Issues other than abortion

[Erikaspirit16]

But there IS a scientific marker that can do so. It’s called conception.

That’s your BELIEF. Others would say, “No, that’s not the time this cell becomes a human being. I believe it becomes a human being [for example] when it can live outside the mother’s body.” That’s a belief too.

Can you “prove” one belief is true and the other is false? No. So you should allow each person to have their own beliefs.

 

[Vonsalza]

I said the personhood argument was a poor one. My reasons are a few posts up in this topic. Perhaps you missed them.

No, I saw them. They’re insufficient reason to deprive a woman of bodily autonomy.

Despite this being unfortunately a complete non sequitur, thanks for the response anyway.

You’re right, it’s just a clear exposition of the steady progression of personhood in one’s life, showing personhood is real and a procedural.

Which relates directly to the point.

Ah, the classic argument about your faculties.

Yes. It’s the classic reason you lose some personhood as you age.

Again, it’s the reality in which we find ourselves.

Sorry, still not close to convinced that there’s a difference between a human being and a human person.

I didn’t expect you to be

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

But there IS a scientific marker that can do so. It’s called conception.

That’s your BELIEF. Others would say, “No, that’s not the time this cell becomes a human being. I believe it becomes a human being [for example] when it can live outside the mother’s body.” That’s a belief too.

Can you “prove” one belief is true and the other is false? No. So you should allow each person to have their own beliefs.

It’s not my belief, it’s a factual conclusion based on science.

No different than the belief that gravity is holding me down honestly.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The conjoined twin in your example made their wish known.

That’s an example of agency.

If the twin who would die was unable to make their wishes known would it be OK to separate?

I seem to recall a case just like that where two twins were born where their odds of living very long were very low if they stayed conjoined and they were conjoined in a way that was much more perilous to one than the other.

They ultimately decided to kill the more imperiled twin for the sake of saving the other.

If you want, pm me and I can try to look it up later.

 

[Elf01]

I seem to recall a case just like that where two twins were born where their odds of living very long were very low if they stayed conjoined and they were conjoined in a way that was much more perilous to one than the other.

They ultimately decided to kill the more imperiled twin for the sake of saving the other.

If you want, pm me and I can try to look it up later.

In my example the odds are high of both living. Yes it’s a stretch, but I don’t think as big a one as some of the pro abortion arguments.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

I said the personhood argument was a poor one. My reasons are a few posts up in this topic. Perhaps you missed them.

No, I saw them. They’re insufficient reason to deprive a woman of bodily autonomy.

Despite this being unfortunately a complete non sequitur, thanks for the response anyway.

You’re right, it’s just a clear exposition of the steady progression of personhood in one’s life, showing personhood is real and a procedural.

Which relates directly to the point.

Ah, the classic argument about your faculties.

Yes. It’s the classic reason you lose some personhood as you age.

Again, it’s the reality in which we find ourselves.

Sorry, still not close to convinced that there’s a difference between a human being and a human person.

I didn’t expect you to be

I really don’t think appeal to law is a good way to define personhood, and “the law” clearly applies to those a lot older than a baby. I would strongly disagree that you lose personhood as you age.

The thing is you can’t define the marker of personhood at all. It’s not possible. That’s my point. So… logic says why not just say a human being IS a human person.

 

[Vonsalza]

Consider a family whose parents both lose their jobs and fall on very hard financial times. I don’t think anyone would argue that gives them the right to kill their kids.

Of course not. The children are separate beings and can be raised by someone else.

This is not the case in an unwanted pregnancy. It’s biologically part of its mother. If not - by all means, separate them shortly after conception.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I seem to recall a case just like that where two twins were born where their odds of living very long were very low if they stayed conjoined and they were conjoined in a way that was much more perilous to one than the other.

They ultimately decided to kill the more imperiled twin for the sake of saving the other.

If you want, pm me and I can try to look it up later.

In my example the odds are high of both living. Yes it’s a stretch, but I don’t think as big a one as some of the pro abortion arguments.

The hazard of dealing with hypotheticals, right?

