Catholic Position Extreme Case of Abortion

[CaptainPrudeman]

They’re both stages of human growth. They both have unique DNA to their individual, and both engage in the processes of a living being. I don’t see what else I can say, really. Anything all members of one group have, the other does too.

 

[QContinuum]

Blastocyst and adult may be different stages of growth, but that doesn’t mean there are no differences, some of them substantial, between them.

One of the biggest differences is that an adult does not require the use of another adult’s oxygen, blood, immune system, and nutrients in order to maintain homeostasis. Another is that an adult has conscious recall, sentience, the ability to bond with others emotionally, to understand and feel emotions. A blastocyst does not.

An adult has its own fully developed abilities, can perform work, can play, can create, etc. A blastocyst cannot.

You may say, well, but a blastocyst is going to be able to do, given enough time. And this is my point: a potential is not actualization. And the “time” being allotted does not in fact guarantee the blastocyst will or can have the abilities of an adult, because nature and defective genetics frequently aborts the entire development process to begin with.

So, my position as an atheist is I don’t agree with you that a “maybe” is enough to equate to an “is.” A blastocyst is not the same as an adult, and frankly, not the same value to me at all.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

One of the biggest differences is that an adult does not require the use of another adult’s oxygen, blood, immune system, and nutrients in order to maintain homeostasis.

Why exactly do these things make the unborn not human? They utilize the nutrients allocated by the mother’s body. I suppose I’m not quite understanding what your objection is here. Is this about the autonomy of the mother, or about the baby using what is given to it by the mother’s body?

In addition, how would infant humans be categorized under this objection before the invention of artificial milks? They relied on adults for nutrients, and there was no alternative. Those who needed blood transfusions also required other adults to give to them for their survival.

Another is that an adult has conscious recall, sentience, the ability to bond with others emotionally, to understand and feel emotions. A blastocyst does not.

That’s because adults need complex brains to understand and respond to their environment. Humans with fewer cells, like blastocysts, don’t need complex brains because there’s no need to have a centralized processor for functioning. Besides, many adult humans lack these capabilities as well. Does that make them not human?

What about infants, who are not sentient and will not be for some time? Are they humans?

An adult has its own fully developed abilities, can perform work, can play, can create, etc. A blastocyst cannot.

Not all adult humans can do these things. Neither can newborns. Are those who can’t not human?

It seems that, for the most part, the restrictions you’re drawing are arbitrary, and even capture some people outside of the womb. Why, then, are they not able to be killed freely?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In the case of rape, trying to make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion, especially in the early stage of the 1st trimester, just isn’t going to happen.

At this point, no one knows what they would do. It’s great to think that you’d carry the pregnancy through, but after the trauma of a rape you’re thinking will be greatly changed.

If you could write such a law, what would be the penalty for the woman who obtained an abortion after being raped ?

 

[QContinuum]

Part I

Why exactly do these things make the unborn not human?

That’s a good question. Perhaps pose it to someone who is making that claim? I stated upfront I have no difficulties understanding the species of the blastocyst. What I do not accept is that because it is a very early stage of human being, it is therefore due all the same rights as the adult human mother or any other adult. You need to explain that to me, because I do not accept at all the Catholic ideal of “God’s image” or a human soul.

In addition, how would infant humans be categorized under this objection before the invention of artificial milks?

They would be categorized as infants, and therefore granted certain legal rights, and recognized as a human capable of homeostasis apart from another human being’s body. As far as feeding infants, it turns out you don’t have to be fed milk from only your biological mother. Many a wealthy family employed wet nurses, who were not infrequently indentured servants or slaves, to use their bodies to feed infants.

I don’t think it’s an accident that the history of human civilization shows a pattern of lessening tolerance for disposal of very early human beings, with abortion being condemned by many but not punished as murder, and even up to abandoning infants or exposing them.

This is pointed out not as an endorsement of infanticide, but to show you that it has always been the case that abortion of very young humans, such as fetuses in early pregnancy, was not equated to outright murder. Because these were never valued as equal to fully functional, independent humans. In fact, it was so common for children under 5 to die, it was an accepted fact of life that parents would likely lose at least one infant, if not several, over the course of a marriage. I think this harsh reality probably affected many early societies and why they sometimes even accepted infanticide. Nature is unforgiving, and it was understood that if offspring were diseased or couldn’t be supported, adults would cut their losses and move on. Very harsh, but their reality was brutal.

