Intellectual Blindness

[fhansen]

Laws against murder? That’s noble, but a laugher nonetheless. If you are powerful enough you can murder anyone and everyone you wish and it’s quite legal. Ask any pro-life Christian about their god’s right to kill when it pleases.

Whatever-in any case your argument would end up basically sanctioning the murder of humans by humans. And both human and divine laws generally seek to protect the powerless from the more powerful but in the matter of laws relating to abortion that’s not happening.

 

[fhansen]

The fetus is exactly as human being as a plate of scrambled eggs is a fried chicken… Elementary biology, indeed.

Is there a point where the fetus does become human and if so is its’ life worth anything then?

 

[RobbyS]

To paraphrase the great Protestant Apologist Ravi Zacharias, “the problem is not intellectual. It’s moral and spiritual.”

These individuals are not so much intellectually blind. They are moral likely suffering from moral and spiritual blindness.

Among the other options is that they actually do acknowledge it as a child, but they are moral relativists, and believe that to preserve human life in the womb is subjectively good at best.

If you’re not convinced there is a moral law, then you must also believe there is not a moral law giver. And if there is no moral law giver, then all morality is ultimately subjective, if there is no revelation. And if it’s subjective, then why not look at abortions as a great convenience?

If man becomes the measure of all things, anything goes. Ideas have consequences.

Opinion is largely driven by emotion, even the opinions of intellectuals. When they deal with questions about subjects about which they have but a smattering of knowledge, they will feel as their friends feel, and cast about for philosophic justification. So in the broad sense of the word, they rely on their “faith.”

 

[crowonsnow]

Whatever-in any case your argument would end up basically sanctioning the murder of humans by humans. And both human and divine laws generally seek to protect the powerless from the more powerful but in the matter of laws relating to abortion that’s not happening.

Murder of humans by other humans is already sanctioned. Are you saying it isn’t? And it is interesting that these same humans get to tell us exactly what these gods are thinking when it comes to which laws are just and which are not. How convenient.

 

[KindredSoul]

We have laws that legally kill, people included - and by the millions I might add, even when abortion is removed from the equation. I personally wish humans weren’t so find of killing each other. If they weren’t so fond of killing each other, human abortion would be a moot subject.

Oh yes, humans should refrain from taking the lives of the innocent and defenseless in all cases, and even from taking the lives of the not-so-innocent and aggressive unless it is a last resort. But abortion is more grave, the gravest sort of murder there is, due to the fact that the unborn are the most innocent and defenseless of all; and so we oppose abortion absolutely and without fail, but that doesn’t mean we don’t oppose the similar taking of other lives as well. It is the fault of our blindly dualistic party system (at least in America), and not the fault of we the faithful, that sometimes opposing abortion means being politically associated with other grave negatives that we do not support, but rather which are simply less grave than abortion, for reasons mentioned above.

 

[fhansen]

Murder of humans by other humans is already sanctioned. Are you saying it isn’t? And it is interesting that these same humans get to tell us exactly what these gods are thinking when it comes to which laws are just and which are not. How convenient.

Well, the point is, like you said, that humans prefer killing humans and until that stops they’ll find ways around the laws, no matter how many we have for the purpose of protecting human rights and human life.

 

[crowonsnow]

…the unborn are the most innocent and defenseless of all; and so we oppose abortion absolutely and without fail…

That doesn’t agree with my observations.

I see pro-lifers as more interested in themselves than in protecting a developing human fetus. So it’s a phony opposition if you ask me. They appear to be just like the mother who aborts, placing their own welfare ahead of that of the fetus. How are they not just as “guilty?” They’re saying one thing but doing something else. They’re turning a blind hand and a blind eye.

I mean if you believe this really is murder on such a grand scale, where’s the outrage? Where’s the mass protest? Where’s the civil disobedience? Where’s the anything?

 

[KindredSoul]

That doesn’t agree with my observations.

I see pro-lifers as more interested in themselves than in protecting a developing human fetus. So it’s a phony opposition if you ask me. They appear to be just like the mother who aborts, placing their own welfare ahead of that of the fetus. How are they not just as “guilty?” They’re saying one thing but doing something else. They’re turning a blind hand and a blind eye.

I mean if you believe this really is murder on such a grand scale, where’s the outrage? Where’s the mass protest? Where’s the civil disobedience? Where’s the anything?

Well, I for one do really believe abortion is murder. So do countless others. Your “observations” do not affect that one way or the other.

