A woman's right to control her body?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John1956
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
I would not say that the unborn child is “murdered” but rather “sacrificed” and, further, returned to G-d, for the purpose of saving the physical life or health of the mother.
Click to expand...
I suspect when we begin to use the word “sacrifice” in terms of volunteering someone other than ourselves to be sacrificed, we begin to tread murky moral waters. Child sacrifice was regarded as an abomination in the Old Testament. There were a number of Canaanite cultures that engaged in child sacrifice. How would your suggestion above be fundamentally different from offering children to G-d by throwing them in a fire rather than dismembering them in the womb and offering the pieces to G-d?

I am not clear that ancient Judaism would have promoted the idea of human beings unilaterally doing the choosing with regard to what valuables could be appropriately considered as sacrificial offerings.

It is not clear to me that your perspective on child sacrifice doesn’t lead us into the territory of Aztec paganism.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I suspect when we begin to use the word “sacrifice” in terms of volunteering someone other than ourselves to be sacrificed, we begin to tread murky moral waters. Child sacrifice was regarded as an abomination in the Old Testament. There were a number of Canaanite cultures that engaged in child sacrifice. How would your suggestion above be fundamentally different from offering children to G-d by throwing them in a fire rather than dismembering them in the womb and offering the pieces to G-d?

I am not clear that ancient Judaism would have promoted the idea of human beings unilaterally doing the choosing with regard to what valuables could be appropriately considered as sacrificial offerings.

It is not clear to me that your perspective on child sacrifice doesn’t lead us into the territory of Aztec paganism.
Click to expand...
Did you read the rest of my post? If so, I find it disheartening that you would suggest abortion for the explicit purpose of saving a woman’s life, according to the tenets of Jewish law, is comparable to sacrificial Aztec paganism. Perhaps neither murder nor sacrifice is the most appropriate terminology, but the latter was the best word I was able to come up with at the moment.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I suspect when we begin to use the word “sacrifice” in terms of volunteering someone other than ourselves to be sacrificed, we begin to tread murky moral waters. Child sacrifice was regarded as an abomination in the Old Testament. There were a number of Canaanite cultures that engaged in child sacrifice. How would your suggestion above be fundamentally different from offering children to G-d by throwing them in a fire rather than dismembering them in the womb and offering the pieces to G-d?

I am not clear that ancient Judaism would have promoted the idea of human beings unilaterally doing the choosing with regard to what valuables could be appropriately considered as sacrificial offerings.

It is not clear to me that your perspective on child sacrifice doesn’t lead us into the territory of Aztec paganism.
Click to expand...
I took it that the sacrifice forsakes one (the unborn) held to not yet be ensouled to save the mother who is ensouled, and thus held to be in a different “class”. It then becomes a more utitarian consideration. Eg, one should not waste a potential person without a good enough reason, but such reasons exist. A bit like saying one should not kill an animal without a proper reason.

Maybe Meltzer could confirm or correct my understanding.
 
Brendan said:
So the science is denied then. Even though biology says it’s human, and makes do distinctions about it being sub-human.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe he is denying any science. He is asserting that personhood requires ensoulment which he asserts occurs at birth.
 
Rau said:
I don’t believe he is denying any science. He is asserting that personhood requires ensoulment which he asserts occurs at birth.
Click to expand...
Thing is, it’s pretty hard to distinguish a new-born human from a new-born chimpanzee (in terms of ability, whether intellectual or physical). So either chimpanzees are ‘people’ for this purpose, or human babies aren’t! (I’m all for protecting other primates, though, so there would be an upside!).

I do see the point, however, which is that being biologically human is fine and dandy in terms of taxonomy (no one can say that a human fetus isn’t a fully paid up member of homo sapiens) - but the essence of what it is to be human is, perhaps, more than the simple biological accident of our flesh and blood. To be human is to experience and interact with the world in a particular way. This is something that the unborn, quite simply (for practical reasons as much as anything else), cannot do. So it is a plausible argument at least that ‘personhood’ doesn’t occur at conception.

