm and suffering than to act to prevent suspected harm and suffering?
 
Sair said:
Notice that this has nothing to do with personal preference, but is a question of what moral absolutists adjudge ‘intrinsic’ value - why does a human foetus, prior to developing sentience, when it is a cluster of cells, have more value than any other cluster of cells?
Click to expand...
Why does an unconscious person have any intrinsic value prior to waking up?

And don’t give any nonsense about human relationships etc. for it is evident that the unborn human has such; in that it has a relationship to it’s mother, and to people who care for it.
 
Sair said:
Clearly you have yet to read my posts to other threads regarding this issue. My point in comparing the heartbeat of a nonsentient human foetus with the heartbeat of a mosquito was simply to query why one form of nonsentient life is to be valued above another form of nonsentient life (if indeed flies and mosquitoes are to be supposed nonsentient).

Notice that this has nothing to do with personal preference, but is a question of what moral absolutists adjudge ‘intrinsic’ value - why does a human foetus, prior to developing sentience, when it is a cluster of cells, have more value than any other cluster of cells?
Click to expand...
No, I have only read your posts on this thread. I think you’re throwing a red herring into this particular discussion. As Catholics (and other Christians) we believe that every human has the right to life from the moment of conception. Whether you choose to believe that about other life forms is entirely up to you. There are plenty of Catholic vegetarians. But that has no bearing on the issue of human life.
 
seagal said:
The Church does not say that unbaptized babies are condemned to hell, and in fact
recalls Jesus’ tenderness towards children as an indication of God’s mercy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4778
Click to expand...
Wrong! All men lost heaven when Adam sinned. I do not use the word ALL in a metaphorical sense here.
All babies are born with original sin. All are conceived in sin. This is why Jesus died for us. Any other ideas are heresy. When people speculate about what God does in the afterlife is a foolish waste of time.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the single exception.
 
Desertsailor said:
Wrong! All men lost heaven when Adam sinned. I do not use the word ALL in a metaphorical sense here.
All babies are born with original sin. All are conceived in sin. This is why Jesus died for us. Any other ideas are heresy. When people speculate about what God does in the afterlife is a foolish waste of time.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the single exception.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you that we are all born with original sin. I simply pointed out what the CCC says in paragraph **1261 **
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
Click to expand...
[emphasis is mine]
I for one am grateful that God is merciful as well as just.
 
seagal said:
I don’t disagree with you that we are all born with original sin. I simply pointed out what the CCC says in paragraph **1261 ** [emphasis is mine]
I for one am grateful that God is merciful as well as just.
Click to expand...
Now we agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top