Issues other than abortion

[Erikaspirit16]

With all due respect, you’re completely misrepresenting the argument. Of course there’s a distinction. They’re in vastly different phases of human development!

The pro-life position holds that there’s no distinction, based on these phases , that makes it OK to discriminate against someone enough to justify killing them.

I agree, that’s the pro-life position. I thought that’s what I said. But others fundamentally disagree with you. They DO see a distinction between different stages that DOES justify “killing” an organism in an earlier stage.

Kind of confused about what you mean here. The same thing is happening in both instances, just as if I killed my parents knowing it to be wrong and someone else who didn’t know that killing parents was wrong. The second person has less culpability than me in that case because I knew the truth and rejected it but the same thing happened in both situations. … This does not, however, change the fact that there is objective truth, for example, like that rape or murder is wrong…I don’t quite see how I was picking and choosing Catholic doctrine.

You’re going back to something I answered before. Is there objective truth? Yes. Do you think you know what it is? Apparently. Some of the rest of us aren’t so sure. Is “killing” a two-celled being the moral equivalent of killing a two-year old baby? Most people would say no. You would say yes. Good for you–that’s your belief. Don’t impose that belief on others who disagree.

Picking and choosing Catholic doctine? Want to quote the catechism? Terrific! Me too! See section #1738:

“Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.”

 

[lagerald24]

Want to quote the catechism? Terrific! Me too! See section #1738:

“Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom , especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.”

You are making the Catechism say something that it was not trying to say. The point of that whole article and section was to say that man is created in the image and likeness of God and thus has a free will to choose good or bad. Of course I don’t deny this. However, if you have at least read through the Catechism a little bit, you will have seen how plenty of it is devoted to explaining how there are good and bad choices and how humanity must refrain from sin and must strive for truth, goodness, and beauty. This is what the Catechism is saying.

You wouldn’t say that just because we should have the freedom to choose right or wrong that we should then legalize things like murder, rape, or drug use. After all, people should be able to make that decision for themselves, right?

Well, we must recognize that because there are good and bad choices, the state should pass laws that promote Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This involves protecting small people (the unborn) from bigger people (the born). The unborn’s right to life isn’t decided by the mother, it is decided by the fact that it is an individual member of the human family that has as much a right to life as you or I do. The fetus is not property, its a person, created in the image and likeness of God.

It is a scientific fact that life beings at conception. You say that it is a philosophical matter to decide when a person deserves the right to life. However though, if a living organism is a human person, no matter how small, do not they deserve life? All beings that are human beings are beings that deserve human rights, agreed? And we shouldn’t let one group of people decide whether or not another group has the right to life, right? That should be determined by the nature of the being which, in the case of the unborn, is human, correct? All in all, there is a reason Life comes first in the Declaration of Independence. It is the primary right of humans, after all.

 

[blackforest]

As I said in my initial post, as doctors began to see themselves as a “profession” they banded together to eliminate competition from non-doctors.

Apart from being an evidence-free speculation of the organization’s motives, this assertion simply makes no sense. The AMA has a history of suppressing midwives by claiming that doctors and doctors alone should deliver babies.

So why do you suppose they didn’t apply the same rationale to abortion, i.e. claiming that doctors and doctors alone should perform abortions? It’s a rhetorical question only because the inconsistency is illogical. They didn’t claim abortion as their turf; they condemned it outright.

But again, the crucial point is what do you mean by “human life”?

I said human’s life, a life belonging to a human being.

To what other species might this organism belong?

I’ll address your other points after tucking my darling, under-developed post-natal clumps of cells into their beds.

 

[lagerald24]

BTW, here’s a good article by philosopher Peter Kreeft who teaches at Boston College: http://peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

 

[Sbee0]

LateCatholic- the Church does deal with many of those issues through Catholic Charities and does it very well.

In many ways, they do these much better than the government ever could. Which the Left can’t accept for some reason.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

BTW, here’s a good article by philosopher Peter Kreeft who teaches at Boston College: http://peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

OK, I read it. He does fairly present 7 arguments pro-choice advocates would make. But his refutations rely on mumbo jumbo and making up false definitions. “Functionalism” vs. “Essence.” Really? I’m not going to go into it because I’ve got enough to do dealing with people on this thread. But I would say his argument boils down to a lot on this thread: “I’m right, and I know that’s true.”

 

[Sbee0]

A human embryo is a distinct human life, with its own DNA, created at and from conception. Scientific fact.

A “clump of cells” Is “born” through meiosis not conception and they do not define a new life and they have the same DNA as their source.

A “clump of cells” have no inherent biological programming to grow into the various stages of human development.

Therefore by scientific reasoning it’s wholly and utterly inaccurate to equate the fetus with a clump of cells.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You are making the Catechism say something that it was not trying to say…However, if you have at least read through the Catechism a little bit, you will have seen how plenty of it is devoted to explaining how there are good and bad choices and how humanity must refrain from sin and must strive for truth, goodness, and beauty. This is what the Catechism is saying.