I understand Christians have always condemned abortion, and called it “killing.” Have always condemned infanticide as well, which I agree with. But Christians also did not even believe it was a fully ensouled human at conception, until the advent of the discovery of first the ovum, then embryology, all through scientific observation.

I am fully cognizant of the science. But this does not at all tell me that a blastocyst should be regarded morally or legally that they are of the same value. In face, science informs me that while they are the same species, the blastocyst cannot exhibit any of the characteristics that define humanity - as I stated before, the ability to recognize and process stimuli, the ability bond and communicate, the ability to create, reproduce, etc., etc., etc.

 

[QContinuum]

Part II

Not all adult humans can do these things. Neither can newborns. Are those who can’t not human?

You are making a categorical error. I am speaking of “adult” as a classification of human. The standard, the norm, for a human adult is to be able to do all those things and more. Because such activities and abilities are hallmarks of the human species. The biggest one being our intelligence.

An infant actually exhibits most of those, in that it is sentient, it can communicate and bond with other humans, interact with its environment, etc. The issue of “can we kill it” doesn’t enter in here because it is physically independent of its mother’s body.

We are talking about the morality of abortion, a singular circumstance where one human being occupies and draws its subsistence off another’s own blood, oxygen, and nutrients. When there is a conflict between the mother’s interest and that of the blastocyst, it is not the same as an infant which can be handed over to another to care for.

By forcing a woman to carry a blastocyst, it privileges an unconscious, unfeeling blastocyst’s existence as a sub-developed human over that of a fully cognizant, feeling, conscious human’s right to autonomy. It is essentially a relationship where the sentient adult woman is forced to feed, drink, carry, labor and birth another at risk to her own health and bodily integrity.

There are a lot of arguments on both sides regarding how to work out this intricate balance of rights. And at what point does the zygote/ embryo/ blastocyst/ fetus demonstrate sufficient development of human qualities to begin to outweigh the mother’s choice.

I am willing to discuss that with you, and I am willing to grant that later abortions cross the line due to the fetus’ emerging abilities to feel pain, to interact, to basically gain “personhood,” though I think that word is too vague. But very early pregnancies, like embryos and zygotes? No, I am entirely intellectually and emotionally unconvinced that these are equivalent to human adults in any way, shape or form, other than than they happen to share the same species. But that alone is not enough to confer the same rights.

Perhaps that is why something inside me does cringe every time I read the dismissive posts here and in other religious sites when the woman’s autonomy is brought out. Especially in rape cases, where not only was she denied any choice about having sex, but then is required to ensure the rapist’s genetic legacy with the guarantee of her own body. That’s a form of slavery, in my book.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

What I do not accept is that because it is a very early stage of human being, it is therefore due all the same rights as the adult human mother or any other adult.

By human, I mean person. The issue I take with this stance is the arbitrary denial of personhood based on certain, non-universal characteristics.

They would be categorized as infants , and therefore granted certain legal rights, and recognized as a human capable of homeostasis apart from another human being’s body. As far as feeding infants, it turns out you don’t have to be fed milk from only your biological mother. Many a wealthy family employed wet nurses, who were not infrequently indentured servants or slaves, to use their bodies to feed infants.

Infants fed by wet-nurses were still dependent on someone. They, by your definition, would not have been human. Blood transfusion patients are dependent upon the blood produced by others to live. By your definition, they aren’t human. They can’t live without the biological products of others.

Society’s barbaric tendencies in the past do nothing to enlighten us about how we should act today. All they tell us that that mankind is making progress from the darkness of barbarism to some form of moral enlightenment. The progress is slow and not without those who want it reversed, but it’s happening. Just as we can’t use slavery in the past to justify its modern day presence, we can’t use infanticide in the past to justify it today.

An infant actually exhibits most of those, in that it is sentient,

Incorrect. Human infants don’t exhibit sentient and sapient characteristics for at least a few months after birth. They form attachments and bonds like other lower animals do, through instinct and lower brain functions. They’re like cats or dogs in that respect.

If a woman is not raped and freely consents to sexual intercourse, they play a part in the creation of their child and, therefore, have the responsibility to care for it, just as mothers of born children do. If a mother of a born child kicked them out of their home, naked and hungry, into the middle of a desert, that mother would be convicted of very serious charges. Why, then, should someone be allowed to do the same to another human being, where the only differences are their size and structure? The distinctions you have drawn are still arbitrary and many disqualifiers are present among adults and born children.

