Are the unborn human?

[Orogeny]

I’m also not trying to debate the morality of abortion, because I feel like its disrespectful on this forum. But what I’m doing on this thread is pointing out why these arguments that the pro-life side finds really compelling aren’t having the impact that they want on us.

As far as having a child born with that condition, no, I wouldn’t kill them.

Would you advocate allowing other women to kill their children if they (the children) have a condition like that?

BUT, they are not living inside anyone else. A conversation about euthanizing the mentally disabled, people in comas, etc. has never really worked with me because they aren’t living inside someone else.

So, once a human is no longer living inside another, they have value but up to the point that they are delivered, they do not? Where does the value come from?

Peace

Tim

 

[estesbob]

IMO it isn’t right to tell a woman that although she is a thinking, feeling individual, who has made and impact on the world around her and has people that love her and count on her, that she has her own unique experience and outlooks, she is worth no more than an undeveloped organism that while it may have human DNA is not aware of its own existence, has no vested interest in living, and it doesn’t have any of the same characteristics that I listed about the woman above.

That’s what terrifies me so much about the pro-life movement. That it reduces women to the level of an undeveloped fetus that isn’t even aware of its own existence. When I look at myself, my mom, my nieces, and think of my future daughters, I see so much more in them than that.

If the pro-life movement is going to convince people, here is what is has to address:

1. On what grounds is the fetus equal to a woman? Why is it just as valuable as she is? A woman is more than DNA, so its going to take far more than “its technically human” to convince people.
2. What will happen to the women that have their lives, health, and families destroyed by unwanted pregnancies?

Denying a woman the right to kill her child in no way diminishes her worth nor makes the child equal to the woman(although IMO they are equal). It just recognizes that the right to life is the most basic of all rights-the right from which all other rights flow.

I fail to see how any pregnancy, “wanted” or otherwise destroys lives, health and families

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Would you advocate allowing other women to kill their children if they (the children) have a condition like that?No. Now if we were sitting in a philosophy classroom we might get into a bunch of hypotheticals and what it really means to be a person, but for the sake of this discussion and if we’re talking about what I believe should be in our legal code the answer is no.

So, once a human is no longer living inside another, they have value but up to the point that they are delivered, they do not? Where does the value come from?It isn’t so much about what their specific value is so much as its about if you are going to legally mandate that a woman must carry every pregnancy to term I’m going to need to see good reason why her autonomy and basic rights to her body should be violated like that. I have not seen any compelling reason why she should be forced to do that when the fetus itself doesn’t care if it lives or dies.

Peace

Tim

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Denying a woman the right to kill her child in no way diminishes her worth nor makes the child equal to the woman(although IMO they are equal). It just recognizes that the right to life is the most basic of all rights-the right from which all other rights flow. But it isn’t. We don’t grant any other organism on earth the “right to life”. Life isn’t valuable just because its there. There’s more to it than that, if there wasn’t you wouldn’t step on a bug. Being biologically a human fetus but not being able to think, feel, process anything around you, or even know that you exist does not give it the same moral significance and a developed person.

I fail to see how any pregnancy, “wanted” or otherwise destroys lives, health and families Then we have different experiences.

I think I’m going to bow out of this conversation now. I really hate debating abortion on this site, and I’ve said all I can say without seriously derailing the thread or starting a pages long debate where no ones mind will be changed on anything. I just hoped to point out why a lot of the standard pro-life arguments don’t convince a lot of us. If anyone wants to follow up feel free to send me a message, but other than that have a good day.

 

[PRmerger]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Best. Answer. Ever.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

.

But it isn’t. We don’t grant any other organism on earth the “right to life”. Life isn’t valuable just because its there. There’s more to it than that, if there wasn’t you wouldn’t step on a bug. Being biologically a human fetus but not being able to think, feel, process anything around you, or even know that you exist does not give it the same moral significance and a developed person.

It’s valuable because it is human.

A bug will never have the moral equivalence as a human. Really, ants are pretty resourceful creatures, they can build a home, work together, find food to eat. A newborn baby cannot do those things…are ants more valuable?

You aren’t arguing that a human embryo has the moral equivalency to an amoeba or paramecium are you?.

 

[VirtusTransitus]

Some thoughts - not unique, but the ones I always have when this topic is in my focus.

