Irrefutable pro-life argument

[LittleSoldier]

My point is it having an abortion may drastically reduce a woman’s chance of death, but that is not permitted. Only life saving treatments that have the baby’s death as a side effect are permitted. An abortion itself is not considered a lifesaving treatment.

In practice, very few situations are in that category (like ectopic pregnancy). If pregnancy simply gives a woman a high chance of death, she can’t have an abortion to eliminate that risk according to the Church.

Now that is not true. I find it hard to believe that the Church ever stated that a woman “can’t have an abortion” for any reason. A woman obviously can have an abortion. It happens all the time. The Church’s position is that in doing so the woman is committing an immoral, grave act. She can have an abortion though her action automatically excommunicates her if she is Catholic; the Church’s position is that she shouldn’t have an abortion.

Do you really think that a woman in whom a pregnancy would lead to a high risk of death should be engaging in activities in which a pregnancy may occur?

As far as this scenario in which a pregnancy “simply gives a woman a high chance of death,” I honestly don’t know Church teaching and don’t know where to find that teaching, although I will look for it. Maybe someone else can find it. Maybe you can. It’s probably mixed up somewhere in that PDE thing.

The Church believes that an unborn child is a human being (from conception) and should be given all the rights that should be given to other human beings simply because they are human beings. Any stance she takes on abortion will be based on that simple fact.

I’ve said many times before, and you disagree with me. I think only self aware individuals should have these rights.

And as I have said before, using “self-awareness” as the criterion for a right to life excludes the right to life for human infants who are younger than eighteen months of age. You’ve stated that it is still immoral to kill these infants but frankly, I don’t understand why you think it’s immoral. They don’t even exist, so what’s the big deal? Certainly we shouldn’t waste precious resources on medical care for them and for prematurely born infants. That money could be spent elsewhere to help those eighteen months of age and older. Many of the older infants are sick and hungry and what about older children and adults? Shouldn’t we be taking care of them instead of non-existing “beings” who have no moral right to life?

When my son was born he should have just been put into a hazardous waste bag and chucked into the dumpster (the special one for hazardous waste). A lot of money was spent to keep him alive - this little non-existent being. Surely that money could have been put to better use.

And that makes me think that all the unborn children who are aborted or who die and are aborted spontaneously could be used for some purpose. I know parts of them are used, but why not their skin? Maybe we could make purses and little wallets from their skin. Why not? It’s not immoral is it? It just makes good sense to use whatever we can.

And if anyone finds this idea offensive (I do) please read the short story Foet by F. Paul Wilson. It discusses this very subject. If anyone wishes to read this, PM me and I’ll give the particulars. Although the idea sickens me I wanted to post it to show how unborn human beings are objectified and treated by a large percentage of people in the world today. I apologize if this part of my post offends anybody, although in a way that is my intent.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

Littlesoldier,

Thanks for the summary of what the thread is about. I am however more than aware of what it is about, but if you think that every single thread has to stick to the topic so rigidly that it can not in any way reference anything else whatsoever, then may I respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong site? My reference to other elements of the living world are perfectly valid in this context.

The “intellectual honesty” to which you refer comes from the fact that I am not aware of any argument by which I can assign “rights” to a foetus in the 0-16 week term that precludes me from also assigning them to a virus, or a tree. They are essentially the same thing… a coming together of DNA instructions on how to further develop and proceed along a life cycle.

What I seek therefore is a basis for assigning entities rights and the strongest basis I can find for that is to assign them to that very faculty from whence they arise. Given that “rights” appear to exist in one place only, are decided by one place only, assigned by one place only and are enforced by o ne place only, I do not think it in any way a leap to suggest that it is TO and on the BASIS of that place that we assign them.

That “place” is the faculty of human consciousness, a faculty not present in amoeba, viruses, trees, rocks, steaks, table legs, limbs, dna, bones or, specifically, the foetus at 0-16 weeks of development.

On that basis I see no good reason to assign the foetus rights at this stage nor to preclude the choice of abortion.

However from 20 weeks development on wards I can see that all the pre-requisites for human consciousness are present and firing at some level. I can no longer safely say this is not a conscious entity and so I do NOT support abortion from 20 weeks onwards.

