Non-religious/secular pro life arguments?

[Micosil]

A zygote. Micosil agreed that a fertilized chicken egg is NOT a “full-fledged” chicken. I was very pleasantly surprised.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...74241_z.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150712012656

This is what I said before, verbatim (sans formatting and emoticons, it didn’t copy over):

I have no doubt that for atleast a fraction of time, that egg contained a living chicken, a full-fledged member of the Gallus gallus domesticus subspecies. Obviously it didn’t have time to develop and hatch, but once it is fertilized and the organism inside remains alive, it is a full-fledged member of the Gallus gallus domesticus subspecies. It wouldn’t seem like fried chicken because the bone and muscle/meat didn’t have time to develop. So no, while you wouldn’t call it fried chicken, it’d be a shame that it didn’t get enough time to develop and hatch.

As you can see, I did say a fertilized chicken egg is a full-fledged chicken. What else, if not, is a full-fledged member of the Gallus gallus domesticus subspecies?

You probably shouldn’t pretend posters said something contrary to what they actually did. That is not very honest.

 

[Solmyr]

As you can see, I did say a fertilized chicken egg is a full-fledged chicken. What else, if not, is a full-fledged member of the Gallus gallus domesticus subspecies?

You probably shouldn’t pretend posters said something contrary to what they actually did. That is not very honest.

Obviously I was mistaken. Mea culpa. I was just overwhelmed to see something that looked like a rational reply. The egg is potential chicken, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree, and just like a medical student is a potential doctor. It is not a good idea to confuse the potential with the actual.

 

[Micosil]

Obviously I was mistaken. Mea culpa.

It’s OK. If it’s OK with you, I’ll answer your other post tomorrow. It’s getting rather late here now.

 

[clem456]

If a medical student is not a doctor, what is it?

Let me see if I understand you.

You are equivocating what it means to be human, which is a basic statement of a person’s being and existence, with what it means to be a doctor, which is a career with a diploma and certification.

Do I have the that right?
Perhaps you can see the problem with your thinking…

Since you have no argument, you resort to badmouthing others. How typical.

Typical of who?
Since you don’t know me, and you cast my comment as “typical”, maybe you have a problem with prejudice. What “type” am I? Are you prejudiced?
My comment addressed yours specifically.

You said:

Even in that case the woman is under no obligation to share her bodily resources.

I replied:

Right. Because people don’t matter. What’s best for you matters, other people are merely objects for your benefit.

You excuse the basic obligation of one human being to care for another, for the sake of what amounts to “property rights”.
I object to your worldview as selfish objectification of human beings.
Are you ok with my objection, or is that going to be too stressful for you to deal with?

The point is that in our secular reality we are the owners of our bodies. If we wish to share some of the resources, that is fine. There are blood donors and plasma donors. But no one decries those who are not donors. There is no obligation to be one.

As a matter of fact, our ownership is so strong, that it survives our life. Not even our corpses can be cut up and used without our prior permission. Not even if our organs could save someone else’s life.

Ownership.

Really, I wish your worldview would have passed away 150 years ago with the abolition of slavery, but alas, vestiges remain.

Absolutely horrifying.

 

[Solmyr]

Let me see if I understand you.

You are equivocating what it means to be human, which is a basic statement of a person’s being and existence, with what it means to be a doctor, which is a career with a diploma and certification.

Do I have the that right?

No, you don’t. Think about it.

 

[clem456]

No, you don’t. Think about it.

I did.
You equivocated:
Basic human traits with potential medical careers.
Seems like a cheapening of human life to me (I have nothing against physicians or potential physicians)

 

[Solmyr]

I did.
You equivocated:
Basic human traits with potential medical careers.
Seems like a cheapening of human life to me (I have nothing against physicians or potential physicians)

You still failed. You should have thought deeper or should have asked a rational person. I compared two instances where we draw a line before and after a certain - maybe arbitrary point. It is simply an example of how categorization occurs. That quantitative changes can result in qualitative differences. Ever heard of this principle?

There are many more. An infant can inherit, while a fetus cannot… You are not allowed to consume or even serve beer in a restaurant under a certain age… You cannot be drafted under a certain age even in the case of war… The examples are zillions. We draw a line and make distinction between the before line and after the line. Different entities, different rules.

The “cheapening” only exists in your irrational mind.