Wow. Interesting interpretation. It’s light years away from mine. We totally disagree. I’m pretty much a “strict constructionalist” when it comes to the catechism. I think it means what it says: " The right to the exercise of freedom , especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person." I’m not sure how you get around that, no matter what linguistic hocus pocus you use. Seems pretty clear to me. Feel free to explain how you deny that.

You wouldn’t say that just because we should have the freedom to choose right or wrong that we should then legalize things like murder, rape, or drug use. After all, people should be able to make that decision for themselves, right?

I’ve gone over this numerous times. Once more for you: Moral does not necessarily = legal. No, you shouldn’t legalize things that an overwhelming majority of people think should be illegal (and they also think are immoral). Should everyone, in every circumstance, decide what they should do? Of course not. That is the definition of anarchy. But in the case of abortion, where opinion is all over the place, from your opinion that all abortion is murder to others who might believe that no abortion is murder, and everything in between, there is no consensus. No consensus = no laws forbidding the action. No agreement about the morality of the action. This is not morality by majority rule, it’s democracy. You want to change the law? Terrific. Change public opinion. Get a consensus that all abortion is murder. Go for it. Until then, don’t try to impose your personal opinions on others.

it is decided by the fact that it is an individual member of the human family that has as much a right to life as you or I do. The fetus is not property, its a person, created in the image and likeness of God.

That’s your belief. I’m not trying to change your mind about your own beliefs. I’m simply pointing out that the majority of people in the US and the world don’t agree with you, and they are just as entitled to their beliefs as you are to yours.

It is a scientific fact that life beings at conception.

Agreed. But “life” does not = “person”. That’s the issue.

if a living organism is a human person, no matter how small, do not they deserve life?

Agreed. but then we come to the central problem: what exactly is “a human person”? And that takes care of the rest of your post, which makes the assumption that “life” = “human person”. That is a religious / philosophical / legal question, not a scientific one.

 

[Sbee0]

I’ve said it many times. Abortion is a symptom of society’s failure to be there for women in need. It is not a solution or a cure for those needs. I hope that failure is ultimately remedied.

Also the line about what the majority believe sounds like argumentum ad populum fallacial thinking. It shouldn’t matter what the consensus is, it only matters if it’s right or wrong.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

No, science cannot answer ethical questions. It can, however, provide that all-important factual foundation for them.

Agreed. Totally.

I do hear a lot of scientifically illiterate claims from the pro-choice community, including in this very thread. An embryo, for example, cannot possibly be a “clump of cells” when those cells are, in fact, highly specialized and differentiated for specific anatomic systems and organs. That’s more than a “clump.”

You may have heard those claims from others, but not from me. For me, a “clump of cells” is exactly that. An undifferentiated clump of cells. Staring with the single cell and going from there into stem cells that can develop into anything at all. As soon as you get some sort of cell specialization it’s no longer a “clump of cells.” But it’s not necessarily a baby, either!

It’s easier than you think. An embryo is an organism, and each organism belongs to a species - human being/homo sapiens in this case. This stands true regardless of what somebody looks like. There are living accident victims who don’t look like “normal” human beings but still are.

Sorry, you’re not convincing me. Sure an embryo is “an organism,” and it’s certainly “alive.” And it’s certainly “human” in the sense that its DNA and origin is human. But again back to the central question:
does that mean it’s a “person” or a “human being”? Most people would say no. Do looks matter? That depends on what you mean. If you showed a Martian a single-celled organism and a two-year old baby and asked the Martian if they were the same, I would bet the Martian would say no. But I don’t know many Martians.

I agree with all of this. I feel like we can breathe easy again.

Great! Then let’s get out the vote for Bernie!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’ve said it many times. Abortion is a symptom of society’s failure to be there for women in need. It is not a solution or a cure for those needs. I hope that failure is ultimately remedied.

We agree on that one completely.

Also the line about what the majority believe sounds like argumentum ad populum fallacial thinking. It shouldn’t matter what the consensus is, it only matters if it’s right or wrong.

But you’re falling into the great fallacy of the pro-lifers on this thread: “Abortion is wrong. I know that’s true. I know it’s true because I really, really, really believe it.” Again: who is going to determine “right and wrong”? You? Me? And–yet again–morality is NOT necessarily = legality. To make some major thing illegal in a democracy (spare me the stuff about being a republic), you need a consensus. Pass a law on a major issue without a consensus and what do you get? How did prohibition work out?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Apart from being an evidence-free speculation of the organization’s motives, this assertion simply makes no sense. The AMA has a history of suppressing midwives by claiming that doctors and doctors alone should deliver babies.

So why do you suppose they didn’t apply the same rationale to abortion, i.e. claiming that doctors and doctors alone should perform abortions? It’s a rhetorical question only because the inconsistency is illogical. They didn’t claim abortion as their turf; they condemned it outright.

I don’t know their motivation–150 years later, probably no one does. Certainly they could have gone the “only doctors can perform abortions” route, but they would have run up against major opposition from women who performed abortions or sold potions. Why deal with opposition if you can simply outlaw them?

I said human’s life, a life belonging to a human being.

To what other species might this organism belong?

