Abortion and the validity of a human fetus outside of spirituality

  • Thread starter Thread starter havemercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

havemercy

Guest
I’m currently trying to work this out. Anyone? How do I make sense of my being Pro-Life outside of my religious orientation?
Many of you are supposing that human life begins at some undetermined point within the womb, but no one has yet explained what point that is. It’s like trying to determine the value for x in an equation where no other variables are defined, you can’t do it, and thus it’s a futile argument. The only thing that is defined in the debate is the woman, we know she’s alive, and we know she has rights, we know nothing about the fetus other than if you were to take it out of the womb too prematurely it would be considered clinically dead. In my book, and in the book of The Supreme Court, corpses which are being kept alive only by life support (natural or not) don’t have rights other than that their body should be handled with care. It doesn’t matter what potential the fetus has of becoming a “human being,” it isn’t a “human being” unless you define it as such which puts you on a very slippery slope. To determine that an unconscious being which is completely dependent upon another living organism to sustain itself is as much a human being as you or I is to say that consciousness is not a prerequisite for being considered a human being making all previous arguments theologists have offered up for our higher moral value irrelevant. Yes a fetus is a human, and will one day be as much a human being as you and I, but to say it is a human one week after conception would make the entire consciousness/soul/higher intelligence argument worthless, meaning that the Holocaust was no worse than slaughtering cattle to be eaten at Burger Kings across America (unless you have another reason outside of spirituality to believe humans are worth more than cattle) and that to me is a disturbing sentiment. I don’t know what you believe, but if you’re arguing that the reason it is wrong to have an abortion is because you’re killing a human being, then you must consider a human being to have more moral value than a cow. I’m also assuming that you believe this for biblical/spiritual reasons since I don’t see many other reasons to presume we’re worth more than any other animal we would eat off of a plate for Thanksgiving or Christmas.
Click to expand...
 
When a seed is planted in the fertile earth it begins to grow, it has life. Otherwise it will forever remain a seed.
When the sperm penetrates the egg it becomes fertile and life has begun. To state otherwise would go totally against the cycle of nature. TonyG
 
The first thing that pops into my head is a bumper sticker saying: “If it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant”.

The second is Dr Seuss: “A person’s a person, no matter how small”.
Priests for Life has links to many pro-life groups, including many that are not religious in nature. That might be a place to start. Also, one of the “Ask the Experts” at EWTN online is pro-life leader Judie Brown. She has links that you could look into, if you asked her over there, which again, are not religious, but scientific. A bit of a search should help out.
God bless.
 
It doesn’t matter what potential the fetus has of becoming a “human being,” it isn’t a “human being” unless you define it as such which puts you on a very slippery slope. To determine that an unconscious being which is completely dependent upon another living organism to sustain itself is as much a human being as you or I is to say that consciousness is not a prerequisite for being considered a human being making all previous arguments theologists have offered up for our higher moral value irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Well, how does an infant differ from an adult human being? I can think of four ways (with some help from Socrates - I mean, Peter Kreeft…):

  1. *]Size.
    *]Development of bodily systems.
    *]Infants are more dependant on their mothers for survival (you could even say they are “completely dependant on another living organism for their survival”).
    *]Mobility.

    Well, the foetus and the infant differ as much as the infant and the mother. Unless you want to argue that it’s “less evil” to kill an infant than it is to kill an adult (Peter Kreeft responds to that claim, too), then it’s pretty clear that there is a difference in degree between a foetus and an infant, and no difference in kind. The only difference between a foetus and an infant is that the foetus is inside the mother. That does not constitute a difference in kind.

    An argument that consciousness is a pre-requisite for personhood is ridiculous. Am I a person when I am asleep? Am I a person when I am in a coma?

    To argue that a foetus is a “potential person”, as opposed to an “actual person”, your interlocutor will have to explain and define what the difference is between these two things, and why a foetus is a so-called “potential” person only.

