Intellectual Blindness

[Fran65]

Crow,

I have no doubt that if the sort of mass anti-abortion protests and action occurred you would have plenty of criticism to offer regarding 1) methods, 2) organisation, 3) motives.

Your next move would be to point out how there are other bigger, more serious issues to protest against.

As Catholics we know what we are doing and why we are doing it.

Intellectually blind? No, I don’t think you are…so what are you?

 

[Highwayhound]

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.

I am not aware of this happening in my lifetime nor the law that permits this. What am I overlooking?

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.

An example or two please?

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?

Here is one example of what people do to prevent abortion:

40daysforlife.com/splash.cfm

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.

Why is a chicken being compared to a baby human?

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.

This hypothetical doctor has the foundation of life that allows him to pursue the career of being a doctor.

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.

On the day before the brain develops to a sufficient point to be considered human an objective examination of the “thing” in the womb would tell an observer that the “thing” will be brain ready in 24 hours. So where is the difference?

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.

According to my Red Cross training to be a lifeguard instructor, which entitles me to teach people CPR, the heart would not be considered icing. The brain will exist approximately 10 minutes without a functioning heart, hardly a trivial matter.

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.

I am assuming that you are young enough to not know that boys routinely brought their rifles to elementary school a long time ago in America. At least that is what several older gentlemen tell me. Then after school the boys would go hunting. Some schools used to have rifle clubs and some have new clubs as I just learned from doing a web search.

wjactv.com/successby6/11127477/detail.html

This has been an interesting thread to read.

God bless

 

[ateista]

You did not read what I wrote:

The foetus is human from conception.

Of course I read it. Sure the fetus is human - tissue. But is it a human being?

If you equate a human being with the DNA, you walk on very questionable ground. The human DNA covers a very wide range, with it boundaries constantly changing. Where do you draw the line? No matter, where, it is still an arbitrary decision. Some “mutant” might be declared a non-human, whose DNA is substantially different from the current “norm”.

To say that a human being is defined as the result of two human gametes’ fusion, you arbitrarily exclude a possible virgin birth, where the egg is “excited” by some means to start splitting and eventually becoming a human being.

The definition of a human being is a tough question. I suggest a functional definition: “human is who acts like a human”, despite its origin, despite its bulding material.

The truth is we do not talk about hypothetical human definition, we talk about “rights” granted by society. When should a human collection of cells be granted the same rights as an obviously human being?

 

[Fran65]

The human DNA covers a very wide range, with it boundaries constantly changing. Where do you draw the line?

I am not sure - and I don’t know anyone who is - of the precise ‘mechanics’ of conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. The Virgin Birth was exceptional, it was a miracle and as a result it does not apply in this case. I don’t know anyone (other than Jesus) who is fully God and fully human, but it still happened!

Therefore I am still happy with a human being as the result of the fusion of human gametes (sperm and ova).

I suggest a functional definition: “human is who acts like a human”

This also has problems - what about humans in a pervasive vegetative state, those with a very low IQ, the severely mentally ill? Who gets to define acting like a human? Those in power presumably. Abortion, euthanasia and other abuses of human beings are the consequences of that definition.

No, the safest definition is the one suggested by the Catholic Church: human life begins at conception. Anything else is inadequate in terms of recognising and protecting human life.

 

[KindredSoul]

Crow,

I have no doubt that if the sort of mass anti-abortion protests and action occurred you would have plenty of criticism to offer regarding 1) methods, 2) organisation, 3) motives.

Your next move would be to point out how there are other bigger, more serious issues to protest against.

Amen! When one perceived flaw with the pro-life movement is debunked, pro-choicers proceed to make up another. I never until this thread heard it suggested that Pro-Life people don’t really care about abortion. Never, as even the most public and vicious pro-choice people seem to realize (and hate) that pro-life people are truly, passionately against abortion.

