Issues other than abortion

[lagerald24]

But following your reasoning, why should slavery, murder, or rape be illegal? Shouldn’t we give people freedom of religion and conscience in those areas?

 

[lagerald24]

All things considered, everyone seems to agree thus far that the fetus is alive and that it is a human. We disagree, however, in saying that it is not a person because it is part of the mother or that it is dependent on the mother for survival. For these reasons, people say that the life of the fetus is not protected until birth and that its life is subject to the mother’s choice. I’ve been told that I must show that the fetus is a human person using philosophy rather than science even thought science says that the life of the human zygote begins at conception when the sperm and the egg fuse together. Anyway, here goes…

 

[blackforest]

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.” S

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

I keep repeating it because I haven’t really heard anybody rebut it accept to shout “Choice!” Nonetheless, I appreciate the reminder that I should “tidy up” the argument because it’s central to the pro-life case and shouldn’t get buried into long posts. Let’s try it as a syllogism.

1. Abortion takes the life of a defenseless human being.
2. It is ethically unacceptable to take the life of a defenseless human being.
3. Therefore abortion is ethically unacceptable.

Feel free to use these points as a springboard for discussion.

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?

I think you missed my irony and am a little surprised that you fell into the trap. If it’s wrong to impose one’s morality, then you really need to stop imposing your morality on others by telling them it’s wrong to impose morality.

That said, do you really think that the Catholic Church believes in the “right to exercise freedom, especially in moral religious matters” when it comes to sexually abusing children, beating one’s spouse, human trafficking, or robbing banks? That would be absurd! I’m not saying that any of these examples are “the same thing” as abortion, but I’m pointing out that of course the Church imposes limits on this precept! Frankly, so does the rest of society.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I know that you and many others do not accept its teaching authority

Fascinating. Now you claim to know that I do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. I do. I have been a practicing Catholic my entire life. I am against abortion, just as much as you are. But you know what? I also believe the catechism when it says other people MUST be given freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. To deny them that is wrong.

I think it is pretty obvious just from scientific fact that the life in the womb is human.

Well, it’s obvious to pro-life supporters. They really, really, really believe it. That doesn’t make it so.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

But following your reasoning, why should slavery, murder, or rape be illegal? Shouldn’t we give people freedom of religion and conscience in those areas?

You haven’t read my posts. Read them.

 

[pnewton]

I apologize if you have education in the field. I do not understand your disdain for defining terms, though, nor why none of the point made were addressed philosophically instead of being dismissed the way you did.

 

[Sbee0]

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.

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.”)
(clipped for character limit)

Thanks for your response.

I would say this tree analogy is fallacious. I’m sure nobody would attempt to argue that an acorn is a tree. A tree is the “adult” form of the oak, thus this premise is like saying the unborn fetus/child is an adult. Nobody would say that either. Which is what this analogy is doing. The premise is saying acorn to tree is like fetus to adult and thus if acorn is not a tree then fetus is not a human, meaning only adults are human beings. False.

Instead one should say acorn of type oak is the first stage of development, and then once planted it grows into sprout, sapling, young tree…until it’s a fully formed tree, all the while being oak. The embryo of type human also has a developmental path to adult, while remaining a human being at each and every single stage.

The “functionalism” argument also collapses, as it’s easily applied to born human beings too.

Thus, I still don’t see a valid argument that a human person and a human being are two tangibly and objectively distinct entities. If this cannot be proven (and it can’t), then is it wrong to conclude that such a distinction doesn’t exist, thus making the “personhood” argument completely moot?

 

[lagerald24]

What’s interesting is that people were personally for slavery and thought that it was an okay thing. Some other people didn’t though and got the government to outlaw it because it is a moral, objective evil: One group of people denying the right to life of another. (I’m considering starting a thread on objective truth). Some of the same things could be said about abortion. If we are the right ones, that abortion really does end an innocent human life and therefore is murder, then abortion should be illegal. If it does what the pro-lifer’s claim it does, then there is no “I’m personally opposed position.” Now, to show (philosophically) how the fetus is a person.

 

[0331]

Speaking of Jesuit philosophers, check out Schall’s latest.

Time to Rethink the Abortion Question

“Can a woman forget her nursing child that she should have no compassion for the son of her womb?” ∼ Isaiah, 49:15 “Every man is in a direct relationship with God. Faith claims no more for the first…

www.crisismagazine.com

 

[lagerald24]

BTW, I read you posts. Sorry, I jump the gun sometimes.

 

[blackforest]

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.

To say that somebody is not a person because they have or lack X, Y, and Z physical features is irrational and emotional. It is also, by definition, the form of prejudice called ableism.

I’m not going to argue over what features imbue so-called “personhood,” i.e. allow people to live or have access to other basic human rights. I default to the position of non-discrimination and wish to extend that right to all human beings.

 

[Vonsalza]

To say that somebody is not a person…

Again, you’re either misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the point.

If something is a progression, then there is no off/on switch.

It’s always a person. It’s a question of degree. And until birth, the personhood of a fetus does not trump the personhood of its mother.

At birth, they are finally separated and potential conflicts become irrelevant.

I can use the word “continuum” instead of “progression”, if that would help?

 

[Elf01]

It’s always a person. It’s a question of degree. And until birth, the personhood of a fetus does not trump the personhood of its mother.

At birth, they are finally separated and potential conflicts become irrelevant.

Just out of interest how do you respond to my conjoined twins analogy? Does the personhood of the twin who would live and wants to separate immediately trump the personhood of the one who would die? I missed the response if you gave it.

