Irrefutable pro-life argument

[Doc_Keele]

even governments that permit abortion (like the U.S.) punish those who kill a pregnant woman for TWO murders. This is true without regard for the number of weeks of pregnancy. There is more than enough evidence that a reasonable atheist or agnostic or otherwise ‘pro-choice’ individual should admit uncertainty as to whether the preborn is a self-aware person, and when this starts

It doesn’t follow at all that because in some of the states of America that the foetus is recognized as a person that it is recognized as a self-aware person - and not all foetal homicide laws apply throughout pregnancy. And with all bar one state this is a statutory provision.

And you can’t have your cake and eat it - if you accept the law’s definition of a foetus as a person in one case, then to be consistent you must accept the law’s definition of the foetus as not a person in other cases.

 

[flyingfish]

No, the original post dealt with an unseen mover in the bush. There was no question of thinking one saw a deer or hallucinating.

Okay, but the fetus is not an “unseen mover in the bush”. We know a great deal about human development in the womb. And no one thinks that say, the first trimester fetus, is sitting in the womb aware of its existence, aware of life, excited to live, plans and dreams and so on.

Why do you think people generally aren’t bothered by abortion? Only a few are. Abortion is legal throughout the Western World. In some places (like my country of Canada) there are no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

Even in the US, a very conservative country, there are very few people who are completely pro-life. Even those who generally call themselves pro-life think it’s okay to have an abortion in the case of rape/health and life of the mother.

Out of the people who are pro-life, how many cry every day and actually go out and do things to end abortion? (Like stand in front of clinics, like physically restrain abortion providers, like give every spare dollar they have toward ending abortion.)

Can you imagine what kind of reaction you’d have if say, someone was routinely killing 10 year old children for a fee and the authorities did nothing? Citizens would pick up guns and do whatever it took to stop those who killed 10 year olds for money.

Yet, when people like Roeder go and kill abortion doctors, no one defends him! Imagine he killed someone who was regularly murdering 10 year olds? He wouldn’t even be arrested. He would have been praised for defense of others. Do you disagree with this? It seems on an intuitive level, most people realize that the unborn aren’t people, and only those whose religions command they be against abortion are against abortion.

And in case you think it escaped my notice: you still don’t have certainty regarding the validity of your criteria.

I’m not sure what that means.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m an immigrant myself and I live in Canada. Canada is pretty selective when it comes to immigration, the only reason my family was able to come is that both my parents were highly educated professionals.

I’m not saying immigrants should abandon their food or music or culture, those are fun and harmless. But if you’re bringing in refugees from places like Somalia and allow family reunification, why would you be surprised if they end up wanting Sharia, if you see a rise in honor killings etc.?

These kinds of issues can be dealt with by preselecting immigrants so that you don’t end up bringing in people who want those kinds of things. Problem solved.

And that is why I stated: The USA is not a melting pot - it is a “salad bowl.” Immigrants from different countries bring their customs, their music, their food, their values to the USA and all of these should be accepted (they often improve the immigrants’ newly adopted country)** as long as they do not interfere with the freedoms and values bestowed upon all human beings simply by virtue of their being human beings.** [bolding added]

There are many parts of Sharia Law which interfere with the freedoms and values bestowed upon all human beings simply by virtue of their being human beings.

I still see an enormous lack of respect for human life in your posts. Not to mention logic. Labeling a group of people (poor and uneducated) as not being “good enough” for one’s country smacks of snobbery and conceit and NIMBY.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

Okay, but the fetus is not an “unseen mover in the bush”. We know a great deal about human development in the womb. And no one thinks that say, the first trimester fetus, is sitting in the womb aware of its existence, aware of life, excited to live, plans and dreams and so on.

Moot.

Why do you think people generally aren’t bothered by abortion? Only a few are. Abortion is legal throughout the Western World. In some places (like my country of Canada) there are no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

Unfounded assertion.

Even in the US, a very conservative country, there are very few people who are completely pro-life. Even those who generally call themselves pro-life think it’s okay to have an abortion in the case of rape/health and life of the mother.

Unfounded assertion.

Out of the people who are pro-life, how many cry every day and actually go out and do things to end abortion? (Like stand in front of clinics, like physically restrain abortion providers, like give every spare dollar they have toward ending abortion.)

I suggest you do some research to find out.

Can you imagine what kind of reaction you’d have if say, someone was routinely killing 10 year old children for a fee and the authorities did nothing? Citizens would pick up guns and do whatever it took to stop those who killed 10 year olds for money.

Unfounded assertion.

Yet, when people like Roeder go and kill abortion doctors, no one defends him! Imagine he killed someone who was regularly murdering 10 year olds? He wouldn’t even be arrested. He would have been praised for defense of others. Do you disagree with this? It seems on an intuitive level, most people realize that the unborn aren’t people, and only those whose religions command they be against abortion are against abortion.