As for protests, Christians (especially we Catholics) have been known for that for quite a long time now, so I don’t see how you could fail to notice that. If you haven’t noticed, many people are outraged about abortion. Or perhaps you think it should be more extreme? But then I’d be confused by your request…when people blow up abortion clinics, you’d rightfully say they’re extremists…when people don’t, you say we don’t have enough “outrage” to prove we really think abortion’s murder. Will pro-choicers make up their minds?

And since abortion is a matter of allowing a grave evil that should never be allowed rather than a matter forcing reluctant people to commit that grave evil, what sort of civil disobedience do you propose is possible for us? If it were a matter of us being forced to do something we found unjust, we could civilly disobey by not doing it…but with abortion, what form of civil disobedience is there, short of chaining women down who plan to get abortions?!

The only other option is to leave the country and go somewhere where abortion is already illegal, which is perfectly acceptable and moral…but then we will change nothing in the country, so that defeats the very purpose of what those who want abortion to be illegal in America hope to achieve.

There really aren’t many other moral options available to us. Due to the fact that we are consistent in trying to live by all our morals, we are more between a rock and and a hard place than you seem able to appreciate.

You would do well to consider all such matters before assuming that Pro-Life people don’t really believe what we say we do.

 

[Fran65]

Okay Fran. Is the Vatican on record as saying that the termination of a pregnancy is ever okay to save the life of the mother, or vice-versa?

My understanding is that according to Church teachings abortion is never acceptable. (Termination is a clinical word that hides the real nature of the procedure.)

From the Catholic Encyclopeadia (online)

All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child: The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good – no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother – the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life. Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed.

My understandiing is that as increasing numbers of infants are surviving from 22-23 weeks. A Catholic woman and her doctors may choose to have labour induced to save her life, but every effort should be made to save the infant’s life at delivery and the intention is premature delivery to save both, not abortion to save the mother.

You may be surprised to learn that some women would choose to die rather than kill their child in utero. The guilt and grief after abortion often makes life unbearable for those involved.

I hope I have answered your question.

I have decided not to discuss this any further. Good judgement tells me to bow out and leave this to others.

 

[beckycmarie]

Paul,

Here’s one woman who admits abortion is murder, but claims it’s justifiable murder:

Source: Shock: Prominent Feminist Admits “Abortion is Murder” but “I Am a Firm Supporter”

Paglia then admitted that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important “right”, as she does. The author criticizes those on the social left who parrot the scientifically untenable position that the fetus is just a “lump of tissue”, saying that those who do so are simply afraid to face the consequences of their pro-abortion position.

“Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue,” explained Paglia. “The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences.”

Paglia also criticized some on the social left for their logical inconsistency in condoning the killing of the innocent, but not of the guilty. “I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?” she said.

“What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing.”

 

[christcnection1]

Opinion is largely driven by emotion, even the opinions of intellectuals. When they deal with questions about subjects about which they have but a smattering of knowledge, they will feel as their friends feel, and cast about for philosophic justification. So in the broad sense of the word, they rely on their “faith.”

Indeed, most take a leap of “faith” and have great “hope” that they are not actually supporting the destruction of human life when it comes to abortion.

Their “feelings” are usually in direct correlation to their moral and spiritual “blindness.”

 

[ateista]

Your analogy is both revolting and wrong.

Scrambled eggs that are cooked and eaten are *not *chickens. because: they 1) have not been fertilized;

Some certainly are fertilized. Have you ever seen an egg with a little red dot on the yolk? In the supermarket you will probably not see them but in the country you sure will. And in that case they are still just eggs, not miniature chickens.

The Foetus (I’m British) is 1) the result of fertilisation and 2) intact and **capable of becoming **a full grown adult - including living outside the uterus from 23 weeks onwards. The foetus is human.

Yes, the operating words are highlighted.

Here is another analogy:

A freshly admitted medical student is not a “doctor”, though he is certainly capable of becoming a doctor, if and when he finishes his studies, and receives a diploma. One minute before he gets his diploma, he does not qualify to be called a doctor, nor is he allowed to practise as one. Whether you like it or not, one becomes a human or a doctor as the result of a process. The starting point and the ending point are separate.

 

[ateista]

Is there a point where the fetus does become human and if so is its’ life worth anything then?

Very good point. I can only offer a personal opinion. When the fetus develops a functioning brain, that is the earliest point when it can be considered a human being, as opposed to a human tissue.

If you take an already developed human person, and remove any part of the body - except the brain, the person is still there, albeit somewhat incapacitated. We are our functioning mind, the rest is just icing on the cake.

 

[fhansen]

Very good point. I can only offer a personal opinion. When the fetus develops a functioning brain, that is the earliest point when it can be considered a human being, as opposed to a human tissue.