 

[Micosil]

The word “generally” is important. It shows that the biological definitions are descriptive and arbitrary. The parasitic relationship is a biological exploitation of one entity by another - whether of the same species or another. But let’s cut to the chase. Let me grant all your arguments about full-fledged and fully human, and whatever else you bring up - at least for the time being. (Can’t be more accommodating than that. )

Even in that case the woman is under no obligation to share her bodily resources.

Problem is, the solution to the problem here ends a human life.

If someone needs a blood or plasma transfusion in order to survive (and these are renewable bodily resources) that need does not present an obligation for someone else to provide those resources. If someone needs a kidney-transplant, no one can be forced to provide one, even though one can live with one kidney only.

If someone passes away because they didn’t get an organ transplant in time, that isn’t viewed as directly killing someone. However, if a fetus is killed, the scientific argument would stipulate that, yes, a human being has been directly killed. Apples and oranges.

Our whole legal system accepts that we are the sole owners of our body (I am aware that some Christians disagree - but here we are dealing with secular arguments), and as long as this right in maintained by system, the zygote/fetus or even “baybee” cannot have claims to get those resources.

That is correct; however, is the zygote/fetus really just a part of the mother, or is it an independent entity, not from a nutritional/“parasitic” (as you put it) point of view, but from an ontological point of view?

Shame? What a strange concept in this relation. Is it a “shame” to eat fried eggs if the eggs were fertilized?

But let’s take another example, this time against the “full-fledged”. Consider a medical student, who has finished her studies, she is as qualified as she can be. Yet, she cannot practice medicine until she receives her diploma. This can be considered a “formal” declaration, but it is very important. Without a diploma she does not have the right to call herself “doctor”, cannot put a shingle above her door and cannot practice medicine.

Just one second before she gets that piece of paper she is a medical student and one second after she is a doctor. The paper does not add any new knowledge or ability… it simply adds a new label to her. But we do not want to allow any random person to get a scalpel in her right hand, a sick patient in the other… and allow her to “have at it”.

Thing is, when a person officially becomes a doctor is something that we indeed decide as a society. Now, when something becomes a human being is a more objective question which can be objectively answered regardless of what society or laws may say. So, as an addition to the textbook quotes I pasted earlier, let’s have a look at what more scientists have to say:

It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.

That’s from Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard Medical School.

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree** that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. **There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

This is the conclusion of the official subcommittee report of a 1981 U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee. The subcommittee went on to say

no witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species. No witness challenged the scientific consensus that unborn children are ‘human beings,’ insofar as the term is used to mean living beings of the human species.

 

[Micosil]

Murder is a legal term. An execution is not a murder. Killing in self-defense is not a murder. Killing in a war is not a murder. If allowed by the legal system, abortion is not a murder.

I understand that murder is a legal term. But you see, that doesn’t shed any light on the morality of the killing, whether it’s legal murder or not, yes?

Of course I am NOT for abortions. I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion. This term was coined by those who are anti-abortion as an emotional put-down. It would be much better if every child would be wanted and happily expected. If every parent would be able to raise that child in a decent environment. No woman gets pregnant JUST SO that she could undergo an abortion.

You know, all your arguments would carry much more weight, if you (the church in general) would strongly endorse the non-abortifacient preventive methods. This attitude that every sexual encounter must be “open” to procreation - even if there is no chance of it (missing uterus and ovaries?) is quite ridiculous. The point is that the people are required (by the church) to abandon their reasoning abilities, and PRETEND that conception is possible, even when it is not. Why should people play “dumb”?

Do you think condoms help prevent abortions? Look at the statistics, note that when condoms were introduced the abortion rates sky-rocketed. Do you know what the actual, practical failure rate of condoms is? 18%. Yep – don’t believe me? Have a look here.

One of the most UNITIVE activities are sexual in nature. The church also emphasizes how important this aspect is. And then changes its tune, and proclaims that the unitive aspect is not important PER SE, it is only secondary to the procreative one. Never mind that most couples have only two or three children in their lives, and have thousands of sexual acts.

No, what the Church teaches is that one aspect cannot truly exist without the other. HUMANAE VITAE makes this very clear:

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

As for the “unreliability” of preventive methods, that argument does not even get off the ground if one dares to think “outside the box”. The most civilized methods (when both parties concentrate on the OTHER one) are simply non-procreative in nature. There is no selfishness involved when the partners are only concerned about the pleasure of the other one… knowing full well that their own turn comes as well. And the real pleasure comes from giving, not just receiving.

