Irrefutable pro-life argument

[Tantum_ergo]

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

Look, I know it’s late over there and you’re tired, but I have better things to do than play silly games with posters. If you want to dialogue, then that means you answer MY question and then if you have a point to bring up ABOUT the question, you present it to me and then I answer, etc. etc.

So, either answer (please) or tell me you’re not going to bother, thank you (preferably without the veiled implication that I am being a total BEAST in not agreeing with your pearls of wisdom in every way) and I’ll wish you a pleasant evening with no hard feelings whatsoever.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It’s not me that focussed on whether or not moral status is a concept or an artificial construct:shrug:
and how can we discuss moral status without agreeing what it is?
but you’re right, I am tired and I have made my positions on life pretty clear before -
I believe that abortion is morally acceptable when the mother’s life is at risk and when there are severe abnormalities eg incompatible with life for any significant period of time outside the womb. I am equivocal about abortion in cases of rape.
Life can be taken by properly constituted legal authority, in private defence and quasi self-defence and during war time.

 

[flyingfish]

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 don’t understand why you think it’s cruel. Take the first trimester fetus, why is it cruel to kill it? Who is hurt when it dies? It doesn’t have thoughts, or feelings, it doesn’t know it exists, it doesn’t know its being killed.

Who is hurt by it?

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.

If someone is braindead with no hope of recovery society generally agrees that it’s no longer a person.

I’m not talking about some advanced kind of mind, I’m not talking about people who are temporarily lacking consciousness, but rather cases where consciousness either hasn’t developed or is permanently gone.

It still matters whether it’s in the womb or not, because naturally when it’s in the womb it’s drawing resources from an individual’s body and that individual may not want to provide for another organism.

But still, even when its out of the womb, resources would still be required to keep it alive (like say life support in the case of someone forever brain dead). It’s up to society to decide where its resources go. (In America by the way, health care is not a right, and even fully conscious individuals die in large numbers every year because they can’t afford it.)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thank you for your answer. I do see why you think as you do, and there are many who agree with you.

Now, I also agree (don’t faint) with the idea that a proper legal authority (such as a government) can fairly administer capital punishment (in certain circumstances) as well as defend itself in times of war.

But. . .I just can’t see how that legal authority can determine that a mother (or father, or indeed the state itself through enforced abortion even when the parent(s) would not wish the child aborted, such as in China) has the moral right to take the life of a child in the womb. . .even under the circumstances where there is danger to the life of the mother. And of course, the vast majority of abortions are not done to save the mother’s life, or indeed because of rape or incest, or even for ‘birth defects’. So those are all kind of red herrings.

Especially because the Church does not ‘demand’ that the mother ‘sacrifice herself’ in the case of mortal danger. The doctor must try his best to save both mother and child if there is danger, but if in trying to save the mother (and if she dies the child is going to die anyway) the child dies, not as a deliberate act, that is not abortion and it’s not sinful.

So. With rape or incest (both horrible crimes and certainly one would sympathize with the woman), again, the CHILD is not the rapist or aggressor. If we don’t even execute rapists (and many states do not), why do we execute the innocent child? Again, we are not forcing women to ‘keep’ the children when they are born, since the woman did not ‘consent’ to the sexual act. . .but aborting the child doesn’t ‘derape’ the woman, it doesn’t take any of the trauma away, and it ADDS trauma to her by putting her in the position of killing a child who is (whether the woman had ‘wanted’ or ‘consented’) part of her, a living human being. . .

As for birth defects. . .again, why would it be moral to ‘kill’ a child because the child had Down syndrome? Is a person with Down syndrome ‘less’ of a person? If a child is severe defects, why not allow him/her to be born, allow him/her to know the touch of mother and father? Again, the Church does not demand ‘heroic’ measures. While the child may not be deprived of food and water, if the child’s body cannot ‘take in’ food or water, the child is not being actively deprived of what he could have had, but is being deliberately ‘withheld’ from him.

Helen Keller was blind and deaf and in her earliest years ran around like a wild animal. . .but given teaching she was able to learn and grow.

You don’t think that a child with say Trisomy 13, or who perhaps has microcephaly, has something to ‘experience’ in life, or to share with others? I think they do. . .