But I guess when a pro-choicer realizes that several popular “flaws” of the pro-life movement are merely strawmen, no straw is too thin at which to grasp in order to make up newer, more scathing accusations…

 

[crowonsnow]

Crow,

I have no doubt that if the sort of mass anti-abortion protests and action occurred you would have plenty of criticism to offer regarding 1) methods, 2) organisation, 3) motives.

Your next move would be to point out how there are other bigger, more serious issues to protest against.

But I am still unable to appreciate how and why that would deter an army of pro-lifers from such a holy and noble undertaking. This is the US. No one is going to spray you down with a machine gun or burn you out.

If we were living in Berlin in 1944 and were quite aware that Jews were being gassed and burned by the millions we might choose to adopt a different tactic. It’s not really a good analogy though because there were historical reasons Fascism was popular, aside from the fact that it survived by use of terror and extermination. Clearly, lest we become martyrs, and there were plenty, we might choose to live to fight another day.

But that’s not the case in the States. Remember, the charge is ongoing mass murder by the millions against the most defenseless and innocent of our species. Yet the reaction, the outrage, is quite genteel. It doesn’t jive. Clearly “pro-lifers” are making a “choice.” In word they may well be pro life, but in deed they are clearly pro choice.

 

[KingAlfred]

Intellectual Blindness

There is one thing I cannot understand about modern thinking.

It is the question of how anybody with any grasp of high school biology can turn round and think that abortion is not the taking of human life.

This is the most amazing proof of human stupidity that I can think of.

Thoughts?

Paul

Pro-abortionists don’t care about the child. Their focus is on the mother, and associated factors. *‘Out-of-sight-out-of-mind’ thinking *also contributes. Because the baby can’t be seen, it’s easier for some to kill it.

 

[crowonsnow]

This also has problems - what about humans in a pervasive vegetative state, those with a very low IQ, the severely mentally ill? Who gets to define acting like a human? Those in power presumably. Abortion, euthanasia and other abuses of human beings are the consequences of that definition.

No, the safest definition is the one suggested by the Catholic Church: human life begins at conception. Anything else is inadequate in terms of recognising and protecting human life.

Fran,

Human life does not begin at conception. It continues at conception.

And it is worth noting why we can even discuss the fate of handicapped members of our species. We can do so today simply because today we have the resources. The survival of these persons has been selected against because societies were superstitious and also because they could not support them. To care for them threatened the existence of the would-be caregivers. There really was never a choice. Today there is.

 

[KindredSoul]

But I am still unable to appreciate how and why that would deter an army of pro-lifers from such a holy and noble undertaking. This is the US. No one is going to spray you down with a machine gun or burn you out.

If we were living in Berlin in 1944 and were quite aware that Jews were being gassed and burned by the millions we might choose to adopt a different tactic. It’s not really a good analogy though because there were historical reasons Fascism was popular, aside from the fact that it survived by use of terror and extermination. Clearly, lest we become martyrs, and there were plenty, we might choose to live to fight another day.

But that’s not the case in the States. Remember, the charge is ongoing mass murder by the millions against the most defenseless and innocent of our species. Yet the reaction, the outrage, is quite genteel. It doesn’t jive. Clearly “pro-lifers” are making a “choice.” In word they may well be pro life, but in deed they are clearly pro choice.

You missed Fran’s whole point…which was that you will never be satisfied. If we did prove to your personal satisfaction (keywords: “To your personal satisfaction”) that we are clearly pro-life in deed and word, you would claim that there are more important things to worry about, as you did before. When we point out that we worry about those things too (as I did), you’ll say that we are not truly pro-life in deed (that’s exactly what you’ve done, after all). It’s a cyclic argument, and nothing, it seems, will please you enough to break the cycle.

 

[crowonsnow]

Amen! When one perceived flaw with the pro-life movement is debunked, pro-choicers proceed to make up another. I never until this thread heard it suggested that Pro-Life people don’t really care about abortion. Never, as even the most public and vicious pro-choice people seem to realize (and hate) that pro-life people are truly, passionately against abortion.

But I guess when a pro-choicer realizes that several popular “flaws” of the pro-life movement are merely strawmen, no straw is too thin at which to grasp in order to make up newer, more scathing accusations…

Given the accusations being leveled, I just see more hypocrisy in the pro-life camp. It could be that I’m judging the movement based on the most ideologically driven and outspoken spokespersons. But it appears the pro-life reaction is just bugles and no charge.

 

[ateista]

I am not sure - and I don’t know anyone who is - of the precise ‘mechanics’ of conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. The Virgin Birth was exceptional, it was a miracle and as a result it does not apply in this case. I don’t know anyone (other than Jesus) who is fully God and fully human, but it still happened!

I am sorry. I was under the impression that this thread is devoted to the biological aspect of abortions, not the theological one. And, biological experiments **have **shown the possibility of virgin births, the mechanical “excitement” of the unfertilized ovum, which resulted in the growth of a normal offspring, though - admittedly - those experiments were not conducted on human eggs (to my best knowledge). Of course, in these instances the offsprings were the genetic equivalents of the mothers (naturally) so they were always females.

Therefore I am still happy with a human being as the result of the fusion of human gametes (sperm and ova).

I bet so… but you should consider the possibilities.

This also has problems - what about humans in a pervasive vegetative state, those with a very low IQ, the severely mentally ill? Who gets to define acting like a human? Those in power presumably. Abortion, euthanasia and other abuses of human beings are the consequences of that definition.

This was partially answered by crowonsnow, so I will not repeat his argument here. Pervasive vegetative state is clearly not “human”, as the case of Terri Schiavo so aptly demonstrated. Yes, abuses can happen, there is no way to get around that. Proper safeguards can be installed to minimize them.

No, the safest definition is the one suggested by the Catholic Church: human life begins at conception. Anything else is inadequate in terms of recognising and protecting human life.

Not “safe” at all. Beings without a “father”, beings of different DNA, beings who demonstrate human charateristics, though made of different materials can be excluded, and those beings are much closer to the “human” behavior than a severely incapacitated 50-ish IQ person can ever be, not to mention the poor peers of Terri Schiavo, who are just as human as a dummy in the shopwindow, dressed as human being.

 

[fhansen]

Given the accusations being leveled, I just see more hypocrisy in the pro-life camp. It could be that I’m judging the movement based on the most ideologically driven and outspoken spokespersons. But it appears the pro-life reaction is just bugles and no charge.

But that’s begging the question. Maybe pro-lifers could be more passionate about abortion-maybe not- but that has nothing to so with whether or not a life is at stake-at most it reveals their concern or lack of concern about it. The OP is asking how anyone can be blind to the fact that a fetus is a human life. A related secondary question is, Do we even care?
And at the very least pro-lifers care enough to face the question squarely and answer it honestly-it would be much easier and more convenient to go along with the crowd on this issue- having come to the realization that there simply is no logical point in a developing humans’ existence when we can say, OK, now it’s ethically alright to kill you but in one minute it won’t be.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

Catholics aren’t nominalists, as far as I am aware. We believe that their are intrinsic natures, “essences”, that exist regardless of human classification.

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.

Would you object?

 

[RobbyS]

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.

I think that many are inhibited by the lack of civil disobedience options. Right-to-life people are not allowed even the means of protest open to gay-lesbian organizations. If Right-to-Life people had protested an abortion clinic the way that gays did
a Mormon church the other day, the authorities would have been all over them. No way could the Mormons go after the protestors livelihoods the way that pro-abortionists have gone after right-to-lifers like Terry. Any suit would be dismissed out of hand. The right to an abortion and the right to “act” gay now supported by the State. supported of course by public opinion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But I am still unable to appreciate how and why that would deter an army of pro-lifers from such a holy and noble undertaking. This is the US. No one is going to spray you down with a machine gun or burn you out.

