I need Help answering an abortion argument

[udral]

Mom of one:

“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

I am not arguing that the embryo is not human. Obviously it’s not a fish or a dog (or a cyborg).

My point is that the criteria for rights, for personhood, etc. should not be the species, but sentience. Once a being self aware, sentient, thinking it should have rights regardless of what species it is.

Until it is sentient there can be no question of there being an individual there. Individual means conscious, thinking, feeling, self-aware being. It doens’t mean having the DNA of a species that becomes self-aware after some time.

 

[udral]

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

Look, I don’t know too much about embryology. But I said repeatedly, whenever the human becomes sentient, even in a very minor way, is when killing it becomes murder.

 

[udral]

Mom of one:

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.

Oh? Then is slaughtering cows for beef murder too? Cows are alive. So are fish, so are chickens, so are bugs for that matter.

Are you a murderer when you squash a bug?

No, because bugs don’t think, feel, don’t have minds, don’t have self awareness.

If they did it would be murder to kill them.

 

[udral]

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?

But anything is possible. For all I know fish and chickens could be the pinnacle of God’s creation, have immortal souls, and everything is about them.

I have not seen any evidence that souls exist in the first place, much less are there at conception. I am not going to base my beliefs on the possible. It’s possible that our morality is twisted and murder is really the greatest virtue. Anything is possible.

I want evidence.

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?

Obviously I would not do it! And this is a poor analogy. It is clear that the adult human is sentient, and putting his life at risk for my own selfish benefit is immoral.

There is no evidence whatsoever that embryos have souls.

 

[Mom_of_one]

udral:

I am not arguing that the embryo is not human. Obviously it’s not a fish or a dog (or a cyborg).

My point is that the criteria for rights, for personhood, etc. should not be the species, but sentience. Once a being self aware, sentient, thinking it should have rights regardless of what species it is.

Until it is sentient there can be no question of there being an individual there. Individual means conscious, thinking, feeling, self-aware being. It doens’t mean having the DNA of a species that becomes self-aware after some time.

So, you are going to tell the geneticists and other specialty scientists that they are wrong? They even said that personhood begins at conception. So, if you choose to believe the garbage that Planned Barrenhood and their ilk spout, that is your problem. I choose to believe the specialty scientists and what I learned in basic biology and embryology. At least I have the facts to back me up, because I chose to get the education in that department. You have rhetoric and semantics.

 

[Mom_of_one]

udral:

Oh? Then is slaughtering cows for beef murder too? Cows are alive. So are fish, so are chickens, so are bugs for that matter.

Are you a murderer when you squash a bug?

No, because bugs don’t think, feel, don’t have minds, don’t have self awareness.

If they did it would be murder to kill them.

Human life. A human life begins at conception. Therefore, since abortion ends that life, it is murder.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

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.

I just wanted you to know that you will lose this debate with momofone. Why it is because she has truth on her side

 

[estesbob]

udral:

Iabout DNA. 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

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.

Anytime people start throwing around 'personhood" and “sentinent” you know any unborn child they have control over is in BIG trouble. I think they feel if they use a lot of big words and try and talk “scientifically” it helps them rationaliz that they are supporting the destruction of human life.

From the moment of conception seperate , distinct, human life is present. It is utter arrogance for those of us born to decide we get to decide what human life deserves protection.

 

[estesbob]

udral:

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.

But anything is possible. For all I know fish and chickens could be the pinnacle of God’s creation, have immortal souls, and everything is about them.

I have not seen any evidence that souls exist in the first place, much less are there at conception. I am not going to base my beliefs on the possible. It’s possible that our morality is twisted and murder is really the greatest virtue. .

I have not seen any evidence that you exist, Having read your posts ,which our loaded with,what I assume you believe are profund thought but which to most of appear to be ill founded rants, i am leaning towards you dont exist.