 

[Doc_Keele]

When I was referring to severe abnormalities, this didn’t include Trisomy 21/Down’s Syndrome. The sort of thing I was thinking of would be anencephaly or Cyclops deformity.

As for rape, as I say I’m equivocal. It’s not inconsistent or illogical to consider something immoral but also to consider that the principle of autonomy permits others to do it. I think it’s ideal that women who are pregnant from rape don’t have an abortion but I believe that this is supererogatory (that is, above what we can expect).

These exceptions aren’t red herrings when they aren’t being used to justify abortion on demand.

Yes, these sorts of instances are rare, but if you are formulating principles that cover every situation they have to be taken into account. They certainly do happen, it’s not a case of fabricating scenarios.

 

[flyingfish]

Especially because the Church does not ‘demand’ that the mother ‘sacrifice herself’ in the case of mortal danger. The doctor must try his best to save both mother and child if there is danger, but if in trying to save the mother (and if she dies the child is going to die anyway) the child dies, not as a deliberate act, that is not abortion and it’s not sinful.

I thought that only in very special cases such as an ectopic pregnancy or a cancerous womb this can be done (because you can extract the baby as a side effect of extracting a defective organ).

What if the woman just has a heart condition and pregnancy has a high chance of killing her? Then there is no defective organ to extract, and the only way to save the woman is a flat out abortion that involves cutting up the fetus and extracting it or however its done.

Wouldn’t the Church forbid it in this case and say the woman should take her chances with death?

 

[LittleSoldier]

It’s not me that focussed on whether or not moral status is a concept or an artificial construct:shrug:
and how can we discuss moral status without agreeing what it is?
but you’re right, I am tired and I have made my positions on life pretty clear before -
I believe that abortion is morally acceptable when the mother’s life is at risk and when there are severe abnormalities eg incompatible with life for any significant period of time outside the womb. I am equivocal about abortion in cases of rape.
Life can be taken by properly constituted legal authority, in private defence and quasi self-defence and during war time.

Wait a minute. Haven’t you been arguing (in other threads) that a human being doesn’t exist until implantation? Please let me know if I’m wrong. I was under the impression that you argued that abortion is moral if done before implantation.

In cases where the mother’s life is at risk and in saving the mother’s life the fetus dies, what occurs is not considered to be an abortion by the Church. I’m not sure about the Church’s position when the unborn child has such severe abnormalities that she can’t survive outside the womb, but I wonder what you mean by “significant period of time.” Some people might consider that to be eighteen years. Some might consider it to be a day. Would you please define “signficant period of time” as it pertains to this aspect of your position?

I know that in cases of rape an abortion is murder and this is Church teaching.

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

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

 

[adriancombe]

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

Even if one granted this (and I do not) it does not touch the hunter argument, which deal with our obligation when there is uncertainty.

 

[JimG]

How about if all sides simply agree to prohibit abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when needed to save the life of the mother?

No, that’s not a perfect pro-life stance, but it’s far far better than current law.
I don’t personally think that in cases of rape, the perpetrator’s child should be give the death penalty. Still, prohibiting abortion except for the above would eliminate over 95% of abortions.

Will people claim rape when it’s not true? Maybe, but they would be potentially putting their boyfriends in legal jeopardy, if his DNA is discovered.

Will abortionists claim abortion is needed to save the mother’s life when it really isn’t? Maybe, but the law could require a diagnosis confirmed by a second physician who does not do abortions and has no financial interest.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Wait a minute. Haven’t you been arguing (in other threads) that a human being doesn’t exist until implantation? Please let me know if I’m wrong. I was under the impression that you argued that abortion is moral if done before implantation

Yes, you’re right. As I mentioned, I was getting tired and cranky when I posted last night.
Yes, I don’t consider the conceptus a person until implantation occurs and I follow the conventional definition that prevention of implantation is not abortion. My omission.

In cases where the mother’s life is at risk and in saving the mother’s life the fetus dies, what occurs is not considered to be an abortion by the Church

Yes and no - and I would argue that the arguments that salpingectomy is not direct abortion and salpingostomy is are casuistry (clever but false reasoning).

I’m not sure about the Church’s position when the unborn child has such severe abnormalities that she can’t survive outside the womb, but I wonder what you mean by “significant period of time.” Some people might consider that to be eighteen years. Some might consider it to be a day. Would you please define “signficant period of time” as it pertains to this aspect of your position?

