Abortion due to gender.

[JReducation]

**There is no question about when human life begins.

The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that “The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous … This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being …” At page 18 this theme is repeated: “Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original] …”

Judge Michael J. Noonan ruled as follows in a New Jersey case based on a man’s efforts to save his unborn child from being aborted: “…based upon the undisputed medical testimony by arguably the foremost authority in genetics in the world, I found that human life begins as conception; and that Roe vs. Wade permits a legal execution of that human being.” (MUNICIPAL COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - MORRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. C1771, ET SEQ. STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ALEXANDER LOCE, et als. DEFENDANTS APRIL 29, 1991 HONORABLE MICHAEL J. NOONAN)**

The law admits that it is killing a human being who has committed no crime. The great lie is that we can just admit that this is a human being and legally kill him, even though he has committed no crime. If it’s legal, it must be OK. What a lie.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

First of all, man was not created flawed. He was created free. He made a choice, a wrong one. The results are the tragedies that we see today. Sin disrupts the harmoney of the universe.

What are the effects of original sin? Us knowing good and evil, us being able to sin? Right? But we had to have had this in order to have committed original sin in the first place.

No it does not bother me that only 20% of Americans think that abortion should never be permitted, because it’s not true. The percentage is over 50%.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion A compilation of some polls to back up my statement.

Specifically:

October 2007 CBS News poll explored under what circumstances Americans believe abortion should be allowed, asking the question, “What is your personal feeling about abortion?” The results were as follows:[30]
Permitted in all cases 26%
Permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now 16%
Only in cases such as rape, incest, or to save the woman’s life 34%
Only permitted to save the woman’s life 16%
Never 4%
Unsure 4%

If that particular poll is to be believed, only 4% of Americans agree with you that abortion should never be permitted. I’m not saying that public opinion is how we should determine what’s right, but it tells you something that the vast majority of people don’t have that intuitive “feel” that the unborn is as human as its mother.

I need you to answer a question for me. Why are you so insistent on protecting abortion?

To me it is about protecting the rights and lives of women. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6470403.stm This is an example of a woman who went nearly blind because she was denied an abortion.

Pregnancies are very taxing on a woman’s body, sometimes they can threaten health and even life, sometimes they can threaten a woman’s ability to continue her education or succeed at work.

 

[DOShea]

flyingfish I would like to comment on some of your posts and ask you some questions along the way to clarify my understanding of some points you are trying to make in post #300 and beyond.

We’re discussing what we mean when we say “person”. This question doesn’t have a right answer, some people might define person one way and others might define it another way.

Does the same hold true, there is no right answer, for the following terms:
book
Class G2V stars
the value of pi
1969 Pontic Firebird

Anyone can pose a definition, but with respect to truth, there is only one right definition. Others would be either wrong or somehow incomplete. What then is the value of even using the definition if there is no attempt to solidify it by bouncing it against truth? If I told you the value of pi was 4.79824, that’s what I mean when I say pi, of what real practical value is “my pi?” I would say little or no value, because no one else except me recognizes it.

…to explain why I don’t think the argument that the embryo/fetus will develop into a thinking person if left to its own devices is a good argument.

Would you agree that a 6 yr old girl does not have all the physical apparatus with which to form and carry a baby, but if left to her own devices (i.e.- continues living), will reach an age where these physical functions are then possible? If so, would you think it is moral or necessary to diminish the rights of 6 yr olds in some way that would be later “given back” at the age of sexual maturity? Also if so, why? And if you disagree, I’d like to know why you disagree.

The embryo might grow into a thinking person, but itself it is not a thinking person. Just like if you take molecules that are here, who will eventually form a thinking person, but are themselves not a thinking person.

If you bought a lottery ticket and hit all the numbers to hit the million dollar jackpot, when is it you “won,” when you find out what the number is, or only when you’re safely across the threshold to the lottery office and they hand you a check? Are you saying the person who has the correct number combination on his ticket is irrelevant in some way and only counts when dollars are in hand?

Growing human beings are not the same as molecules piled in a bucket. With human development, there is a process in motion that is not present in the mere bucket of molecules. The bucket, left on its own for 20 years, will only be a bucket full of molecules when revisited; no so the human being. Thus if we say the 20 year old human has qualities that deserve rights, how then do we UNassign those rights based only on insufficient time to develop?