So, finishing up, there is no secular reason against non-procreative sex. The church should encourage it, and then the stance against abortion (which is shared by others) would stand on much stronger “legs”.

So, what, we’re just mere animals that only seek pleasure? Come on. You know that’s not true. Pleasure is good and fine, but it’s only meant to serve a purpose; if we lose sight of that purpose, you get the decay of society that you observe around you.

 

[clem456]

You still failed. You should have thought deeper or should have asked a rational person. I compared two instances where we draw a line before and after a certain - maybe arbitrary point. It is simply an example of how categorization occurs. That quantitative changes can result in qualitative differences. Ever heard of this principle?

There are many more. An infant can inherit, while a fetus cannot… You are not allowed to consume or even serve beer in a restaurant under a certain age… You cannot be drafted under a certain age even in the case of war… The examples are zillions. We draw a line and make distinction between the before line and after the line. Different entities, different rules.

The “cheapening” only exists in your irrational mind.

We also draw a line at murder, slavery, genocide, euthanasia, all those things you’d like to equivocate.
You cannot dodge your own words. They speak for themselves. You cheapen humanity by comparing it to the stages of a career.

This type of thinking makes genocide and slavery possible. It makes human beings objects comparable to other lesser goods, as opposed to having a unique intrinsic value.
(Since you brought up irrationality, I think you demonstrate it well ).

 

[DeusExMachina]

We also draw a line at murder, slavery, genocide, euthanasia, all those things you’d like to equivocate.
You cannot dodge your own words. They speak for themselves. You cheapen humanity by comparing it to the stages of a career.

This type of thinking makes genocide and slavery possible. It makes human beings objects comparable to other lesser goods, as opposed to having a unique intrinsic value.
(Since you brought up irrationality, I think you demonstrate it well ).

 

[minkymurph]

Hello all
I was wondering if anyone could provide any non-religious or scientifically based arguments for being pro-life. I feel like every time anyone tries to defend their position that unlimited access to abortion is literally allowing murder, some secular person (usually an atheist and/or feminist) starts going on a rant about the other person "cramming your religion down their throat.’’ Since, clearly, they dont want to hear that every human life is sacred ( I shudder to even imagine their opinion on that), can anyone share with me any scientifically based arguments for being prolife?

I’m working on this and thought I would throw my theory out here for feedback.

The most persuasive arguments are those that are formulated from the perspective of the opponent - and not our own perspective. It is easy to construct arguments that persuade us of what we already think. Anyone can do that. To persuade those who do not share our views one must argue from their perspective in order to be persuasive.

The atheist/feminist argument is difficult to rebut because from their perspective, it is purely a matter of the right of the woman not to continue with a pregnancy. Interestingly, this does not mean those who agree with this argument condone abortion. A friend of mine who is an atheist said that in his view, abortion is conveyor belt murder. But, he also says that as a man he has no right to tell a woman she must continue with a pregnancy and have a child if she does not want to. Thus, what must be argued persuasively is the justification as to why she should be denied the choice of not continuing with the pregnancy.

As Catholics we would argue the unborn child is human life from the point of conception. Outside the Catholic faith there is no agreement on when life begins. Does it begin when the fetus can feel pain, or does it begin when they are born and take their first breath. Personally I think we should move away from these arguments. The reason being life begins at the moment of conception cannot be proven scientifically in a manner many non-Catholics would accept.

At the moment I am working on a theory regarding thriving. In short, thriving is defined as growing vigorously and flourishing and the theory is we have a right to thrive from the moment we come into being. When a living thing comes into being it will naturally seek to thrive, and does so if unimpeded. Coming into being is not the same thing as being born. It can be proven the fetus thrives prior to coming into being as coming into being is existing. No one can say a fetus does not exist, and no can say that in the natural course of things a fetus thrives.

There are those who would not recognize an unborn fetus as fully human, but we do know the blue print for an individual human exists from the moment of conception. Thus, that blue print has come into existence and if unimpeded will thrive. Thus, to terminate that pregnancy we must justify why that blue print should never fully materialize in the sense of being born, and why thriving should be impeded.

