A thought on the moral question of abortion

[evidence]

Logically, there are only 2 moral possibilities regarding abortion:

1. we know that the fetus it is a person or
2. we know it is not a person.

I cannot be proven the a fetus is not a person.

from this a simple analogy might help:
Say you are hunting with a friend, and you split up to hunt in seperate places…a few hours later you are walking back to meet you friend and half way there you hear some loud rustling behind some bushes, obviously made by a large animal. It may be a buck, or it may be a person. Is it morally acceptable to shoot? What if your really hungry and your family is starving, is it morally “ok” then?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Not only does the Church say that the Fetus is an individual human with a soul but science has proven it is an individual apart from it’s mother and a living human being from conception.

It is only through ignorance or denial that a person in today’s world would deny a fetus is a unique individual.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Actually it was this question that started my path to pro-life. Before I was christian I was a wishy-washy middle ground person leaning pro-choice. Then someone told me that in order to have an opinion on the matter, you have to decide if the fetus is a person or not. After a whole 3 weeks of digging, I became avidly prolife. No one can look at the medical evidence and think that a developing fetus is not a person.

 

[rpp]

Logically, there are only 2 moral possibilities regarding abortion:

1. we know that the fetus it is a person or
2. we know it is not a person.

I cannot be proven the a fetus is not a person.

from this a simple analogy might help:
Say you are hunting with a friend, and you split up to hunt in seperate places…a few hours later you are walking back to meet you friend and half way there you hear some loud rustling behind some bushes, obviously made by a large animal. It may be a buck, or it may be a person. Is it morally acceptable to shoot? What if your really hungry and your family is starving, is it morally “ok” then?

In your example in the last paragraph, if you were to shoot and it turned out to be a person, it is interesting that the law in the USA and the teachings of the Church are consistent. You would end up in jail. You fired not knowing what you were shooting at and you ended up shooting a person.

When it comes to human life, one must err on the side of caution. Even from a secular point of view, abortion violates that basic precept.

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

Logically, there are only 2 moral possibilities regarding abortion:

1. we know that the fetus it is a person or
2. we know it is not a person.

I cannot be proven the a fetus is not a person.

from this a simple analogy might help:
Say you are hunting with a friend, and you split up to hunt in seperate places…a few hours later you are walking back to meet you friend and half way there you hear some loud rustling behind some bushes, obviously made by a large animal. It may be a buck, or it may be a person. Is it morally acceptable to shoot? What if your really hungry and your family is starving, is it morally “ok” then?

**Your question is a good one. Your analogy is way off.

Let’s stick with the fetus. Personhood is a moral and legal status that is intrinsic to members of the biological species Homo sapiens. If one is a member of that species, then one is a person. It matters not if that member of the species is 114 years old, 80 years old, 30 years old, a late teen, early teen, child, toddler, infant, neonate, late term fetus, early fetus, late embryo, early embryo, or zygote-as these merely are descriptions of different stages of an individual human animal’s life cycle.

From the moment of conception, a brand new human animal is brought into existence. It is intrinsically ordered along a set developmental trajectory common to all members of the species. Whether or not we choose to blind ourselves to the intrinsic moral status of that individual says everything about us, and nothing about the new member of the species under consideration.

In your hunting example, the law recognizes adults as persons. Shooting into a rustling bush s defined as criminal conduct, as one may be shooting an unseen person. Personhood is not the issue here. Only the idiocy and criminality of the shooter is at stake, no matter how hungry he may be.

The answer is that if one is a human animal, regardless of developmental stage, then one is a person.**

 

[Newbie2]

**Your question is a good one. Your analogy is way off.

Let’s stick with the fetus.COLOR=“Black”]Personhood is a moral and legal status** that is intrinsic to members of the biological species Homo sapiens. If one is a member of that species, then one is a person. It matters not if that member of the species is 114 years old, 80 years old, 30 years old, a late teen, early teen, child, toddler, infant, neonate, late term fetus, early fetus, late embryo, early embryo, or zygote-as these merely are descriptions of different stages of an individual human animal’s life cycle.

Not true; personhood is not a widely accepted legal status for the unborn. Fetuses do not have the same legal rights as “born” persons do. Otherwise, abortion would be illegal everywhere. My understanding is that in some states the unborn are beginning to get some protection i.e. a pregnant woman gets killed by a bad guy, and the bad guy can be charged with 2 counts of homicide (quite ironic, methinks, when just down the street a doctor can kill a similar unborn baby and be completely innocent within the law).

From the moment of conception, a brand new human animal is brought into existence. It is intrinsically ordered along a set developmental trajectory common to all members of the species. Whether or not we choose to blind ourselves to the intrinsic moral status of that individual says everything about us, and nothing about the new member of the species under consideration.

In your hunting example, the law recognizes adults as persons. Shooting into a rustling bush s defined as criminal conduct, as one may be shooting an unseen person. Personhood is not the issue here. Only the idiocy and criminality of the shooter is at stake, no matter how hungry he may be.

The answer is that if one is a human animal, regardless of developmental stage, then one is a person.

I think it is an excellent moral analogy. If it is not clear that the creature in the bushes is a person or not, one should not shoot, as there is a chance of killing a person. It is not clear in the secular debate whether or not an unborn baby is a person (it’s pretty clear to most people of faith), so one should not abort, as there is a chance of killing a person.

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

I think it is an excellent moral analogy. If it is not clear that the creature in the bushes is a person or not, one should not shoot, as there is a chance of killing a person. It is not clear in the secular debate whether or not an unborn baby is a person (it’s pretty clear to most people of faith), so one should not abort, as there is a chance of killing a person.

