Issues other than abortion

[Erikaspirit16]

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.

You can define a term any way you like. For example, I could define “baby” as “a large two-ton animal with hooves and a large trunk.” Perhaps you could explain how either definition furthers the discussion?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The concept of ‘personhood’ is created in order to justify a desired end.

I think that concept has been around for a few thousand years, minimum.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

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.

You can define a term any way you like. For example, I could define “baby” as “a large two-ton animal with hooves and a large trunk.” Perhaps you could explain how either definition furthers the discussion?

It’s what science says. I will go with science. The comparison between a clump of cells and an unborn fetus is completely false and has zero basis in science.

An opinion on whether we “like” it or not isn’t that relevant

 

[Sbee0]

Brendan_64:

The concept of ‘personhood’ is created in order to justify a desired end.

I think that concept has been around for a few thousand years, minimum.

There is no real difference between a human being and a human person.

Convince me otherwise.

 

[Sbee0]

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”.

Whether that is true or not (and it isn’t) it’s a red herring, as nobody talks about abortions at the 4 day mark.

The personhood argument is not a very good one. As I said to @ErikaSpirit16 - I do not believe there is any real and meaningful difference between a human being and a human person. Try to convince me otherwise.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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”.

Whether that is true or not (and it isn’t) it’s a red herring, as nobody talks about abortions at the 4 day mark.

I just think it’s super interesting. If the unique proto-person doesn’t actually form for 4 days and ovulation only lasts a day, on average, it’s literally impossible for the pill to be considered an abortifacient. So I’m not entirely sure the “red herring” cry is applicable here. Honestly.

The personhood argument is not a very good one. As I said to @ErikaSpirit16 - I do not believe there is any meaningful difference between a human being and a human person. Try to convince me otherwise.

Oh goodness, I’ve led thousands of horses to water who refuse to drink.

I understand intimately that rational logic will not break you from a position you hold based on emotion. Different currencies.

But from a rational perspective, the personhood argument is THE argument. It reflects the reality we see nearly perfectly.

 

[Sbee0]

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

Yes they do.

And an unborn fetus is not “her body” it’s someone else’s.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Vonsalza:

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”.

Whether that is true or not (and it isn’t) it’s a red herring, as nobody talks about abortions at the 4 day mark.

I just think it’s super interesting. If the unique proto-person doesn’t actually form for 4 days and ovulation only lasts a day, on average, it’s literally impossible for the pill to be considered an abortifacient. So I’m not entirely sure the “red herring” cry is applicable here. Honestly.

The personhood argument is not a very good one. As I said to @ErikaSpirit16 - I do not believe there is any meaningful difference between a human being and a human person. Try to convince me otherwise.

Oh goodness, I’ve led thousands of horses to water who refuse to drink.

I understand intimately that rational logic will not break you from a position you hold based on emotion. Different currencies.

But from a rational perspective, the personhood argument is THE argument. It reflects the reality we see nearly perfectly.

I’ll take that as an admission that you don’t think you can convince me that there is a real and tangible difference between a human being and a human person. Understandable, as each and every single possible argument in that direction is flawed and easily falls down.

The point about the pill- another red herring.

And no-one talks about abortions after 4 days so your point is utterly irrelevant. Life and the unique markers that make it life, and the inherent abilities and functions that make the embryo distinct from a “clump of cells” begins at conception. The abortion rights argument that an unborn fetus is a clump of cells is completely false. The personhood argument is a poor one, as I already demonstrated.

No emotion here. I am arguing purely from a secular point of view. I go with science and logic and they are on my side in this one.

 

[pnewton]

Philosophy is the study of wisdom. Your lack of education in the field does not make it mumbo jumbo anymore that quantum mechanics is mumbo jumbo with all the funny words they use. Sometimes we have to get past simple slogans and into the meaning behind the word we use.

 

[Ender]

Moreover, as the issue has been federally decided, what individual states may think is irrelevant.