Does no one on this thread understand the central issue of the debate???

 

[blackforest]

I agree, that’s the pro-life position. I thought that’s what I said. But others fundamentally disagree with you. They DO see a distinction between different stages that DOES justify “killing” an organism in an earlier stage.

Is there any reason “killing” is in quotes? It’s the inevitable result of crushing bones and organs. There’s no limbo, no gray area, no zombie-like status that results from the process. A successful abortion requires killing. A not-so-“successful” abortion ends up like this. giannajessen.com/

I believe in a ‘moral objective claim’ that abortion is evil and should be illegal. OK, that’s your position.
But then what if someone said “I believe that monogamy is evil and should be illegal.”
What if someone said “I believe that wearing a dress is evil and should be illegal.”
And so on. Silly, right? And irrelevant to boot.

It would first be incumbent upon the person making the claim that the personal choice to wear a dress is somehow resulting in an egregious human rights violation, a situation that justifies legal intervention.

As I stated upthread, however, I’m not sure that a Roe v. Wade reversal would be an effective, lasting, or even sustainable solution.

I’m calling out pro-choicers for confusing preference claims with objective moral claims. We’re disagreeing over human rights, not our favorite flavors of salt water taffy.

I’m not saying that I’d prefer that people didn’t get abortions, or that I don’t like them. I’m claiming that elective, induced abortion is a fundamental human rights violation. Those are entirely different concepts. So when a pro-lifer makes a case against killing a defenseless human in the womb, it is disingenuous and dismissive to turn the issue into something relative by glibly stamping the word “CHOICE” on it.

Is “killing” a two-celled being the moral equivalent of killing a two-year old baby?

Elective, induced abortion is generally performed at a minimum of five weeks gestation. So unless you wish to discuss contra-implantative contraception, let’s focus on a few more cells . . .

Don’t impose that belief on others who disagree.

Why? Would it be wrong of him to do that?

 

[Sbee0]

The “personhood” argument with respect to the embryo is a poor one imo. The “markers” used to identify personhood are very arbitrary lines in the sand with little basis in science. Ultimately these markers will exclude born human beings too and thus they fall flat on their face for the purpose they were intended.

I think it’s interesting that to date I have not heard a consistent and sound distinction made between a human person and a human being. In absence of such proof perhaps it’s not unreasonable to believe there isn’t one.

 

[Sbee0]

Also the problem with the pro choice libertarian perspective on abortion is that it’s incomplete. One may have the right to an abortion but what about the right to life for the unborn child? This right is clearly violated here.

 

[blackforest]

Does no one on this thread understand the central issue of the debate???

We do, we just may not agree with you on what that is.

If abortion is not taking the life of a defenseless human being, then I’m pro-choice. That right there is the central issue.

Certainly they could have gone the “only doctors can perform abortions” route, but they would have run up against major opposition from women who performed abortions or sold potions. Why deal with opposition if you can simply outlaw them?

They were actually successful in pushing midwives into the figurative catacombs.

But again back to the central question:
does that mean it’s a “person” or a “human being”?

Only pro-choicers make that distinction. The rest of us refuse to exercise such discrimination against others in order to kill them.

Science tells us we have a human being.
Personal opinions and preferences dictate “personhood.” In light of such disagreement, I argue that ethically the default should necessarily be the more inclusive position that grants human rights to everybody, not just those deemed weak or unwanted.

And much to the befuddlement of our Martian friend, both two cells and billions would be a human being. Even though they look different.

 

[graciew]

Does no one on this thread understand the central issue of the debate???

Yes… we gave birth to several…
And so were you…given the chance to be posting today…

 

[Gab123]

Though I do not mean to minimize the issue of abortion, I would like to say that there are other issues of importance in the USA.

This will make you put things into perspective:

 

[Brendan_64]

Also the problem with the pro choice libertarian perspective on abortion is that it’s incomplete. One may have the right to an abortion but what about the right to life for the unborn child? This right is clearly violated here.

Indeed, and their proposed solution to this problem is to deem one of the parties to be a ‘non-person’ so that the other party may be allowed to kill it. The concept of ‘personhood’ is created in order to justify a desired end.

 

[Vonsalza]

Do infants?

No. And when they’re inside the mother’s body, that final test determines that they are not separate people capable of overriding the decisions the mother wishes to make about her own body.

And abortion isn’t?

Not to the same degree, else women wouldn’t elect to have them in most cases.

I’m finding that pro-choicers use one or more of the following justifications for killing.

The biggest one you’re missing is:
6. A woman deserves control over her own body.

A human embryo is a distinct human life, with its own DNA, created at and from conception. Scientific fact.

Actually, the unique genetic combination that is a new, budding person apparently doesn’t form until 4 days after conception. If that matters, which it doesn’t. The issue is “when is it a person apart from its mother”. And the best answer for that question appears to be “birth”.

As was eloquently stated above - if the government has the right to ban abortion, it also has the potential right to order them.

So let us make no law concerning it and let the women choose for themselves.
We have no right to speak for the fetus, we have no right to speak for the mother.