Non-Catholic religions and abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter iamrefreshed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jennifer123 said:
So a human being is a person if has consciousness, if I understand you correctly?

A human being is a person if it is independant?

Am I correctly paraphrasing your criteria? Thank you.
Click to expand...
‘conscioussness’ & ‘independent’ can be a bit misleading. i just prefer saying a human is a person if it has a mind. that way a dependent coma patient that still has thought patterns can still be considered a person.
 
AgnosTheist said:
my personal opinion:

First of all its not about ‘how developed’ a mind is, but whether or not there is one (no matter how undeveloped it is)

Ok without a mind, there is so consciousness to hurt.

its a world of difference from actually killing a fully independent person. like a witch, not only does she have awareness. but she had also touched the lives of other people. burning her on the stake not only hurts her, but it hurts everyone that she had touched. embryos neither have touched the lives of anyone, and neither does it have feelings and awareness that could be hurt.
Click to expand...
You mean after 300 plus posts during which you have repeatedly told us that science backs you up you now back off and tell us it all based on your persnal opinion?

What gives you the right to decide when it is permissable to destroy human life? What gives anyone that right??

Science is on my side. Science has proven that seperate distinct HUMAN life is present from the moment of conception on. Youhave been unable to explain to us why some fomrs of human lifecan be terminatedwhile others do not.

BTW-please note I have ignored still another lame attempt on your part to change the subject.
 
AgnosTheist said:
when i said ‘touched’ i was referring to personal relationships.
Click to expand...
Ah. Well, I think there are plenty of remorseful women who regret their abortions, who would challenge that idea, too, since it was when they began to miss the relationship that they would have been having with their children that they began to realize that it was wrong for them to have aborted their children.

The Church is aware of these women because we have a ministry for them called “Rachel’s Vineyard.” Hundreds of women participate each year, to mourn the loss of their children and to find healing for their souls after an abortion.
 
AgnosTheist said:
‘conscioussness’ & ‘independent’ can be a bit misleading. i just prefer saying a human is a person if it has a mind. that way a dependent coma patient that still has thought patterns can still be considered a person.
Click to expand...
Yes, it can be a bit misleading, lol. What makes the mind? Thought patterns make a mind and then a mind makes a human being a person?

I argue that once we reduce a human being to seemingly arbitrary requirements as to what constitutes personhood then we tread in dangerous moral and ethical territory.

We once thought that black people were once “not human”, as did the Nazis believe Jews to be “inhuman”.

Human beings are persons regardless of criteria.
 
estesbob said:
You mean after 300 plus posts during which you have repeatedly told us that science backs you up you now back off and tell us it all based on your persnal opinion?
Click to expand...
i use science to back up my argument that embryos dont have a functioning brain that can host a mind. i repeatedly told you that the answer to your question is ethical, not scientific.
estesbob said:
What gives you the right to decide when it is permissable to destroy human life? What gives anyone that right??
Click to expand...
the ultimate decision falls upon each pregnant woman. i can only agree or disagree with what they want.
 
estesbob said:
You mean after 300 plus posts during which you have repeatedly told us that science backs you up you now back off and tell us it all based on your persnal opinion?

BTW-please note I have ignored still another lame attempt on your part to change the subject.
Click to expand...
He’s an antagonist and has been exposed several times on this thread. His is an indefensible position.
His signature line states that God gave us reason not religion but hasn’t explained how that doesn’t apply to babies, Alzheimer’s suferers or the mentally retarded.
I wouldn’t waste my time arguing the point any further with him. It’s not that he DOESN’T see - it’s that he REFUSES to see.
 
AgnosTheist said:
i use science to back up my argument that embryos dont have a functioning brain that can host a mind. i repeatedly told you that the answer to your question is ethical, not scientific.

the ultimate decision falls upon each pregnant woman. i can only agree or disagree with what they want.
Click to expand...
No, the science is clear. An embryo is a human being. A sperm and an egg combine to produce a individually distinct human being, the immediate product of said fertilization. The egg and sperm immediately cease to exist at this point.

The “mind” argument is purely philospohical, it is not science.

Again, if we define personhood at consciousness, what about those with diminshed capacity for thought, consciousness, rationality? Are they human beings but not human persons? Do they then not have the same ethical rights as those more fully functional?

You are aware that there are “ethicists” that declare mentally impaired adults to be “brain-dead”, not persons, and therefore should take the place of animals used in medical research?
 
AgnosTheist said:
I’m sure there are. They only have themselves to blame.
Click to expand...
That is sadly true to an extent but many, many women (and men) are lied to by an industry that seeks to manipulate them into such a sad “choice”. Many women make this “choice” without a full understanding of the risks and consequences, thanks to an industry that doesn’t want them to know.

It’s a huge money-making business.
 
