How would you respond to this argument?

[rlg94086]

Thought_Officer:

DNA doesn’t immediately make you human; the expression of the DNA does. And that expression remains undifferentiated in the early interuterine stages. Science.

Nonsense. If you take a skin cell and say “this is a human being,” then your argument would have merit. When you take a distinct, living being, with human DNA (different DNA than its mother), then there is no way to claim that being is anything but human. Science and logic.

 

[sw85]

Thought_Officer:

DNA doesn’t immediately make you human; the expression of the DNA does. And that expression remains undifferentiated in the early interuterine stages. Science.

If you mean to say “merely possessing DNA is insufficient to judge a thing as being human,” then you’re surely right. Dogs have DNA, after all.

But possessing human DNA is sufficient to judge something as human. That’s why it can meaningfully be called “human DNA.” Fetuses possess human DNA, which is why they grow into babies and children and adults and not dogs or cats or carrots. Therefore they are human. Therefore they are the object of the moral commandment not to murder.

Thought_Officer:

Well I don’t think that there’s a captial T truth about moral actions. There are arbitrary moral principles, but there are no moral facts. There is no fact about it being wrong to set a cat on fire. The only fact is our thinking that it is wrong. Majority opinion doesn’t determine what’s true (the word ‘true,’ as I say, is a bit of a misnomer in this regard); it determines what we collectively value. And since values range and vary: we say that they are arbitrary.

Just curious, but do you actually know anything about what Catholic believe with respect to what moral truths are, where they come from, etc.? Are you familiar with the long, long natural law tradition in the philosophy of ethics?

 

[rlg94086]

Btw Thought Officer, at what arbitrary point do you determine that being to become human?

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

Well I don’t think that there’s a captial T truth about moral actions.

Well, as I said in another post then there is nothing to argue about. Basically relativism says you can do what you want because the standard changes arbitrarily. Of course, such an ideology is quite evil, objectively.

There are arbitrary moral principles, but there are no moral facts. There is no fact about it being wrong to set a cat on fire. The only fact is our thinking that it is wrong. Majority opinion doesn’t determine what’s true (the word ‘true,’ as I say, is a bit of a misnomer in this regard); it determines what we collectively value. And since values range and vary: we say that they are arbitrary.

That is a recipe for tyranny.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, as I said in another post then there is nothing to argue about. Basically relativism says you can do what you want because the standard changes arbitrarily. Of course, such an ideology is quite evil, objectively.

That is a recipe for tyranny.

Survival of the fittest.

 

[sedonaman]

A pro-abortion editorial appearing in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine contains a revealing statement on lying in the service of killing:
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.” [Emphasis added]

Even the pro-abortionists agree that human life begins at conception.

 

[fix]

Survival of the fittest.

Long ago there was a poster here, long gone, that would argue with another poster about such a position. Joking, he offered to lock the poster in a cage with a tiger so she could prove her position. She did not respond.

 

[rlg94086]

Even the pro-abortionists agree that human life begins at conception.

That’s because it’s simple, scientific fact. As the quote says, it takes “semantic gymnastics” to claim otherwise.

 

[rlg94086]

Long ago there was a poster here, long gone, that would argue with another poster about such a position. Joking, he offered to lock the poster in a cage with a tiger so she could prove her position. She did not respond.

 

[sedonaman]

That’s because it’s simple, scientific fact. As the quote says, it takes “semantic gymnastics” to claim otherwise.

Which is what the pro-aborts in this thread have been engaged in. I still haven’t had a single one of them explain how they can advocate something that they wouldn’t be here to advocate if their mothers had “chosen” it.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

:angel1:Isn’t it interesting that hospitals and doctor’s offices have all manner of warning signs posted telling patients to inform them immediately if there is any chance that we may be pregnant, before we proceed in undergoing X-rays and many other procedures.

In addition, most women are asked to sign papers declaring that there is no chance that they are pregnant, before giving permission for surgery. I just signed several of these myself before surgery, and as I was wheeled in for several X-rays, I saw no fewer than four signs in the radiation department waiting area warning patients that may be pregnant to tell the technicians.