I am still working on this line of reasoning, and if anyone wants to refine it feel free as I don’t claim it is perfect. I would also say it does not readily answer the tragedy of rape and incest. From the atheist perspective how can another individual (not God as the atheist does not believe in God) demand this woman continues with the pregnancy and has no choice in the matter we must justify why this woman should not have a choice in terms of continuing with the pregnancy as a woman who becomes pregnant in these circumstances has not chosen to be pregnant or in fact have sex in the first place. We can argue people should believe in God, but if they don’t they don’t and in the absence of conversion our arguments will fail to persuade. The feminist probably (guessing) may believe there is a God but not one who would be so compromising?

Just a theory at the moment. Feel free to comment.

 

[Micosil]

As Catholics we would argue the unborn child is human life from the point of conception. Outside the Catholic faith there is no agreement on when life begins.

If it’s OK with you, I’ll address just this specific part, and I’ll have a look at the rest tomorrow as it’s late here.

As Catholics we would indeed argue that – but not just because our faith teaches us that, but also because it is a scientifically established fact. Have a look at some of my posts on this thread; I’ve used textbooks and quotes from scientists that don’t mince words.

 

[minkymurph]

If it’s OK with you, I’ll address just this specific part, and I’ll have a look at the rest tomorrow as it’s late here.

As Catholics we would indeed argue that – but not just because our faith teaches us that, but also because it is a scientifically established fact. Have a look at some of my posts on this thread; I’ve used textbooks and quotes from scientists that don’t mince words.

I don’t disagree Micosil. It cannot be argued that from the moment of conception the ‘clump of cells’ is not a developing organism and in the natural course of things cells’ will become a fully fledged human and nothing else. To my knowledge those who are pro-choice do not disagree with this as it is scientific fact.

What I was trying to say (perhaps badly) is the fact that from the moment of conception an organism is developing that will by the natural course of things be a ‘fully fledged’ human in nine months time will fail to persuade those who are pro-choice that when a woman becomes pregnant she must continue with that pregnancy irrespective of how she feels about it and how she became pregnant in the first place.

As I said, the most persuasive arguments are those that are presented from the opponents perspective. Thus, I am attempting to formulate an argument those who do not agree with my position could accept. By accept I don’t mean can’t refute, I mean endorse.

 

[clem456]

 

[Solmyr]

Problem is, the solution to the problem here ends a human life.

It ends the growth of the zygote / blastocyst / fetus, which will cease to exist as a living material. Yes. The same happens when the zygote does not get implanted into the uterus wall, and gets flushed out from the woman’s body - which happens approximately 95% of the cases.

If someone passes away because they didn’t get an organ transplant in time, that isn’t viewed as directly killing someone.

Hold it right there. If someone needs a blood transfusion and you are the only available donor, and refuse it, that is still not viewed as direct killing, and you don’t even need to explain the refusal. One might consider such refusal as inappropriate, but that does not change the fact that the woman (today) has the right to refuse to donate part of her body to save the life of someone else. The same applies to pregnancy.

That is correct; however, is the zygote/fetus really just a part of the mother, or is it an independent entity, not from a nutritional/“parasitic” (as you put it) point of view, but from an ontological point of view?

Entity is a nice neutral word, and I like it. The zygote/fetus has a DNA, which we can call - very imprecisely - a “human” DNA. It is imprecise because there can be variations, and if the deviation is large enough, then the new being would not be able to procreate with “accepted” humans - and as such it would not be part of the human species. The definition of the “species” is just as imprecise as any biological definition.

Thing is, when a person officially becomes a doctor is something that we indeed decide as a society. Now, when something becomes a human being is a more objective question which can be objectively answered regardless of what society or laws may say.

Sorry, but that is not relevant. We draw a line legally in both cases. A freshly delivered baby is “officially” a human being, and is allowed to “inherit”. The same “entity”, one minute before was not an “officially recognized human being”, and as such, it cannot inherit.

Of course we all know that these kinds of distinctions are pretty much arbitrary, but that is the case. Almost all the “neat little boxes” we employ for the purposes of categorization or classification are arbitrary.

There is one objective difference between the two cases. One minute before the birth the fetus does NOT have a biologically independent existence. Its necessary nutrients are taken from the body of the mother. At the moment of the birth this biological dependence ceases. It is still dependent on someone’s care, but it can be given by anyone. It is not a “biological dependence” any more. And this difference is not a subjective assessment. It exists objectively.