    Now I really don’t see the slippery-slope that he’s talking about. A person is a person is a person. A slave is a person; a man in a coma is a person; a prisoner is a person; a healthy adult male is a person; an infant is a person; a foetus is a person. The glaring difference between a human being (that is, a human person) and a cow is that a cow is not a human! Theologists argue that human beings are of “higher moral value” than cows precisely because we are human beings, not just because we are persons.

    Finally, don’t let him turn the argument into “you can’t prove that a foetus is a person, therefore it’s OK to kill it”. That is logically hideous. If I’m hunting and I see something that could either be a deer or a person, is it morally OK for me to shoot it without finding out what it is first? The pro-choice must be able to definitively prove that a foetus is not a human person. If they cannot do this, the possibility remains that it might be a human person, in which case there is no way we should be able to kill it!

    I highly recommend the book by Peter Kreeft that I have paraphrased somewhat, it is called The Unaborted Socrates, and it is philosophically based rather than theologically based.
 
I highly recommend you pick up a copy of Randy Alcorn’s book, Pro Life Answers To Pro Choice Arguments. It covers these types of arguments and more.
 
Wow, what a mess, and why?

First we are not confused about the beginning of human life, it is when the sperm and egg become one. The agreement of confusion in your post is that not all fertilized eggs “implant” thus some argue incorrectly that implanting should be the standard. The implant agreement is false because only implanted “life” works thus life proceeded the implant.

Second sinless human verses non-sinless(normal) human- Prior to obtaining conscious you probably can not sin, as a lack of mental capacity. The inability to sin is not the lowering of your life form.

Three the Supreme Court(SC)- I hope you realize this body has no authority over God. The SC has to address when life starts and finishes in regard to crime. In general they are trying to uphold that you can not kill, however you are under no LEGAL obligation to prevent another from dieing. So unplugging a comatose person is not murder, however even the SC has upheld death of infants through abandonment. (in Texas children die in car seats every year from heat exhaustion, and ever case is reviewed for criminal intent) So, even the SC has not been able to hold a firm line over time. In pregnant woman the same problem is evident, let’s be honest the “first trimester” is arbitrary time based on the desire to have some form of LEGAL abortion. However at the same time they refuse to allow abortion to exist as LEGAL option through out the pregnancy.

Hope that helps?
 
As you can probably tell, it was rather late (or early) when I made this thread. I’m more awake now, and I’ll be reading up on these issues.

So thank you! If anyone has anything else they’d like to contribute, please do. This is such an important issue. I just can’t sit back and let people denounce innocense.
lovetony
 
I have encountered this problems many times in situations of pregnancy and post abortion counselling, and would like to add this.

Although the woman herself may not realise she is pregnant her body does. It starts immediately conception occurrs to prepare itself for motherhood.

If the pregnancy terminates in a miscarriage the woman will suffer degrees of sadness depending on how advanced the pregnancy is - even if she is barely aware of it’s existence. (There is a school of thought which will add, even if she is unaware of it’s existence. In this case the depression manifests itself as severe PMT. However I don’t think this can be proved.)

If the woman aborts her baby deliberately the effect is greatly magnified. Because not only must her body get used to not being pregnant but her mind must get accustomed to the fact that it is her own fault.

When a woman kills her own child she goes totally against her own nature. God will forgive her. Man will sometimes (grudgingly) forgive her, but nature will not forgive her, nor will she ever totally forgive herself.

And for those who say they don’t mind having had an abortion I can only say that they have blocked all feelings by blocking that grief, and they tend to become callous and uncaring about others. There are other reasons why they become like this but this is the most common one.

Many women will deny that abortion has harmed them, but generally, examination of their lives will prove otherwise.

It is NEVER better for the woman to kill her child.
 
Atreyu said:
Well, the foetus and the infant differ as much as the infant and the mother. Unless you want to argue that it’s “less evil” to kill an infant than it is to kill an adult (Peter Kreeft responds to that claim, too), then it’s pretty clear that there is a difference in degree between a foetus and an infant, and no difference in kind. The only difference between a foetus and an infant is that the foetus is inside the mother. That does not constitute a difference in kind.

