Irrefutable pro-life argument

[Doc_Keele]

Logic tells us that doing something must be better than doing nothing. Better to light a single candle than curse the darkness, as the saying goes:shrug:

 

[JimG]

LittleSoldier, if abortion were currently prohibited in all cases, then I would agree with you that proposing a law to allow some abortions would not be allowable for a Catholic legislator.

But that is not the case. In the United States, abortion is legal virtually throughout pregnancy, for nearly any reason.

In my own state, and in others, pro-life legislators have frequently proposed limitations to abortion. Post-viability limitations, parental notification requirements, stricter definitions of health, second opinion requirements, partial birth abortion prohibition, state safety inspections of abortion clinics, you name it.

These attempts have been opposed by pro-choice legislators, and when passed, have often been overturned as not meeting the requirements of Roe v Wade or Doe v Bolton, as not meeting constitutional muster. But pro-life legislators keep trying and sometimes succeed in imposing some limits to abortion.

Your view would make them morally culpable for simply trying to impose limits on abortion which were less than total prohibition. That would effectively tie their hands regarding the issue, making them entirely impotent regarding the matter of abortion.

But conservative Catholics and bishops have supported these efforts to limit abortion. It has nothing to do with voting for abortion of any kind. It has to do with voting for restrictions on abortion.

 

[flyingfish]

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.)

What existed is a human fetus. I personally don’t see the need to make up additional terms when medical terms for it already exist. I don’t think a human fetus is yet a person.

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.

If the kitten was living inside a woman and straining her body and mind you can bet that it would be considered okay for the woman to abort the kitten.

It seems like all these discussions forget how straining pregnancy is on the woman’s body and mind. The whole reason for abortion is for a woman to avoid 9 months of this strain and the strain/risk of childbirth in the elective case and avoid damage to health/life in the serious reason case.

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

Just because a person doesn’t exist doesn’t mean the parents don’t care about it. Obviously most people have babies because they want children. My house isn’t a person, but you can bet I’d be really hurt if someone burned it down.

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.

Remember I talked about parents choosing to let a newborn die so they can feed existing children in the case of a famine. Not other people coming into a family to kill someone else’s newborn.

Most people would never put strangers ahead of their newborn, even if it doesn’t yet have a mind. If I had a newborn I would never kill it so that some stranger could get food. The parents’ resources are theirs to use as they please.

As for society’s resources,

The situation is obviously more complex than just judging whether something is a person or not. Humanity as a whole also needs children to continue, so we might prefer as a society to sustain mindless newborns over old people who are on their way out anyway or people who don’t contribute to society if resources were limited and we had to choose.

 

[flyingfish]

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.

I don’t think it logically follows that I have use a continuum to judge personhood. I really don’t understand your argument for why a discrete value for “person” or “not person” can’t be used.

Of course the mind is a continuum, and if you set 100% at say the level of Einstein, then the vast majority of human beings will never reach it in their lifetimes.

But even if I were to use a continuum, it wouldn’t matter, because I could always say that “rights” kick in once the value is not 0.

(Though of course, should there be some kind of a cataclysm when only a few of us could be saved, you can bet that accomplished individuals would get priority. Of course given our corrupt system the wealthy would be included in that group, but yes, in a situation where I could save a scientist or a bum, I wouldn’t think twice about who I’d save, and frankly neither would you.)

 

[adriancombe]

Have you proved that there’s uncertainty? No.

Please see the links I posted earlier re work bring done with fetal memories. Saying there is uncertainty is giving your side a lot of credit. The evidence shows they do have a mind early on.

 

[flyingfish]

Please see the links I posted earlier re work bring done with fetal memories. Saying there is uncertainty is giving your side a lot of credit. The evidence shows they do have a mind early on.

There’s a problem with this, birds for example “remember” their migration routes, and salmon remember the stream where they were hatched and swim there to lay their own eggs.

However, we generally don’t have a problem with eating birds or salmon, and we don’t wonder if they’re self aware beings.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier, if abortion were currently prohibited in all cases, then I would agree with you that proposing a law to allow some abortions would not be allowable for a Catholic legislator.

But that is not the case. In the United States, abortion is legal virtually throughout pregnancy, for nearly any reason.