However, of course, to use this argument I think would be fine (leaving aside what the Church teaches for a moment), except that someone in a as-far-as-we-can-tell permanent coma, for instance, is in the same position as an unborn child or indeed a newborn infant in that regard. So when one can argue that ‘a 15-week fetus isn’t a human being (yet)’, and from that stating a woman has a right to control what’s in her body (which is at least logical on its own terms I suppose), it’s inconsistent not to apply that to other groups too (‘my dad in a coma is a drain on everyone’s resources and there is a statistically insignificant chance of him getting better, and even if he did his life would be awful because of his illness or injury’)…
 
Murmurs said:
Thing is, it’s pretty hard to distinguish a new-born human from a new-born chimpanzee (in terms of ability, whether intellectual or physical). So either chimpanzees are ‘people’ for this purpose, or human babies aren’t! (I’m all for protecting other primates, though, so there would be an upside!).
Click to expand...
No this isn’t a matter of taxonomy and it isn’t “pretty hard to distinguish” between a new-born human being and a chimpanzee.

What a new-born human has are distinctively human traits and capacities which a chimpanzee will never have. The fact that those capacities are ignored or discounted in the determination does not mean they are non-existent. The value of a new-born child should not depend upon our willingness to “see” and acknowledge the intrinsic qualities of new born humans that make them human in every sense that mature human are.

This is sheer willfulness on the part of those currently holding human traits and capacities to withold acknowledgement and recognition of future humanity from ever having the opportunities to fully realize those traits and capacities.

A glaring example of the oligarchy of the living - dictatorship, more like – since it is an arbitrary but willful denial of an inherent right to those who do not yet exist by those who merely happen to exist and merely happen to hold that right at the present.

Who ever said that merely holding a right brings with it the concomitant right to withold or deny it to others?
 
Peter_Plato said:
No this isn’t a matter of taxonomy and it isn’t “pretty hard to distinguish” between a new-born human being and a chimpanzee.

What a new-born human has are distinctively human traits and capacities which a chimpanzee will never have. The fact that those capacities are ignored or discounted in the determination does not mean they are non-existent. The value of a new-born child should not depend upon our willingness to “see” and acknowledge the intrinsic qualities of new born humans that make them human in every sense that mature human are.

This is sheer willfulness on the part of those currently holding human traits and capacities to withold acknowledgement and recognition of future humanity from ever having the opportunities to fully realize those traits and capacities.

A glaring example of the oligarchy of the living - dictatorship, more like – since it is an arbitrary but willful denial of an inherent right to those who do not yet exist by those who merely happen to exist and merely happen to hold that right at the present.

Who ever said that merely holding a right brings with it the concomitant right to withold or deny it to others?
Click to expand...
Well said. The joining of the egg and sperm creates a unique human person with DNA from both parents. That’s a fact.

I’ve read all the arguments that ‘it’s not a person.’ And none make any sense at all. Are certain people saying it’s OK to kill the growing human at 18 weeks? 26? When brain wave activity is detected? How about ‘post-birth abortion’?

I believe boredom is the biggest secular “sin.” The god Change, in order to be worshiped, requires constant change. Including legalizing death.

Ed
 
Rau said:
I took it that the sacrifice forsakes one (the unborn) held to not yet be ensouled to save the mother who is ensouled, and thus held to be in a different “class”. It then becomes a more utitarian consideration. Eg, one should not waste a potential person without a good enough reason, but such reasons exist. A bit like saying one should not kill an animal without a proper reason.

Maybe Meltzer could confirm or correct my understanding.
Click to expand...
The comparison to an animal is a little off, but otherwise that’s the general idea.
 
Rau said:
I don’t believe he is denying any science. He is asserting that personhood requires ensoulment which he asserts occurs at birth.
Click to expand...
That is correct. Science is simply irrelevant when dealing with matters such as the soul. I think the Church would agree with this. The Scriptures are neither a scientific nor a historical treatise.
 
Peter_Plato said:
No this isn’t a matter of taxonomy and it isn’t “pretty hard to distinguish” between a new-born human being and a chimpanzee.