I think the argument of “will grow into… if left to its own devices” can be applied to inanimate matter as well as an embryo, and unless you’re prepared to say that inanimate matter should have rights… …you shouldn’t say that about embryos.

Can you name for me the rights that are inherent to the Brooklyn Bridge or Mt. Vesuvius? We don’t give inanimate objects rights, certainly not human rights. You can’t give something non-living by definition a 'right to life," can you? What is wrong with distinguishing the human from inanimate objects, who don’t ever think, feel, reason, or sense?

If the basis of the discussion at its core is human rights as it applies to those who might not meet the human norm in some way, there is no qualification that allows you to delete people for having less than full function. As Br. JREducation correctly pointed out, it was Hitler’s machine that promoted eugenics to the point where they DID draw a line through human rights for those who failed to meet certain criteria. You might read Richard Medugno’s excellent play “Silent Saltzburg” to get an idea of just how far this was carried out and forced on the population. That work deals with a young deaf person, Hans, who has been ordered to report for forced sterilization lest he reproduce another human of such low quality. They ordered the same thing for blind people and those with other handicaps who are no less human than any of us.

So those ideas are dangerous, and history is full of examples of why that is so. Look around you in the world today at young girls raped in the middle east having their right to life taken away because they are now “imperfect.” It’s no simple intellectual exercise to be spouting those ideas you propose because they have NEVER been accepted by any society that we would consider civil, and have only been used by despots to justify disenfranchising the less fortunate, even to justify murder. The only exception I know of is that goofy professor of ethics at Princeton who’s name escapes me at the moment. (Singer?) But he can be safely discounted because when his own family ran into a situation he espoused, he conveniently didn’t follow the principles he’s laid down for everyone else to follow. That should tell us something.

The situations proposed about saving A or B are not realistic. Something like that might happen on a battlefield I suppose, but even with a major disaster like 911, there were no ER doctors making choices like you pose. And, if a doctor had to make a choice like that, it’s going to be circumstance driven and not a matter of correct ethics saying A should be treated before B.

I’m trying to understand where you are coming from with these points. It seems to me you are trying to construct a set of ethics, which is in the realm of philosophy, but you’re trying to use new definitions and take a science-like approach to it. That isn’t how ethics are formulated. Like philosophical ideas, they are supposed to be based on reason, where you demonstrate the “reason” or reasonableness of a given set of ideas showing how they are the best approach, not merely a personal opinion approach.

Am I misunderstanding you, or?

 

[JReducation]

To me it is about protecting the rights and lives of women. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6470403.stm This is an example of a woman who went nearly blind because she was denied an abortion.

Pregnancies are very taxing on a woman’s body, sometimes they can threaten health and even life, sometimes they can threaten a woman’s ability to continue her education or succeed at work.

All people have rights and lives to live. We must make an effort to see to it that these are safeguarded, but never at the expense of another human being who is vulnerable and innocent. The child inside the mother is not her enemy.

Second, men have rights too. We cannot deny a man the right to be a father.

An abortion denies a woman her right to be a mother, a child the right to be born and a man the right to be a father. That’s a lot of rights that are trampled upon.

The story of the woman almost going blind does not justify an abortion. As I shared with you, my wife had a heart aneurism. I was unwilling to kill my son, even though it may have killed his mother. Saving his mother’s life at his expense was not an option. He had done nothing to deserve execution. In her case, had she died, it would not have been an execution, because it would not have been an assault on her life. It would have been natural causes. Her heart failed during labor, had she died, which she didn’t. As we all know, medical science is not infallible.

You don’t sound like a murderer. You sound like someone who has to find every possible explanation to convince yourself that this is not a person, so that you can justify abortion as a medical procedure.

If you were a murderer, you would not be fighting as you are to prove a point that is not provable, because most scientists, philosophers, lawyers, theologians and other experts in the field disagree. None of these people are dumb. Yet, they all disagree on when an embryo becomes a person.

Given what you know about the Incarnation of Jesus, you know that he was the son of God and the Son of Mary from the moment of conception. If he was their son, then he was a person. This is the same for all of us.