In my own state, and in others, pro-life legislators have frequently proposed limitations to abortion. Post-viability limitations, parental notification requirements, stricter definitions of health, second opinion requirements, partial birth abortion prohibition, state safety inspections of abortion clinics, you name it.

These attempts have been opposed by pro-choice legislators, and when passed, have often been overturned as not meeting the requirements of Roe v Wade or Doe v Bolton, as not meeting constitutional muster. But pro-life legislators keep trying and sometimes succeed in imposing some limits to abortion.

Your view would make them morally culpable for simply trying to impose limits on abortion which were less than total prohibition. That would effectively tie their hands regarding the issue, making them entirely impotent regarding the matter of abortion.

But conservative Catholics and bishops have supported these efforts to limit abortion. It has nothing to do with voting for abortion of any kind. It has to do with voting for restrictions on abortion.

First of all, let me say that I know that both you and Doc have been very charitable in your posts to me and I appreciate that. I actually am enjoying this debate, in a way.

Let me present an analogy. I’m not good at this, but let me try.

Let’s take a hypothetical country; let’s call it Atlantis. In Atlantis killing of human beings is legal. There are no restrictions and it’s not considered murder because it’s not unlawful. Killing is very, very common which obviously is causing problems. So the government decides that it will draw up a law making all killing of human beings illegal, with one exception - the killing of those at or under five years old will remain legal. All other killings will be murder.

Now let’s assume that absolutely everyone in Atlantis is a law-abiding citizen. Once the law is enacted, all the killings of those older than five years stops completely.

But the killing of those under five years of age continues. Legally it’s not murder. But now the killing of anyone who is older than five years is murder.

Is this a moral law? No. Should I support such a law? No. It goes against God’s law which trumps all man-made law. No human being should be murdered at any age. If I show support or tacit approval of this law, I am giving my permission for people to kill those at five years of age and younger. I can’t do that.

The Church’s position is that the ends do not justify the means, when the means are evil.

One problem I have with your proposal is that children conceived via rape are now not as “good” (for lack of a better term) as children conceived in love. And that’s not true. All unborn children are “good.”

I see your proposal as being similar to a proposal that once the number of abortions in the USA reaches 10,000 no more will be allowed that year. If I agreed with that proposal, I would be agreeing that 10,000 unborn children are morally murdered each year.

I can’t agree with a proposal that perpetuates the idea that it’s moral to murder unborn children.

What I can do is try to get a law passed that will make it illegal for anyone to be purposely killed, no matter the age of the victim.

Your last paragraph (especially your last sentence) views the proposal in a slightly different light. Why don’t I think about this for awhile and do some research? I know that your proposal is being made in an effort to stop abortions and that your intentions are good. There is something about it that just screams “BAD” at me and I’m having a problem communicating what it is.

BTW, I’m getting groggy from pain meds now and I probably would not make any sense at all if I try to post anymore for awhile.

In the meantime, please try (if you can) to find Church teaching regarding this and a link to the actions of the Catholic bishops that you mentioned. That would help me a lot.

I bow down to the will of the Magisterium. Always.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

Logic tells us that doing something must be better than doing nothing. Better to light a single candle than curse the darkness, as the saying goes:shrug:

But if that single candle burns in a way that toxic fumes are formed, it’s better to find a different way to rid ourselves of the darkness.

Please read my last reply to Jim, especially the last part. I need to do some research and some thinking and maybe talk to some people (it’s times like these when I really wish I had a spiritual advisor).

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

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

 

[adriancombe]

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.

This is covered in Evangelium Vitae, #73, last paragraph. Jim G is advocating the Catholic position.

 

[JimG]

I can’t agree with a proposal that perpetuates the idea that it’s moral to murder unborn children.

What I can do is try to get a law passed that will make it illegal for anyone to be purposely killed, no matter the age of the victim.

And that would be the best possible law. Your position is similar to that of the American Life League, which takes an all or nothing position and advocates a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While that is the best option, it does nothing immediately to save lives in the interim. (And I don’t speak for ALL, so I can’t guarantee that I have stated their position correctly.) Other pro-life organizations (like NRLC) take a more incremental approach, with the view that any legislation that inhibits abortion is a partial good, and should be supported.

It’s a disagreement on the best prudential judgment to take in concrete legislative circumstances. It’s similar to making a political judgment that a) one must always vote for the most 100% pro-life candidate even if he or she has zero chance of winning, or b) one ought to vote for the most pro-life legislator who can win, even if his pro-life stance is less than perfect.