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Consider a family whose parents both lose their jobs and fall on very hard financial times. I don’t think anyone would argue that gives them the right to kill their kids.

Of course not. The children are separate beings and can be raised by someone else.

This is not the case in an unwanted pregnancy. It’s biologically part of its mother. If not - by all means, separate them shortly after conception.

It isn’t biologically part of its mother at all. It’s already separate. Happy to agree to disagree here. This is the crux.

 

[pnewton]

I like the irony of a thread on issues other than abortion going on for hundreds of post about abortion. But I guess that is what you get when non-Catholics jump on a Catholic board and argue for something so antithetical to the faith. The whole argument is useless and backwards. It is so far off it should be in apologetics where the error that is in the beginning could be better addressed.

I don’t get it. I would never go on some LGTB board and go on and on about how all homosexuals are going to hell and should be in jail, not that I believe it.

 

[Elf01]

The hazard of dealing with hypotheticals, right?

I think it is realistic for medicine to advance in the future to allow them to remain conjoined with a low risk. I note the lack of an answer though.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

Consider a family whose parents both lose their jobs and fall on very hard financial times. I don’t think anyone would argue that gives them the right to kill their kids.

Of course not. The children are separate beings and can be raised by someone else.

This is not the case in an unwanted pregnancy. It’s biologically part of its mother. If not - by all means, separate them shortly after conception.

It isn’t biologically part of its mother at all. Happy to agree to disagree here. This is the crux.

I had the understanding that they bind at the placenta and that the fetus actually takes sustenance directly from it’s mother.

Apologies. If it’s not biologically part of her, then by all means remove it and place it somewhere else.

Keep that fetus alive! Just not inside the unwilling mother.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

Consider a family whose parents both lose their jobs and fall on very hard financial times. I don’t think anyone would argue that gives them the right to kill their kids.

Of course not. The children are separate beings and can be raised by someone else.

This is not the case in an unwanted pregnancy. It’s biologically part of its mother. If not - by all means, separate them shortly after conception.

It isn’t biologically part of its mother at all. Happy to agree to disagree here. This is the crux.

I had the understanding that they bind at the placenta and that the fetus actually takes sustenance directly from it’s mother.

Apologies. If it’s not biologically part of her, then by all means remove it and place it somewhere else.

As it’s biologically programmed to do, with all the inherent abilities and functions that make a human being. A distinction from say a tumor or a clump of cells, which has zero such abilities.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

Consider a family whose parents both lose their jobs and fall on very hard financial times. I don’t think anyone would argue that gives them the right to kill their kids.

Of course not. The children are separate beings and can be raised by someone else.

This is not the case in an unwanted pregnancy. It’s biologically part of its mother. If not - by all means, separate them shortly after conception.

It isn’t biologically part of its mother at all. Happy to agree to disagree here. This is the crux.

I had the understanding that they bind at the placenta and that the fetus actually takes sustenance directly from it’s mother.

Apologies. If it’s not biologically part of her, then by all means remove it and place it somewhere else.

As it’s biologically programmed to do,

So then it is biologically part of the mother?

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

Consider a family whose parents both lose their jobs and fall on very hard financial times. I don’t think anyone would argue that gives them the right to kill their kids.

Of course not. The children are separate beings and can be raised by someone else.

This is not the case in an unwanted pregnancy. It’s biologically part of its mother. If not - by all means, separate them shortly after conception.

It isn’t biologically part of its mother at all. Happy to agree to disagree here. This is the crux.

I had the understanding that they bind at the placenta and that the fetus actually takes sustenance directly from it’s mother.

Apologies. If it’s not biologically part of her, then by all means remove it and place it somewhere else.

As it’s biologically programmed to do,

So then it is biologically part of the mother?

In the mother, and dependent on the mother, but a completely separate life. (before you go there, dependency is not a marker for personhood)

The “my body” argument works if you’re talking about a clump of cells.

The unborn fetus is not a clump of cells, thus the argument doesn’t work.

 

[Vonsalza]

In the mother, and dependent on the mother, but a completely separate life.

