Personhood in abortion

[pnewton]

This was posted on another thread:

“No person has the right to use another person’s body to survive without their permission.”

A comment on the CNN website. This is truly an amazing statement that prety much says it all in terms of how the other side views things.

The moderator had requested the topic of the thread be kept narrow, so I brought this over here. I found the statement fascinating and since have seen similar repeats of this. The thing is, the issue of abortion will ultimately revolve around personhood. For someone to hold to the view above, abortion will soon be shown for the murder it is, namely the deliberate taking of the life of another person. I know of no adult that would admit that another adult has the right to murder them because they were inconvenienced. If I trip and as I fall, I grab the shoulder of the person in front of me, does that mean that person has the right to kill me? More to the point, money in our society represents (as a token) our time and our energy. It is a part of our life. We give time and effort to gain it. Does no one, or government have the right to take this part of our person from us?

What about a jury summons, can we murder the court personnel who issues it because they are using us against our will? Or the officer that arrests us when we do not show up for that summons?

The admission of personhood is the one thing I thought I would never see among pro-abortion people. Even if we get beyond rights, the absolute inhumanity of refusing to be inconvenienced to save the life of another is appallingly cold.

 

[SonCatcher]

The parents explicitly invited and gave permission for the child to be in and use the mother’s body.

 

[Joe_5859]

This is why, on an intellectual level, the pro-choice position is so easy to refute.

In college, I took a philosophy class on the morality of abortion taught by an atheist, pro-abortion professor. The most interesting part was that he spent the first three weeks of class demolishing all the popular pro-choice arguments as being irrational. (Of course, he then proceeded to “prove” that killing in abortion was okay because he “proved” that Descartes dualistic notion of the soul was not logical and therefore the soul must not exist…but that’s for another thread. )

I’ll have to fish out my old textbook. One of most famous articles written in defense of the “this fetus does not have my permission to be a parasite on my body” argument was that of the violinist in need of a kidney transplant. It paints an analogy through the story saying that if one found themselves knocked out and connected to a dialysis machine with a famous violinist (who had no knowledge of that), it would be morally okay for you to unplug yourself even though the violinist would certainly die.

I’ll have to see if I can find the article. It’s a terrible argument, but it is interesting to see the mental hoops necessary to jump through in order to justify murder.

 

[camerong]

The parents explicitly invited and gave permission for the child to be in and use the mother’s body.

This doesn’t really solve the situation though–what about in cases of rape? We need to be able to refute the most vexing arguments of the other side, not just focus on the easy ones. If we can’t convince everyone that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape, we will never win this battle.

I find it remarkable that the individual quoted above would concede that it is a human. To me, that’s all that really matters–if it is a human, then it is never okay to kill it. If not, then we ought to be able to kill it at our leisure.

 

[hazmat]

not for grabbing their shoulder–its not like that. but if you were living inside of someone and would die if removed, i would support the persons decision to remove you from their body regardless of the consequences.

 

[Geist]

This was posted on another thread:

The moderator had requested the topic of the thread be kept narrow, so I brought this over here. I found the statement fascinating and since have seen similar repeats of this. The thing is, the issue of abortion will ultimately revolve around personhood. For someone to hold to the view above, abortion will soon be shown for the murder it is, namely the deliberate taking of the life of another person. I know of no adult that would admit that another adult has the right to murder them because they were inconvenienced. If I trip and as I fall, I grab the shoulder of the person in front of me, does that mean that person has the right to kill me? More to the point, money in our society represents (as a token) our time and our energy. It is a part of our life. We give time and effort to gain it. Does no one, or government have the right to take this part of our person from us?

What about a jury summons, can we murder the court personnel who issues it because they are using us against our will? Or the officer that arrests us when we do not show up for that summons?

The admission of personhood is the one thing I thought I would never see among pro-abortion people. Even if we get beyond rights, the absolute inhumanity of refusing to be inconvenienced to save the life of another is appallingly cold.

