Irrefutable pro-life argument

[LittleSoldier]

A question to ask neuroscientists and psychologists. To begin with, you’d need a sufficiently developed brain.

Well as far as I know there are no neuroscientists here, but I have an M.A. in research psychology and I find your thinking rather strange.

I don’t believe you would ever be able to get a significant number of neuroscientists, psychologists, and embryologists to agree on a definition of “mind.” It’s really rather subjective. Are we speaking of neurons firing or are we speaking of an awareness of self-existence?

Because it’s your position that only those with a mind (even if it takes a nap for awhile) are persons, it’s up to you to decide.

So, how do you determine that the mind is there?

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

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

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth. *

 

[hitched]

Politicians don’t have to compromise all the time. They may feel pressure to do so, but they don’t have to succumb to the pressure.

No one has to compromise, ever. No one is required to succumb to pressure of any type. This includes pregnant women, politicians and Catholics.

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

*Right on.

hitched*

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, I’m not sure that’s reflecting the political realities. Compromise isn’t a dirty word. Nor is pragmatism.

Compromise isn’t a dirty word, but the act of compromise may very well be.

Pragmatism. Are you referring to the philosophical definition or a reference to the practicality of certain actions?

I’m afraid the zeitgeist in most “civilized” countries is a worship of moral relativism. I don’t see much hope for any of their governments.

I would like to say I would pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday, then get on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again. But I can’t play guitar. I never could get the hang of it. So I’ll play piano and pray we don’t get fooled again.

The world is a horrid mess.

And Jesus, my love, has been crucified.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and unborn animals.

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth. *

 

[flyingfish]

Are we speaking of neurons firing or are we speaking of an awareness of self-existence?

When I say mind I mean awareness of existence, conscious thoughts and so on. That is what being a person means to me.

Calling neurons firing a mind renders the concept meaningless in terms of relating it to what it means to be a person, and lots of species (including bugs and fish) have neurons firing.

Obviously you disagree with my choice to equate the presence of a self aware/thinking mind with personhood.

So, how do you determine that the mind is there?

By reading about scientific findings about when self awareness/thoughts/mind/whatever develop.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Littlesoldier, what would you say if Protestant ministers, in the wake of the abuse scandal in the Church, declared that as a true Christians, (Catholics in their view are not because they believe “works” in salvation), one must support the outlaw of the Catholic Church in America. The Pope is the Anti-Christ as indicated in the Bible, proof of which this scandal shows. Children need to be protected from the insular world of the Catholic Church. It is not a religion, but a cult. No Protestant politician should ever leave their faith outside the building when they enter to debate and propose laws.

Just a thought experiment. What is wrong with this thinking?

.

What’s wrong with that thinking is that Protestants don’t belong to the church which was founded by Jesus Christ. Their faith is not the true Faith. Their church is not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

But if they leave their faith outside the building when they enter to debate and propose laws they are hypocrites.

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

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

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth. *

 

[Des]

I don’t see why you want to put words in my mouth when I explicitly said I don’t think this way. I said it doesn’t matter if the mind is advanced or not, whether it’s fully developed or not. Just that it has to be there.

I know you don’t believe the latter two but I was adding some sarcasm there to get my point across since the logic from your first points has to extend to the next two or your entire argument becomes illogical.

There’s really no way around it if one is to call the development of a brain the reason when someone is human or not. And we aren’t talking about a person who’s dead here. We are talking about a ‘growing’ zygote, that ‘will’ develop a mind. If you still wish to stick to your rules, then a 3, 6, 9 month fetus, or a 1 month old baby, or a mentally handicapped person where the conscience or mind is not yet completely formed must have it’s human status reduced. I would like to know your argument as to why a new born baby who’s undeveloped brain is as human as I am if this is not true and we continue to go by your first rule of thumb.

 

[LittleSoldier]

When I say mind I mean awareness of existence, conscious thoughts and so on. That is what being a person means to me.