If you do exist the fact you think maybe fish and chickens could be the pinnacle of Gods creation does not suprose me at all-once one starts minimizing the importance of human life any kind of nonsense becomes feasible(in their minds that is)

 

[udral]

Mom of one:

So, you are going to tell the geneticists and other specialty scientists that they are wrong? They even said that personhood begins at conception. So, if you choose to believe the garbage that Planned Barrenhood and their ilk spout, that is your problem. I choose to believe the specialty scientists and what I learned in basic biology and embryology. At least I have the facts to back me up, because I chose to get the education in that department. You have rhetoric and semantics.

I am not saying they are wrong, certainly the fetus is human. “Personhood” all depends on how you define it.

Sentience certainly does not begin at conception. For me sentience is what counts. Consciousness, self-awareness, thought, emotion, etc. That is what makes a “self” an “I”

A fertilized egg does not have any of these qualities, they are impossible until there is some level of brain development.

For me killing a sentient creature is murder, withiout sentience there is no conscious mind there to destroy, no self-awareness, no thoughts or feelings, nothing.

Without the concept of a soul it is impossible to argue that non-sentient creatures should have rights. They don’t think, they don’t know they exist, they are complex biological machines, sure, but there is no “I” inside, no “self”, noone to protect.

 

[udral]

Human life. A human life begins at conception. Therefore, since abortion ends that life, it is murder.

Because you choose to define murder that way.

For me, murder is the deliberate killing of a sentient being (without the self-defense justification). If intelligent aliens were found, killing them would also be murder.

For me murder has nothing to do with being human, but rather it has to do with having a mind, having thoughts, having self-awareness.

I believe it is a grave evil to deliberately destroy a sentient being. That’s what murder is to me.

If we ever develop intelligent machines, destroying them would also be murder in my book, because they would be conscious individuals, aware of their existence etc.

Restricting the idea of rights only to the human species is immoral in my opinion, for one I think apes also display some level of consciousness and should be protected.

For me it’s consciousness that counts, not the species one belongs to. If any creature is conscious, knows it exists, thinks etc. then it should be protected, should have rights. Until there is the conscious self in my opinion there is no individual there to protect, just inanimate matter, however well organized it may be.

What if you met an intelligent, thinking alien? Would you think killing it would be okay because it’s not human? What if you met an intelligent machine that thought and knew it existed, would you say turning it off would be okay because it’s not human?

 

[udral]

estesbob:

udral:

rwoehmke:

If you do exist the fact you think maybe fish and chickens could be the pinnacle of Gods creation does not suprose me at all-once one starts minimizing the importance of human life any kind of nonsense becomes feasible(in their minds that is)

But I don’t think that, I was merely illustrating that anything, however outrageous, is possible and that we should not base our lives on what is possible.

 

[estesbob]

udral:

estesbob:

udral:

But I don’t think that, I was merely illustrating that anything, however outrageous, is possible and that we should not base our lives on what is possible.

I just read your latest set of posts. It is clear you do not exist. No sentinent being could come up with the nonsense you do…

 

[udral]

estesbob:

udral:

estesbob:

I just read your latest set of posts. It is clear you do not exist. No sentinent being could come up with the nonsense you do…

Well, even though I disagree with your views I still think you’re a sentient being, and you won’t have to worry about me taking away your rights. I would fight to protect them, in fact, simply because you are a conscious self.

 

[Quaere_Verum]

udral:

. But I said repeatedly, whenever the human becomes sentient, even in a very minor way, is when killing it becomes murder.

You have quite the scientific mind udral expecting proof before making a decision - admirable. Since we are looking for proof here, tell me how can you prove that an embryo at the very earliest stages of development is not sentient?

 

[D_Quintero]

Sentience certainly does not begin at conception. For me sentience is what counts. Consciousness, self-awareness, thought, emotion, etc. That is what makes a “self” an “I”

**Words from Peter Kreeft. **
“It may be true that the zygote has no emotion, but it does have what will grow into a brain and into having emotion, just as an infant does not have speech but has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach. The personhood of the person is already there, like the tuliphood of the tulip bulb. One must actually be a human being, after all, to grow a human brain.”