You should continue to advocate for women’s rights and their health. But you need to go back to your roots. You miss them and you know it. You’re not here to convince a bunch of Catholics that human life does not begin at conception. You’re here to be convinced, AGAIN.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy your conviction. It’s not as deep as you pose it. As I said, you’re not a murderer and your scientific arguments have a million and one rebuttals and you know that too. The fact that many people support abortion does not make it right and you know that too. Many people supported slavery too and beating children when they were naughty. I can’t believe that you really think that because the majority believe this, it’s true. And for the record, the majority do not believe it. A study that was done this year by Priests for Life and Silent No More demonstrates a different picture. But that’s not the issue.

The issue is that you know and I know that what the majority believes is not what makes something right. What makes something right is the moral law. The fact that a judge can admit that life begins at conception and rule that the law allows the execution of this human being should make you stop and think about the inconsistencies in the pro-choice movement. It’s not pro-choice. It’s pro-abortion. It plays with words, facts, theories, data, and law. It’s not a very honest movement.

At least the pro-life movement has always made the same claim and has been consistent. That shows more integrity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

Does the same hold true, there is no right answer, for the following terms:
book
Class G2V stars
the value of pi
1969 Pontic Firebird

If you think of something like a book, you’d probably find very little disagreement about what a book is. Although, maybe some people might call a .pdf file of a story a book and others might insist that only bound sheets of paper with text in them can be called a book.

Concepts like “person” are much more slippery, and there is plenty of disagreement about what it means to be a person.

I don’t think in the end which words you map to which objects/concepts matter too much as long as you explain what you mean. I certainly don’t think that there is only one right definition, is it really right or wrong to denote a .pdf file of The Lord of the Rings a book or insist that it should be called something else and the word book reserved for the paper variety? The main point is that there is some agreement about words so that people can talk to each other, and that more complex concepts like “person” are explained.

Would you agree that a 6 yr old girl does not have all the physical apparatus with which to form and carry a baby, but if left to her own devices (i.e.- continues living), will reach an age where these physical functions are then possible? If so, would you think it is moral or necessary to diminish the rights of 6 yr olds in some way that would be later “given back” at the age of sexual maturity? Also if so, why? And if you disagree, I’d like to know why you disagree.

Well, the idea of becoming something in the future was never my argument. It was introduced by others, and I argued against this style of thinking.

I would not think that the ability to produce babies is relevant to personhood, so I would not diminish anyone’s rights because of that. For me it’s the presence of a mind/self awareness/thoughts/etc. that is relevant.

Can you name for me the rights that are inherent to the Brooklyn Bridge or Mt. Vesuvius? We don’t give inanimate objects rights, certainly not human rights. You can’t give something non-living by definition a 'right to life," can you? What is wrong with distinguishing the human from inanimate objects, who don’t ever think, feel, reason, or sense?

Right, that was my point. I used this analogy to argue against people who wanted to give embryos rights on the basis of what they would one day become. Embryos don’t think, reason, or sense just like mountains don’t, hence I don’t think it makes sense to call them persons.

If the basis of the discussion at its core is human rights as it applies to those who might not meet the human norm in some way, there is no qualification that allows you to delete people for having less than full function.

I never said people are only human when they attain “full function”, I said there has to be a mind, not a full developed mind, just self awareness/thoughts etc. Before that, it might as well be an inanimate object.

Like philosophical ideas, they are supposed to be based on reason, where you demonstrate the “reason” or reasonableness of a given set of ideas showing how they are the best approach, not merely a personal opinion approach.

Am I misunderstanding you, or?

Well, I am trying to give my reasons for why I think as I do. Not many are finding them very reasonable though, and some have called me a homicidal sociopath and suggested that I’m not a person by my own criteria.

 

[flyingfish]

I can’t believe that you really think that because the majority believe this, it’s true.

I don’t think this, I was simply pointing out that if the polls referenced on Wiki are to be believed, the majority of people don’t have an inner sense that abortion is always wrong.

Contrast this to the idea of murdering someone for money, if you made a poll on whether it’s okay to murder a 30 year old woman for her money you’d likely 99% of people voting the same way and saying it’s wrong.

I’m not saying that majority opinion decides what’s true, I’m saying it represents an average of human moral beliefs.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think this, I was simply pointing out that if the polls referenced on Wiki are to be believed, the majority of people don’t have an inner sense that abortion is always wrong.