I don’t think we’ll find that the Church takes a position on prudential judgments, but perhaps that can be argued.

As to your point about not basing abortion on the alleged development of a mind, I do agree with you there.

Allowing abortion on such considerations makes one’s right to life contingent not on the mere fact of one’s humanity, but rather upon one’s development or characteristics.

Not only that, I view human beings as a composite of body and soul, and the mind as a faculty of the spiritual soul. Thus, even an undeveloped or brain damaged human being has an immaterial mind, whether or not it is capable of functioning due to its intimate interrelation with a human brain. In the same way, even the most perfect software would be non-functional if one tried to run it on damaged hardware. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

 

[banjo]

Actually, the debate around whether her husband should be allowed to cut life support centered around whether she was brain dead. People who opposed the husband’s decision were not arguing “yes, she’s brain dead” they were trying to argue that she was still in there, there were videos of her seeming to react to her parents’ presence and so on.

Also, the fight was between the husband who wanted to turn off life support and the parents who wanted to keep it on.

I’m not trying to be petty but this doesn’t answer my question. Your contention is…

Originally Posted by flyingfish
If someone is braindead with no hope of recovery society generally agrees that it’s no longer a person

.

Disagreeing that society generally holds this point of view I asked…“If she were no longer considered a person, why wasn’t she simply given a massive overdose of something that would have killed her instantly instead of ‘allowing her to die’ of dehydration and lack of nourishment?”

Unless I’m mistaken the argument was that she wasn’t being “killed”, the court was simply allowing her feeding tube to be removed “permitting her to die”. If she were not considered a person why wasn’t direct euthanization employed?

 

[flyingfish]

Unless I’m mistaken the argument was that she wasn’t being “killed”, the court was simply allowing her feeding tube to be removed “permitting her to die”. If she were not considered a person why wasn’t direct euthanization employed?

I don’t know why it was done this way, personally it seems ridiculous to kill her via denying food and water rather than an injection or something along those lines. It seems like semantics to me, removing food and water is killing just like an injection would be.

My point was that the debate about whether her husband should be allowed to do this centered around whether or not she was brain dead. People cared about whether she was brain dead, and that she was not brain dead was the main argument for why she should not have the feeding tube removed.

 

[Des]

I don’t think it logically follows that I have use a continuum to judge personhood. I really don’t understand your argument for why a discrete value for “person” or “not person” can’t be used.

Because it’s unfair to limit this so long as your example is taking place within the confines of a developing human being. Again, we aren’t talking about the lack of a mind in an inanimate object here where one will never develop. Surely then the scale will begin and start at 0%. What we are discussing, is the lack of a mind in a growing human life of which you seem to wish to force on us a piece of the scale, when you have no business to do any such thing.
If every mother had the right to slaughter their newborn anytime they wish because financial difficulties are pressing them to at that precise moment, their baby’s minds are less inferior to the average adult human, then tell me why this is wrong if you believe that it is? Merely stating over and over that that if it doesn’t fit the 0% mind criteria it has rights is useless unless you can first prove to me why having no mind in a developing human individual means they’re less human while simultaneously proving that the lesser a mind one has changes nothing regarding how more or less human he/she is if I wish make this claim.

The reality is, since at conception, both examples are 100 percent human beings, just at different stages of their growth cycle and there’s not a thing you can say to change this fact. Sure, we can give them names at certain stages like Zygote, fetus, newborn, infant, child, pre-teen, teen, adult, and elderly, but the point is, at each of these stages, they will always remain as human beings equal to one another. Their minds and bodies are constantly growing and changing not once taking away their human status.

Of course the mind is a continuum, and if you set 100% at say the level of Einstein, then the vast majority of human beings will never reach it in their lifetimes.

This wouldn’t be my problem but yours since your system would inevitably create it.

Though of course, should there be some kind of a cataclysm when only a few of us could be saved, you can bet that accomplished individuals would get priority.

Obviously it would be impossible to save everyone if the world were to end tomorrow but society must still protect the inalienable rights of all persons to the best of it’s capability and not intentionally murder them. Your example has nothing to do with the subject of abortion.