You have a hidden premise in your argument. That premise is that human rights are assigned by man. I disagree with that premise. Human rights are bestowed by God.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

I beg to differ. Making it illegal will mean that any physician who performs an abortion may lose his license, be charged with a criminal offense, and/or spend time in prison.

Organizations like PP would not be able to promote abortion or provide facilities where procured abortions are obtained.

I don’t think most physicians are going to blatantly or covertly attempt to bypass laws if abortion is made illegal.

Addition to above post: I forgot to mention the whopping fines physicians would be required to pay if found guilty.

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

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

 

[Aristotelian]

There are two possible objections to this argument:

First, it is possible (by some ethical models, none I subscribe to) both for the fetus to be an innocent human person, and still for it to be ethical to remove the fetus from his or her environment, allowing him or her to die.

Second, if it were established within a reasonable doubt, that at a certain stage of development, the product of conception were not living, and so did not have a rational soul, would it then be acceptable to terminate it?

My personal perspective is that abortion is acceptable only until there is a good chance that the fetus has a rational soul, which is close to after one month. So I advocate for choice before that time, and no choice after.

The alternate analogy I would offer: If it turned out that a certain group of cows we’d been eating had rational souls, and were really persons, but had been completely quiet about this until just today speaking up, should the people who slaughtered these cows be held morally responsible for murder? My answer: of course not, there was no good evidence that the cows had rational souls. There is no good evidence that a group of four or eight cells has a rational soul.

A related thread was closed before anyone presented this argument.

Most advocates of abortion will claim it is not possible to know for certain whether the preborn fetus is a person with rights. Very few, if any will stats they know for a fact it is not - precisely because, by their own lights, such a certainty cannot exist. A pitfall of relativism, but I digress.

The point is, if you are out hunting deer, and you see a movement in the brush, at what point are you allowed to shoot it? As soon as possible so you make sure you get it? Or do you have to wait and see for certain whether it is a person. This answers itself.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6500825]You have a hidden premise in your argument. That premise is that human rights are assigned by man. I disagree with that premise. Human rights are bestowed by God.

No he/she does not. The argument is asserting a position when life actually begins. There is nothing in that post that indicates the poster, in that post, believes that the “right to life” does not come from a creator. He/she seems to be for this right to life after 20 weeks because that is, in his/her view, when life begins.

The argument in no way relies on the premise----" that human rights are assigned by man."
The poster language about " assigning rights" appears to be about when the govt steps in to protect the inalienable right to life for a fetus—which for that poster is when a consciousness arises----about at 20 weeks. Nothing indicates that such right does not originate from a creator. Its about when the life in fact exists, not where the " right to life" comes from.

My fellow poster please clarify if needed. Regards.

 

[kimmielittle]

My personal perspective is that abortion is acceptable only until there is a good chance that the fetus has a rational soul, which is close to after one month. So I advocate for choice before that time, and no choice after.

Hiyas
Welcome to CAF

Hard Science says, " life begins at the moment of conception". From that moment on - it’s 'rational" is to survive and grow. This would give you a “rational soul” - would it not?

 

[Aristotelian]

Hard Science says, " life begins at the moment of conception".

Life begins at many other moments, as well. The life of many cells in my body began long after I was born.

From that moment on - it’s 'rational" is to survive and grow. This would give you a “rational soul” - would it not?

That’s not quite what I mean by a rational soul. After all, a cow’s “rational” is to survive and (at a certain stage) to grow. This does not mean that cows have rational souls.

 

[kimmielittle]

Life begins at many other moments, as well. The life of many cells in my body began long after I was born.

Those cells you are talking about don’t have a their own unique DNA. The ovum and sperm both have the donors DNA - until conception…It then has it’s own unique DNA. A life unto it’s own.

That’s not quite what I mean by a rational soul. After all, a cow’s “rational” is to survive and (at a certain stage) to grow. This does not mean that cows have rational souls.

Please explain ‘;rational soul’ and how you determined it exsists after one month and not before.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Unique DNA doesn’t define a human being as such tho, so that definition fails too.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Unique DNA doesn’t define a human being as such tho, so that definition fails too.

I’m sorry - is this in response to one of my posts?

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

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

 

[Doc_Keele]

I’m sorry - is this in response to one of my posts?

No, the post immediately above mine

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, the post immediately above mine

Oh, OK. Thank you. I have a horrible headache and I’m not thinking very clearly. I think it’s time to log off.