If she breathes for it, eats for it and it occupies her insides, then it’s part of the mother.

Sure, it’s genetically different, like a tumor might be. But it’s indubitably part of her.

If it wasn’t, just remove it and do what you wish with it.

 

[lagerald24]

So, these guys that I cited above believe that the fetus is indeed a living human being who is in the early stages of their development and not until the fetus reaches a certain point of development is it worthy of the right to life. It seems to me that some people believe that there is a hierarchy of value among humans, some more important, some less important, namely that the adult human has a right to life but the fetal human being does not have this right. We should ask, “What is the difference between the two?” Some might say that the fetus does not have the right to life because it is either less developed or because it is dependent on the mother for survival. Let’s look at both of those.

Some might say that certain people (being more developed) have more of a right to life than other people. But would we say that it is murder to kill an adult but not an infant? No, we wouldn’t. To use another example, would we say that it is not murder or less murder to kill a pre-adolescent child than it is to kill a late adolescent whose reproductive system is not fully developed? No, that is rubbish. The whole idea that a person’s size or degree of development makes a difference in the morality of killing is not a sound argument.

In regards to the objection that the fetus is not deserving of the right to life because it is dependent or not viable outside of the mother, I think we quickly run into many issues. We must remember that the fetus is not dependent on the mother for its identity, its individuality. Also, it depends on its mother for nourishment and thus life long after its birth. So, if dependence makes you a non-person, then small infants are non-persons because they are still dependent on their mothers. All things considered, we all are dependent on something for survival but that fact does not make us non-human. This is a fact of life.

Some might try to pass viability as a reason why the fetus is not a human. The fetus, if it cannot survive outside of the womb, is therefore not a human deserving human rights. Again, there are multiple issues with this statement. First of all, a person does not cease to be a person simply by moving from place to place or by being in different periods of time. Take this example: A fetus is able to live apart from its mother in an incubator. Take away the incubator, however, and the child will not survive. 2,000 years ago, there were no incubators. But wouldn’t we be right in saying that regardless of the presence of incubators that the fetus is nonetheless a human person? All in all, viability is not the universal mark of personhood. Just some food for thought.

 

[lagerald24]

But the genetic code for a tumor is not the same as the genetic code of the fetus. The genetic code of the fetus is the code for a PERSON!

 

[Vonsalza]

Some might say that the fetus does not have the right to life because it is either less developed or because it is dependent on the mother for survival. Let’s look at both of those.

As the other did, you’re missing the nuance.

No one is arguing that a fetus doesn’t have a right to life.

What we’re arguing is that its right to live does not trump a mother’s right to do with her body as she darn well pleases.

As a result of that, the fetus does not obtain protection of the law until it is born and is thus a baby.

The whole idea that a person’s size or degree of development makes a difference in the morality of killing is not a sound argument.

What is sound is that the lack of personhood of a fetus does not override the established personhood of its mother.

Your arguments only make sense if you have a dedicated resolve to forget about the woman implicitly involved in this issue. Which is why they only make sense to those that already agree with you.

In regards to the objection that the fetus is not deserving of the right to life because it is dependent or not viable outside of the mother,

Again, not the argument.

A fetus has some right to life because the purpose of a fetus is to develop into a fully functional person.

However, again, that right does not trump the right for a woman to do with her body however she wishes - even if it’s the same body the fetus occupies.

Also, it depends on its mother for nourishment and thus life long after its birth.

No it doesn’t. Literally anyone can mix formula and change a diaper.

Just some food for thought.

Please try to actually consider the arguments of your opposition if you wish to genuinely engage in critical thought on the issue. Namely on issues of bodily autonomy for the woman and the permanent effects of pregnancy.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

In the mother, and dependent on the mother, but a completely separate life.

If she breathes for it, eats for it and it occupies her insides, then it’s part of the mother.

Sure, it’s genetically different, like a tumor might be. But it’s indubitably part of her.

If it wasn’t, just remove it and do what you wish with it.

Nope. Also I’m pretty certain that that someone on life support, or a breathing machine, or a heart bypass machine, and so on isn’t part of that machine.