What a new-born human has are distinctively human traits and capacities which a chimpanzee will never have. The fact that those capacities are ignored or discounted in the determination does not mean they are non-existent. The value of a new-born child should not depend upon our willingness to “see” and acknowledge the intrinsic qualities of new born humans that make them human in every sense that mature human are.

This is sheer willfulness on the part of those currently holding human traits and capacities to withold acknowledgement and recognition of future humanity from ever having the opportunities to fully realize those traits and capacities.

A glaring example of the oligarchy of the living - dictatorship, more like – since it is an arbitrary but willful denial of an inherent right to those who do not yet exist by those who merely happen to exist and merely happen to hold that right at the present.

Who ever said that merely holding a right brings with it the concomitant right to withold or deny it to others?
Click to expand...
edwest2 said:
Well said. The joining of the egg and sperm creates a unique human person with DNA from both parents. That’s a fact.

I’ve read all the arguments that ‘it’s not a person.’ And none make any sense at all. Are certain people saying it’s OK to kill the growing human at 18 weeks? 26? When brain wave activity is detected? How about ‘post-birth abortion’?

I believe boredom is the biggest secular “sin.” The god Change, in order to be worshiped, requires constant change. Including legalizing death.

Ed
Click to expand...
I’m not saying I actually disagree, but I am left with a question -

What is it that makes a human being a human being, and not “just” a largely hairless, fairly intelligent monkey?

I think this question is important because it is, really, what lies at the heart of the abortion debate - which is really about who counts who or what as a “person” who has rights which aren’t to be trampled on without just cause by someone else.

Now I am not saying that the unborn are not worth protecting. Of course they are. What I do question though is that ignoring that need to be protected - what is it, really, that makes a human life so especially human? Because this is what has to be presented to all those who support abortion, because when this argument is right, unanswerable…when we can say why is a human being a “person” not just another example of Homo sapiens, the abortion debate is won (either way, quite honestly). And I don’t think until this question can be answered - which I’ll grant will take more threads than CAF can probably host - we will be any further forward, just back and forth in a long process of extending and restricting abortion to a greater or lesser extent. Abortion is justified because until a point in their development, that growing human being is not considered a ‘person’, for all the DNA that shows to which species they belong. So, what makes a person?

P.S.
Who ever said that merely holding a right brings with it the concomitant right to withold or deny it to others?
Click to expand...
Presumably anyone who ever felt a need to justify slavery? But that’s a topic for somewhere else!
 
meltzerboy said:
That is correct. Science is simply irrelevant when dealing with matters such as the soul. I think the Church would agree with this. The Scriptures are neither a scientific nor a historical treatise.
Click to expand...
Sort of, it is because of science that the Church can recognize the soul. One of the key properties of the soul is that it animates matter. Therefore, since science tells us that the fetus is alive, we know that it is ensouled.

If it were not alive, it would be dead, and the soul could not be present.
 
Murmurs said:
I’m not saying I actually disagree, but I am left with a question -

What is it that makes a human being a human being, and not “just” a largely hairless, fairly intelligent monkey?

I think this question is important because it is, really, what lies at the heart of the abortion debate - which is really about who counts who or what as a “person” who has rights which aren’t to be trampled on without just cause by someone else.

Now I am not saying that the unborn are not worth protecting. Of course they are. What I do question though is that ignoring that need to be protected - what is it, really, that makes a human life so especially human? Because this is what has to be presented to all those who support abortion, because when this argument is right, unanswerable…when we can say why is a human being a “person” not just another example of Homo sapiens, the abortion debate is won (either way, quite honestly). And I don’t think until this question can be answered - which I’ll grant will take more threads than CAF can probably host - we will be any further forward, just back and forth in a long process of extending and restricting abortion to a greater or lesser extent. Abortion is justified because until a point in their development, that growing human being is not considered a ‘person’, for all the DNA that shows to which species they belong. So, what makes a person?

P.S.

Presumably anyone who ever felt a need to justify slavery? But that’s a topic for somewhere else!
Click to expand...
That we do not murder newborns - that the idea is not even debated - is mere convention, for the child is not different in any meaningful way IMHO than he was prior to birth.

To murder a newborn would offend our sensibilities. We can see the child, he can see us, he looks pretty much like a mini version of us. He ought to have “rights” like us.