Contrast this to the idea of murdering someone for money, if you made a poll on whether it’s okay to murder a 30 year old woman for her money you’d likely 99% of people voting the same way and saying it’s wrong.

I’m not saying that majority opinion decides what’s true, I’m saying it represents an average of human moral beliefs.

I think it’s a common agreement among most intelligent human beings that modern society has fallen into a moral black hole.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Persuader]

I read it, but I just don’t see the answer there. It seems that prior to that time the hardware for feeling pain (namely thalamocortical connections) hasn’t developed yet. But does the simple presence of hardware at 26 weeks imply that there is a feeling of pain?

(Some additional reading: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352206/?page=1
)

I just don’t see how you can feel anything without a mind, without a mind you’re not a you, you might as well be an inanimate object. There is no thinking being there to be aware of/feel pain.

Ok. If I remember correctly, the paper I linked to explained some of the basics of fetal development as it pertains to consciousness. It doesn’t focus on pain. However, it did say something about the kind of mind a fetus has. Evidence suggest it does have minimal consciousness late in the pregnancy (for instance, EEG scans suggest that the fetus can be aware at this point.). Thalamocortical connections form between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex, and this feeds the cerebral cortex (seat of the higher brain functions) perceptual data. Yes, it it takes time for these connections to develop functionality. Consensus is that it happens in the third trimester, and that the fetus might feel pain at this point (difficult to say exactly what this pain experience is).

The problem, of course, is that pain is a subjective experience, and the fetus isn’t able to explain its experiences. Therefore, it is difficult to say what kind of pain the fetus might experience.

You might want to check out theories of personhood (if you haven’t already). It is correct that the study of personhood in science and academics mostly discuss a person as an individual with certain faculties that is not present in an infant (although there is a difference between what can be seen as minimal requirements for personhood, and normal requirements for personhood.).

There is also a difference between law and science in this case. It isn’t practical to say that a person emerges sometime during child development. It is practical to say that a person emerges when a human is born (regardless of the fact that it doesn’t possess all the “normal” attributes). This is the law in nearly all western countries, and I think it should stay that way. This is mostly what my paper focused on (since my primary field of study is law).

The reason for debate is religious IMO. Catholics believe in souls, and that the soul enters at conception. It is pointless to discuss fetal development or child development when this metaphysical construct is at the crux of the issue.

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, this poll is saying 70% of those polled have objections to abortion on demand.

October 2007 CBS News poll explored under what circumstances Americans believe abortion should be allowed, asking the question, “What is your personal feeling about abortion?” The results were as follows:[30]
Permitted in all cases 26%
Permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now 16%
Only in cases such as rape, incest, or to save the woman’s life 34%
Only permitted to save the woman’s life 16%
Never 4%
Unsure 4%

harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=659

Here is some information to consider when reading polls or using as reference sources.

Methodology
This Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between April 4 and 10, 2006 among 1,016 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number of adults in the household, number of phone lines in the household were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.
All surveys are subject to several sources of error. These include: sampling error (because only a sample of a population is interviewed); measurement error due to question wording and/or question order, deliberately or unintentionally inaccurate responses, nonresponse (including refusals), interviewer effects (when live interviewers are used) and weighting.
With one exception (sampling error) the magnitude of the errors that result cannot be estimated. There is, therefore, no way to calculate a finite “margin of error” for any survey and the use of these words should be avoided.
With pure probability samples, with 100 percent response rates, it is possible to calculate the probability that the sampling error (but not other sources of error) is not greater than some number. With a pure probability sample of 1,016 adults one could say with a 95 percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points. However that does not take other sources of error into account.
These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
J27129A

I hope this helps

 

[JReducation]

Ok. If I remember correctly, the paper I linked to explained some of the basics of fetal development as it pertains to consciousness. It doesn’t focus on pain. However, it did say something about the kind of mind a fetus has. Evidence suggest it does have minimal consciousness late in the pregnancy (for instance, EEG scans suggest that the fetus can be aware at this point.). Thalamocortical connections form between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex, and this feeds the cerebral cortex (seat of the higher brain functions) perceptual data. Yes, it it takes time for these connections to develop functionality. Consensus is that it happens in the third trimester, and that the fetus might feel pain at this point (difficult to say exactly what this pain experience is).