Jennifer123 said:
No, the science is clear. An embryo is a human being. A sperm and an egg combine to produce a individually distinct human being, the immediate product of said fertilization. The egg and sperm immediately cease to exist at this point.
Click to expand...
the core argument is personhood. i dont believe i’ve heard your opinion on this yet. is a zygote a person? what is a person for you?
Jennifer123 said:
The “mind” argument is purely philospohical, it is not science.
Click to expand...
well not purely. memory, feelings & awareness are facts, not philosophies. the word ‘mind’ simply points to all these things.
Jennifer123 said:
Again, if we define personhood at consciousness, what about those with diminshed capacity for thought, consciousness, rationality? Are they human beings but not human persons? Do they then not have the same ethical rights as those more fully functional?
Click to expand...
like i said, i dont really define personhood as consciousness. and i already said a dependent coma patient is still a person as long as there are thought patterns.
Jennifer123 said:
You are aware that there are “ethicists” that declare mentally impaired adults to be “brain-dead”, not persons, and therefore should take the place of animals used in medical research?
Click to expand...
no i’m not aware of that. can you show me source for that? 🙂
 
Okay I know I posted the short verson of the defination of before but did’t get a reply from Agno. So here it goes again straight from the website which is listed at the end of this post so that you may read on for yourself.
(a). Origin and Definition of Life

What is Life?
Click to expand...
Probably the best place to begin our discussion of the Earth’s biogeography is to answer the following question. What is life? While the reply to this question may appear simple, scientists have actually spent considerable time pondering this problem. In fact, many scientists would suggest that we still do not have a clear definitive answer to this question. Part of this problem is related to the existence of viruses and other forms of microscopic things. Some scientists define viruses as very complex organic molecules, while others suggest they are the simplest form of life.
Click to expand...
In a recent issue of the journal Science (March 22, 2002), molecular biologist Daniel E. Koshland Jr. was asked to write a special essay where he would set out to define life. In this article, he suggested that something could be considered “alive” if it meets the following seven conditions.
Click to expand...
(1). Living things must have a program to make copies of themselves from generation to generation. This program would describe both the parts that make up the organisms and the processes that occur between the various parts. These processes are of course the metabolic reactions that take place in a living thing allowing it to function over time. In most living systems, the program of life is encoded in DNA.
Click to expand...
(2). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment. This process is directly connected to life’s program through mutation and natural selection. This condition allows life-forms to be optimized for gradual changes in the environment.
Click to expand...
(3). Organisms tend to be complex, highly organized, and most importantly have compartmentalized structures. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have specific purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. In multi-cellular organisms, cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
Click to expand...
(4). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
Click to expand...
(5). Organisms have regeneration systems that replace parts of themselves that are subject to wear and tear. This regeneration can be partial or it can involve the complete replacement of the organism. Complete replacement is necessary because partial replacements cannot stop the unavoidable decline in the functioning state of the entire living system over time. In other words, all organisms degrade into a final non-functioning state we call death.
Click to expand...
(6). Living creatures respond to environmental stimuli through feedback mechanisms. Cues from the environment can cause organisms to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change. Further, responses to stimuli generally act to increase a creature’s chance for day-to-day survival.
Click to expand...
(7). Organisms are able to maintain numerous metabolic reactions even in a single instance in time. Living things also keep each of these reactions separated from each other.
Click to expand...
physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9a.html

Please tell us how your defination differs from this molecular biologist’s and why we should all agree with yours and not his?
 
AgnosTheist;2810369**:
i use science to back up my argument that embryos dont have a functioning brain
Click to expand...
that can host a mind. i repeatedly told you that the answer to your question is ethical, not scientific.

So what?
the ultimate decision falls upon each pregnant woman. i can only agree or disagree with what they want.
Click to expand...
Why should they have the right to kill their child? The old “I have to accept the decision of the women” is the usual parting words of one who has lost the debate.
 
AgnosTheist said:
the core argument is personhood. i dont believe i’ve heard your opinion on this yet. is a zygote a person? what is a person for you?
Click to expand...
Yes, a zygote is a person. The definition of a person is “a human being”. If a zygote is not a human being than what is it?
 
AgnosTheist said:
You as pro-life, is there any circumstance that you would agree with abortion? like if there was an accident and the only way to save the woman’s life would be to abort?
Click to expand...
We are dealing with the First Precept.

I undertake the precept to refrain from taking a life.

If the mother will die without treatment, the mother cannot willingly refuse treatment that will definitely save her life but might risk the baby’s because then she would be committing suicide. Suicide is killing and against the First Precept.

If the situation is reversed, the mother may take substantial risk to her life to save the life of the baby short of intentionally killing herself. If the mother died because of those efforts, she would not be in breach of the First Precept against suicide.

I realize this is subtle but in both instances intention is the key. The intention must be that no one is purposely killed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top