 

[Vonsalza]

What’s interesting is that people were personally for slavery and thought that it was an okay thing.

For the 100th time, abortion is not slavery.

Slaves were people; complete with self-determination and bodily autonomy.

This does not apply to a fetus. It is inside its mother, who also has self-determination and bodily autonomy. The fetus has none of these things.

Not the same. Never has been.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Let’s try it as a syllogism.

1. Abortion takes the life of a defenseless human being.
2. It is ethically unacceptable to take the life of a defenseless human being.
3. Therefore abortion is ethically unacceptable.

OK, I’ll play along. Let’s try this for a syllogism:

1. An elephant is really just a big cat.
2. Cats have fur.
3. Therefore elephants have fur.

The good Jesuits did teach me one thing about philosophy–you can’t start with a flawed premise. As soon as you say “defenseless human being” you are presenting a premise which is, in fact, the heart of the debate. YOU believe it’s a human others. Others don’t.

That said, do you really think that the Catholic Church believes in the “right to exercise freedom, especially in moral religious matters” when it comes to sexually abusing children, beating one’s spouse, human trafficking, or robbing banks? … I’m pointing out that of course the Church imposes limits on this precept! Frankly, so does the rest of society.

Here we go yet again. I’ll try to be patient. Clearly there is a communications problem.

There is no necessary connection between something being moral and being legal. These are totally different, although sometimes they agree. But something could be moral and yet illegal (helping slaves to escape to Canada in 1860). Other things could be moral and legal (most things). Other things could be immoral, but legal (Trump claiming there is a crisis at the border and citing incidents from “Sicario: Day of the Soldado” to illustrate his point. Not illegal, but certainly immoral.)

Moreover, the Church distinguishes between something that is wrong and the culpability of someone who does the action. If I sexually abuse children but at the time I really, really, really believe I am somehow “helping” them, I am legally guilty of a crime. And I have committed an action that is intrinsically evil. But am I culpable? Have I committed a sin? No, I haven’t.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

It’s always a person. It’s a question of degree. And until birth, the personhood of a fetus does not trump the personhood of its mother.

At birth, they are finally separated and potential conflicts become irrelevant.

Just out of interest how do you respond to my conjoined twins analogy? Does the personhood of the twin who would live and wants to separate immediately trump the personhood of the one who would die? I missed the response if you gave it.

No, they both have agency. Neither trumps the other.

A fetus doesn’t have agency.

 

[Elf01]

Slaves were people; complete with self-determination and bodily autonomy.

How are you sure? You’ve refused to give a definition of personhood.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If this cannot be proven (and it can’t), then is it wrong to conclude that such a distinction doesn’t exist, thus making the “personhood” argument completely moot?

I just agreed with you–you can’t “prove” the moment some cells are transformed into a human being. And different people have different opinions. And yours is simply one of them. You could be right or wrong. But other people have valid, logical arguments for different beliefs.

Let’s say that you think blue is the best color. You are “pro-blue.” You tell me a lot of reasons you like blue. And I come along and say, "Well, you know color is a continuum. Where does “blue” end and “indigo” begin? Where does “green” end and “blue” begin? Can you prove to me that this particular “blue” is really blue and not “indigo”? I think it’s indigo. Prove to me that it’s not. See the problem? It’s not a question of science–blue ends at this wave length and indigo begins at that one. Science doesn’t do that. Just like it doesn’t say “At this stage we have some cells; then, presto, the cells transform into a genuine human being!” It’s a matter of opinion (or belief, if you prefer).

 

[Elf01]

I just agreed with you–you can’t “prove” the moment some cells are transformed into a human being. And different people have different opinions. And yours is simply one of them. You could be right or wrong. But other people have valid, logical arguments for different beliefs.

Should we not err on the side of not allowing something to be killed if we cannot be sure it’s not a person?

 

[blackforest]

OK, I’ll play along. Let’s try this for a syllogism:

1. An elephant is really just a big cat.
2. Cats have fur.
3. Therefore elephants have fur.

The good Jesuits did teach me one thing about philosophy–you can’t start with a flawed premise. As soon as you say “defenseless human being” you are presenting a premise which is, in fact, the heart of the debate. YOU believe it’s a human others. Others don’t.

If the premise is flawed, you need to do more than just mock it; you have the burden or rejoinder to prove it so.

Science dictates what is a “human being.” Philosophy dictates what is a “human person.” I’m afraid you’re going to have a hard time disproving the former; scientific facts are not a matter of personal taste or opinion.

I’ll try to be patient.

Gee, thanks.

There is no necessary connection between something being moral and being legal. These are totally different, although sometimes they agree. But something could be moral and yet illegal (helping slaves to escape to Canada in 1860). Other things could be moral and legal (most things). Other things could be immoral, but legal (Trump claiming there is a crisis at the border and citing incidents from “Sicario: Day of the Soldado” to illustrate his point. Not illegal, but certainly immoral.)

I agree with all of this and am not sure why you felt a need to explain it.

I’m focused on what is intrinsically wrong, regardless of legality.

Moreover, the Church distinguishes between something that is wrong and the culpability of someone who does the action. If I sexually abuse children but at the time I really, really, really believe I am somehow “helping” them, I am legally guilty of a crime. And I have committed an action that is intrinsically evil. But am I culpable? Have I committed a sin? No, I haven’t.

The Church defines abortion as an outright sin, and you haven’t rebutted my point that there are limits to the CCC passage that you cited.