Can human nature be applied to the unborn?

[FaithHopeCharity]

Was recently looking into one of Tren Horns debates on abortion. In premise two of his argument he talks about the criteria to consider someone fully human. The criteria he uses is that the all, humans including the unborn, have human nature.

But what exactly is human nature? I looked up the definition and it defines human nature as the humans distinct psychological and behavioral traits. But I am confused to what this means in Trents argument because, if he means exactly what the definition say, do the unborn really have what we call human nature?

As a note, I am pro-life and am simply trying to get a better position on this topic. All in all, God Bless!

 

[ReaderT]

He may have meant that the unborn are still human, as opposed to being trees or fish or dogs. They still have humanity; they are human in essence and not something different.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

It would be helpful if Mr Horn would establish his terms and parameters.

 

[FaithHopeCharity]

Well his criteria was trying to determine whether the unborn are fully human or completely human. I think the pro-abortion argument in this is that the unborn are human, just not fully human and this is what his criteria claims to prove.

 

[runningdude]

“Human nature” has a specific meaning in theology. It refers to a person possessing a rational immortal soul, and a physical body.

An unborn child has both.

 

[Freddy]

“Human nature” has a specific meaning in theology. It refers to a person possessing a rational immortal soul, and a physical body.

An unborn child has both.

And from arguments - sorry, discussions I have had here, rational seems to have a meaning different to that normally associated with it.

 

[FaithHopeCharity]

I also though it could possibly mean that. But then this wouldn’t be so good for the argument because Trent in his debate specifically attempts to argue, for the pro life side, without the use of theology and in general religion. He also does this in his talk shows where agnostics would constantly bring up religion and how it shouldn’t be imposed on them. Trent argues that the morality behind abortion doesn’t necessarily need religion and can be proved immoral public via human reason.

 

[Freddy]

I also though it could possibly mean that. But then this wouldn’t be so good for the argument because Trent in his debate specifically attempts to argue, for the pro life side, without the use of theology and in general religion. He also does this in his talk shows where agnostics would constantly bring up religion and how it shouldn’t be imposed on them. Trent argues that the morality behind abortion doesn’t necessarily need religion and can be proved immoral public via human reason.

Do you, or anyone else, have a link to the debate?

 

[Richca]

Yes, human nature not only can be but must be applied to the unborn. If the unborn are not human than what are they? Human beings are a composite of two essential or substantial principles from which they get their nature or are called human beings. These two principles are the immortal, spiritual, rational soul and a body made out of matter. The rational soul is the form of the body. In catholic christian philosophy, these two substantial principles are called the substantial form (the human rational soul) and matter which the human body is made out of. The substantial form is a determining principle and determines the nature of some thing and places it in a class or specie of things and determines the kind of body or organization of matter (matter is an undetermined principle) of a thing. Catholics believe God creates the human rational soul and infuses it into the material provided by the parents at conception which is the fertilized egg in the womb of the mother which develops into a complete human body. At conception, there exists an individual human person with the substantial principles of human nature and of being an individual human being in the process of development. The human soul animates the body and so it is the principle cause of the development of the formation of the human body in the womb of the mother from conception.

 

[Pattylt]

I think the OP is looking for a non theological definition of human nature. The minute you start talking about souls, you’ve entered the religious domain. There’s nothing wrong with you giving the Christian view…I just don’t think that’s what the OP is looking for. I know I would immediately rule that definition out.

 

[Vico]

runningdude:

“Human nature” has a specific meaning in theology. It refers to a person possessing a rational immortal soul, and a physical body.

An unborn child has both.

And from arguments - sorry, discussions I have had here, rational seems to have a meaning different to that normally associated with it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

26 Gaudium et spes 17; Sir 15:14.
27 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,4,3G 7/1,983.

 

[Freddy]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

So anything that can ‘initiate and control their own actions’ and is ‘master of their own acts’ is rational (being a gender equality type of guy I changed the pronoun to a neutral ‘their’).