For me murder has nothing to do with being human, but rather it has to do with having a mind, having thoughts, having self-awareness.

In your words, being a complete human
**Once again, words from Peter Kreeft. **

“To say that some human beings are not persons — is to say that only achievers, only successful functioners, only sufficiently intelligent performers, qualify as persons and have a right to life. And who is to say what “sufficient” is? The line can be drawn at will-the will of the stronger. Nature, reason, and justice are then replaced by artifice, prejudice, and power. When it is in the self-interest of certain people to kill certain other people, whether fetuses, or the dying, or enemies of the state, or Jews, or Armenians, or Cambodians, or heretics, or prophets, the killers will simply define their victims as non-persons by pointing out that they do not meet certain criteria. Who determines the criteria? Those in power, of course. Whenever personhood is defined functionally, the dividing line between persons and non-persons will be based on a decision by those in power, a decision of will. Such a decision, given the fallenness of human nature, will inevitably be based on self-interest. Where there is an interest in killing persons, they will be defined as non-persons.”

For me murder has nothing to do with being human, but rather it has to do with having a mind, having thoughts, having self-awareness.

Why?

Thanks everyone for the help

 

[udral]

Quaere Verum:

You have quite the scientific mind udral expecting proof before making a decision - admirable. Since we are looking for proof here, tell me how can you prove that an embryo at the very earliest stages of development is not sentient?

Well, without the brain there is no thought, no memory, no self-awareness. Before the brain starts to develop, which according to this website nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm happens in the third week of pregnancy, there can be no sentience.

Once the brain starts to develop things become more confusing. How do we measure sentience? At the present time we don’t fully understand the brain and how it gives rise to the mind. But here are some relevant quotes:

"In a speech by then President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters in 1984-JAN, he said “When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.” 7

This belief was denied by some experts. However a group of “professors, including pain specialists and two past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology” wrote a letter to President Reagan supporting his statement. They wrote:

We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, 'and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way.’ "

…
1996: Statement by an "All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group:"
A group of pro-life advocates from various political parties in England issued a statement on “Foetal Sentience” in 1996. They concluded:

“Since no direct objective method of assessing fetal pain exists, the crucial question with regard to fetal sentience is: At what stage of human prenatal development are those anatomical structures subserving the appreciation of pain present and functional?
**
The balance of evidence at the present time indicates that these structures are present and functional before the tenth week of intrauterine life.” ** 8

…

**The House of Lords in Britain conducted an inquiry into “fetal sentience.” 5 ** …

**They concluded: **
“**After 23 weeks of growth, higher areas of the brain are active and starting to form connections with nerves that will convey pain signals to the cortex.” **
“**By 24 weeks after conception the brain is sufficiently developed to process signals received via the thalamus in the cortex.” **
"While the capacity for an experience of pain comparable to that in a newborn baby is certainly present by 24 weeks after conception, there are conflicting views about the sensations experienced in the earlier stages of development. The current scientific understanding is that 6 weeks after conception the elements of the nervous system start to function. **Most ** scientists currently agree that this marks the earliest possible point at which sensation might occur."6

…

2001: Statement by a panel of experts in the UK:
The issue of fetal pain was addressed by a working group appointed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom. The panel consisted of experts in fetal development, law and bioethics. Dr. Anne McLaren headed the group. She commented: "Fetal awareness of pain is a very emotive topic, of particular concern to pregnant women, but we have tried to approach it without preconceptions, to examine the scientific evidence dispassionately, and to identify areas where further research is urgently needed.’’ 1

**The group determined that pain can only be felt by a fetus after nerve connections became established between two parts of its brain: the cortex and the thalamus. This happens about 26 weeks from conception. ** Professor Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, author of the working group’s report, says that “little sensory (name removed by moderator)ut” reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. “Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain.” 10

2001: Statement by the Medical Research Council at Edinburgh University, UK:
According to Fox News for 2001-AUG-31, the Council’s study revealed that “a fetus was absolutely aware of pain by 24 weeks.” This is earlier than the 26 weeks previously generally accepted by medical specialists.

religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm

 

[udral]

**Words from Peter Kreeft. **

In your words, being a complete human

False, humans are not complete until their late teens. Once there is the beginning of sentience, a developing mind, the beginning of consciousness, however primitive it might be, the creature, regardless of the species, has rights.