The problem, of course, is that pain is a subjective experience, and the fetus isn’t able to explain its experiences. Therefore, it is difficult to say what kind of pain the fetus might experience.

You might want to check out theories of personhood (if you haven’t already). It is correct that the study of personhood in science and academics mostly discuss a person as an individual with certain faculties that is not present in an infant (although there is a difference between what can be seen as minimal requirements for personhood, and normal requirements for personhood.).

There is also a difference between law and science in this case. It isn’t practical to say that a person emerges sometime during child development. It is practical to say that a person emerges when a human is born (regardless of the fact that it doesn’t possess all the “normal” attributes). This is the law in nearly all western countries, and I think it should stay that way. This is mostly what my paper focused on (since my primary field of study is law).

The reason for debate is religious IMO. Catholics believe in souls, and that the soul enters at conception. It is pointless to discuss fetal development or child development when this metaphysical construct is at the crux of the issue.

Catholics are not the only one who believe in an imortal soul. It is not a new idea. Therefore, it is up to the legal community to prove that the unborn child is not a person. They have to prove that the unborn does not have a soul. They have to prove that the law has the right to define person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Persuader]

Catholics are not the only one who believe in an imortal soul. It is not a new idea. Therefore, it is up to the legal community to prove that the unborn child is not a person. They have to prove that the unborn does not have a soul. They have to prove that the law has the right to define person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No, Catholics are not the only ones, but the idea of a “soul” has very little academic or scientific support at this point.

The legal community have to take into account scientific knowledge about fetal development, and it does. It isn’t a question of proof in a scientific sense, it is a question of evidence. It isn’t possible to disprove the idea of a soul until this proposition has been formulated into a scientific hypothesis, which doesn’t seem likely due to the fact that it is a metaphysical construct.

The law has the right to define personhood because it is in part a legal concept. You become a legal person via legal fiction. How else would you receive legal rights? Come on, this is obvious.

 

[JReducation]

No, Catholics are not the only ones, but the idea of a “soul” has very little academic or scientific support at this point.

The legal community have to take into account scientific knowledge about fetal development, and it does. It isn’t a question of proof in a scientific sense, it is a question of evidence. It isn’t possible to disprove the idea of a soul until this proposition has been formulated into a scientific hypothesis, which doesn’t seem likely due to the fact that it is a metaphysical construct.

The law has the right to define personhood because it is in part a legal concept. You become a legal person via legal fiction. This is obvious.

Does the law also have the right to deny someone the right to be born?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Persuader]

Does the law also have the right to deny someone the right to be born?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

By using the term “someone”, you assume that there is a “someone” there that can be denied rights. Regardless, it is the law or the courts who gives out legal rights, so they obviously have the right to do so.

 

[JReducation]

By using the term “someone”, you assume that there is a “someone” there that can be denied rights. Regardless, it is the law or the courts who gives out legal rights, so they obviously have the right to do so.

There is a precedent in law that admits that there is a human being in the womb. Check out this case.

**The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that “The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous … This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being …” At page 18 this theme is repeated: “Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original] …”

Judge Michael J. Noonan ruled as follows in a New Jersey case based on a man’s efforts to save his unborn child from being aborted: “…based upon the undisputed medical testimony by arguably the foremost authority in genetics in the world, I found that human life begins as conception; and that Roe vs. Wade permits a legal execution of that human being.” (MUNICIPAL COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - MORRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. C1771, ET SEQ. STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ALEXANDER LOCE, et als. DEFENDANTS APRIL 29, 1991 HONORABLE MICHAEL J. NOONAN)**

If we follow this judge’s logic, Roe v Wade gives the court the authority to kill a human being who has not committed a crime. Why is that? Is that justice?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Persuader]

There is a precedent in law that admits that there is a human being in the womb. Check out this case.