The medical professions, then, recognize the seriousness and gravity of the situation, that if someone is pregnant, then there is truly someone else to be considered in addition to the patient, and so they as caregivers seek to protect themselves legally against harming the unborn.:angel1:

What does this tell us? Abortion may be a choice, but so are other forms of murder and all violent crimes. Our society is sick, twisted, and turns it back on the truth each time a child is murdered through abortion.

 

[DWGarvin]

I would first respond with “Yes, it’s entirely personal. The person being aborted ought to have a say in it.”

For me, even when I didn’t consider myself a Catholic (I was baptised as an infant, but drifted from The Church during my teens, and came back ~5 years ago), I still could not come to a logical point during pregnancy when “life” or “personhood” began.

“My body: my choice”. Yes, ma’am, it is. So, choose to close your legs. (Yes, very crass, but that’s intentional). But if you choose to have sexual intercourse, then you had better be prepared to deal with the natual consequences of it, which includes pregnancy. To have sexual intercourse purely for the physical pleasure and not wanting the consequences is akin to eating purely for the taste, only to vomit the contents of your stomach to avoid the consequences (eg: getting fat).

But, back to when the foetus becomes a “person”. I’m not aware of any laws that state “when”, but I do realise that from the instant of conception, that egg, the embryo, the zygote or whatever you wish to call it, becomes a human being. It has unique DNA, it is either male or female, and from that instant forward to natural death, be it miscarriage or of old age +100 years later, that human being has the same right to life as any other human being on this planet. That it is totally dependent on its mother for survival when in the womb is irrelevant: an infant just after birth is also entirely dependent on its mother for survival for quite some time (mother’s milk, etc).

So, I’ve rambled, I hope I haven’t confused (I have a bit of a cold, and I’m not feeling well)

God bless you all!

David

 

[ACCT]

Thought_Officer:

Well I don’t think that there’s a captial T truth about moral actions. There are arbitrary moral principles, but there are no moral facts. There is no fact about it being wrong to set a cat on fire. The only fact is our thinking that it is wrong. Majority opinion doesn’t determine what’s true (the word ‘true,’ as I say, is a bit of a misnomer in this regard); it determines what we collectively value. And since values range and vary: we say that they are arbitrary.

St. Thomas Aquinas gave the classical definition of truth. He said, “It is the conformity of the mind with objective reality…Every truth, if it is really truth, presents itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times.”

Some people say that there is no truth with a capital “T”? Is it true that there is no truth? If you believe that statement, then you are between the devil and the deep blue sea. It is what St. Thomas Aquinas would call a self-contradiction (“contradiction in actu exercito”).

As I have said in other threads, truth is immutable. It does not change through the ages. Truth does not have legs on it. It does not move around with the changing of the times. Truth cannot be denied.

“It seems to me that one must bring men back…to the hope of finding the truth (St. Thomas Aquinas).” Sixteen centuries later we are at a similar crossroads. (I read the book, Summa Theologiae, by St. Thomas Aquinas when I was a teenager.)

I will go back to my argument that the moon is made of cheese, if you believe it is made of cheese. I was making fun of relativism. The relativist would have us believe that each of us has our own version of truth. Many of you have pointed this out to me in numerous threads. Relativism is another “ism” that is self-contradictory and untenable.

At first blush relativism seems broadminded. Let’s agree to disagree. However, if truth is universal, immutable, objective and inescapable, then we can’t agree to disagree, can we?

Relativism is intolerant. It is intolerant of truth. Relativism says that truth is not universal, immutable, objective and inescapable.

Either truth is true for all people for all ages, or it is false. The relativist does not fall into the trap of the skeptic by saying that truth does not exist. The relativist does not deny the existence of truth. The relativist falls into the trap of believing that truth is relative.

Here is the rub: The relativist believes that his opinion is correct. Is everyone else wrong who believes that truth is universal, immutable, objective and inescapable? Using the classical definition of truth, truth must be unconditionally true and it must be true for everyone. There is a self-contradiction here. The relativist is saying that it is unconditionally true that truth is relative!

