I need Help answering an abortion argument

[D_Quintero]

I know this question is so easy to answer, and after you write it down, I’m going to feel very stupid. But I just cant find the words to answer. Please help me.
**
The abortion argument :**
“It is not so much the feeling of pain as the ability to feel pain. it demonstrates some level of consciousness and the immediate potential for thought and brain ‘life’, which is at least how I define life as a human”

Once again, easy answer.

This comes after a person said abortion is bad only after the nervous system has developed because that is when the baby can feel pain.

 

[Beaver]

First why do you allow them to define life. Secondly, is not the sexual act an act of life, I mean are not the man and woman alive, and is not the purpose of the sexual act life, else it is child sacrifice.

God nature is that of Creator, He is the giver of the gift of creation. So by His nature He is male for the male is the giver of the gift and the female is the receiver of the gift. That is why the Bible says “Blessed be the woman and blessed be the fruit of her womb”. This two fold blessing defines marriage and life, especially life in the womb.

 

[martino]

this person has drawn an arbitrary line. why is it murder only if the baby feels pain. does this mean that we are free to murder as long as we anesthetize our victims? what if they are unconscious or passed out…are they free game because they could be killed without feeling any pain?

even if they knew exactly when a person is capable of feeling pain it is a bad argument!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

D Quintero:

… This comes after a person said abortion is bad only after the nervous system has developed because that is when the baby can feel pain.

Would it be equally true that a paralized person could be deliberately killed because they cannot feel it?

What you ought to do is question his unsubstantiated premise. Why must anyone accept his version of “bad” based on the function of the nervous system?

On the contrary, every embryologist in the world admits that upon conception, human life begins. Life depends upon whether something can metabolize. Human life has a specific human genetic code, which occurs at conception. The attempt to define when a human life “begins” is absurd, as embryology already understand it begins at conception.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The recourse to feeling pain is a total red herring.

People exist who are born healthy and normal, except that they cannot feel pain. The condition, analgesia, is a very dangerous one. No warnings are available for conditions such as an appendix on the verge of bursting, or when they accidently place a hand on a red hot burner. No one I know would argue that it is right to kill these people.

Further, if one could commit murder with an absolute guarantee that the process would be painless, would murder then be justified?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[udral]

D Quintero:

I know this question is so easy to answer, and after you write it down, I’m going to feel very stupid. But I just cant find the words to answer. Please help me.
**
The abortion argument :**
“It is not so much the feeling of pain as the ability to feel pain. it demonstrates some level of consciousness and the immediate potential for thought and brain ‘life’, which is at least how I define life as a human”

Once again, easy answer.

This comes after a person said abortion is bad only after the nervous system has developed because that is when the baby can feel pain.

I think you will have a fundamental problem of convincing people who don’t believe in soul-at-conception that abortion is always wrong.

There is a time in the developing baby’s life when there is no brain, no brain waves, no possibility of thought feeling, or awareness. Non-Catholics might identify consciousness and awareness of one’s own existence with “soul,” and until the developing baby has the possibility of that consciousness/consciousness begins to develop, it cannot be said to have a soul or be human.

As far as I’ve read the baby develops distinctly human brainwaves in the second trimester. And obviously once it has them, the baby should be considered human and be protected and have human rights. But until it has them, there is no “person” there, just flesh.

Normal people will never say that murdering a human being is okay, the question becomes “what is a human being.” For the non-Catholic, humanity might be all about consciousness, the whole “I think therefore I am” bit, not about DNA.

Personally I think all sentient beings, human or not, should have fundamental rights. If we ever developed AI that was self aware, I would support equal rights for it, right to life etc. I think killing apes is immoral because apes show signs of consciousness and self awareness.

To me this is what “personhood” is all about, not DNA. It’s hard for me to believe that a newly fertilized egg is a person because I don’t believe in soul-at-conception. A newly fertilized egg doesn’t think, doesn’t feel, doesn’t know it exists, it has some DNA, some cell components to keep it functioning, and that’s about it.

 

[rwoehmke]

udral:

I As far as I’ve read the baby develops distinctly human brainwaves in the second trimester. And obviously once it has them, the baby should be considered human and be protected and have human rights. But until it has them, there is no “person” there, just flesh.
To me this is what “personhood” is all about, not DNA. It’s hard for me to believe that a newly fertilized egg is a person because I don’t believe in soul-at-conception. A newly fertilized egg doesn’t think, doesn’t feel, doesn’t know it exists, it has some DNA, some cell components to keep it functioning, and that’s about it.

Personhood equals being human. Having human DNA equals human. Have you ever read or heard about an instance where a fertilized human egg before it looks and acts human ever turned into a frog or a dog or a dolphin or something else?

 

[udral]

rwoehmke:

Personhood equals being human. Having human DNA equals human. Have you ever read or heard about an instance where a fertilized human egg before it looks and acts human ever turned into a frog or a dog or a dolphin or something else?

For me personhood equals being self aware, knowing you exist. A “person” is a sentient being in my book. It can be human, it can be alient if intelligent aliens exist, I think there is strong evidence that apes are persons (i.e. that they’re aware of their existence).

Obviously the DNA of a newly fertilized egg is human, but you know what, so is the DNA in any human cell. Until consciousness begins to develop in my opinion there is no possibility that there is a person there.

It is a grave evil to destroy sentient life, but I don’t see the evil in killing something that has no thoughts, no feelings, no awareness of its existence, no element of personhood. There is no “someone” in there, you can’t kill “anyone” when there is no conscious entity.

 

[Ruthie]

DQ - I hope this hel;ps you:

As soon as sperm and egg combine, the DNA for a complete human is there. DNA does not “grow,” it is complete at the moment of conception. It is then that life begins, and that human begins to develop, following the DNA “blueprint.” Pop- there’s two cells. Pop- there’s four. Development *continues *once the baby is born. The DNA blueprint is followed until death.

It is murder to kill a human at any point along that developmental line.

To kill a human being before it has developed the ability to feel pain is wrong, just as wrong as it is to kill a human once they’ve *lost *the ability to feel pain. You are still killing a human being.

HTH!

 

[Mom_of_one]

udral:

I think you will have a fundamental problem of convincing people who don’t believe in soul-at-conception that abortion is always wrong.
That’s why I have studied the abortion issue from much more than a religious viewpoint and I recommend that everyone who is committed to the pro-life cause do the same.

There is a time in the developing baby’s life when there is no brain, no brain waves, no possibility of thought feeling, or awareness. Non-Catholics might identify consciousness and awareness of one’s own existence with “soul,” and until the developing baby has the possibility of that consciousness/consciousness begins to develop, it cannot be said to have a soul or be human.
Nope, not the case. Just because there is “no brain/brainwaves”, doesn’t mean that the developing embryo isn’t human. Humans become pregnant with and give birth to only humans. Not a fish, or a cow, or a two-headed Cyborg from another galaxy.

As far as I’ve read the baby develops distinctly human brainwaves in the second trimester. And obviously once it has them, the baby should be considered human and be protected and have human rights. But until it has them, there is no “person” there, just flesh.
I learned in my embryology class that brain waves are detectable at 40 days post conception. That is MUCH earlier than the 2nd trimester. That’s a little over 6 weeks pregnant from the day of conception; most women don’t even know that they are pregnant at that time. And personhood is NOTHING more than a legal argument. The law gives businesses “personhood” status, the law has denied African Americans personhood status (Dred Scott vs. Sanford), so personhood is a bogus argument. Besides, if your parents are “persons” it stands to reason that you, as an unborn baby, are a person as well.

Normal people will never say that murdering a human being is okay, the question becomes “what is a human being.” For the non-Catholic, humanity might be all about consciousness, the whole “I think therefore I am” bit, not about DNA.

Personally I think all sentient beings, human or not, should have fundamental rights. If we ever developed AI that was self aware, I would support equal rights for it, right to life etc. I think killing apes is immoral because apes show signs of consciousness and self awareness.

To me this is what “personhood” is all about, not DNA. It’s hard for me to believe that a newly fertilized egg is a person because I don’t believe in soul-at-conception. A newly fertilized egg doesn’t think, doesn’t feel, doesn’t know it exists, it has some DNA, some cell components to keep it functioning, and that’s about it.
So? The newly fertilized egg is a stage of development and will continue(if all goes well) on until natural death. Embryo, fetus, neonate, toddler, teenager, elderly—all stages of development. Lack of thinking doesn’t mean a thing(if it did, I’d be in big trouble sometimes ), and nor does lack of self-awareness, etc, etc.

 

[JimG]

If consciousness is the criterion of personhood, and it is therefore OK to kill embryos who are not yet ‘conscious’ (and how do we know that?), does this principle apply across the board? Is it OK to kill senile old people who no longer meet our criterion of consciousness? Or the mentally retarded who fall below a particular level of conscious personhood? Or people in a coma, which may or may not be reversible?

How about cows? They exhibit a level of consciousness, as do all animals humans use for food. And who’s to say that plants do not have some level of plant consciousness suitable to their nature?

For me, a human being is any distinct individual of the human species. And when does a new individual of the human species have its beginning? You guessed it. At conception. And from the moment of fertilization, this new human individual exhibits a purposefulness in its actions which is directed toward full development. Observing the embryogenesis of humans, it sure looks like that zygote has a particular purpose in mind and is actively working toward it.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Let’s go with their definition of life for a mintue.

Should we then kill adults who don’t feel pain?

How about someone who is passed out due to drug use? they don’t feel pain.

How about a lepper?

"Leprosy bacteria attack the nerves in the hands and feet and cause them to become numb. A person may get cuts or burns on the numb parts and not know it, leading to infections which cause permanent damage. "

rarediseases.about.com/cs/infectiousdisease/a/071203.htm

there are other diseases that cause numbness
wrongdiagnosis.com/sym/numbness.htm

Should we kill others who feel no pain?

 

[udral]

Mom of one:

Nope, not the case. Just because there is “no brain/brainwaves”, doesn’t mean that the developing embryo isn’t human. Humans become pregnant with and give birth to only humans. Not a fish, or a cow, or a two-headed Cyborg from another galaxy.

I am not suggesting that embryos grow into cyborgs. For me it is immoral to murder sentient beings. BEINGS, that means minds, that means thoughts, that means self awareness, feelings etc. Once consciousness begins to develop, regardless of how primitive it is, the person exists and has rights.

If fish and cows were sentient, I would say they should have rights as well. For me it is not about being human per se, but about being a person, a sentient being.

I learned in my embryology class that brain waves are detectable at 40 days post conception. That is MUCH earlier than the 2nd trimester. That’s a little over 6 weeks pregnant from the day of conception; most women don’t even know that they are pregnant at that time.

If you are right, then abortion becomes murder 40 days post conception. I guess at the present time it is really hard to judge, we don’t understand consciousness yet. When does self awareness in a developing human first comes into the picture?

In my opinion that’s when any creature becomes a being with rights. It doesn’t have to be human, it could be a cyborg from another galaxy

So? The newly fertilized egg is a stage of development and will continue(if all goes well) on until natural death. Embryo, fetus, neonate, toddler, teenager, elderly—all stages of development. Lack of thinking doesn’t mean a thing(if it did, I’d be in big trouble sometimes ), and nor does lack of self-awareness, etc, etc.

And an embryo has inherent worth because of its potential to develop into a person, but until it becomes a person destroying it is not murder.

Sperm and eggs you might say are in a similar situation, if people have sex sperm and egg could very well lead to a person. But so what? Until there is a person there can be no murder in my opinion.

 

[Mom_of_one]

udral:

I am not suggesting that embryos grow into cyborgs. For me it is immoral to murder sentient beings. BEINGS, that means minds, that means thoughts, that means self awareness, feelings etc. Once consciousness begins to develop, regardless of how primitive it is, the person exists and has rights.

If fish and cows were sentient, I would say they should have rights as well. For me it is not about being human per se, but about being a person, a sentient being.

If you are right, then abortion becomes murder 40 days post conception. I guess at the present time it is really hard to judge, we don’t understand consciousness yet. When does self awareness in a developing human first comes into the picture?

In my opinion that’s when any creature becomes a being with rights. It doesn’t have to be human, it could be a cyborg from another galaxy

And an embryo has inherent worth because of its potential to develop into a person, but until it becomes a person destroying it is not murder.

Sperm and eggs you might say are in a similar situation, if people have sex sperm and egg could very well lead to a person. But so what? Until there is a person there can be no murder in my opinion.

Again, human beings get pregnant with and give birth to human beings. Period. Basic logic, basic science. There is no way around that.

 

[udral]

Mom of one:

Again, human beings get pregnant with and give birth to human beings. Period. Basic logic, basic science. There is no way around that.

Again, that depends on the words you’re using. Fine, I’ll use different words.

To me rights beings have have nothing whatsoever to do with being HUMAN, it has to do with being SENTIENT (i…e self aware, conscious, thinking, feeling, the whole show).

To me being = sentient. I could care less if it’s human, alien, or a cyborg.

Murdering sentient beings is immoral, if there is no sentience you are not killing anyone (because in my book “anyone” includes self awareness, knowing you exist, thinking etc.) when you destroy the non-sentient life, you are just rearranging inanimate matter. That’s not to say that you should have free reign over non-sentient life, we value various lifeforms that don’t have self awareness and have a duty to be good stewards over them.

But we hardly call their destruction murder, there is no sentient being there to kill.

If there are intelligent aliens and we make contact, they would have the same rights as we because of their SENTIENCE. So what if they’re not human?

It is sentience that gives rights, that makes a person etc. Not the species you belong to.

I understand that if you’re a Catholic you believe in soul-at-conception, and if that’s true, then yes killing embryos is murder. BUT, if you don’t believe in soul-at-conception, then there is no reason for you to say that destroying an embryo is murder.

If embryos are sentient, I’ll change my mind, of course.

I do not believe humans are above other species in principle, if we discover life that is as intelligent/conscious as we are, or if we make artificial intelligence, I would put it on equal footing as us. I would say that they have the same value to God as we do etc.

 

[Mom_of_one]

udral:

Again, that depends on the words you’re using. Fine, I’ll use different words.

To me rights beings have have nothing whatsoever to do with being HUMAN, it has to do with being SENTIENT (i…e self aware, conscious, thinking, feeling, the whole show).

To me being = sentient. I could care less if it’s human, alien, or a cyborg.

Murdering sentient beings is immoral, if there is no sentience you are not killing anyone (because in my book “anyone” includes self awareness, knowing you exist, thinking etc.) when you destroy the non-sentient life, you are just rearranging inanimate matter. That’s not to say that you should have free reign over non-sentient life, we value various lifeforms that don’t have self awareness and have a duty to be good stewards over them.

But we hardly call their destruction murder, there is no sentient being there to kill.

If there are intelligent aliens and we make contact, they would have the same rights as we because of their SENTIENCE. So what if they’re not human?

It is sentience that gives rights, that makes a person etc. Not the species you belong to.

I understand that if you’re a Catholic you believe in soul-at-conception, and if that’s true, then yes killing embryos is murder. BUT, if you don’t believe in soul-at-conception, then there is no reason for you to say that destroying an embryo is murder.

If embryos are sentient, I’ll change my mind, of course.

I do not believe humans are above other species in principle, if we discover life that is as intelligent/conscious as we are, or if we make artificial intelligence, I would put it on equal footing as us. I would say that they have the same value to God as we do etc.

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” -Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” - Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

“The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.” - Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee

“I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.” - Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

“To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.” - Dr. Richard V. Jaynes “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” -Dr. Landrum Shettles, the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization

U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing, April 23-24 1981

 

[Mom_of_one]

9 weeks into the pregnancy, the fetus can feel pain. That is why anesthesia is used, at times, during an abortion.

 

[Mom_of_one]

udral:

Murdering sentient beings is immoral, if there is no sentience you are not killing anyone (because in my book “anyone” includes self awareness, knowing you exist, thinking etc.) when you destroy the non-sentient life, you are just rearranging inanimate matter. That’s not to say that you should have free reign over non-sentient life, we value various lifeforms that don’t have self awareness and have a duty to be good stewards over them.

But we hardly call their destruction murder, there is no sentient being there to kill.

If the embryo/fetus is alive, which biology shows that it is, then an abortion is stopping that life. Therefore, it is murder. Sentience has nothing to do with it.

 

[Mom_of_one]

D Quintero:

I know this question is so easy to answer, and after you write it down, I’m going to feel very stupid. But I just cant find the words to answer. Please help me.

The abortion argument :
“It is not so much the feeling of pain as the ability to feel pain. it demonstrates some level of consciousness and the immediate potential for thought and brain ‘life’, which is at least how I define life as a human”

Once again, easy answer.

This comes after a person said abortion is bad only after the nervous system has developed because that is when the baby can feel pain.

9 weeks the fetus can feel pain.

P.S. I have an excellent link for you. PM me and I’ll send it to you.

 

[rwoehmke]

udral:

I understand that if you’re a Catholic you believe in soul-at-conception, and if that’s true, then yes killing embryos is murder. BUT, if you don’t believe in soul-at-conception, then there is no reason for you to say that destroying an embryo is murder.

Lets put it this way. Logically it cannot be both, i.e. we can’t both be correct. If it has a soul at conception as Catholics believe than it is murder. If it doesn’t have a soul it may not be called murder. In the long run what either of us believes doesn’t matter. What matters is if it possibly has a soul do I want to risk taking a human life?
Look at it this way. A psychologist has hooked up an adult human to an electrical device which is turned on by a button. Now say nine times out of ten the button does absolutely nothing, but every so often in a random fashion when the button is pushed the adult human fries. Knowing the possible risk you can get a significant reward for pushing the button one time. If the person dies there is no repercussions for you. Would you do it?