**The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that “The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous … This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being …” At page 18 this theme is repeated: “Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original] …”

Judge Michael J. Noonan ruled as follows in a New Jersey case based on a man’s efforts to save his unborn child from being aborted: “…based upon the undisputed medical testimony by arguably the foremost authority in genetics in the world, I found that human life begins as conception; and that Roe vs. Wade permits a legal execution of that human being.” (MUNICIPAL COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - MORRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. C1771, ET SEQ. STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ALEXANDER LOCE, et als. DEFENDANTS APRIL 29, 1991 HONORABLE MICHAEL J. NOONAN)**

If we follow this judge’s logic, Roe v Wade gives the court the authority to kill a human being who has not committed a crime. Why is that? Is that justice?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am not intimately familiar with US law, so I can only make some general comments. It is possible to say that something is a human without implicating that it is a person . This seems to be a play on words IMO. I don’t understand what kind of point you are making. If you are trying to say that science claims that an embryo is a person, this is not the case. Playing on words by confusing the word “human” with the word “person” will not make it so. If you are trying to say that American law states that a person is being killed if subjected to abortion, I would think that is false. I know that that is not the case in Europe, and I believe there is some similarity here.

 

[JReducation]

I am not intimately familiar with US law, so I can only make some general comments. It is possible to say that something is a human without implicating that it is a person . This seems to be a play on words IMO. I don’t understand what kind of point you are making. If you are trying to say that science claims that an embryo is a person, this is not the case. Playing on words by confusing the word “human” with the word “person” will not make it so. If you are trying to say that American law states that a person is being killed if subjected to abortion, I would think that is false. I know that that is not the case in Europe, and I believe there is some similarity here.

I am questioning the authority of the State (in any country) to deny a human being the right to be born. The last time I checked, law was to protect people’s rights. To select some arbitrary point at which the law acknowledges a human being as a person seems less than honest.

You know as well as I do that the point is arbitrary. There is not conclusive evidence that a human being becomes a person at 30 weeks of gestation, at age 2, or age 50. This was not even a question until abortion was legalized and then had to be justified.

For the moment, let’s put aside the question of person, because that’s an arbitrary point and we know this. The real question is, does the State have the authority to deny a human being the right to be born? If so, who gives the State this authority? Is there a limit to the State’s authority or can we empower the State to do anything that we want? If so, where is the limit?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DOShea]

Concepts like “person” are much more slippery, and there is plenty of disagreement about what it means to be a person.

Yes, they are. This is precisely why we cannot use a vague term like “person” as a basis upon which to formulate rights or lack of rights. It would be as if you watched someone fall out a second floor window. Someone says, “Let’s go help them,” and you say “No reason to… they’re dead.” The other person says, “But we don’t know if he’s dead or not,” but a decision is made based on an uncertainty. What if he fell out the 50th floor? Just this week a mountain climber fell over 1,300 feet into Mt. St. Helens and was still alive after landing as he was heard blowing an emergency whistle. That’s falling out the window on the 130th floor… should we go help them?

The main point is that there is some agreement about words so that people can talk to each other, and that more complex concepts like “person” are explained.

That’s true, definitions help us understand, however they must be based in fact. A different format of the same material as in a book might pass that test, whereas substituting the DVD of the movie for the book would not.

Well, the idea of becoming something in the future was never my argument. It was introduced by others, and I argued against this style of thinking.

It sounded to me like you were saying that a person - or the definition of what that is - is dependent in some way on present status. If they don’t have eyes, they can’t see, they don’t have rights. Alzheimers - no awareness that we know of- they don’t have rights?

I would not think that the ability to produce babies is relevant to personhood, so I would not diminish anyone’s rights because of that. For me it’s the presence of a mind/self awareness/thoughts/etc. that is relevant.

The logical conclusion of this argument is that it is perfectly fine to kill a sleeping person. They aren’t aware, and their thoughts are irrelevant. You cannot tell from the state of a sleeping person if they have a thinking mind, have Alzheimers, are a genius, or anything else. All you have in front of you is an unaware human.

Right, that was my point. I used this analogy to argue against people who wanted to give embryos rights on the basis of what they would one day become. Embryos don’t think, reason, or sense just like mountains don’t, hence I don’t think it makes sense to call them persons.