1. The fact that gender is used in this argument completely weakens the Pro-Abortion stance. Science has proven that life begins at conception. Serious people no longer argue this point. So imagine if it were men (biological fathers) who were lobbying to make abortion a legal male “right” to protect them from the inconvenience or hardship of fatherhood (emotional, financial, life-alterning “burden”) when a pregnancy “happens” that they didn’t plan/expect/want. Can you hear the howling and gnashing of teeth? Yet, most feminists insist that the termination of an unborn life is solely an individual female decision to make! As if female humans are inherently the “deciders” for who takes their first breath and who doesn’t? It is one of the most illogical, irrational, immoral, unethical stances I can imagine and the fact that so many otherwise decent folks, who acknowledge the fetus’ status as human life, hold to a Pro-Abortion stance astounds me.
2. Quality of life issue? The Pro-Abortion stance is, in essence, a self-absorbed bid for giving unfettered power, to only half the American population, to “undo” a conception (the VAST majority of which were the result of a concensual act) - all at the expense of an acknowledged human life. According to universally accepted stats, the vast majority of abortions are conducted for other than life-saving reasons. So this red herring argument that there is a difference in the two qualities of life is ludicrous, is only a rational statement at all in a very small percentage of cases, and in MANY of those legitimate cases, the Church’s stance is: do whatever you can to save the baby, but if the treatment to save the mother must end the pregnancy, then it is a sad and unfortunate result of an otherwise correct action. Adoption is a very real option for those who legitimately just would not provide an acceptable life for the child they have conceived. But it is ignored because it is not convenient. This is a self-absorbed, narcissistic convenience issue driven by feminism gone wild, IMO.
3. There is no more beneficial communication on the issue because one side cannot bear complete, unfiltered exposure of what is really going on. Show actual footage of an actual abortion, and the remains of the actual life being vaccumed out of the mother. Make that part of the Planned Parenthood intake procedures. At that point, I think both sides are on even ground and can have honest and frank conversation. But while one side is in complete denial and whistlling through a graveyard of millions of murdered fetus’, I don’t see how the other side can seriously and routinely engage in meaningful conversation.

My wife is Pro-Choice because that was how she was raised. When we discuss this issue, it only gets past the first minute before she shuts it down because she cannot stand to discuss what actually happens to the little human life that is being killed, and how many other valid alternatives there are for that little life. It’s a political stance she’s committed herself to, and I pray one day her own humanity (she’s a wonderful caring Mom of three girls who she TREASURES) will allow her mind and heart to trump her politics.

 

[fbl9]

IMO it isn’t right to tell a woman that although she is a thinking, feeling individual, who has made and impact on the world around her and has people that love her and count on her, that she has her own unique experience and outlooks, she is worth no more than an undeveloped organism that while it may have human DNA is not aware of its own existence, has no vested interest in living, and it doesn’t have any of the same characteristics that I listed about the woman above.

That’s what terrifies me so much about the pro-life movement. That it reduces women to the level of an undeveloped fetus that isn’t even aware of its own existence. When I look at myself, my mom, my nieces, and think of my future daughters, I see so much more in them than that.

If the pro-life movement is going to convince people, here is what is has to address:

1. On what grounds is the fetus equal to a woman? Why is it just as valuable as she is? A woman is more than DNA, so its going to take far more than “its technically human” to convince people.
2. What will happen to the women that have their lives, health, and families destroyed by unwanted pregnancies?

Just by being there the fetus has already made it’s own impact on it’s mother.So yes it has made an impact on the world around it.And as a fetus it’s world is small but growing.

1. on what grounds is the woman equal to the fetus?For many women have put the fetus before their own good.

 

[Orogeny]

BlueEyedLady:

No. Now if we were sitting in a philosophy classroom we might get into a bunch of hypotheticals and what it really means to be a person, but for the sake of this discussion and if we’re talking about what I believe should be in our legal code the answer is no.

Well the question is one of value, right? I am trying to get to how you assign value to a human. Does awareness of one’s surroundings constitute a human life that deserves protection?

It isn’t so much about what their specific value is so much as its about if you are going to legally mandate that a woman must carry every pregnancy to term I’m going to need to see good reason why her autonomy and basic rights to her body should be violated like that. I have not seen any compelling reason why she should be forced to do that when the fetus itself doesn’t care if it lives or dies.