Why?

Because as a deist/pantheist/agnostic my morality is based on love, on doing the best for persons, on avoiding those things that harm persons, on building a just society. And I don’t think this should be reserved solely to the human species. I think what differentiates us from matter are our minds, our consciousness, our “selves.” Until there is a conscious self, even one that has only the beginnings of consciousness, there is no “self” to protect and to have rights.

A body without a mind, without a conscious self is just matter in my opinion. No different from my computer for example.

Whenever an unborn baby develops the first beginnings of consciousness is when it becomes a “self” and when killing it becomes murder. Until there is a “self” inside that baby, by destroying the body you are not killing anyone, you are just destroying a body.

 

[Mom_of_one]

udral:

Well, without the brain there is no thought, no memory, no self-awareness. Before the brain starts to develop, which according to this website nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm happens in the third week of pregnancy, there can be no sentience.

Once the brain starts to develop things become more confusing. How do we measure sentience? At the present time we don’t fully understand the brain and how it gives rise to the mind. But here are some relevant quotes:

I saw my daughter(who died before she was born) on a sonogram at 3 weeks post conception. I saw her little heart beating. She was no bigger than a peanut, if that big. Amazing how only 3 weeks earlier, she was just a fertilized egg. All that development in such a short time. Development of every system starts at conception and proceeds from there. It is amazingly complex, and by day 18, which is pretty close to the 3 weeks you said, so we can go with by 18 to 21 days, the brain begins to develop. And the body will continue to develop into the teen-age years. It is irrelevant to me about sentience. It is irrelevant, argumentwise, to me when the soul joins the body. I believe it happens at conception, however, I don’t argue from that standpoint. Basic biology and human embryology says that the unborn child, from conception on, is a human being. Logic says that it can be and is no other, sentient or not.

P.S. I don’t believe that the legal definition of murder says that only sentient beings can be murdered.

 

[Mom_of_one]

**Words from Peter Kreeft. **
“It may be true that the zygote has no emotion, but it does have what will grow into a brain and into having emotion, just as an infant does not have speech but has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach. The personhood of the person is already there, like the tuliphood of the tulip bulb. One must actually be a human being, after all, to grow a human brain.”

**Once again, words from Peter Kreeft. **

“To say that some human beings are not persons — is to say that only achievers, only successful functioners, only sufficiently intelligent performers, qualify as persons and have a right to life. And who is to say what “sufficient” is? The line can be drawn at will-the will of the stronger. Nature, reason, and justice are then replaced by artifice, prejudice, and power. When it is in the self-interest of certain people to kill certain other people, whether fetuses, or the dying, or enemies of the state, or Jews, or Armenians, or Cambodians, or heretics, or prophets, the killers will simply define their victims as non-persons by pointing out that they do not meet certain criteria. Who determines the criteria? Those in power, of course. Whenever personhood is defined functionally, the dividing line between persons and non-persons will be based on a decision by those in power, a decision of will. Such a decision, given the fallenness of human nature, will inevitably be based on self-interest. Where there is an interest in killing persons, they will be defined as non-persons.”

Thanks everyone for the help

And you have been very helpful as well. I love what Peter Kreeft had to say. Where did you get this?

And it is so true that where there is an interest in killing persons(although I would submit that it also applies to an interest in enslaving them, or in any way, taking away their rights)they will be defined as non-persons. See the SCOTUS case Dred Scott v. Sanford —case in point.