If you take an already developed human person, and remove any part of the body - except the brain, the person is still there, albeit somewhat incapacitated. We are our functioning mind, the rest is just icing on the cake.

And when it acquires this functioning brain, should we then grant it the legal status of a human person? Or should we wait until actual birth, like some of the pro-choice people say. Or should we begin to consider the life valuable and worth saving at one year, or at adolescence, or maybe the age of reason? I don’t understand how we can decide when a life has value-unless perhaps we don’t value human life so highly to begin with.

 

[Sarpedon]

A freshly admitted medical student is not a “doctor”, though he is certainly capable of becoming a doctor, if and when he finishes his studies, and receives a diploma. One minute before he gets his diploma, he does not qualify to be called a doctor, nor is he allowed to practise as one. Whether you like it or not, one becomes a human or a doctor as the result of a process. The starting point and the ending point are separate.

“Doctor” is merely a human term for certain patterns of behaviors. The intrinisic nature of the person does not change on becoming a doctor. A fetus, on the other hand, has an essence that is intrinsically affected by abortion

Becoming a doctor does not affect the essence, while terminating the biological reactions that fuel human life does.

Of course, this is all meaningless to an atheist. If everything is STEM, nothing is intrinsically wrong. In fact, you have said that morality is nothing more than consensual group approval. (Of course, the question remains: what if that group decides to withhold the rights of atheists?)

 

[ateista]

And when it acquires this functioning brain, should we then grant it the legal status of a human person?

Yes, I would agree with that. The overwhelming majority of abortion occurs before that age. Personally, I would rather have every pregnancy be the result of a conscious decision of a loving couple, who intend to have a child and where the question of abortion is never even contemplated. Alas, that is not going to happen any time soon.

Or should we wait until actual birth, like some of the pro-choice people say.

That approach also has merit, if one considers pure biology. The biologically indpendent existence (when the mother and the child are not biologically connected) starts at that point. Of course a human child, - unlike many other animals - still needs a lot of care after birth, but that care can be delivered by anyone, not just the body of the mother.

As I said, personally I would prefer the development of the brain, even though at that point the brain still lacks the higher functions, which make us human. Of course we have no impact on the matter, but it would be promising if we could reach out and have a theoretical agreement.

Or should we begin to consider the life valuable and worth saving at one year, or at adolescence, or maybe the age of reason?

There was a great science fiction story about this question, and the picture it painted was quite horrible.

I don’t understand how we can decide when a life has value-unless perhaps we don’t value human life so highly to begin with.

I don’t think that human life (or anything else for that matter) has intrinsic “value”. Anything and everything has “value” if we make it valuable - and the concept of “value” is very vague to begin with.

 

[ateista]

“Doctor” is merely a human term for certain patterns of behaviors.

So is the term “human”. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “human is as human does”. Let’s not go into that here, but we categorize all the time. Zygote, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult, etc. are all accepted categories for the same being, at a different stage of the development. These categories are useful and meaningful, because they rest on objective characteristics.

No one would argue that it is proper to give a loaded gun to child, for example. There are rights associated with every stage of the development, and no one is astonished by this fact.

The intrinisic nature of the person does not change on becoming a doctor. A fetus, on the other hand, has an essence that is intrinsically affected by abortion

Becoming a doctor does not affect the essence, while terminating the biological reactions that fuel human life does.

Correct, but it has no bearing on the matter.

Of course, this is all meaningless to an atheist. If everything is STEM, nothing is intrinsically wrong. In fact, you have said that morality is nothing more than consensual group approval. (Of course, the question remains: what if that group decides to withhold the rights of atheists?)

Such discrimination has happened many times in history. It would not eradicate atheism (just like the persecution of the early Christians did not eradicate Christianity), but it would drive atheists underground.

 

[crowonsnow]

You would do well to consider all such matters before assuming that Pro-Life people don’t really believe what we say we do.

I don’t think you should be blowing up clinics or assaulting women with chains, but you certainly have other options. If there truly is an army of pro-lifers out there it is very afraid, very uncommitted, disorganized to a fault, or grossly apathetic. Remember, the charge is mass murder on a scale of millions being carried out as we speak, yet pro-lifers are just basically sitting there, seemingly more interested in getting the holiday shopping done.

I hope you can appreciate how this all appears from my perspective.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…The “pro life” camp isn’t really pro life, it’s only pro fetus. To me that’s the real issue. Perhaps a better definition if “intellectual blindness” is to be pro life and pro war.

​

 

[Fran65]

Yes, the operating words are highlighted.

You did not read what I wrote:

is capable of becoming a fully grown adult

The foetus is human from conception.