First, the question of who is or is not a person has not been federally decided; this is why the definitions of “person” are completely different in Alabama than in New York, but more importantly the New York law shows the complete artificiality of the term. In order to achieve a particular objective (abortion) the law simply defines a class of human beings as non-persons, thus allowing them to be destroyed.

That approach lends itself to other objectives. For instance, in the80’s Governor Lamm of Colorado stated that the elderly had a "duty to die and get out of the way.’’ If we can define one group of human beings as non-persons for the purpose of abortion, why could the law not define a different group as non-persons for the purpose of forced euthanasia? The rationale for one is the same as the rationale for the other.

my criteria is and always will be personhood

“Personhood” is an artificial term defined by law. You want abortion to be legal, which requires the legal right to kill a fetus, which comes from defining it as a non-person. Those who will push for forced euthanasia can achieve that goal through similar means: define those with certain conditions as non-persons. The term has only legal meaning; it has no relation to reality.

You simply do not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

I have made no argument against abortion. All I have done is point out the nature of your argument in its support, which is based on the fictional concept of a “person” as distinct from a human being.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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.

I agree. But the same goes for the pro-life argument: you have to PROVE that it “results in an egregious human rights violation, a situation that justifies legal intervention.” Saying “I really, really, really,believe it does” is neither objective truth nor an argument. It’s simply stating your personal beliefs over and over (exactly what all the pro-life supporters here have done) and standing back and saying “That is one convincing argument I just made.” Sorry, it’s nothing of the sort.

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 agree there. Argentina outlaws abortion. And yet, somehow, there are about 500,000 abortions there a year. Miraculous.

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 am truly amazed that no one can distinguish their personal beliefs from objective reality. They may or may not coincide, we don’t know. But–again–simply repeating it like a mantra doesn’t make it so.

I’m claiming that elective, induced abortion is a fundamental human rights violation.

I know you are. You keep repeating it. That doesn’t make it objectively true.

Why? Would it be wrong of him to do that? [impose his beliefs on others with different beliefs]

Why would that be wrong? Go back to my post about freedom, catechism section #1738: “The right to the exercise of freedom , especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person.” So you want to take away an inalienable right? Really?

 

[Sbee0]

blackforest:

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

Which is why any law in place banning abortion in this country should be supplemented by a robust social support system for women and men too in desperate situations, including communication to desperate people where to turn to in their time of need. The Church and her charities is very good at helping to fill this gap. There is one such place near where I live, for supporting young mothers and their baby.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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.

All right. Let’s say there’s two groups: “pro-tree” and “pro-choice”. The “pro-tree” person shows me an acorn and says, “This is a tree. It has oak tree DNA. It came from an oak tree. Science says it’s alive. It’s a tree. I really, really, really believe that.” And the “pro-choice” person comes along and says “No, it’s an acorn. It’s a potential tree, but it’s not a tree.” And the “pro-tree” person would say, "OK, you say there’s a dividing line between an acorn and a tree. You say an acorn isn’t a “real” tree. Prove to me where that dividing line is–prove to me that there is a dividing line between “acorn” and “tree.” And the “pro-choice” person says “Well, there are a lot of points where different people think it becomes a tree. First of all, it has to be planted. If it’s not planted, it dies. So some people would say it becomes a tree when it’s planted. Others would say it becomes a tree when it actually spouts and you can see it emerge from the ground. Others would say it’s not a tree until it has branches.” Etc. And the “pro-tree” person says “But that’s not objective proof of a difference between an acorn and a tree. You haven’t proven they’re different.” (And Peter Kreeft would throw in some stuff about “functionalism” vs. “essence.”)