Unfounded assertions! Please educate yourself.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=436909

armyofgod.com/

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

It doesn’t follow at all that because in some of the states of America that the foetus is recognized as a person that it is recognized as a self-aware person - and not all foetal homicide laws apply throughout pregnancy. And with all bar one state this is a statutory provision.

And you can’t have your cake and eat it - if you accept the law’s definition of a foetus as a person in one case, then to be consistent you must accept the law’s definition of the foetus as not a person in other cases.

I believe the point is that USA law is indeed schizophrenic (I put that in just for you ). I would also like to point out that Catholics are not only required to not follow unjust laws, we are required to attempt to overturn them.

CCC 2242: The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community…“We must obey God rather than men.” [italics in original; bolding is mine.]

I also recommend CCC 1950 through 1960, as they explain what the Church terms “moral law” and I term “universal law.” These laws take precedence over man-made laws.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m not saying the development of self awareness jumps from nothing to perfect self awareness. When did I say that?

I said that it is my choice to define personhood when self awareness, however small, is present. I certainly can choose to think if personhood this way if I please. There are no logical inconsistencies.

You seem to have some fundamental mental block when it comes to discrete systems, I don’t know why you have it, I don’t have it.

It really isn’t your choice to define personhood. Not really. Not if you use that definition to rationalize abortion.

The problem with what you’re doing is that if you are allowed to use your own definition, made up by you, and use that definition to determine the morality of abortion, you really need to allow me to use my definition and allow DES to use his/her definition and Kimmie to use her definition, and Silly Billy down the street to use his definition.

That being said, let’s change it a little and discuss the killing of children older than eighteen months. Now you have said that these children are persons as they have self-awareness. Well, I disagree. I think they aren’t persons because they can’t read. And I heard Silly Billy the other day say that they aren’t persons because they’re really kinda short.

So Silly Billy and I believe it is moral to kill children older than eighteen months. You don’t. But our definitions have just as much value as yours, don’t they?

There are two problems with a system which accepts what is going on above.

(1) There is Truth. Truth cannot be decided by consensus or voted on, or actually decided by any method or means. Truth is unchanging and unchangeable.

(2) What you are using in your rationalization is moral relativism. Moral relativism doesn’t work very well because the morality of any action is dependent only on someone’s belief. If I thought you were ugly (of course I don’t) and decided it was OK to kill you for this reason, it would be moral. If you thought I shouldn’t live because I had a finger amputated (and I did), it would be moral for you to kill me for this reason.

It doesn’t work. Really. There is a universal law and that universal law is Truth. Truth won’t change no matter how much you want it to.

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

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

 

[Doc_Keele]

I believe the point is that USA law is indeed schizophrenic (I put that in just for you ). I would also like to point out that Catholics are not only required to not follow unjust laws, we are required to attempt to overturn them.

CCC 2242: The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community…“We must obey God rather than men.” [italics in original; bolding is mine.]

I also recommend CCC 1950 through 1960, as they explain what the Church terms “moral law” and I term “universal law.” These laws take precedence over man-made laws.

Yes, I understand all that. I worded my statement badly, of course you can accept the law’s definition in one case and not the other legitimately - what you can’t do is use the law’s definition as proof to support your argument in one case and reject it in another.

The common law is full of inconsistencies, and the inconsistency here is related to the Constitution of course.

 

[adriancombe]

It doesn’t follow at all that because in some of the states of America that the foetus is recognized as a person that it is recognized as a self-aware person - and not all foetal homicide laws apply throughout pregnancy. And with all bar one state this is a statutory provision.

And you can’t have your cake and eat it - if you accept the law’s definition of a foetus as a person in one case, then to be consistent you must accept the law’s definition of the foetus as not a person in other cases.

Doc, seriously, think about what you just wrote. You are saying that the state’s illogical, contradictory definitions of personhood bind me to endorse either both positions (becoming contradictory myself in the positions I hold) OR neither (even if one of them is true, and even if I endorsed the true one before the state did and/or before I knew the state did). I don’t even see how you can think such a thing.

And again, you are adding ‘self aware’ as a criterion which I have already rejected and then trying to insert it into my presuppositions as if you are somehow invalidating my reasoning.

 

[LittleSoldier]

In legal terms, it is not necessary to establish a biological point of development in order to determine whether a human is a person with rights. This can be done relatively arbitrary- i.e to say they have such right at birth. However, it is equally valid, from a legal viewpoint, to say that it is at a certain level of brain development, or on a certain trimester. Basically- it does not necessarily follow, as a law of nature, that a human being has these rights at a specific point of development.

I do not think that anyone questions whether a biological human being is being destroyed at abortion. Rather, the pro-choice persons would argue that merely being a human being from a biological point of view is not sufficient, there must be either consciousness or independence from the mother.