 

[flyingfish]

Merely stating over and over that that if it doesn’t fit the 0% mind criteria it has rights is useless unless you can first prove to me why having no mind in a developing human individual means they’re less human while simultaneously proving that the lesser a mind one has changes nothing regarding how more or less human he/she is if I wish make this claim.

First, I never used the word “human” in my definition of a person. I think it’s irrelevant, and I think non-human entities that had self awareness/thoughts/minds would also be persons, while human entities without these wouldn’t be.

I think fetuses are human if that’s what you’re asking, I don’t think they’re less human than adults. But I don’t think they’re persons.

I don’t really know what I can say. You obviously want to demonstrate that my definition of person is contradictory, I don’t think you have done this. I don’t know what you want me to “prove”.

For me something is a person if it has any kind of a mind (to clarify the language, by this I mean self awareness and thoughts). That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t matter if it’s human, chimp, a machine, an alien or whatever. If it has a mind, its a person. If it doesn’t, it’s not, even if it’s human.

 

[Des]

For me something is a person if it has any kind of a mind (to clarify the language, by this I mean self awareness and thoughts). That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t matter if it’s human, chimp, a machine, an alien or whatever. If it has a mind, its a person. If it doesn’t, it’s not, even if it’s human.

So let me get this straight. If some old lady was wandering off in the woods and happened to disturb a mother bear and her cubs that out of instinct made a rush at her to defend her young, I’d be wrong to shoot the bear to save her life?

Should we now put a stop to people who live in societies with an over population crisis who eventually must make their way into destroying animals habitats to survive and build new homes? Since everyone including the animals are considered persons after all, they should receive the same type of rights correct? So the invading folks are in the wrong and either must starve, move on or even be killed since they are the aggressors.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Please see the links I posted earlier re work bring done with fetal memories. Saying there is uncertainty is giving your side a lot of credit. The evidence shows they do have a mind early on.

You’ve just suddenly shifted the argument all of a sudden

 

[adriancombe]

There’s a problem with this, birds for example “remember” their migration routes, and salmon remember the stream where they were hatched and swim there to lay their own eggs.

However, we generally don’t have a problem with eating birds or salmon, and we don’t wonder if they’re self aware beings.

Apples and oranges. Birds and salmon don’t spend years in therapy recovering from survivor guilt from then their twin who died in utero. Humans (including the preborn) have awareness that goes beyond the survival instinct of lower animals.

 

[flyingfish]

So let me get this straight. If some old lady was wandering off in the woods and happened to disturb a mother bear and her cubs that out of instinct made a rush at her to defend her young, I’d be wrong to shoot the bear to save her life?

A mother bear is a self aware thinking individual? I doubt it. Even if the mother bear was a self aware individual, it would still be okay to kill her just like it would be okay to shoot an adult human mother who rushed at another person with a knife for no good reason.

However, if the old lady went into the mother bear’s den (assuming the mother bear is a person), with the intent to kill her/steal the cubs, then I wouldn’t shoot the bear to prevent it from killing the old lady per basic defense of innocents morality.

Should we now put a stop to people who live in societies with an over population crisis who eventually must make their way into destroying animals habitats to survive and build new homes? Since everyone including the animals are considered persons after all, they should receive the same type of rights correct? So the invading folks are in the wrong and either must starve, move on or even be killed since they are the aggressors.

I didn’t say all animals are persons, just those who are self aware (as far as I know includes the great apes and dolphins).

But separately from this reason, I do think populations who are destroying habitats should be prevented from expanding, not because trees etc. are persons, but because it is destroying the biosphere of this planet and messing up the future for the rest of us.

I think it’s a far greater tragedy to lose these species than to limit the human population.

 

[adriancombe]

You’ve just suddenly shifted the argument all of a sudden

No, you shifted it by making an unsupported assertion (that there is no uncertainty). All I did was bring in evidence related to your shift.

 

[flyingfish]

Apples and oranges. Birds and salmon don’t spend years in therapy recovering from survivor guilt from then their twin who died in utero. Humans (including the preborn) have awareness that goes beyond the survival instinct of lower animals.

Can you please link scientific evidence that people remember they had a twin in utero and have “survivor guilt” because it died? It seems very weird to me, I’ve never met anyone who consciously remembers being in the womb.

If people actually remember existing in the womb, I’ll change my views about when the fetus becomes a person