We aren’t giving them rights on “what they would one day become.” You are looking at the situation backwards, like the embryo “isn’t” something and only later “becomes” something. They aren’t, they are in essence the exact same, that is to say, a human being. Just like you don’t find facial wrinkles all over babies, but you do on folks in their 80s. Are they the same - i.e - a person, the same person before and after wrinkles, or did adding wrinkles change them from one thing into another? We think the embryo and the 20 yr old are the same, just at a different stage of development. Thus if you value the 20-yr-old enough to protect him, you must also protect him in his earlier existence. If it’s arbitrary, then why not do as Singer proposes and give infants NO rights until 90 days old? That way if they’re born and you don’t like their eye or hair color, just kill them and go make another. See where that kind of rationale goes? It always ends up placing arbitrary limits, like not helping the fellow who went out the window unless he falls from the 17th floor or below.

I never said people are only human when they attain “full function”, I said there has to be a mind, not a full developed mind, just self awareness/thoughts etc. Before that, it might as well be an inanimate object.

And you have offered not a shred of evidence to support your idea except to compare a fetus to an inanimate object. You may think that, but most do not, nor do the courts. You might note that in many states, a person who murders a pregnant woman faces TWO charges, not just one. Why is that if it’s an inanimate object? Also, how are you going to make that determination? Do you know a way to do that and never err and kill someone who WAS aware/thinking/a person?

Well, I am trying to give my reasons for why I think as I do. Not many are finding them very reasonable though, and some have called me a homicidal sociopath and suggested that I’m not a person by my own criteria.

I appreciate you giving your reasons. I disagree with your ideas, but that’s because I don’t think the arguments are cogent, not that I have anything against you. How could I - I don’t know you. I haven’t heard you called a homocidal sociopath; what I read is that some of your ideas, as they have actually been esposed in history, were situations where eugenics was used to deprive the handicapped of their rights. I don’t think that was brought up to denigrate you, but rather to demonstrate to you the weaknesses in some of your ideas, and how those very ideas have been exploited in the past.

 

[DOShea]

The law has the right to define personhood because it is in part a legal concept. You become a legal person via legal fiction. How else would you receive legal rights? Come on, this is obvious.

Certainly the law has a right to define personhood. But that is applied in law in different ways; persons as applied to family members; persons as applied to contracts, persons as applied to liability; persons as applied to any number of things.

Where the law is in error is in thinking it can DEFINE a human life in terms of if it is or is not a person. No matter what criteria they apply, it will be a man-made concept. They don’t have a good history at doing this job either. Witness slavery.

Today, in the state of Florida, a woman can choose to kill her unborn baby on nothing more than her own desire. But if you hit that same woman with your car while she’s on the way to the abortion clinic, you face TWO charges of manslaughter. How can that be if the law knows what it is doing? In one hand, the baby is not human and be killed and discarded; on the other, it’s a human life that justice must stick up for and bring the killer to justice.

You can’t have it both ways and both are true.

 

[Persuader]

I am questioning the authority of the State (in any country) to deny a human being the right to be born. The last time I checked, law was to protect people’s rights. To select some arbitrary point at which the law acknowledges a human being as a person seems less than honest.

You know as well as I do that the point is arbitrary. There is not conclusive evidence that a human being becomes a person at 30 weeks of gestation, at age 2, or age 50. This was not even a question until abortion was legalized and then had to be justified.

For the moment, let’s put aside the question of person, because that’s an arbitrary point and we know this. The real question is, does the State have the authority to deny a human being the right to be born? If so, who gives the State this authority? Is there a limit to the State’s authority or can we empower the State to do anything that we want? If so, where is the limit?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think you are muddling the issue by playing with words. If you, by saying human being, are simply referring to a collection of cells with human DNA, you are correct in saying that the State is allowing people to end this life-form.

To base law on scientific and academic knowledge is not arbitrary, it is completely normal. To say something is arbitrary, suggests that it is unfounded. To base something on knowledge, is to establish a foundation for the position.

When you ask whether or not the State has the authority to deny human beings the right to be born, I think you’re implying that abortion is ending a person’s life. I don’t think you’re implying that it is ending the life of a collection of cells with human DNA.

 

[JReducation]

To add to what Doshea has said, most countries have programs that support the pregnant mother with proper nutrition, medical care and laws that grant her leave from work while protecting her job security.

Why are tax dollars being used to nurture a thing inside a woman? It’s either a thing or a baby. But it can’t be both. As Pope John Paul said, “Truth does not contradict itself.” Apparently law can.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF