Irrefutable pro-life argument

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

The cells that form a new life are useless by themselves. Left to their own they die.

So do you! I address this also later in my essay. This is the danger of taking one quote out of the whole thing and dismissing the rest.

I see no advantage in equivocating over some linguistic difference between the words “alive” and “a life”. A dog, a tree and an amoeba are all “a life”.

The crux that my entire essay is based on is identifying some point in this conversation from life, to a life, to whatever on which there is an intellectually honest basis on which to form an opinion of assigning an entity rights or a “right to life”.

I simply see no basis available to me to make this argument between cells just before conception and cells just after it. So what if it is a unique combination of DNA? So are viruses and we assign them no such right to life.

In fact I see the argument “The cells that form a new life are useless by themselves. Left to their own they die.“ As being particularly weak as left to your own you will die too eventually. You are applying an entirely subjective measure to this.

Who is to say that the “life” (short as it is) of a sperm is not just as important as the “life” of a fertilised cell becoming an adult and dying. Both things are alive, both things live their life cycle as it is and both things then die. I therefore fail to see the difference of one being useful/useless on its own without wholly assuming that the life cycle of one is more special that than of another. What basis have we for saying that a sperm or a human have any more or less right to life than the other if this is the argument we were to make?

The only intellectually honest way to break this regress that I can find is to use as a basis for the assigning of rights, that faculty which itself is the source of them. That faculty which is not available to trees, dogs, amoeba or sperm. Coming from that basis none of the issues above are issues any more, morally or intellectually.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

The problem I see is this. If science were able to create life of any kind for even a few moments, they would be celebrated and probably receive a Nobel prize for such an achievement. Talk a bout celebrating life

I think mainly the answer to your problem is not that we would actually be “celebrating life” following such an event but celebrating another success in the human endeavour of scientific discovery.

 

[Doc_Keele]

All the abortion advocates I have met or heard of assume it is not a person with rights. What is the basis for your statement?

Philosophical Medical Ethics

And by the way, even if it were true, it would not constitute a refutation - at best it would be an attempt at avoiding the argument, but not a way of overcoming it.

Since the premise of the “argument” is that there is an epistemological difficulty in arguing that the foetus isn’t a person without rights, then clearly asserting that it doesn’t make any difference is clearly an answer. There’s not actually a formal argument to be refuted as such, really.

I don’t want to go back over tired old territory but the argument is centred on autonomy - see the unconscious violinist thought experiment to understand the argument.

 

[elts1956]

It would if the fetus was the only consideration in the equation, but it’s not. The other factor is the woman, her health, her life, her happiness. Denying abortion on the basis of a “maybe”, would mean harming a woman who we definitely know is a person.

I’m not prepared to screw up someone’s life just because the fetus might have a mind, when there is no evidence that it does.

Well, you have certainly allowed yourself to become comfortable, haven’t you?

 

[flyingfish]

well, if you’re alive and well, donating your kidney might impaired your health ~ hence there is no obligation. God created you that way - but put it in another way.

I thought a person could function fine with one kidney, but okay. What about bone marrow donation? There are people now who are dying because they need bone marrow. Maybe you’re a match. Are you a murderer because you’re withholding a replenishing body part from someone who needs it to live?

The raped woman did not accept the risk of pregnancy, she got the pregnancy forced on her through rape. Now inside her is another human who is using her bodily resources (and putting strain on her body). Why would she be a murderer if she decided to keep her body for herself, but you would not be a murderer if you hold on to your bone marrow?

Are you claiming that any uncertainty justifies killing? Does this exonerate the guy who shoots the moving bush without waiting to be sure there is a person in there? If not, what is the distinction?

Well, maybe the spider I killed the other day is really a human but I’m hallucinating and seeing it as a spider. I don’t believe in living on the basis of a “what if”.

If there was good evidence that the fetus at some stage of pregnancy had a mind (i.e. aware of its existence, thinking), then I would say a woman who consented to sex should only be able to abort if the pregnancy threatens her own health.

How do get, logically, from person A raping person B to person B being allowed to murder person C? Put another way, why do you insist on the euphemism of ‘using another person’s body’? What specifically about this makes you think it legitimizes murder?

A woman who consents to sex consents to the possibility of pregnancy, so I think that if the fetus has a mind then the woman doesn’t have a right to kill it just because she feels like it. She took the risk when having sex, and so she lost some rights to the control of her body.