Calling neurons firing a mind renders the concept meaningless in terms of relating it to what it means to be a person, and lots of species (including bugs and fish) have neurons firing.

That’s why I asked. The concept of “mind” is subjective, so I wanted to know what your concept is.

Obviously you disagree with my choice to equate the presence of a self aware/thinking mind with personhood.

Yes, I do disagree. To me “personhood” is a term that some people throw in to show that even though an unborn child may be a human being, she isn’t a “person” and so it’s morally acceptable to kill her. To me a human being is automatically a person and exists from the moment of conception. As a human being and person she is automatically entitled to all the protection that other human beings and persons are entitled to.

By reading about scientific findings about when self awareness/thoughts/mind/whatever develop.

So you leave it to the “experts” to decide? As I mentioned before, I don’t think you could ever get a significant number of neuroscientists, psychologists, and embryologists to agree on a concept such as “mind.” I also doubt you could get consensus on self awareness or thoughts or any other aspects of “mind.” I think the most you could hope for is some operational definitions of “mind” and those are only relevant for the research being conducted.

Maybe some philosophers would help, but I doubt it.

I just see so many problems with your position on this. I would hate to try to write a paper on “mind.” It would end up as the world’s largest tome.

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

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

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth.*

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6479961]What’s wrong with that thinking is that Protestants don’t belong to the church which was founded by Jesus Christ. Their faith is not the true Faith. Their church is not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

That is not the way they see it though. They believe they are correct in their " beliefs" as you are. Soooooo…for a free society to exists we need a limited govt. Laws that tolerate different belief systems to a degree. Now we do not throw out all belief----no morality—that would mean we are savages. But the law of a free society has to limit how much “beliefs” should be codified as law to some degree.

But if they leave their faith outside the building when they enter to debate and propose laws they are hypocrites.

So, should we in America, or any other largely Protestant country, call the majority of its citizens hypocrites because it allows Catholicism.

Well, most protestants do not have this view but your line of thinking creates problems you seem not to want to tackle.

 

[flyingfish]

If you still wish to stick to your rules, then a 3, 6, 9 month fetus, or a 1 month old baby, or a mentally handicapped person where the conscience or mind is not yet completely formed must have it’s human status reduced. I would like to know your argument as to why a new born baby who’s undeveloped brain is as human as I am if this is not true and we continue to go by your first rule of thumb.

I don’t know if a newborn baby has a mind. If it doesn’t, then I wouldn’t call it a person. I said, it doesn’t matter if the mind is sophisticated. There has to be someone in there though, it can’t be a mindless physical system for me to call it a person.

I don’t know in how many other ways I can say it. The mind has to be there, it doesn’t matter how sophisticated or fully developed it is.

 

[flyingfish]

So you leave it to the “experts” to decide? As I mentioned before, I don’t think you could ever get a significant number of neuroscientists, psychologists, and embryologists to agree on a concept such as “mind.” I also doubt you could get consensus on self awareness or thoughts or any other aspects of “mind.” I think the most you could hope for is some operational definitions of “mind” and those are only relevant for the research being conducted.

I would essentially leave it to the experts to decide, what is a better alternative than listening to people who have dedicated their lives to understanding what a mind is? I would certainly trust them above my own ideas on the subject, and above the ideas of anyone else who is not a professional scientist in the relevant field.

From the reading I’ve done, and the public lectures by neuroscientists I’ve heard it’s not as bad as you describe. There are ways to measure the presence of self awareness, and it’s pretty much a consensus that the first trimester (when most elective abortions are done) fetus doesn’t have it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I would essentially leave it to the experts to decide, what is a better alternative than listening to people who have dedicated their lives to understanding what a mind is? I would certainly trust them above my own ideas on the subject, and above the ideas of anyone else who is not a professional scientist in the relevant field.

From the reading I’ve done, and the public lectures by neuroscientists I’ve heard it’s not as bad as you describe. There are ways to measure the presence of self awareness, and it’s pretty much a consensus that the first trimester (when most elective abortions are done) fetus doesn’t have it.