To argue that a foetus is a “potential person”, as opposed to an “actual person”, your interlocutor will have to explain and define what the difference is between these two things, and why a foetus is a so-called “potential” person only.
Click to expand...
Some excellent, fundamental points.

It is also worthwhile to point out that to terminate a pregnancy requires artificial interruption of a natural process that left to its natural outcome results in the birth of a live person. The question becomes what value do you place on human life, and is all human life of equal value and worthy of protection by society. Even self-interest should dictate that all human life has intrinsic value because the corollary is what defense do you have should your life be deemed less valuable and worthy of protection by society?

A similar avenue of discussion is the hierarchy of power and the obligation of those with greater power, strength and ability to use said power justly, charitably and for the benefit of all. Again, in an ordered society, even one based upon self-interest as opposed to altruism, we don’t countenance exploitation of the weak, aged, infirm, young, ignorant, impoverished. To do so is to gain advantage, not by operation of skill, intellect or capability, but by cheating. It is a destructive path which eventually leads to antoagonism, classism, conflict and anarchy. Thus, to protect that which you earn and value, you must deal fairly with those who may be weaker and/or at a disadvantage. The anaolgy extends to even the weakest members of society, including the pre-born.
 
tonyg said:
When a seed is planted in the fertile earth it begins to grow, it has life. Otherwise it will forever remain a seed.
When the sperm penetrates the egg it becomes fertile and life has begun. To state otherwise would go totally against the cycle of nature. TonyG
Click to expand...
Has anyone stated otherwise?
 
Hi, Tony,

I see two different ideas in that argument that you quoted.

The first is “It cannot be determined when life begins.”

The non-theological answer to that one is DNA. A sperm cell carries half of the father’s DNA; the egg has half the mother’s.

When they meet, the halves come together, and, bingo! there is the whole plan of an entire human being. I have had the same DNA since I was conceived many years ago.

So a blastocele is not a fully developed human being? Well, neither is my 7 year old niece, or my friend’s 15-year old son. If it is OK to kill someone because they are not fully developed, then it’s OK to kill anyone who has not reached their full growth. (And there’s evidence that DNA also controls some of the aging process, too…)

But I doubt that that argument will work on whoever it was that you quoted.

Why? because he/she is buying into the whole “Animal Rights” argument. He/she is trying to draw you in to an argument that animals have the same right to life as a human.

Most, if not all, the ARAs (animal rights activists) are in favor of both abortion and euthanasia. What this amounts to is not (animal rights" but a belief that humans are some kind of cancer on the earth. If you look hard enough, you will find that the ARAs ultimate objective is no interaction at all between animals and humans. No house pets, no zoos, no circuses, no horse-drawn carriage rides.

Here is a simplified argument in favor of humans. In our absence, the “balance” of nature is not a steady balance, but a see-saw. (Teeter-totter.)

There is a triangle consisting of forage, the herbivores that eat it, and the carnivores that eat the herbivores. For the sale of simplicity, I’ll use deer and lions.

When there is plenty of forage, the deer get fat, have increased resistance to disease and parasites, and most of the fawns can live to maturity.

When the deer population gets high, two things happen. The population of lions grows, too, for the same reasons as the deer. At the same time, the many deer are eating up the forage, until eventually there is little available.

The high population of lions will reduce the population of deer. The lack of forage will mean does do not have enough milk to raise their fawns. Later, adult deer will begin to die off due to sickness and starvation. That’s an ugly and painful way to die.

Now the high population of lions will have less food. The same thing will happen; the cubs will die first, later the adults will get sick and starve, just like the deer.

The low deer population results in an increase in forage, and the cycle starts over. Nature is not kind and gentle.

Now, let’s put humans in the picture. As far as I know, every state’s wildlife management program is dedicated to keeping the three sides of this triangle in balance. I.e. stopping the see-saw of plenty vs starvation. This, of course, means hunting.

I am a true animal lover. I’ll fight for animal welfare, rather than animal rights, because I love animals for what they are. They are not little humans dressed in fur or feathers!
 
