Irrefutable pro-life argument

[Doc_Keele]

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.

I have to be honest, you’ve lost me completely. Good Luck.

 

[JimG]

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

I appreciate you furnishing the reference. Here is a quote from that paragraph:“In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

 

[banjo]

It seems like semantics to me, removing food and water is killing just like an injection would be.

I agree with you on this point. I brought in the Schaivo case because it demonstrates that a person in a persistent vegetative state, despite her apparent mindlessness is still, under the law, considered a person; and that, to me, indicates that society still considers such individuals as persons.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I agree with you on this point. I brought in the Schaivo case because it demonstrates that a person in a persistent vegetative state, despite her apparent mindlessness is still, under the law, considered a person; and that, to me, indicates that society still considers such individuals as persons.

The common law and the opinions and views of society are not necessarily related.
Death in the legal sense means death in the ordinary sense (as certified by a medical practitioner eg lack of vital signs) or brain stem death/brain death.

 

[flyingfish]

I agree with you on this point. I brought in the Schaivo case because it demonstrates that a person in a persistent vegetative state, despite her apparent mindlessness is still, under the law, considered a person; and that, to me, indicates that society still considers such individuals as persons.

I don’t know, if society considered her a person her husband would never have been permitted to have her killed (or “let die”).

Can you imagine a husband being able to tell the doctors of his conscious wife to stop treatment and let her die?

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

Not fair. You have refused to provide evidence when requested to, and in fact, you told me you wouldn’t do “my work” for me, even though it would have been backing up your position.

You can’t expect others to provide links when you refuse to.

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

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

 

[Des]

A mother bear is a self aware thinking individual?

You said being self aware and you then argued that degrees of it doesn’t count. Bears are very self aware of not only themselves but their cubs around them.

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.

Not if the adult mother thought she was defending her home that was being invaded by someone walking in it.

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.

I notice this is the view of most non religious pro abortion advocates creeping into their debates where animals are equal to humans when one has to choose life over the other and it all begins on that mind concept or intelligence concept.

I weep for the future.

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.

As do I but I wouldn’t go around murdering people because they have to make way to live thereby killing animals in the process.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

Thank you! Here is the quote:

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned,** when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”**

[bolding mine]

So, if an elected official makes her personal prolife position clear, it is morally licit for her to support laws such as the one which Jim G is proposing.

I concede.

Thank you all for an excellent debate. Do you realize that nobody lost their tempers (or at least posted anything that indicated they lost their tempers? That is amazing to me.

Thank you, adrian, for providing the reference I was requesting.

I hope you all have a Blessed Easter!

However, there is still work to be done in this thread…

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

I appreciate you furnishing the reference. Here is a quote from that paragraph:“In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

I’m sorry; somehow I missed this post and posted the reference again. I actually looked for it in my copy of Humanae Vitae before I realized I had the wrong letter.

That’s what I mean about being groggy.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe.

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

 

[flyingfish]

You can’t expect others to provide links when you refuse to.

I as well as other posters (in the other thread) did link several studies about when people become self aware.

You, as far as I remember, were asking me something else.

I’m not saying she has to provide to convince me, I just don’t believe the claim that people consciously remember having been in wombs when in fact the evidence suggests that people become self aware sometime after birth.

You said being self aware and you then argued that degrees of it doesn’t count. Bears are very self aware of not only themselves but their cubs around them.

Self awareness is a very specific kind of thing, it’s the “I think therefore I am”. Just because an animal reacts to its surroundings, doesn’t mean it’s self aware. Basic machines also react to surroundings. My computer reacts to my pressing buttons on it.

I notice this is the view of most non religious pro abortion advocates creeping into their debates where animals are equal to humans when one has to choose life over the other and it all begins on that mind concept or intelligence concept.

I weep for the future.

I don’t think animals in general are equal to humans because most animals don’t seem to be self aware.

As do I but I wouldn’t go around murdering people because they have to make way to live thereby killing animals in the process.

Who said anything about murdering? Limiting birth rates can be achieved with economic incentives (say making aid conditional on a small family, extra aid to people who have 1 child or none, and possibly penalties for those who have more than 2).

 

[JimG]

However, in deference to LittleSoldier’s position, I feel constrained to add that when supporting laws which limit abortion, one should take care never to give the impression that one views any abortion as morally acceptable. There is indeed a danger of appearing to accept that some may be licitly killed. That is not the case; and the matter should never be presented that way, but only as a way to limit abortion.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t know, if society considered her a person her husband would never have been permitted to have her killed (or “let die”).

Why not? The “state” kills “persons” all the time. It’s called the death penalty and I believe it is legal in some states in the USA.

Can you imagine a husband being able to tell the doctors of his conscious wife to stop treatment and let her die?

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

However, in deference to LittleSoldier’s position, I feel constrained to add that when supporting laws which limit abortion, one should take care never to give the impression that one views any abortion as morally acceptable. There is indeed a danger of appearing to accept that some may be licitly killed. That is not the case; and the matter should never be presented that way, but only as a way to limit abortion.

Thank you. Yes, the quotation makes that clear. Now if this would only happen!

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

This is the problem with discussing “self-awareness.” It’s a difficult construct to define and describe. There is no consensus that I know of in determining what “self-awareness” really is. Personally I think cats and dogs have self-awareness and I have a feeling that rats do, too.