 

[Rau]

Intent is one of the sources of morality.
These procedures do not have the direct taking of human life as their intent. The intent it to save the life of the mother. The death of the child is not “necessary” as directly intended. What is necessary is to remove the tube etc…thus “principle of double effect”.
It is an excruciating moral evaluation, but it has to be made.

I was referring to methotrexate in that post I think. That procedure is only effective in saving the mother if the embryo dies. Thus, that death is intended.

Tube removal is widely agreed as a moral procedure. The other procedures don’t enjoy such wide (theological) support.

 

[Rau]

When you lose sight of the good object in a moral evaluation, you lose the ability to evaluate.

The more usual error is to confuse object and good intention and this makes immoral acts appear good.

 

[Rau]

A woman carrying her rapist’s baby to term is, I would suppose, doubly traumatic. I think it callous to impose upon her to do so.

But not callous to kill the unborn??

So you would not give a woman who was raped any choice in the matter? You would require that she carry her rapist’s baby to term?

If the mother turned on the child after birth, deciding she could not face the child in view of the rape, should she have a right to kill the child? Or do the moral considerations suddenly change at birth? Why on earth?

 

[QContinuum]

By human, I mean person. The issue I take with this stance is the arbitrary denial of personhood based on certain, non-universal characteristics.

Now you are confounding the argument by substituting different words which frequently mean different things to different people. Your initial statement was that a convincing secular argument can be made based on the science to show why an early human being (such as a blastocyst) have the same exact value and rights as any adult.

Straight up, I said to you that I have no issues categorizing the blastocyst as human. But now you are introducing “person” as interchangeable, and that is not a scientific term, but rather philosophical. I am taking pains to stick to the same terminology to ensure honesty and accuracy. Can you please define your term before assuming it means the same thing to me as it does you?

Infants fed by wet-nurses were still dependent on someone. They, by your definition, would not have been human.

No, sir. You are now misconstruing my position. You stated that there are no “substantial differences” between a blastocyst and an adult. I stated there are many, among them the ability of a the adult to maintain homeostasis without living directly off another person’s oxygen, blood, and nutrient supply.

Your statement about an infant is not germane to the discussion, as it is neither blastocyst or an adult. It has a great deal many more shared characteristics with an adult than does a blastocyst, but regardless – its rights to life do not depend solely upon, nor potentially conflict with, a woman’s bodily autonomy the way a blastocyst does. Someone does have to feed it - but it doesn’t need to be the biological mother nor does it need to be breast milk, due to nutritional technology. So it is irrelevant other than an example of another human being that has reached potential to be independent of its mother’s body.

 

[QContinuum]

Society’s barbaric tendencies in the past do nothing to enlighten us about how we should act today. All they tell us that that mankind is making progress from the darkness of barbarism to some form of moral enlightenment. The progress is slow and not without those who want it reversed, but it’s happening. Just as we can’t use slavery in the past to justify its modern day presence, we can’t use infanticide in the past to justify it today.

I disagree very strongly. The past should strongly inform us, and it’s odd to me that a Catholic would ever make such an argument. When Catholics talk about abortion, they frequently refer to the past condemnations of it as proof it’s always been considered immoral. But that misses the point - they considered it immoral, but did not consider it to be murder. They believed that early abortion was a mortal sin, but it wasn’t the same as killing an “ensouled” fetus later on.

Now why do I bring that up? To point out that there’s there’s no historical underpinning, no legal or philosophical support until the 1800s, for this assumption that blastocysts are supposedly equal to adult human. Not until the discovery of the ovum, and DNA. The idea that aborting an embryo is equivalent to stabbing a fully grown adult to death is a novel and new thing.

Now, your inference that anyone is justifying slavery or infanticide is offensive. Did you intend to ignore my bald statement that I disagreed with infanticide? And clearly since I refer to the woman’s enforced pregnancy as slavery, I take a dim view of that practice as well.

 

[QContinuum]

Incorrect. Human infants don’t exhibit sentient and sapient characteristics for at least a few months after birth. T

You need to review the definition of “sentience.” Its most basic definition means capable of response to stimuli in the environment. Infants are definitely capable of that, as well as feeling emotions, responding to pain, etc. Plants are actually considered sentient. Sapience is a hallmark of humans, but as I did not list that characteristic as one infants typically possess, this would be your own term, and not mine.