It is not the inherent humanity, the relationship of the unborn, the infant, the child or the adult with God, which prevents murder, though that is the proper reason.
 
If medical technology and science advances to a point where we can know our baby’s hair color, their eye color, how tall they’ll be eventually, know if they will have any genetic disorders (already being done) and know the exact percent of their susceptibility to things like cancer and mental disorders, then it’s reasonable to say that once sexuality can be known then abortion is still okay. If I have a baby that turns to be non-straight, I have every right to abort it. This is choice and no-judgment practiced to its logical end. If China can abort babies by choice of sex, then "no-judgment on reason being … " should be practiced. It’s body sovereignty practiced at its highest order. If I don’t want a baby boy with blue eyes whose adult height is 5’8 then it’s within my right to abort it.

Ah. Choice. Science. Technology.

I can’t wait for the era when it becomes a possibility. Let secular morality play King Moral. Let choice become the law of the land. Let no-judgment be the wisdom of the ages.

#progress
#equality
 
Rau said:
Where does this idea come from? It seems that you could be using the word soul as a synonym for “life”.
Click to expand...
Aquinas.
arabicphilosophyjkh.wordpress.com/category/st-thomas-aquinas-and-the-nature-of-the-soul/

And no, it is not synomous with ‘life’. Angels have Life, but they have no soul. They are not material creatures, they are pure Spirit. Likewise with God the Father and God the Spirit. They are alive but do not have souls.

However, every living material creature ( and God the Son via the Incarnation) has a soul. It is what distinguishes living matter from dead matter.
 
Murmurs said:
To be human is to experience and interact with the world in a particular way. This is something that the unborn, quite simply (for practical reasons as much as anything else), cannot do. So it is a plausible argument at least that ‘personhood’ doesn’t occur at conception.
Click to expand...
So, by *your *“logic,” it is “plausible” that a person sleeping would not be a person -because they would not be “interacting with the world.” Pardon me for saying so, but this is yet more bizarre drivel from you.

John
 
Murmurs said:
I’m not saying I actually disagree, but I am left with a question -

What is it that makes a human being a human being, and not “just” a largely hairless, fairly intelligent monkey?
Click to expand...
I never thought the pro-choice argument that an acorn is not an oak tree was any good to begin with. I think that parallel will answer your dilemma.

What makes an oak tree an oak tree? And why is an acorn really an oak tree in the form of an acorn?

Imagine that all oak trees had gone extinct and all that remains on the whole of the earth is one viable acorn. Since oaks are monoecious and do not require cross pollination, that acorn is not merely one potential oak, but effectively an entire forest of oak trees if properly treated so, in effect, it is greater than one oak tree.

I suspect the blindness comes from our mistaken view of what it takes to BE something to begin with.

Scott Klusendorf (borrowing from philosopher Richard Stith) makes a very good case that the error of pro-choice advocates boils down to a fundamental confusion with regard to what kind of being a human is. If human beings are like automobiles that get assembled over time and only “become,” say, a Ford Mustang when fully (or nearly-so) assembled, then maybe the pro-choice position is correct. But that isn’t the paradigm for how human beings are put together. In fact, we aren’t constructed at all. In a sense we “unfold” or develop organically and everything that makes an individual and unique human being is present from the moment of conception. AND within us - just as in the acorn - is the potential for an entire race of new human beings.

prolifetraining.com/resources/five-minute-10/

I would argue that it is THAT potential that makes even one human embryo as important as any one human adult person.

The other error is that we are beginning to commoditize human beings - effectively dehumanizing them. This means we have come to erroneously think that the economic law of diminishing marginal utility applies to human beings in the same way that it does to other commodities.

This is why those in the PP videos make no qualms about cannibalizing and selling baby parts for fun and profit, all the while giddy with the excitement of imagining themselves waving from the driver’s seat of a new Lamborghini.
 
Woman have the right to control their body this far: they have the right to refrain from gratuitous sexual intercourse, or to engage in gratuitious sexual intercourse. The right of a woman over her body does not include the right to abort an unwanted fetus. 'Nuff said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top