If it isn’t about value as you stated earlier, and you admit that the baby is human (at least from a scientific perspective), why doesn’t the baby have the same basic right to *their *body?

Again, I’m not arguing with you, I am trying to get down to the basic argument so that I can understand it because you seem to be moving the target a bit. I’m not sure I understand your basic reasoning because I’m not sure I have heard it yet.

Peace

Tim

 

[stewstew03]

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b430/ramonarn64/Yourbody_zps52cdff62.jpg

Best. Answer. Ever.

[LIKE button pressed]

 

[VirtusTransitus]

I think I’m going to bow out of this conversation now. I really hate debating abortion on this site, and I’ve said all I can say without seriously derailing the thread or starting a pages long debate where no ones mind will be changed on anything. I just hoped to point out why a lot of the standard pro-life arguments don’t convince a lot of us. If anyone wants to follow up feel free to send me a message, but other than that have a good day.

No offense, BEL. I read all of your posts because of how you comport yourself, and I salute your open and frankly courageous presence on a Catholic board.

It seems to me that Pro-Life folks have solid, rational answers to all Pro-Abortion claims, but the reverse isn’t true. I’ve yet to hear a solid, rational, ethical response to justify the killing of an acknowledged human life for the convenience of a woman. And that is what FAR over half of abortions are - convenient fixes to an unwanted “intrusion”, of their own creation, in their lives.

 

[stewstew03]

I think I’m going to bow out of this conversation now. I really hate debating abortion on this site, and I’ve said all I can say without seriously derailing the thread or starting a pages long debate where no ones mind will be changed on anything. I just hoped to point out why a lot of the standard pro-life arguments don’t convince a lot of us. If anyone wants to follow up feel free to send me a message, but other than that have a good day.

Shorter version of the abortion philosophy: Women (and men) should be able to do whatever they want (have sex, kill fetuses), regardless of the consequences.

Question: how much does Planned Parenthood invest in abstinence-only education? $0.00

 

[wondrousgnat]

About the argument that the fetus is part of a woman’s body. How can that be if the DNA is not the same?

 

[MarkInOregon]

Yep, that is the issue. Does it deserve full protection of the law? But to convince pro-choicers you are going to have to point to more than human DNA, and I think that’s why the two sides lack any real meaningful communication.

The pro-lifers like to point to the DNA and talk about how it will develop into a fully formed baby. At the same time the pro-choicers are saying that they are going to need some evidence that as a fetus it is significant enough to warrant the same legal protections that the mother has. No one is arguing that it doesn’t have human DNA or that it won’t eventually be a baby. What we want to know is why it deserves those protections now, especially when those protections can harm another person’s life.

Basically what it comes down to is that for me to ever get to the point where I would be able to tell a woman “No, you cannot have that abortion” I would need to see compelling evidence that the fetus is just as significant and valuable as she is.

At what point does a human gain enough value to be worthy of the protection of society? And once they have gained that protection–can they lose it by being deemed no longer valuable enough?

Is a newborn as significant and valueable as its mother? Who decides this? What if feeding and taking care of the newborn becomes harmful to the mother?

What proof can you offer for the signifcance and value of the mother? What gives the mother more significance and value than the fetus or any other human? Who gets to decide this?

Do we get to assign all humans a signifcance and value quotient and simply dispose of all those we deem not to have a high enough value quotient?

I guess before I tell a person they have a right to terminate a human life I’d like to see some compelling evidence that the human life they are terminating is not significant or valuable.

What are some other human lives that were once not deemed significant or valuable or even truly human by our american society?

1. Native Americans. We called them savages and we killed them and took their land.
2. African Americans. We enslaved them and beat them often treating them worse than other animals and often worked them to death.
3. Women. Often treated like property.Often couldn’t own their own property, couldn’t vote, etc.

Well today it is the fetus.

All human life has value and no other human should be able to devalue another human life and then abuse or terminate it simply because they think it is not as significant or as valuable as they are.

Peace,
Mark

 

[TheRealJuliane]

IMO it isn’t right to tell a woman that although she is a thinking, feeling individual, who has made and impact on the world around her and has people that love her and count on her, that she has her own unique experience and outlooks, she is worth no more than an undeveloped organism that while it may have human DNA is not aware of its own existence, has no vested interest in living, and it doesn’t have any of the same characteristics that I listed about the woman above.