And once again, this entire discussion was born (no pun intended) out of my request to understand how a secular, scientific argument can be made to get from “a blastocyst is human” to “blastocysts have all the same rights and value as a human adult.” Fixating on infants is a detour that doesn’t add anything to the argument, because the issue is between the woman and the human inside of her. Infants are defacto humans no longer inside women.

Why, then, should someone be allowed to do the same to another human being, where the only differences are their size and structure? The distinctions you have drawn are still arbitrary and many disqualifiers are present among adults and born children.

I don’t want to be misuderstood. But you are the one who claimed to make a scientific argument to explain why blastocysts should be considered the equal of adult women. I asked you for that, but all you do is go back to making claims - “blastocysts are human therefore equal.” This is not an argument, it’s just making a claim as if it’s an argument. I accept it is human. I don’t accept it is the same as an adult human, therefore I make distinctions based on those differences – which I have repeatedly listed out – in the rights of the respective humans. The rest of your statement is frankly emotional appeal, but it does nothing to convince me that a blastocyst with no brain, no senses, is deaf, blind, dumb and uncaring to the world, completely parasitic to another human in regards to its livelihood, should be considered the equal to a woman who feels pain, loves and is loved, is sentient and is fully realized. Potential realization is not the same as actual realization.

 

[Gorgias]

Caffeine is a drug, a drug which has real effects, just as powerful as nicotine or THC.

Just to be fair: humans are bio-chemical factories, on a physical level. Everything we ingest has a chemical effect, and thus, can be construed as a “drug”, in the way you intend it, here – a chemical that has effects on the body. So, demonizing one set of chemicals over another seems misguided, it seems to me.

Okay, I am going to smoke two packs a day for 40 years then–still no sin?

Okay, I’m gonna eat two pounds of bacon a day for 40 years – still no sin?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Your initial statement was that a convincing secular argument can be made based on the science to show why an early human being (such as a blastocyst) have the same exact value and rights as any adult.

My impression was that you consider all philosophical “persons” to be worthy of their own inalienable right to live, which may be forfeit as a result of their own conscious decisions. If I’m wrong, let me know, so I can change my argument.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

Caffeine is a drug, a drug which has real effects, just as powerful as nicotine or THC.

Just to be fair: humans are bio-chemical factories, on a physical level. Everything we ingest has a chemical effect, and thus, can be construed as a “drug”, in the way you intend it, here – a chemical that has effects on the body. So, demonizing one set of chemicals over another seems misguided, it seems to me.

Let’s not be anti-science here. We as Catholics readily accept the scientific definitions of what is a “drug”. Sorry, but bacon is not a drug, although the sulfites might be nasty.

Caffeine is very clearly a drug in its mind- and mood-altering effects. I don’t see how you could argue for it being a normal food or inert substance.

 

[Gorgias]

Caffeine is very clearly a drug in its mind- and mood-altering effects. I don’t see how you could argue for it being a normal food or inert substance.

It exists normally in nature, and may be ingested as such.

“Anti-science”? For positing that everything we ingest has a chemical effect on us? Umm… right. Whatever…

 

[Anesti33]

No, anti-science for positing that everything we ingest is a drug, which is what you said originally, not what you misquoted yourself as saying. I really have a short fuse for people misquoting around here, when our actual words can be found easily enough.

Marijuana exists normally in nature. Poppy seeds exist normally in nature. I don’t see how that makes them not-drugs or not-subject-to-temperance?

 

[Gorgias]

No, anti-science for positing that everything we ingest is a drug

Everything we ingest has chemical effects. The definition of a drug is “any substance that causes a change in an organism’s physiology or psychology when consumed.”

Again…

Marijuana exists normally in nature. Poppy seeds exist normally in nature. I don’t see how that makes them not-drugs or not-subject-to-temperance?

They’re both drugs. Now you’re misquoting the substance of my comments!

 

[Anesti33]

Where have you taken that definition from?
Dictionary.com: 'drug':

noun​

Pharmacology. a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being.

(in federal law)

1. any substance recognized in the official pharmacopoeia or formulary of the nation.
2. any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals.
3. any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals.
4. any substance intended for use as a component of such a drug, but not a device or a part of a device.

a habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, especially a narcotic.

As you see, this naturally excludes food.