My dog seemed to do exactly as he pleased most of the time.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

So anything that can ‘initiate and control their own actions’ and is ‘master of their own acts’ is rational (being a gender equality type of guy I changed the pronoun to a neutral ‘their’).

My dog seemed to do exactly as he pleased most of the time.

The generic human, not the generic dog, has the ability to choose what is morally right. The human can “freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” [God].

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Vico:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

So anything that can ‘initiate and control their own actions’ and is ‘master of their own acts’ is rational (being a gender equality type of guy I changed the pronoun to a neutral ‘their’).

My dog seemed to do exactly as he pleased most of the time.

The generic human, not the generic dog, has the ability to choose what is morally right. The human can “freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” [God].

That’s incidental to the definition itself. Once granted rationality it then allows one to ‘cleave to God’. It isn’t a prequisite for rationality.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Freddy:

Vico:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

So anything that can ‘initiate and control their own actions’ and is ‘master of their own acts’ is rational (being a gender equality type of guy I changed the pronoun to a neutral ‘their’).

My dog seemed to do exactly as he pleased most of the time.

The generic human, not the generic dog, has the ability to choose what is morally right. The human can “freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” [God].

That’s incidental to the definition itself. Once granted rationality it then allows one to ‘cleave to God’. It isn’t a prequisite for rationality.

The rational being spoken of has the capabilities that are necessary for the moral choice.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Vico:

Freddy:

Vico:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

So anything that can ‘initiate and control their own actions’ and is ‘master of their own acts’ is rational (being a gender equality type of guy I changed the pronoun to a neutral ‘their’).

My dog seemed to do exactly as he pleased most of the time.

The generic human, not the generic dog, has the ability to choose what is morally right. The human can “freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” [God].

That’s incidental to the definition itself. Once granted rationality it then allows one to ‘cleave to God’. It isn’t a prequisite for rationality.

The rational being spoken of has the capabilities that are necessary for the moral choice.

That wasn’t included in the definition you gave. Put those goalposts back where you found them!

 

[Kei]

Philosophically, a nature is like what something is.

Imagine a table. It doesn’t matter if it’s made of wood, plastic, or what have you, it is still a table.

Take a human being. It does not matter if they are missing two toes or are mentally handicapped, in space on the Moon or in the womb.
They are still a human being.

Some may object that a baby in the womb is still developing. But we all continue developing throughout life, especially in early childhood (which can be quite past the cutoff point for abortion).
The onus is on the one who claims there is a bridge between “alive but not yet human despite being human offspring” and “human being” to clearly define where this bridge is and show that it is so.

 

[Freddy]

Philosophically, a nature is like what something is.

Imagine a table. It doesn’t matter if it’s made of wood, plastic, or what have you, it is still a table.

There’s a tree in my garden. I’m going to cut it down and make a table. I won’t bother going through the multiple steps I go through (from cutting the tree down to varnishing the table). But can you pick a point when it ceases to be a large piece of wood and becomes a table?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Freddy:

Vico:

Freddy:

Vico:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

So anything that can ‘initiate and control their own actions’ and is ‘master of their own acts’ is rational (being a gender equality type of guy I changed the pronoun to a neutral ‘their’).

My dog seemed to do exactly as he pleased most of the time.

The generic human, not the generic dog, has the ability to choose what is morally right. The human can “freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” [God].

That’s incidental to the definition itself. Once granted rationality it then allows one to ‘cleave to God’. It isn’t a prequisite for rationality.

The rational being spoken of has the capabilities that are necessary for the moral choice.

That wasn’t included in the definition you gave. Put those goalposts back where you found them!

It in my first post to you from the Catechism 1730.

 

[Kei]

There’s a tree in my garden. I’m going to cut it down and make a table. I won’t bother going through the multiple steps I go through (from cutting the tree down to varnishing the table). But can you pick a point when it ceases to be a large piece of wood and becomes a table?

I would think between the fashioning and the varnishing.

To be more specific, the point wherein it can stand and be adequately used as a table, is where I think most would say it is a table.