I purposefully left one point out of my previous post. How can we argue - from reason alone - that humans are of higher moral value than animals? Well, I think that is an incredibly difficult question. It is easy for Christians to say that humans are of higher moral value, because it is an explicit part of the deposit of faith. Most of the time when we argue life issues with non-Christians, it is taken as an axiom that humans are more important, because most of the time we are dealing with humanists. But really, do humanists have any real reason to say that humans are more important than say, dolphins? I don’t understand how they could say this, apart from taking it as an axiom.

My argument against abortion begins with defining what “murder” is:
The deliberate action of killing an innocent human being.
Once we have that definition, it follows logically that abortion is murder (for this argument, try the book I mentioned above). Then, I will take it as an axiom that “murder is evil”. But for someone who doesn’t necessarily agree with this, I don’t really know how to argue that this is so, from reason alone. I suppose you would have to ask him the source of his morals - from where does he define his moral system? What is his starting point? If it is not that humans are more important than animals, then why be moral at all?
 
Zooey said:
The first thing that pops into my head is a bumper sticker saying: “If it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant”.

The second is Dr Seuss: “A person’s a person, no matter how small”.
Priests for Life has links to many pro-life groups, including many that are not religious in nature. That might be a place to start. Also, one of the “Ask the Experts” at EWTN online is pro-life leader Judie Brown. She has links that you could look into, if you asked her over there, which again, are not religious, but scientific. A bit of a search should help out.
God bless.
Click to expand...
 
Unborn

Do you feel me deep inside of you?
Do you know that I am here?
I am now so much a part of you,
Don’t be sad and have no fear,
Perhaps worry fills your soul,
This life has come by surprise,
Or feelings of a new born baby,
Seem to be a mistake and not very wise,
How I long to see your smiling face,
As you set your gaze into my eyes,
To be held inside your warm embrace,
It’s so wonderful to be alive,
Choosing not to see this little one,
Or ever to call me by my name,
We will miss the joy of having fun,
But I will love you just the same,
Some may say to you that I don’t exist,
That there is no life inside of you,
Then to end this beating heart of mine,
They will pierce it through and though,
You had the right to make the choice,
Is what they will have to say,
Confused, abandoned, and lonely,
They’ll just let you walk away,
Don’t be sad, you are not alone,
I am always very near,
How I want to hug and squeeze you tight,
And wipe away your tears.
If you wish to heal your broken heart,
Just call me by name,
I will be with you always mommy,
I love you just the same.
 
Atreyu said:
I purposefully left one point out of my previous post. How can we argue - from reason alone - that humans are of higher moral value than animals? Well, I think that is an incredibly difficult question. It is easy for Christians to say that humans are of higher moral value, because it is an explicit part of the deposit of faith. Most of the time when we argue life issues with non-Christians, it is taken as an axiom that humans are more important, because most of the time we are dealing with humanists. But really, do humanists have any real reason to say that humans are more important than say, dolphins? I don’t understand how they could say this, apart from taking it as an axiom.

My argument against abortion begins with defining what “murder” is:
The deliberate action of killing an innocent human being.
Once we have that definition, it follows logically that abortion is murder (for this argument, try the book I mentioned above). Then, I will take it as an axiom that “murder is evil”. But for someone who doesn’t necessarily agree with this, I don’t really know how to argue that this is so, from reason alone. I suppose you would have to ask him the source of his morals - from where does he define his moral system? What is his starting point? If it is not that humans are more important than animals, then why be moral at all?
Click to expand...
A difficulty immediately arises when another definition of murder is used: deliberate killing of another person. This is a very widely used definition. I do not dispute your definition, just point out how the disagreement grows from the definition.

Two people use the same approach. Each defines murder. They have different definitions, so they reach different conclusions.

It might be more productive to drop the word “murder.” Murder is handy to use since most folks will agree that murder is wrong. A good starting point might be, “destroying a human egg the instant after the parents’ DNA joins.” Then some real dialog is possible.
 