So can I “prove” that (in Kreeft’s words) the “essence” of a fertilized cell is different than the “essence” of a just-born baby? Of course not. Can I “prove” (this word has been corrupted beyond understanding in the Trump era) that there is some magical dividing line at a nanosecond in time between an acorn and a tree? No, of course not. But is an acorn a tree? “pro-tree” advocates really, really, really believe it is, and that to harm an acorn is to harm a tree. They want to make it illegal to collect acorns and throw them into the compost heap. The great majority of people look at the “pro-tree” people and think “What on earth gives them the right to tell me what to do with my acorns?”

And there we have it. I also have a nice story where I dig a hole and then call my neighbor over to admire my new house.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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.

If you don’t believe the “unborn child” is really a child, it has no rights. Simple.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Science tells us we have a human being.
Personal opinions and preferences dictate “personhood.”

There you go! First sentence: not true. Science tells you that you have some organism with human DNA that is alive. No more.

Second sentence: absolutely. YOUR personal opinions and preferences confer “personhood” on a fetilized egg. Fine. Believe that. Most people disagree. Allow them the freedom to do that, too.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ll take that as an admission that you don’t think you can convince me that there is a real and tangible difference between a human being and a human person.

There is, but you’re right. Convincing someone of something requires their cooperation in a fundamental way. If they don’t want to give it…

It would be like trying to convince Chairman Mao that communism was bad. He just wouldn’t hear of it.

Understandable, as each and every single possible argument in that direction is flawed and easily falls down.

Not at all.

That’s just what you tell yourself as emotional reinforcement. Gently stated.

The arguments for choice are excellent, which is the very reason why the debate endures. Part of being avidly pro-life involves very deliberately ignoring these arguments.

The personhood argument is a poor one, as I already demonstrated.

Well, you said it, but there was no objective demonstration.

Let me give you mine:

Progressive personhood is a reality.
If you die before your birth, typically there is no investigation into the cause of your death.
If you die after birth, someone - even if just the coroner - will have to look into it.
-But at that point, you’re still very limited on the rights you enjoy. You’re largely under the control of your guardians.
When you turn 16, it is assumed you’re mature enough to drive a car.
When you turn 18 (adulthood part 1), you can participate in the state, have credit, own property, enter into contracts, fight war, own a gun and smoke.
When you turn 21 (adulthood part 2), you can drink, own a handgun and participate in other property agreements limited to 21 year-olds (usually expensive equipment rentals)
When you turn 25, you can actually be a part of the state by running for congress.
At 35 you can run for president.

After that, it’s potentially downhill, I’m afraid

The last are not age based - but are based on your faculties - how clearly you practice your own self-determination. But if you’re shown to be faltering in body and mind, a judge will let someone strip you of your license and the control of your property. Most employers will not employ you after you reach a certain age, even as that’s explicitly illegal (they write something else down).

Personhood is absolutely a progression. This is the reality in which we find ourselves.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

This will make you put things into perspective:

Yup. She’s really sincere. Like the rest of you, she really, really, really believes in her position. I would be the last one to tell her she’s wrong. She can believe whatever she wants. I believe in giving other people freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, just like the catechism says.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Your lack of education in the field

My Jesuit philosophy teachers would be insulted.

 

[lagerald24]

In regards to the Catechism, I know that you and many others do not accept its teaching authority but I just wanted to put it out there that neither the Catechism nor the Catholic Church is pro-choice. [2270] “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Also, the Catechism says that abortion does “irreparable harm… to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.” [2272].

The point the Catechism is driving home is that the choice to have an abortion does NOT trump the right to life of an individual human being.

You said that it is a philosophical question about whether or not life = human person. I think it is pretty obvious just from scientific fact that the life in the womb is human. I guess I’ll have to switch gears and explain philosophically how this human life deserves full personhood.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Which is why any law in place banning abortion in this country should be supplemented by a robust social support system for women and men too in desperate situations, including communication to desperate people where to turn to in their time of need. The Church and her charities is very good at helping to fill this gap. There is one such place near where I live, for supporting young mothers and their baby.

You can do that without outlawing abortion and taking away people’s freedom of religion and conscience.