 

[ACCT]

Thought_Officer:

DNA doesn’t immediately make you human; the expression of the DNA does. And that expression remains undifferentiated in the early interuterine stages. Science.

Are you saying that it is not a baby? Yeah, right. That statement is old and out of date. I can understand that assertion (maybe) when Roe vs. Wade was passed, but not today. When are you going to catch up with the times? When do you think that abortion destroys a human life?

I do not know about you guys, but I started to exist about 9 months before I was born. I was not a possibility that “COULD become a child.” I was an actual child who had a body.

Knowledge and reason are two different things. You cite our current knowledge, which we both agree is incomplete. I cite reason.

I think that it is reasonable to assume that the unborn baby is a human being. I have beg you to answer the question, When does the fetus become a human being? Is it at birth?

You have not documented your argument with any studies on fetal research. You discount the whole thrust of scientific research. Studies are showing that the unborn are looking more and more like human beings. There are more and more studies showing the likelihood of fetal pain.

I think that we need to consider the experience of the aborted baby, and not be so prone to discount the pain of a fetus as inconsequential. I think that it is also appropriate to consider the brutality of the abortion procedure.

 

[ACCT]

Thought_Officer:

Well, it’s certainly life of some sort (it’s dynamic, moving, growing matter). But is human? That’s precisely the thing I’m saying is arbitrary.

When does life “begin?”

Science is beginning to answer that question. However, there are those who try to separate research about the unborn from abortion. We end up with fideism when we separate beliefs from supporting evidence. The Catholic Church always has rejected fideism.

Research is showing that the unborn are looking more and more like new born babies.

“If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be excruciating pain caused to the fetus (Dr. Anand in Leroy Carhart, M.D. v. Ashcroft).” There is the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act before Congress that we need to support.

Additionally, there is fetal memory. New born babies remember music that was played while they were in the mother’s womb (Stephen Evans).

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

I can advocate for rights while recognizing the rights of others, even the ones that would have haulted my existence. If my mother had gotten an abortion, she would have been well within her rights to do so. I’m thankful that she didn’t–not because it’s wrong, but because I’m selfish and enjoy living.

Talk about circular reasoning. You defend “rights” that you would never have if you were not born.

 

[sedonaman]

Thought_Officer:

I wouldn’t be able to defend any kind of rights whatsoever if I wasn’t born, reproductive or otherwise. Does that mean I think rights are bad and shouldn’t be advocated for? Where’s the circularity?

No circularity. Your advocacy is self-defeating; that’s the error in your logic.

---

It is the liberal’s obsession and fascination with sex, death, and communism that are the prime movers of his dementia.

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

I wouldn’t be able to defend any kind of rights whatsoever if I wasn’t born, reproductive or otherwise. Does that mean I think rights are bad and shouldn’t be advocated for? Where’s the circularity?

Oh boy. You want a “right” to kill a baby. The only people that support such a crime are those already allowed to be born. Claiming such a right presupposes one is already born.
When does the child get a say in whether she or he is killed?

 

[ACCT]

Thought_Officer:

I wouldn’t be able to defend any kind of rights whatsoever if I wasn’t born, reproductive or otherwise. Does that mean I think rights are bad and shouldn’t be advocated for? Where’s the circularity?

Who should receive protection under the law? The right to life should not be left to the subjective criteria of religious beliefs. We should not confuse the freedom “not to believe” with the freedom to destroy the life of another!

Our argument about abortion has less to do with our differing viewpoints than it has to do with the victims of abortion that need to be saved. I am sorry that you do not want to hear what I have to say. Abortion is an unpopular message, but it needs to be said, even if you are opposed to and offended by what I say.

 

[ACCT]

Thought Officer:

Who should receive protection under the law? The right to life should not be left to the subjective criteria of religious beliefs. We should not confuse the freedom “not to believe” with the freedom to destroy the life of another!

Our argument about abortion has less to do with our differing viewpoints than it has to do with the victims of abortion that need to be saved. I am sorry that you do not want to hear what I have to say. Abortion is an unpopular message, but it needs to be said, even if you are opposed to and offended by what I say.