HoppityRedux said:
A difficulty immediately arises when another definition of murder is used: deliberate killing of another person. This is a very widely used definition. I do not dispute your definition, just point out how the disagreement grows from the definition.

Two people use the same approach. Each defines murder. They have different definitions, so they reach different conclusions.

It might be more productive to drop the word “murder.” Murder is handy to use since most folks will agree that murder is wrong. A good starting point might be, “destroying a human egg the instant after the parents’ DNA joins.” Then some real dialog is possible.
Click to expand...
I think I know what you’re saying, and it’s important to define culpability, to avoid such pathos as, “Are you telling me that 5 million Australian women are murderers?!”

The only thing I’ll add is that the word “innocent” must be in our definition of murder, for capital punishment, killing in self-defence or just wars to be morally OK. The word “human” doesn’t necessarily need to be there, but Christians like to have it there to distinguish from angels. Some people today might like to have it in there to distinguish from aliens… :cool:
 
Atreyu said:
Well, how does an infant differ from an adult human being? I can think of four ways (with some help from Socrates - I mean, Peter Kreeft…):

  1. *]Size.
    *]Development of bodily systems.
    *]Infants are more dependant on their mothers for survival (you could even say they are “completely dependant on another living organism for their survival”).
    *]Mobility.

    Well, the foetus and the infant differ as much as the infant and the mother. Unless you want to argue that it’s “less evil” to kill an infant than it is to kill an adult (Peter Kreeft responds to that claim, too), then it’s pretty clear that there is a difference in degree between a foetus and an infant, and no difference in kind. The only difference between a foetus and an infant is that the foetus is inside the mother. That does not constitute a difference in kind.

    An argument that consciousness is a pre-requisite for personhood is ridiculous. Am I a person when I am asleep? Am I a person when I am in a coma?

    To argue that a foetus is a “potential person”, as opposed to an “actual person”, your interlocutor will have to explain and define what the difference is between these two things, and why a foetus is a so-called “potential” person only.

    Now I really don’t see the slippery-slope that he’s talking about. A person is a person is a person. A slave is a person; a man in a coma is a person; a prisoner is a person; a healthy adult male is a person; an infant is a person; a foetus is a person. The glaring difference between a human being (that is, a human person) and a cow is that a cow is not a human! Theologists argue that human beings are of “higher moral value” than cows precisely because we are human beings, not just because we are persons.

    Finally, don’t let him turn the argument into “you can’t prove that a foetus is a person, therefore it’s OK to kill it”. That is logically hideous. If I’m hunting and I see something that could either be a deer or a person, is it morally OK for me to shoot it without finding out what it is first? The pro-choice must be able to definitively prove that a foetus is not a human person. If they cannot do this, the possibility remains that it might be a human person, in which case there is no way we should be able to kill it!

    I highly recommend the book by Peter Kreeft that I have paraphrased somewhat, it is called The Unaborted Socrates, and it is philosophically based rather than theologically based.
Click to expand...

  1. Wonderful post! Thank you for this. Isn’t Peter Kreeft fabulous?
 
Atreyu said:
I purposefully left one point out of my previous post. How can we argue - from reason alone - that humans are of higher moral value than animals? Well, I think that is an incredibly difficult question. It is easy for Christians to say that humans are of higher moral value, because it is an explicit part of the deposit of faith. Most of the time when we argue life issues with non-Christians, it is taken as an axiom that humans are more important, because most of the time we are dealing with humanists. But really, do humanists have any real reason to say that humans are more important than say, dolphins? I don’t understand how they could say this, apart from taking it as an axiom.
Click to expand...
I would think (though I don’t know) that even athiests would acknowledge some fundamental difference between humans and other beasts. There is something present in humans that gives rise to creativity, reflection, historical perspective, contemplation, etc. Being a card carrying member of some religion is not a pre-requisite for recognizing this obvious difference. Athiests can call that part of us whatever they want. We Christians call it a soul. The Church teaches that the soul is infused at conception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top