Are you now saying that “self awareness” is what a being must have in order to be a person? That’s not what you stated before. I would agree that a first trimester fetus doesn’t have self-awareness.

But that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe a first trimester fetus isn’t a person. One of the problems I find with your position is that this first trimester fetus will develop whatever you want to describe as a mind. You emphasize that “persons” have this mind, whether they keep it or not, but what you haven’t stated is that not one of those “persons” had what you consider a mind when they were first trimester fetuses. Every one of those “persons” had to go through the developmental stages that are necessary for a mind to exist in the first place. It just doesn’t boom! show up one day and it’s likely that it develops at different rates in different people.

I would be utterly shocked to find out there is any sort of consensus among scientists and philosophers about what a mind even is. It is an extremely difficult concept.

But now you’ve brought up self-awareness. So if a newly born infant doesn’t have self-awareness (and from everything I’ve been taught, she doesn’t), then a newly born infant isn’t a “person” so it is moral to kill “it.”

After all, it wouldn’t be 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 it’s being killed.

Who is hurt by it?

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

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

 

[flyingfish]

Are you now saying that “self awareness” is what a being must have in order to be a person? That’s not what you stated before. I would agree that a first trimester fetus doesn’t have self-awareness.

It’s a disagreement about language. For me “mind” “self awareness” “consciousness” “thinking” are all words for the same thing.

Maybe I’m wrong to use these words in this way. Keep in mind English is not my first language, and it always seemed to me that these words all meant the same thing: an individual who knows it exists and has thoughts, however primitive.

You emphasize that “persons” have this mind, whether they keep it or not, but what you haven’t stated is that not one of those “persons” had what you consider a mind when they were first trimester fetuses.

I wouldn’t put it that way. I would say “they” did not exist until the mind developed, so it is contradictory for me to talk about them having been a first trimester fetus. They did not exist at that time.

But now you’ve brought up self-awareness. So if a newly born infant doesn’t have self-awareness (and from everything I’ve been taught, she doesn’t), then a newly born infant isn’t a “person” so it is moral to kill “it.”

After all, it wouldn’t be 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 it’s being killed.

Who is hurt by it?

We’ve discussed this at length before. For example, society considers it immoral to go around slaughtering animals and pets for no reason. Killing a person may be murder, but it doesn’t mean that killing anything that’s not a person is suddenly okay.

For one, the parents may be hurt if the newborn is killed, and we have general laws against unjustified killing of many non-persons (like dogs, cats, cows, etc.).

I think if a newborn doesn’t have a mind, it would be acceptable to kill it/let it die if keeping it alive means taking resources needed for the life of a person (like say in the case of famine parents might let their newborn die so their older children have enough food to live).

 

[JimG]

First of all, you are assuming that I live in the USA.

Second of all, you are assuming that if I live in the USA I condone its laws. And that is just not true. The Church teaches that we are not required to comply with unjust laws, and more than that, as Catholics we are required to not comply with unjust laws.

The reason you are going against Church teaching is that your proposal uses evil means (the accepted murder of the unborn who are conceived via rape) to achieve a good ends. That is not acceptable.

I was talking about mitigating evil, not advancing it. There is nothing in Catholic morality which prohibits the mitigation of evil.

You didn’t say where you lived, but my reference was to U.S. laws on abortion, which are currently guided by Roe V Wade, Doe v Bolton, and subsequent abortion rulings.

Suppose that the SCOTUS rulings were overturned and the matter returned for the states for regulation. And further that the state already allows abortion on demand for any reason, at the sole discretion only of the woman. (This is rather the situation in which the U.S. finds itself at present.)

A measure is introduced into the legislature to prohibit abortion in all instances except in cases of rape, incest or positive endangerment of a mother’s life. Are you saying that a Catholic legislator would be morally obligated to vote No to that legislation which would mitigate the evil, thereby allowing the greater evil to continue?