**That’s what terrifies me so much about the pro-life movement. That it reduces women to the level of an undeveloped fetus that isn’t even aware of its own existence. When I look at myself, my mom, my nieces, and think of my future daughters, I see so much more in them than that. **

If the pro-life movement is going to convince people, here is what is has to address:

1. On what grounds is the fetus equal to a woman? Why is it just as valuable as she is? A woman is more than DNA, so its going to take far more than “its technically human” to convince people.
2. What will happen to the women that have their lives, health, and families destroyed by unwanted pregnancies?

Do you see the contradiction in this statement? You, your mom, your nieces, anyone else female that you know, WAS ONCE A FETUS IN HER MOTHER’S WOMB! Your future daughters will be living in YOUR womb! Here you are saying a fetus is not equal to a woman already born, yet all of us WERE that fetus!

What knots abortion supporters twist themselves in…You leave your thinking ability and logic behind because in your heart, you KNOW that you can’t defend killing a baby unless you can turn into a pretzel.

My question is: Why is a wanted fetus, a baby, and an unwanted one, not a baby? What changed in the baby? Ans. NOTHING CHANGED but the determination of the mother not to bear her child to life.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think I’m going to bow out of this conversation now. I really hate debating abortion on this site, and I’ve said all I can say without seriously derailing the thread or starting a pages long debate where no ones mind will be changed on anything. I just hoped to point out why a lot of the standard pro-life arguments don’t convince a lot of us. If anyone wants to follow up feel free to send me a message, but other than that have a good day.

You’re not going to change your mind which is sad. You just can’t face the fact that “choice” = killing a baby. The “choice” your mother had to bring you to life could have ended the person who calls herself BlueEyedLady. The pro-“choice” movement says that anyone could have an abortion. Thus, you are a survivor of legalized abortion. 53 million of your peers didn’t survive. I call that a holocaust. One day we will all stand for judgment of this horror.

 

[MarkInOregon]

We could get into the philosophy of when people become “full” humans, but I don’t see the point. You don’t have the right to kill your toddler because A. At this point he has a vested interest in living, and B. even more importantly, you aren’t giving up any of your physical autonomy because of his existence. If two beings share a body one will have to have veto power over the other, and it should be the one who has an interest in living.

On what grounds do you argue that the unborn child has no vested interest in living? What gives the toddler, you or me a vested interest in living but denies it to the unborn? What is the real difference between a 34 week old unborn and a new born at born at 36 weeks?

Peace,
Mark

 

[VirtusTransitus]

All human life has value and no other human should be able to devalue another human life and then abuse or terminate it simply because they think it is not as significant or as valuable as they are.

I agree, Mark. It’s one thing to have a discussion about the ethics and morality of abortion in extremis, when the mother’s survival might legitimately be in question, or even when the mother is a rape victim. Those are legitimate questions in my mind. And, although I think the church has the right answer, at least we can all agree that the discussion has interesting merit in and of itself.

But how do you truly have a dialog about the huge majority of abortions that are nothing more than killing an “inconvenient” child? We hear about all the “women’s rights” issue on this because the actual issue - murder for convenience - is not something even Pro-Abortion advocates (or the vast majority of them, anyway) could support.

Aldous Huxley had it right - change the language, control the mind.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I

Aldous Huxley had it right - change the language, control the mind.

Ok, I said I was ducking out and I stand behind that as it pertains to abortion. And I tried not to post this comment, I really did, but it was like an itch that had to be scratched.

The concept of changing language to control people was more of an Orwellian one. 1984 is where ‘Newspeak’ showed up, and words like ‘doubleplusungood’ were used. Brave New World was more about complacency than active totalitarianism.

 

[VirtusTransitus]

Ok, I said I was ducking out and I stand behind that as it pertains to abortion. And I tried not to post this comment, I really did, but it was like an itch that had to be scratched.

The concept of changing language to control people was more of an Orwellian one. 1984 is where ‘Newspeak’ showed up, and words like ‘doubleplusungood’ were used. Brave New World was more about complacency than active totalitarianism.

If I remember right, both used language to obscure the actual actions that were going on, but you’re correct - Orwell probably incorporated the idea more fully. It’s been 27 years or so…maybe it’s time I reread these.