I understand that murder is a legal term. But you see, that doesn’t shed any light on the morality of the killing, whether it’s legal murder or not, yes?

But morality is different question. It is next to impossible to reconcile secular morality with the religious one.

Do you think condoms help prevent abortions? Look at the statistics, note that when condoms were introduced the abortion rates sky-rocketed. Do you know what the actual, practical failure rate of condoms is? 18%. Yep – don’t believe me?

Pssst… Non procreative sex is not limited to condoms. I am not about to go into details, but there are methods which preclude conception. One hundred ten percent… and much more fun than the “bam, bam, thank you ma’am” type of encounters.

No, what the Church teaches is that one aspect cannot truly exist without the other. HUMANAE VITAE makes this very clear:

What the church says is irrelevant in this discussion. Remember, it is about “non-religious/secular” arguments.

So, what, we’re just mere animals that only seek pleasure? Come on. You know that’s not true. Pleasure is good and fine, but it’s only meant to serve a purpose; if we lose sight of that purpose, you get the decay of society that you observe around you.

I don’t see any decay. The purpose is there… it is called loving and caring for each other. To give and accept pleasure does not need “extraneous” justification. Besides, mutually reached pleasure is still the most effective way to create long lasting bonds between the couple. If and when they wish to procreate, that is fine and dandy. But the lack of desire (or possibility) to procreate does not diminish the bonding… no matter what Humanae Vitae says. There is absolutely no rational argument (to my best knowledge) why should people be “open” to procreation each and every time… even when the procreation is biologically IMPOSSIBLE. Playing “dumb” and pretending makes no sense.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I forgot to add “food for thought”

 

[clem456]

In this thread the value and stage of a human life are compared to other lesser goods, other processes.A human being is a unique being.

This is expressed by the Church, not invented by it. It is revealed in natural law.

The incomparable worth of the human person

1. Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. Life in time, in fact, is the fundamental condition, the initial stage and an integral part of the entire unified process of human existence. It is a process which, unexpectedly and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise and renewed by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full realization in eternity (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual’s earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an “ultimate” but a “penultimate” reality; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.
   …
   It is often claimed that the life of an unborn child or a seriously disabled person is only a relative good: according to a proportionalist approach, or one of sheer calculation, this good should be compared with and balanced against other goods. It is even maintained that only someone present and personally involved in a concrete situation can correctly judge the goods at stake: consequently, only that person would be able to decide on the morality of his choice. The State therefore, in the interest of civil coexistence and social harmony, should respect this choice, even to the point of permitting abortion and euthanasia.

“Pro life” is not limited to abortion. It includes any issue which touches on the dignity of humanity. Slavery. Genocide. etc…
If you relativize the valuation of human life to it’s stage of development, or the relative quality of it, you set the stage for denial of any and all rights.

 

[Solmyr]

This is expressed by the Church, not invented by it. It is revealed in natural law.

There is no “natural law”. All human laws are social constructs. (By the way referring to “revelation” is not a secular argument.)

If you relativize the valuation of human life to it’s stage of development, or the relative quality of it, you set the stage for denial of any and all rights.

There are no rights either. A “right” which is not enforced and cannot be enforced is not a “right”. It is just a pie in the sky.

 

[clem456]

Hold it right there. If someone needs a blood transfusion and you are the only available donor, and refuse it, that is still not viewed as direct killing, and you don’t even need to explain the refusal. One might consider such refusal as inappropriate, but that does not change the fact that the woman (today) has the right to refuse to donate part of her body to save the life of someone else. The same applies to pregnancy.

From the beginnings of mankind’s existence societies have enacted protections for human beings. One such protection is called “welfare” in our society.

We do not have a true right to neglect others. You might have the *free choice *to neglect others, but you don’t have a “right” to neglect another. Try not paying your taxes for the benefit of our social order and see where you land.
Only the most barbaric and minimalist utilitarian societies would speak about rights in the way you do above. As I said before, your point of view is absolutely horrifying in it’s implications, and in it’s actual lived history.

The tragic lived history of your point of view is the best argument against it. No religious arguments are needed. It falls of it’s own dead weight for anyone with eyes to see.