A Yes vote in such a case is NOT a vote for abortion. It is a vote to limit abortion.

Certainly Catholic legislators should continue to work to restrict abortion even further. Because as you correctly state, abortion of a child conceived by rape still is the killing of a child. If such a 100% prohibition is not obtainable, it is still better to vote to mitigate the evil rather than to vote not to mitigate it.

In voting for substantial limits on abortion rather than no limits on abortion, a Catholic would certainly not be going against Church teaching.

 

[Doc_Keele]

You’ve misunderstood the morality of this I believe Little Soldier. I wish I could persuade you that doing something is better than nothing, even when that something is not perfect.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well as far as I know there are no neuroscientists here, but I have an M.A. in research psychology and I find your thinking rather strange.

I don’t believe you would ever be able to get a significant number of neuroscientists, psychologists, and embryologists to agree on a definition of “mind.” It’s really rather subjective. Are we speaking of neurons firing or are we speaking of an awareness of self-existence?

Because it’s your position that only those with a mind (even if it takes a nap for awhile) are persons, it’s up to you to decide.

So, how do you determine that the mind is there?

Although there is a lot of debate over exactly what constitutes the mind (especially between different disciplines, who often mean something different by “mind”), I think you would be able to get the vast majority if not all to agree on circumstances where there isn’t a mind present. We can agree the morula doesn’t have a mind, for example.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It’s a disagreement about language. For me “mind” “self awareness” “consciousness” “thinking” are all words for the same thing.

Maybe I’m wrong to use these words in this way. Keep in mind English is not my first language, and it always seemed to me that these words all meant the same thing: an individual who knows it exists and has thoughts, however primitive.

Thank you for letting me know that English isn’t your first language. You actually use much better English than a lot of people here.

The term “mind” is subjective. It refers to different things for different people. Like I stated before, some people might use neurons firing as an indicator of a mind, whereas other people might insist that self-awareness or attempts to develop autonomy would be better indicators. It’s so complex that I don’t think there will ever be any consensus on what it means. So to break it down into “self-awareness” actually makes more sense if we want to discuss this. “Self-awareness” is a much simpler term to define although it’s still extremely complex and I still don’t think there will be any consensus on what it means.

I wouldn’t put it that way. I would say “they” did not exist until the mind developed, so it is contradictory for me to talk about them having been a first trimester fetus. They did not exist at that time.

Then what existed? A being with a “potential” mind? A clump of cells with the “potential” to become a being with a mind? A blob? A womb-squatter? (I didn’t make these up - these are terms some people use to describe the unborn human inside the womb of her mother.)

We’ve discussed this at length before. For example, society considers it immoral to go around slaughtering animals and pets for no reason. Killing a person may be murder, but it doesn’t mean that killing anything that’s not a person is suddenly okay.

Killing a first-trimester baby is immoral. I find it strange that in many societies it’s considered immoral to kill a kitten, but not to kill a first-trimester human. It shows how little regard these societies have for the sanctity of human life. A kitten will never turn into a human being with a mind. Neither will a dog or any other non-human animal. Yet somehow it’s OK to get upset about killing these animals, but not OK to get upset about killing a human being or what some people would call a “potential” human being (I disagree with this term, but it seems to me that even if the first-trimester fetus were a “potential” human being, she would have more value to society than a kitten).

For one, the parents may be hurt if the newborn is killed, and we have general laws against unjustified killing of many non-persons (like dogs, cats, cows, etc.).

But why would the parents be hurt? As you stated above, it doesn’t even exist!

I think if a newborn doesn’t have a mind, it would be acceptable to kill it/let it die if keeping it alive means taking resources needed for the life of a person (like say in the case of famine parents might let their newborn die so their older children have enough food to live).