If we were living in Berlin in 1944 and were quite aware that Jews were being gassed and burned by the millions we might choose to adopt a different tactic. It’s not really a good analogy though because there were historical reasons Fascism was popular, aside from the fact that it survived by use of terror and extermination. Clearly, lest we become martyrs, and there were plenty, we might choose to live to fight another day.

But that’s not the case in the States. Remember, the charge is ongoing mass murder by the millions against the most defenseless and innocent of our species. Yet the reaction, the outrage, is quite genteel. It doesn’t jive. Clearly “pro-lifers” are making a “choice.” In word they may well be pro life, but in deed they are clearly pro choice.

thats a product of the whole thou shall not kill thing. two sides of the same coin.

 

[Highwayhound]

Intellectual Blindness

There is one thing I cannot understand about modern thinking.

It is the question of how anybody with any grasp of high school biology can turn round and think that abortion is not the taking of human life.

This is the most amazing proof of human stupidity that I can think of.

Thoughts?

Paul

Here is an example of a person that was intellectually blind. Blind that is until he met St. Thomas Aquinas in his dream.

Being intelligent does not mean one is capable of recognizing truth. Praise be to God that this doctor’s eyes were opened.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111304.html

 

[RobbyS]

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.

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.

A fertilized egg IS a miniture chicken, because it is capable only of becoming a full grown chicken. Every child is a child but only potentially a physician since it is possible he/she will become something other than a physician.

 

[ateista]

Catholics aren’t nominalists, as far as I am aware. We believe that their are intrinsic natures, “essences”, that exist regardless of human classification.

Yes, I know. And I don’t necessarily disagree, but “value” is not one of them.

Would you object?

In my way, yes.

 

[ateista]

A fertilized egg IS a miniture chicken, because it is capable only of becoming a full grown chicken.

So you do not differentiate between potential and actual. According to you a fertilized egg is a chicken, an acorn is an oak tree, a child is an adult, a mild tropical depression is a devastating hurricane. The quantitative and qualitative differences that happen during a growth process are all irrelevant and meaningless. Well, I disagree. The categories we use are meaningful because they reflect reality.

Every child is a child but only potentially a physician since it is possible he/she will become something other than a physician.

That was not my analogy. I said that a freshly admitted medical student, who has the ability and the desire of finishing his studies is not considered a doctor until he gets his diploma. The potential and the actual are not the same.

 

[crowonsnow]

But that’s begging the question. Maybe pro-lifers could be more passionate about abortion-maybe not- but that has nothing to so with whether or not a life is at stake-at most it reveals their concern or lack of concern about it. The OP is asking how anyone can be blind to the fact that a fetus is a human life. A related secondary question is, Do we even care?
And at the very least pro-lifers care enough to face the question squarely and answer it honestly-it would be much easier and more convenient to go along with the crowd on this issue- having come to the realization that there simply is no logical point in a developing humans’ existence when we can say, OK, now it’s ethically alright to kill you but in one minute it won’t be.

Both sides in this debate are facing the question and answering it. A fertilized egg, a sperm and an unfertilized egg are all human. There is no doubt about that. But they are certainly not men and women, boys and girls, doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs. This is where ideological pro-lifers have it wrong, and in my opinion explains their lack of zeal in protecting all these “men and women, boys and girls, doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs.” Subconsciously and consciously they realize that a cell in the femur is not a leg.

And we as humans have certainly decided that it is ethically right to kill one another, or else we wouldn’t be so fond of doing it.

The debate over abortion really has two facets - when the developing fetus should be protected, and what the rights are of the woman. Because late term abortions are very rare, we as a society have already decided that at some point in its development the fetus is more like us than not, and should be extended the same protections. I don’t know what exactly that point will be but no doubt both sides will find problems with it. And that’s a good thing.