LOL, I can’t get away with deliberately vague
The Church is against abortion in these circumstances. I was meaning abnormalities that meant the child would live typically just a few months.

 

[Doc_Keele]

How about if all sides simply agree to prohibit abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when needed to save the life of the mother?

No, that’s not a perfect pro-life stance, but it’s far far better than current law.
I don’t personally think that in cases of rape, the perpetrator’s child should be give the death penalty. Still, prohibiting abortion except for the above would eliminate over 95% of abortions.

Will people claim rape when it’s not true? Maybe, but they would be potentially putting their boyfriends in legal jeopardy, if his DNA is discovered.

Will abortionists claim abortion is needed to save the mother’s life when it really isn’t? Maybe, but the law could require a diagnosis confirmed by a second physician who does not do abortions and has no financial interest.

Many people would welcome this (I certainly would), and it would stand a far better chance in most countries of becoming law than flat prohibition. At least some pro-lifers would not want such a law, from the evidence of posts here - on the basis that it would still permit a lesser evil. Politics is the art of compromise, and in this imperfect world I firmly believe sometimes we have to accept the lesser of two evils:shrug:

 

[Doc_Keele]

Even if one granted this (and I do not) it does not touch the hunter argument, which deal with our obligation when there is uncertainty.

It does, actually.

 

[adriancombe]

It does, actually.

Please clarify…

 

[Doc_Keele]

Have you proved that there’s uncertainty? No.

 

[Doc_Keele]

The hunter analogy doesn’t really fit the situation of abortion in any case. It certainly wouldn’t argue against abortion for the sake of the mother’s health for example.

The hunter doesn’t know what he might be shooting at, but he knows a human would have full moral status. Nothing is at stake if he doesn’t shoot, unless there’s a possibility it could be an animal dangerous to him, and there is a time element involved that preclude certainty before firing.

 

[LittleSoldier]

How about if all sides simply agree to prohibit abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when needed to save the life of the mother?

No, that’s not a perfect pro-life stance, but it’s far far better than current law.
I don’t personally think that in cases of rape, the perpetrator’s child should be give the death penalty. Still, prohibiting abortion except for the above would eliminate over 95% of abortions.

Will people claim rape when it’s not true? Maybe, but they would be potentially putting their boyfriends in legal jeopardy, if his DNA is discovered.

Will abortionists claim abortion is needed to save the mother’s life when it really isn’t? Maybe, but the law could require a diagnosis confirmed by a second physician who does not do abortions and has no financial interest.

I’m sorry but I can’t go along with that. At all. What you are proposing is to allow murder in certain cases.

At conception a new human being is formed. Her existence and protection is what is important - not the way she was formed. Also, allowing her to be aborted results in her mother now not only being victimized by a rapist, but turned into the murderer of her own child.

In rape the rapist is the one who sins. Punish him. Don’t give a death sentence to an unborn child who did absolutely nothing wrong.

There can be no compromise here. The Church has stated the Truth and it can’t be changed - not even to agree with pro-abortionists. We can’t change or compromise on Truth.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t understand why you think it’s cruel. Take the first trimester fetus, why is it cruel to kill it? Who is hurt when it dies? It doesn’t have thoughts, or feelings, it doesn’t know it exists, it doesn’t know its being killed.

Who is hurt by it?

Why don’t we just take you out somewhere, give you an injection so you are unconscious and kill you. You wouldn’t have thoughts, or feelings, you wouldn’t know you exist, you wouldn’t know that you are being killed.

Who is hurt by it?

If someone is braindead with no hope of recovery society generally agrees that it’s no longer a person.

I’m not talking about some advanced kind of mind, I’m not talking about people who are temporarily lacking consciousness, but rather cases where consciousness either hasn’t developed or is permanently gone.

I repeat, if we inject you to render you unconscious and kill you, you would not know you were being killed.

Who is hurt by it?

It still matters whether it’s in the womb or not, because naturally when it’s in the womb it’s drawing resources from an individual’s body and that individual may not want to provide for another organism.

So to you an unborn child is like a tapeworm. If the mother does not want to keep the human being inside her alive and protected then she is being selfish and spitting in God’s face. All children are a gift from God. Picking and choosing which shall live and which shall be killed is like some sort of science-fiction nightmare that has, unfortunately, come true.