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.

You actually wouldn’t save the old lady’s life but would let her be mauled to death by the mother bear? I’m sorry but I find this horrendous. Certainly the old lady’s behavior is atrocious but she is still a human being and is more precious than a bear (not to mention that once the bear killed the old lady the bear would be euthanized as a danger to humans. It happens where I live every once in a while).

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

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

 

[flyingfish]

You actually wouldn’t save the old lady’s life but would let her be mauled to death by the mother bear? I’m sorry but I find this horrendous. Certainly the old lady’s behavior is atrocious but she is still a human being and is more precious than a bear (not to mention that once the bear killed the old lady the bear would be euthanized as a danger to humans. It happens where I live every once in a while).

Notice how I said if the mother bear is self aware. I certainly wouldn’t kill a self aware being to protect another who wishes to do it harm.

It’s just like with humans. If a man came into your house and tried to steal your babies and you were mauling him to death, I wouldn’t protect him, hell I’d help you kill him .

This was under the assumption that the bear is self aware. I don’t believe they are.

By the way, this is not such an outrageous point of view. Quite a few people think it’s acceptable to kill offenders that are after your property, not even after anything alive.

As far as I know, national park workers in Africa will kill poachers even if they’re after less complex animals.

In our view, criminals and other ill intentioned people generally don’t get the same right to have their lives protected as others.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Notice how I said if the mother bear is self aware. I certainly wouldn’t kill a self aware being to protect another who wishes to do it harm.

It’s just like with humans. If a man came into your house and tried to steal your babies and you were mauling him to death, I wouldn’t protect him, hell I’d help you kill him .

This was under the assumption that the bear is self aware. I don’t believe they are.

By the way, this is not such an outrageous point of view. Quite a few people think it’s acceptable to kill offenders that are after your property, not even after anything alive.

As far as I know, national park workers in Africa will kill poachers even if they’re after less complex animals.

In our view, criminals and other ill intentioned people generally don’t get the same right to have their lives protected as others.

I’m sorry but I find your whole argument so bizarre that I’m going to have to think about it for awhile.

BTW, based on my education and experience in both psychology and biology, it is my opinion that bears can meet a definition of self-awareness, and so, using your criterion for personhood, bears are persons.

All I can glean from your argument is that you feel that if a bear is a person, she has as much right to live as the old lady. And I would agree, unless the two got into a tangle. Then I have no doubt about which one I would shoot.

And like I stated, once a bear shows that it is a danger to humans, it is euthanized. ALWAYS. If you allow the bear to maul the old lady to death, even if the old lady was wrong to enter the bear’s den, you are going to end up with at least one dead bear and one dead old lady. And it’s quite probable that the cubs will end up dead, too.

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

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

 

[chevalier]

The precautionary principle dictates that if you don’t know if it’s a human being or not, you don’t do to it what would kill a human being. Therefore, whoever claims, “you can’t know,” already loses the argument unless he’s willing to legalise reckless homicide .

As for other arguments, life of person whom someone wants to kill > happiness of person wanting to kill, who believes killing another will give happiness.

Homicide is not a tool for achieving individual happiness or even life goals.

 

[flyingfish]

I’m sorry but I find your whole argument so bizarre that I’m going to have to think about it for awhile.

If the bear charged an unsuspecting old lady, I also would shoot the bear. But if the old lady went to do harm to the bear and the bear defended itself, I would say the old lady got what she deserved.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter if the bear is or isn’t self aware. I don’t have much sympathy for criminals and others who would do wrong.

Say some guy went to the zoo at night to kill a lion and the lion was getting the best of him, would you really kill the lion to protect the criminal who tried to kill it?

 

[LittleSoldier]

If the bear charged an unsuspecting old lady, I also would shoot the bear. But if the old lady went to do harm to the bear and the bear defended itself, I would say the old lady got what she deserved.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter if the bear is or isn’t self aware. I don’t have much sympathy for criminals and others who would do wrong.

Say some guy went to the zoo at night to kill a lion and the lion was getting the best of him, would you really kill the lion to protect the criminal who tried to kill it?

Yes, I would kill the lion with absolutely no hesitation.

Then I would call the police to have the man arrested and it would be my hope that if he is sane he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

But I don’t know if he’s sane. I don’t know why he’s in that cage trying to kill the lion. Maybe the lion escaped one day and killed his little girl. Maybe he’s insane and believes God is telling him the lion is Satan and he thinks what he is doing is good.

I’m not going to stand there and contemplate all the possibilities. What I see is a man and a lion. I’m going to shoot the lion. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe.

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

 

[flyingfish]

Yes, I would kill the lion with absolutely no hesitation.

Then I would call the police to have the man arrested and it would be my hope that if he is sane he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

But I don’t know if he’s sane. I don’t know why he’s in that cage trying to kill the lion. Maybe the lion escaped one day and killed his little girl. Maybe he’s insane and believes God is telling him the lion is Satan and he thinks what he is doing is good.

I’m not going to stand there and contemplate all the possibilities. What I see is a man and a lion. I’m going to shoot the lion. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind whatsoever…

What if you saw a man trying to set a fire to your house, and the only way you could stop him was to shoot him dead. Would you?