What you have just written makes it moral (in your eyes) to kill every single newborn on the planet. Resources to keep those infants alive would be better spent to help those who have minds. There are an awful lot of hungry, poor, suffering people in the world. So why don’t we kill all the newborns or let them die until we get caught up with the people who have minds, and then maybe people can have children again sometimes in the future.

Isn’t this what’s going on in China?

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

Although there is a lot of debate over exactly what constitutes the mind (especially between different disciplines, who often mean something different by “mind”), I think you would be able to get the vast majority if not all to agree on circumstances where there isn’t a mind present. We can agree the morula doesn’t have a mind, for example.

I would agree that the morula doesn’t have a mind. But that’s not a problem for me because I think using “mind” as the definitive characteristic of a “person” is inappropriate and shows a lack of understanding and acceptance of the sanctity of human life.

But I don’t think we could get the vast majority to agree on when a mind exists because there’s no agreement on what a mind even is.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

I was talking about mitigating evil, not advancing it. There is nothing in Catholic morality which prohibits the mitigation of evil.

You didn’t say where you lived, but my reference was to U.S. laws on abortion, which are currently guided by Roe V Wade, Doe v Bolton, and subsequent abortion rulings.

Suppose that the SCOTUS rulings were overturned and the matter returned for the states for regulation. And further that the state already allows abortion on demand for any reason, at the sole discretion only of the woman. (This is rather the situation in which the U.S. finds itself at present.)

A measure is introduced into the legislature to prohibit abortion in all instances except in cases of rape, incest or positive endangerment of a mother’s life. Are you saying that a Catholic legislator would be morally obligated to vote No to that legislation which would mitigate the evil, thereby allowing the greater evil to continue?

A Yes vote in such a case is NOT a vote for abortion. It is a vote to limit abortion.

Certainly Catholic legislators should continue to work to restrict abortion even further. Because as you correctly state, abortion of a child conceived by rape still is the killing of a child. If such a 100% prohibition is not obtainable, it is still better to vote to mitigate the evil rather than to vote not to mitigate it.

In voting for substantial limits on abortion rather than no limits on abortion, a Catholic would certainly not be going against Church teaching.

I understand your position. I really do. Honestly. But I can’t go along with it. I gave you Church teaching. The ends do not justify the means.

Abortion in all cases is immoral. I can’t agree with your proposal, even if it means saving human lives. I just can’t, unless someone can show me Church teaching that states it is acceptable to do this. As a Catholic and a human being, I can’t accept the legal murder of human beings. There can be no compromise on this.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

You’ve misunderstood the morality of this I believe Little Soldier. I wish I could persuade you that doing something is better than nothing, even when that something is not perfect.

Then please find me Church teaching that states what Jim is proposing is acceptable. From everything I’ve read, it’s clear to me that there can be no compromise when it comes to abortion. It’s wrong. It’s always wrong. I can’t agree to make it illegal except in cases of rape. I can’t agree to allow legalized murder of unborn children, even though it may be legal now.

It goes against everything I stand for.

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

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

 

[Des]

I don’t know if a newborn baby has a mind. If it doesn’t, then I wouldn’t call it a person. I said, it doesn’t matter if the mind is sophisticated. There has to be someone in there though, it can’t be a mindless physical system for me to call it a person.

Oh I never said there isn’t someone in there regarding a newborn baby or mentally handicapped man. I’m saying there’s a piece of ‘someone’ in there using the mind in a developing human being as a criteria when eventually calling a bunch of growing living cells a person. And yes, saying “having no mind” has to automatically attach itself to the entire ‘mind scale’ as these percentage of the mind (0-100%) that one has are all within a system of a developing human individual and not a piece of balsa wood floating on the water.

If having no mind constitutes you to say he’s not a person, then it’s only right for me to conclude that a ‘full mind’ constitutes a full person and a fraction of a mind logically follows to mean a fraction of a human.

Sorry flyingfish but if you wish to remain with your theory, you either have to use the (0-100%) scale or simply just not use the mind as your main criteria for this issue when concluding someone as human or not.