But a woman who was raped did not consent, and so is not obliged to donate her body to another person just like you’re not obliged to donate bone marrow.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So do you! I address this also later in my essay. This is the danger of taking one quote out of the whole thing and dismissing the rest.

I see no advantage in equivocating over some linguistic difference between the words “alive” and “a life”. A dog, a tree and an amoeba are all “a life”.

The crux that my entire essay is based on is identifying some point in this conversation from life, to a life, to whatever on which there is an intellectually honest basis on which to form an opinion of assigning an entity rights or a “right to life”.

I simply see no basis available to me to make this argument between cells just before conception and cells just after it. So what if it is a unique combination of DNA? So are viruses and we assign them no such right to life.

In fact I see the argument “The cells that form a new life are useless by themselves. Left to their own they die.“ As being particularly weak as left to your own you will die too eventually. You are applying an entirely subjective measure to this.

Who is to say that the “life” (short as it is) of a sperm is not just as important as the “life” of a fertilised cell becoming an adult and dying. Both things are alive, both things live their life cycle as it is and both things then die. I therefore fail to see the difference of one being useful/useless on its own without wholly assuming that the life cycle of one is more special that than of another. What basis have we for saying that a sperm or a human have any more or less right to life than the other if this is the argument we were to make?

The only intellectually honest way to break this regress that I can find is to use as a basis for the assigning of rights, that faculty which itself is the source of them. That faculty which is not available to trees, dogs, amoeba or sperm. Coming from that basis none of the issues above are issues any more, morally or intellectually.

We aren’t discussing viruses here. We’re discussing abortion. That means we are discussing the intentional killing of unborn human beings - not viruses. If you can’t see the difference, then you aren’t being “intellectually honest.”

Yes, we all die. But we all die as human beings, not as viruses or spermatozoa or ova or trees or fish or sunflowers.

I’ve run across your “argument” before. It makes no sense to me. You’re looking at the world and its living creatures as a massive number of cells that sometimes are stuck together in some sort of conglomerate. This is an archaic and impractical way to look at the world and the life we are given. The way you make it sound, why don’t we just go out and kill anyone we want? What difference does it make? If what is killed in an abortion at any gestational age is not a human being but just cells, then what is born is not a human being but just cells and what develops into an adult is not a human being but just cells. That’s because every single one of those cells will die.

Please tell me what happens to a spermatozoan that is present in the ejaculate but that does not fertilize an ovum. Does it change other than to degrade? Does it have any sort of potential for developing into another organism? Does it carry genetic information that will ever be used by any person? No, it doesn’t. It’s a biological dead end and if you think it has any value as a life, I really wonder about the way you think.

But, if that spermatozoan fertilizes an ovum, something does happen because the genetic information merges with the genetic information of the ovum and a new being is formed. What can that new being do? Is she a dead end? No. She can develop based on the information provided by her unique DNA, she can learn, she can make contributions to society, she can teach biology to people who obviously don’t understand the subject, she may save lives, she may find a cure for AIDS. No spermatozoan by itself can ever do these things no matter how long you wait and watch. No ovum by itself can ever do these things, no matter how long you wait and watch. No virus can ever do these things no matter how long you wait and watch.

But a fertilized ovum can. And does. Conception is the only time when the unique combination of DNA is formed and is the only logical beginning point for a new organism. After conception occurs, the only changes are implantation and development (which BTW continues long after birth).

When what happens at conception and what happens after conception are considered, it becomes obvious that a human being exists and that human being has potential for doing some wonderful things.

Unless she is murdered.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think agnostic more accurately describes me. I still pray sometimes, but when I pray I wonder at the same time if anyone is listening. Agnosticism means not knowing if there is a God. That perfectly describes me, I don’t know if there is a God. I think it’s very unlikely that there is a God who interferes in human affairs. I also don’t think it’s meaningful to talk about God because God would be beyond our comprehension.

Then why are you on a Catholic Forum? GOD is the most important subject to discuss here. Why don’t you go join a forum where God is not discussed? You don’t care if people accept your arguments, so why even be here?

You know, I feel for you. I do. I was agnostic myself for many years. Then one day I had a severe panic attack, right out of the blue. I knew I was dying. So what did I do? I started praying the Hail Mary. Immediately. I kept praying that prayer as I dialed 911.