I beg to differ. I have heard and read some amazing things from pro-abortionists, including:

It’s not a baby - it’s a clump of cells.
It’s just like a tumor.
It’s a womb-squatter.
It’s not a human being. It’s a potential human being.
It’s not a life. It’s a potential life.
It’s not even alive. It’s “pre-alive.” (from this thread)
It doesn’t exist. (from this thread)
It’s not a human being until it’s born.

I could write a lot more, but I think these show my point. I am aware there are pro-abortionists that understand that what is being killed is a human being. But I don’t believe most pro-abortionists accept this and there is a good reason for that:

People really don’t like the idea of killing human beings.

Hopefully, if pro-abortionists (as a group) come to the realization that abortion kills a human being, the rates of abortions will drop dramatically.

This is my hope.

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

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

 

[Doc_Keele]

That’s not what I was saying tho adrian. Do I have to bring up the “s m” term again?

 

[adriancombe]

It doesn’t follow at all that because in some of the states of America that the foetus is recognized as a person that it is recognized as a self-aware person - and not all foetal homicide laws apply throughout pregnancy. And with all bar one state this is a statutory provision.

And you can’t have your cake and eat it - if you accept the law’s definition of a foetus as a person in one case, then to be consistent you must accept the law’s definition of the foetus as not a person in other cases.

The point in bringing up the fetal homicide laws was not (as you seem to suppose) that they are consistent but rather to contribute to the uncertainty of the position of those who say it is not a person.

 

[Doc_Keele]

The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If the parents don’t find them valuable like the many we hear of throwing their newborns in the garbage, you couldn’t object anymore than you’d object to a mother who ‘mistakenly’ got pregnant or who kill their unborn children because the ultrasound told them they were handicapped, yet you continue to apply reasons for the infants to be saved than you would a fetus. That’s where you’re inconsistant. It’s like you’re afraid to even hear yourself say it’s ok for them to kill a 1 year old infant if they choose to. It’s as simple as that,

Flying Fish has taken it upon himself to make even a fraction of self awareness, his rule of thumb where one becomes a full person. Of course logically it would only make them a fraction of a person if self awareness is the way to go.

Good point about the muslims btw.

lol there are many pro-life doctors out there who’d doubt you’re even a doctor with the things you’ve said since this is the internet after all. Hey, I’m a doctor too, so are both my parents, my brother and sister. In fact, I come from a long line of doctors for generations and generations. Oh, I’m also the Easter Bunny.

Nice to meet you, Easter Bunny. I’m the Tooth Fairy. And I have an MD, a DDS, two PhDs, a PsyD (specializing in child psychology - gotta be careful when removing teeth from underneath pillows and replacing them with money; every once in awhile the child wakes up), three MAs (one in economics - I have to keep up on inflation and that sort of thing), a JD, and fifteen assorted BAs and BSs that I acquired just for fun. Oh, I am also a CPA.

Sincerely,
Tooth Fairy, Esq.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.

Then they are unjust and need to be changed to reflect Universal (God’s) Law.

And as Catholics, we are not to adhere to them.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, I understand all that. I worded my statement badly, of course you can accept the law’s definition in one case and not the other legitimately - what you can’t do is use the law’s definition as proof to support your argument in one case and reject it in another.

The common law is full of inconsistencies, and the inconsistency here is related to the Constitution of course.

But I don’t adhere to unjust laws (as laws written and enacted by man often are). I adhere to God’s Law, even if that action puts me in prison. Being “punished” for not adhering to an unjust man-made law doesn’t bother me because I think of my eternal life, not my life as a mortal on earth.

In fact, I welcome “punishment” of this sort. It is actually a type of martyrdom and a blessing.

And as I (presently) have no dependents, with the exception of my cats, my dog, and my lizards, I’m in a position to offer myself for this type of martyrdom.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

That’s not what I was saying tho adrian. Do I have to bring up the “s m” term again?

Why in the world would you be discussing sado-masochism in this thread?

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

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

 

[adriancombe]

The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.

What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Couldn’t there be another reason for the statutes?

 

[adriancombe]

That’s not what I was saying tho adrian. Do I have to bring up the “s m” term again?

It is not even clear which proposition you are responding to here. Also, which sm term are you referencing?

 

[adriancombe]

The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.

And why are you bringing up this side point and overfocusing on it rather than addressing the actual point, i.e., the uncertainty?

 

[adriancombe]

That’s not what I was saying tho adrian. Do I have to bring up the “s m” term again?

I also note this is at least the second time I have applied reductio ad absurdum to your positions and rather than adressing the problem with your argument (either by clarification, modification or retraction) you dismiss it as ‘straw man’ or ‘that is not what I’m saying’. Come clean if you want to be taken seriously on this forum - you who imply the forum is not ‘substantive’ enough for you!