**With regard to your text in red and your following comments, personhood IS INDEED A LEGAL STATUS INTRINSIC TO ALL MEMBERS OF OUR SPECIES.

This is so under Natural Law, which supersedes positive law.****

**Thomas Jefferson indicates as much in the Declaration of Independance when he states that “all men are created equal.” We know that they do not all get born into equal stations in life. Jefferson knew that too.

Historically, positive law seeks to strip targeted classes of their equal protections (which is the substance of personhood status), for reasons of economic gain. This was so of African slaves, Native Americans, the handicapped wth eugenics in the first half of the twentieth century, Jews in Nazi Germany, Japanese Americans in WWII, and most recently, abortion.

Don’t treat personhood as a status that the law gives. It isn’t. It is intrinsic to being human. Positive law can only deny one their protections, but it can never take away that which is intrinsic under Natural Law.

Therefore, you are mistaken when you uphold the analogy and state, “so one should not abort, as there is a chance of killing a person.” If a human animal exists, regardless of developmental stage, it is a person. Period! Anything else is tragic self-delusion.

God Bless.**

 

[Newbie2]

**With regard to your text in red and your following comments, personhood IS INDEED A LEGAL STATUS INTRINSIC TO ALL MEMBERS OF OUR SPECIES.

This is so under Natural Law, which supersedes positive law.****

**Thomas Jefferson indicates as much in the Declaration of Independance when he states that “all men are created equal.” We know that they do not all get born into equal stations in life. Jefferson knew that too.

Historically, positive law seeks to strip targeted classes of their equal protections (which is the substance of personhood status), for reasons of economic gain. This was so of African slaves, Native Americans, the handicapped wth eugenics in the first half of the twentieth century, Jews in Nazi Germany, Japanese Americans in WWII, and most recently, abortion.

Don’t treat personhood as a status that the law gives. Which law?** It isn’t. It is intrinsic to being human. Positive law can only deny one their protections, but it can never take away that which is intrinsic under Natural Law.

Therefore, you are mistaken when you uphold the analogy and state, “so one should not abort, as there is a chance of killing a person.” If a human animal exists, regardless of developmental stage, it is a person. Period! Anything else is tragic self-delusion.

I agree

God Bless.

OK, sure, under natural law…you didn’t specify under which law. The analogy holds for people who aren’t convinced that unborn babies are persons, not for us who know the truth.

Generally, in theology, it’s not necessary to say “human animal”.

 

[rwillenborg]

Actually it was this question that started my path to pro-life. Before I was christian I was a wishy-washy middle ground person leaning pro-choice. Then someone told me that in order to have an opinion on the matter, you have to decide if the fetus is a person or not. After a whole 3 weeks of digging, I became avidly prolife. No one can look at the medical evidence and think that a developing fetus is not a person.

Exactly.
There are two points which make me pro-life:

1. A child in utero is indeed a human being.
   – This, by the way, has been overwhelming shown by the medical community. A woman has never given birth to a chair, a chihuahua or a record player.
2. Every human being, most especially the innocent, deserve a right to live.
   – This, by the way, is an ethical point. What most pro-choice people THINK they disagree with is the first point. They don’t. They disagree with this second point.

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

OK, sure, under natural law…you didn’t specify under which law. The analogy holds for people who aren’t convinced that unborn babies are persons, not for us who know the truth.

Generally, in theology, it’s not necessary to say “human animal”.

**Hey Newbie,

I’m a Ph.D. molecular biologist who does lots of pro-life speaking. I use, “Human Animal” to specifically refer to the type of animal under question, as the seculars equate (correctly) our use of human with ‘person’. It’s good to start a couple of squares back on the board and bring them up to speed.

God Bless**

 

[Newbie2]

Thanks for the explanation. I’m a veterinarian; I’m used to when someone says “human animal”, they are usually following some “animal rights” agenda, using the term in order to reduce human status to that of just every other animal as a way of justifying giving animals the same rights as humans. Clearly, that’s not your intent. keep up the good fight.

 

[rusty20]

Actually it was this question that started my path to pro-life. Before I was christian I was a wishy-washy middle ground person leaning pro-choice. Then someone told me that in order to have an opinion on the matter, you have to decide if the fetus is a person or not. After a whole 3 weeks of digging, I became avidly prolife. No one can look at the medical evidence and think that a developing fetus is not a person.

I agree!!! But try going to a political or abortion forum and watch intelligent people simply deny it til they’re blue in the face, It’s sorta funny and sad at the same time. They usually say the fetus is human, but it doesn’t have personhood til birth.

 

[Kasey1]

**Your question is a good one. Your analogy is way off.

Let’s stick with the fetus. Personhood is a moral and legal status that is intrinsic to members of the biological species Homo sapiens. If one is a member of that species, then one is a person. It matters not if that member of the species is 114 years old, 80 years old, 30 years old, a late teen, early teen, child, toddler, infant, neonate, late term fetus, early fetus, late embryo, early embryo, or zygote-as these merely are descriptions of different stages of an individual human animal’s life cycle.

From the moment of conception, a brand new human animal is brought into existence. It is intrinsically ordered along a set developmental trajectory common to all members of the species. Whether or not we choose to blind ourselves to the intrinsic moral status of that individual says everything about us, and nothing about the new member of the species under consideration.

In your hunting example, the law recognizes adults as persons. Shooting into a rustling bush s defined as criminal conduct, as one may be shooting an unseen person. Personhood is not the issue here. Only the idiocy and criminality of the shooter is at stake, no matter how hungry he may be.

The answer is that if one is a human animal, regardless of developmental stage, then one is a person.**

yeap that’s the reason!