Even that wasn’t enough to bring me back to Christianity or Catholicism, though I thought that Jesus was a very good person and I did try to follow his teachings.

I hope you study Christianity and Catholicism and talk to experts. After I spoke at length with a monk I realized that what he said made sense. I came back to the Church. I don’t have a strong faith, but I do have faith. And I pray for faith and wisdom every day.

It sounds as if you haven’t really made up your mind about God. I hope you learn (soon) that He exists and He loves us and that everything He does and all that comes from Him is good, even if we don’t understand it because of our paltry human minds.

The women also have the only lives they’ll ever have. And the women definitely have minds, the fetuses (especially in the early stages) most likely don’t.

That is true, according to your reasoning, and something I hadn’t considered.

But the fetuses develop minds. Every pregnant woman existed first as a fertilized ovum, without a mind. But you don’t think that embryos and fetuses should be given the right to develop minds. Your viewpoint on who should be allowed to live is illogical and cruel IMHO. It’s like treating unborn children like ants and stepping on them. I mean, who cares? Ants don’t have minds, so what’s the big deal?

I know you don’t care about convincing people that your viewpoints are correct. But I do and that’s why I reply to your posts. I hope that lurkers may read what I write and maybe a seed will be planted in someone’s mind. If absolutely everything I have written and will write on abortion saves the life of one child, I will feel blessed beyond measure.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[Doc_Keele]

Accepting the potential of the foetus does not automatically entail giving it full moral status.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is specifically about a RAPED woman. I think if the fetus has a mind, the woman who consented to sex can only abort it if it threatens her health or life.

I don’t think we can compel anyone who didn’t consent to give their bodies over to another person. Just like I don’t think you’re a murderer for not donating your “spare” kidney to someone who needs it to live. I think the situation of the raped woman is equivalent to the situation of you not donating your kidney.

So you’re saying it is morally acceptable to MURDER a fetus (who has a mind) because the mother decides she no longer wants to carry her. What difference does it make if the child is conceived via rape? The child still exists and has done no wrong.

This is a justification of murder. This makes no sense.

It’s not the same as my donating a kidney, which actually I would do with no hesitation if someone needed it. I’m not inside my mother’s womb, the unborn child is. I can make a conscious decision to decline (not that I would). The unborn child can’t make this conscious decision and even if she could, who would hear it? The unborn child has a mind, so she is a “person” according to you. Yet the mother can just go ahead and murder her own child.

As the child has a mind, I would think it highly probably that she would experience great physical pain as she is being dismembered, burned with acid, or being partially delivered and then having scissors shoved into her head and her brains scrambled like eggs. I am absolutely positive she would experience great pain if she went through a PBA. Children who are allowed to be born can experience pain immediately. I’ve seen this firsthand for myself.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It may sound trite and outdated, but it is true. Nobody has the right to murder anyone else, not even if the “anyone else” is temporarily inside her body.

It also takes a woman who has been traumatized and turns her into a murderer of her own child, who carries genetic information the mother has given her and relies on her for nutrition and protection.

It’s horrendous.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[banjo]

I don’t believe we have souls, and I don’t believe human beings are special by virtue of being human. I think it’s our minds that make us special. Without a religious framework, I don’t see how you can use anything other than a mind to define personhood.

In attaching criteria to the personhood of the unborn, e.g., having a “mind”, we broaden the possibilities for the abuse of all people. For example: if one must have a “mind” to be considered a person, what happens if an individual loses his mind? Would he lose the right to be considered a person? Would it be permissible, under the law, to terminate that individual? When considering personhood, the restrictions we place on pre-natal life can be placed on post-natal life.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Accepting the potential of the foetus does not automatically entail giving it full moral status.

Really? Whyever not? Aren’t we ‘people’ whether we are black or white, old or young, able-bodied or not, ‘smart’ or ‘dumb’? Do we deny people full moral status (by your definition) for anything **other **than being ‘in or out’ of the womb? If so, what and how?

 

[Doc_Keele]

No, it isn’t necessarily “black-and-white”, and I never at any stage made the differentiation based on being in or out of the womb, did I?
There’s various theories about moral status, it all depends on which one you wish me to talk about.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Accepting the potential of the foetus does not automatically entail giving it full moral status.