God bless!

 

[Doc_Keele]

Oh, OK. Thank you. I have a horrible headache and I’m not thinking very clearly. I think it’s time to log off.

God bless!

NP - prayers for your headache, have a rest and recuperate

 

[kimmielittle]

Unique DNA doesn’t define a human being as such tho, so that definition fails too.

O’kay so you’re a purist

I’ll state it differently for you

At the moment of conception it has it’s own unique human DNA

 

[Doc_Keele]

O’kay so you’re a purist

I’ll state it differently for you

At the moment of conception it has it’s own unique human DNA

How is that stating it differently?

If I have an identical twin, then my DNA is not unique. If I’m a mosaic, I don’t even have just one genotype. If I’m one of a conjoined twin, I don’t even have a separate body.

 

[Des]

How is that stating it differently?

If I have an identical twin, then my DNA is not unique. If I’m a mosaic, I don’t even have just one genotype. If I’m one of a conjoined twin, I don’t even have a separate body.

Those 3 examples still all have unique HUMAN DNA. Not Monkey DNA, Not Pig DNA but Human!

As I’ve been reading the past few pages of your posts, I can’t even bring myself to discuss with someone who comes up with such ridiculous rhetoric like this last one you’ve brought into the debate. There is no sense in it whatsoever in what you’re attempting to suggest. Personally, you’ve failed as a Christian for believing in abortion and secondly, you’ve failed in biology where even atheists or agnostics would see a big gaping hole in your argument.

Good day.

 

[kimmielittle]

Those 3 examples still all have unique HUMAN DNA. Not Monkey DNA, Not Pig DNA but Human!

As I’ve been reading the past few pages of your posts, I can’t even bring myself to discuss with someone who comes up with such ridiculous rhetoric like this last one you’ve brought into the debate. There is no sense in it whatsoever in what you’re attempting to suggest. Personally, you’ve failed as a Christian for believing in abortion and secondly, you’ve failed in biology where even atheists or agnostics would see a big gaping hole in your argument.

Good day.

Even kids can see

 

[flyingfish]

As far as this scenario in which a pregnancy “simply gives a woman a high chance of death,” I honestly don’t know Church teaching and don’t know where to find that teaching, although I will look for it. Maybe someone else can find it. Maybe you can. It’s probably mixed up somewhere in that PDE thing.

I am sure that the kind of abortion that you’d get at a PP is always immoral according to Church teaching, and never meets the double effect criteria.

Getting a conventional abortion would, according to Church teaching, be the intentional killing of an innocent human being (the fetus). And according to Church teaching it is immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being to save your own life.

An ectopic pregnancy, or the removal of a cancerous uterus would meet the double effect criteria because you can say your main goal is the removal of a diseased body part, and the baby just happens to be inside it. If you don’t have an ectopic pregnancy or a cancerous uterus, but pregnancy is threatening your life via a weak heart you’re out of luck.

(If there was some treatment for a weak heart, such as a pill, that happened to kill the baby it would meet the double effect criteria. But you can’t intentionally take a pill to kill the baby for instance.)

And as I have said before, using “self-awareness” as the criterion for a right to life excludes the right to life for human infants who are younger than eighteen months of age. You’ve stated that it is still immoral to kill these infants but frankly, I don’t understand why you think it’s immoral. They don’t even exist, so what’s the big deal? Certainly we shouldn’t waste precious resources on medical care for them and for prematurely born infants.

I don’t understand why you’re asking me this for the 20th time. I’m going to give you the same answer I’ve been giving you for the last 20 times.

It’s immoral (but not murder) to kill a pre-self aware infant because it’s valuable to its parents, and because there are couples willing to adopt them if the parents don’t want them.

Also, society considers the pointless killing of anything (like animals) immoral. While a woman may have a reason to get a fetus out of her body, a couple can get rid of a baby by simply giving it away. Killing it would be pointless.

 

[Des]

Even kids can see

 

[adriancombe]

He’s the co-author of one of the books in the Catholic Answers shop:thumbsup:

Fair enough. However, unless you can find a reasonble summary of his argument that doesn’t involve money changing hands, it’s probably not fair game for an online discussion forum.

Put another way: simply asserting that Kaczor holds a position is not truly an argument.