This is the way human beings reproduce. All unborn children, from conception on, are precious and deserve protection under the law. It’s not up to the mother to decide that what is inside her is a human being or not or a person or not or a human or not. You can’t vote on Truth and you can’t change Truth.

Let’s take a newly born infant. Can that infant survive on her own? No. She needs nourishment, she needs warmth, and she needs contact with other human beings. She doesn’t know she is a human being, she doesn’t even know that she exists separate from her mother. So why not kill her? She wouldn’t know the difference.

Who is hurt by it?

But still, even when its out of the womb, resources would still be required to keep it alive (like say life support in the case of someone forever brain dead). It’s up to society to decide where its resources go. (In America by the way, health care is not a right, and even fully conscious individuals die in large numbers every year because they can’t afford it.)

It does not matter what society wants if society is wrong. And health care is a basic human right and I hope the USA recognizes this someday.

I’ve given you Church teaching. That is what I go by. I’m not going to argue with you over and over and over about the same thing. This is a Catholic forum and I’m Catholic. I can only assume you’re on a Catholic forum because you’re interested in Church teaching.

If you don’t understand that an unborn child is developing from conception and will develop a mind, and is precious and is a gift from God, then there is no point in discussing it with you. You don’t even care if anyone else is convinced by your arguments, (and I know this from what you have posted in another thread in response to a post I made), so they are extraneous.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Good points. Thank you. We can easily slip down a slippery slope and I think we are.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you for your answer. I do see why you think as you do, and there are many who agree with you.

Now, I also agree (don’t faint) with the idea that a proper legal authority (such as a government) can fairly administer capital punishment (in certain circumstances) as well as defend itself in times of war.

But. . .I just can’t see how that legal authority can determine that a mother (or father, or indeed the state itself through enforced abortion even when the parent(s) would not wish the child aborted, such as in China) has the moral right to take the life of a child in the womb. . .even under the circumstances where there is danger to the life of the mother. And of course, the vast majority of abortions are not done to save the mother’s life, or indeed because of rape or incest, or even for ‘birth defects’. So those are all kind of red herrings.

Especially because the Church does not ‘demand’ that the mother ‘sacrifice herself’ in the case of mortal danger. The doctor must try his best to save both mother and child if there is danger, but if in trying to save the mother (and if she dies the child is going to die anyway) the child dies, not as a deliberate act, that is not abortion and it’s not sinful.

So. With rape or incest (both horrible crimes and certainly one would sympathize with the woman), again, the CHILD is not the rapist or aggressor. If we don’t even execute rapists (and many states do not), why do we execute the innocent child? Again, we are not forcing women to ‘keep’ the children when they are born, since the woman did not ‘consent’ to the sexual act. . .but aborting the child doesn’t ‘derape’ the woman, it doesn’t take any of the trauma away, and it ADDS trauma to her by putting her in the position of killing a child who is (whether the woman had ‘wanted’ or ‘consented’) part of her, a living human being. . .

As for birth defects. . .again, why would it be moral to ‘kill’ a child because the child had Down syndrome? Is a person with Down syndrome ‘less’ of a person? If a child is severe defects, why not allow him/her to be born, allow him/her to know the touch of mother and father? Again, the Church does not demand ‘heroic’ measures. While the child may not be deprived of food and water, if the child’s body cannot ‘take in’ food or water, the child is not being actively deprived of what he could have had, but is being deliberately ‘withheld’ from him.

Helen Keller was blind and deaf and in her earliest years ran around like a wild animal. . .but given teaching she was able to learn and grow.

You don’t think that a child with say Trisomy 13, or who perhaps has microcephaly, has something to ‘experience’ in life, or to share with others? I think they do. . .

I’ve taught children with Down Syndrome and I know they experience life with all the emotions that people who do not have Down Syndrome have. I’ve found they find a huge amount of joy and happiness in life and I feel that I was given a gift to have the opportunity to interact with them.

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

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

 

[Doc_Keele]

There can be no compromise here. The Church has stated the Truth and it can’t be changed - not even to agree with pro-abortionists. We can’t change or compromise on Truth.

So the children that would saved under this more restrictive regime are of no consequence then?