Accepting that the fetus is a human being should automatically entail giving her full moral status and protection under the law.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, it isn’t necessarily “black-and-white”, and I never at any stage made the differentiation based on being in or out of the womb, did I?
There’s various theories about moral status, it all depends on which one you wish me to talk about.

Well actually, yes it is. A fetus isn’t a ‘little bit of a person’ (anymore than a slave was 3/5 of a person, if male, and not at all a person if female). Various and sundry cultural traditions don’t make us persons.

And excuse me, but we aren’t really talking ‘moral status’ because again, that is an artificial construct. It’s meant to obfuscate.

We are talking humanity and life. All human beings have a right to life. And NO human being has the moral authority to take the life of another human being. That is why even in the case of something such as capital punishment, in the current society it is not a ‘human being’ who acts but a ‘state’ and that in order for a person to be found guilty and to suffer execution the crime itself must be a capital one and there must be danger, immediate danger, and ongoing danger, to innocent people at the hands of that person, AND there must be no way in which the person could be kept ‘harmless’.

And it is why in the case of war, one is permitted to defend one’s home, family, and innocent people but not to engage in atrocity or to pre-emptively kill unless again there is imminent catastrophic threat to the innocent AND absolutely no other way to protect those innocents and all other avenues have been explored and even there, any loss of life/killing must be held down to the least possible, clemency offered at all times, and the greatest care taken to respect the common humanity in all peoples.

Now you tell me why it is perfectly all right to take an innocent unborn child and kill that child simply because ‘society’ has deemed abortion is ‘legal’. Slavery was legal for generations, and I’m talking chattel slavery which is not moral. While one can make all kinds of arguments that many slaves were ‘well’ treated, or that it was ‘necessary’, or that people didn’t really ‘understand’ the whole thing and that some people took things a little too far. . .all that does is explain WHY the people acted as they did. It doesn’t ever say that simply because slavery was legal, or because they ‘thought’ that it was okay, that it ever WAS OK.

So why should abortion be OK? What’s the big difference?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Accepting that the fetus is a human being should automatically entail giving her full moral status and protection under the law.

That’s just one theory of moral status, the theory based on human properties. It is not without its problems.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well actually, yes it is. A fetus isn’t a ‘little bit of a person’ (anymore than a slave was 3/5 of a person, if male, and not at all a person if female). Various and sundry cultural traditions don’t make us persons.

And excuse me, but we aren’t really talking ‘moral status’ because again, that is an artificial construct. It’s meant to obfuscate

You are asserting, but not arguing. It can be demonstrated in many ways that moral status is not “all or nothing”. A foetus or a person with severe dementia are not accorded certain rights. If all humans have certain rights, then higher primates should be accorded certain rights too.
Your straw man argument about fractions *is *obfuscation.

We are talking humanity and life. All human beings have a right to life

That’s not the issue at stake.

And NO human being has the moral authority to take the life of another human being. That is why even in the case of something such as capital punishment, in the current society it is not a ‘human being’ who acts but a ‘state’ and that in order for a person to be found guilty and to suffer execution the crime itself must be a capital one and there must be danger, immediate danger, and ongoing danger, to innocent people at the hands of that person, AND there must be no way in which the person could be kept ‘harmless’

You’re contradicting yourself. And you forget the right to private defence among other exceptions. Or Phineas in the OT.

And it is why in the case of war, one is permitted to defend one’s home, family, and innocent people but not to engage in atrocity or to pre-emptively kill unless again there is imminent catastrophic threat to the innocent AND absolutely no other way to protect those innocents and all other avenues have been explored and even there, any loss of life/killing must be held down to the least possible, clemency offered at all times, and the greatest care taken to respect the common humanity in all peoples

You’re contradicting yourself here.

Now you tell me why it is perfectly all right to take an innocent unborn child and kill that child simply because ‘society’ has deemed abortion is ‘legal’

I will when you show me where I’ve adopted this position.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

YOU are talking ‘moral status’ which is an artificial construct.

I am talking about human life.

Let’s take just one thing here.

Who has a right to take away a human life?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Moral status is a concept, not an artifical construct.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And now that you’ve once again asserted your personal opinion, shall we move on to where you answer, “Who has the right to take a human life?”

 

[Doc_Keele]

It’s not opinion. If we can’t even agree on common terminology and concepts, no point in continuing.