This is true, whether or not one views abortion OK really does boil down to whether or not you view an embryo/fetus a full person. Its a subjective argument, hence neither side can every be right (whether you like it or not, its always going to be open to interpretation).

camerong:

This doesn’t really solve the situation though–what about in cases of rape? We need to be able to refute the most vexing arguments of the other side, not just focus on the easy ones. If we can’t convince everyone that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape, we will never win this battle.

Really? Thats one of the most arrogantly cruel things I’ve heard.

“Sucks you got raped lady, after going through the rigors and dangers of pregnancy for 9 months for a pregnancy you never asked for created from a horrifically traumatic experience, you get to raise the visage of your rapist forever. Because I said so! Have fun!”

Thank God thats a view I never heard before!

 

[SonCatcher]

This doesn’t really solve the situation though–what about in cases of rape? We need to be able to refute the most vexing arguments of the other side, not just focus on the easy ones. If we can’t convince everyone that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape, we will never win this battle.

I find it remarkable that the individual quoted above would concede that it is a human. To me, that’s all that really matters–if it is a human, then it is never okay to kill it. If not, then we ought to be able to kill it at our leisure.

I realized that was coming almost as soon as I wrote it.

No action can be taken that would result in death, regardless. We don’t execute people for trespassing, even if they are stealing food from the refrigerator.

 

[pnewton]

“Sucks you got raped lady, after going through the rigors and dangers of pregnancy for 9 months for a pregnancy you never asked for created from a horrifically traumatic experience, you get to raise the visage of your rapist forever. Because I said so! Have fun!”

Thank God thats a view I never heard before!

Which is a worse crime, rape or murder (remember that personhood is assumed). Even if we say they are on par (which they are not, imo), can one murder another because of a rape commited by a third party? Rape is cruel. Period. The repercussions of rape are long-lasting and extend well past nine months.

 

[Hokomai]

Really? Thats one of the most arrogantly cruel things I’ve heard.

“Sucks you got raped lady, after going through the rigors and dangers of pregnancy for 9 months for a pregnancy you never asked for created from a horrifically traumatic experience, you get to raise the visage of your rapist forever. Because I said so! Have fun!”

Thank God thats a view I never heard before!

You may like to check out Church teaching on this before proceeding further with your interest in the Church. It is a view you will hear again.

 

[GEddie]

This is true, whether or not one views abortion OK really does boil down to whether or not you view an embryo/fetus a full person. Its a subjective argument, hence neither side can every be right (whether you like it or not, its always going to be open to interpretation).

Really? Thats one of the most arrogantly cruel things I’ve heard.

“Sucks you got raped lady, after going through the rigors and dangers of pregnancy for 9 months for a pregnancy you never asked for created from a horrifically traumatic experience, you get to raise the visage of your rapist forever. Because I said so! Have fun!”

Thank God thats a view I never heard before!

But if the unborn is a person, you favor executing them for a crime they had no part in committing. That is worse, IMO, in the sense that to be killed is the worst human outcome.

Unlike rape victims, fetuses have no voice or feelings and so it is easy to minimize them in favor of the the interests of others. However, if you assume the unborn is a person, that is the one thing you cannot do. A human being does not become nonhuman just because their larynx or mind isn’t working. Else you should beware falling asleep!

To me, it is obvious that the fetus is a human being. It is alive, it is genotypically human, and it will never become a cat or a blade of grass, but if not interfered with, a full sized human being.

ICXC NIKA

 

[hannajomar]

This was posted on another thread:
Originally Posted by Mijoy2 View Post
“No person has the right to use another person’s body to survive without their permission.”

A comment on the CNN website. This is truly an amazing statement that prety much says it all in terms of how the other side views things.

On the contrary, I would say that there are times when a person “has a right to use another person’s body to survive without their permission.”

All people are entitled to basic human rights. That being said, we as a society extend heightened protections to some groups of people who are considered more helpless and vulnerable than others. One of these groups is children and babies. I’m nanny to an infant and toddler. If the parents don’t come home on time, it would be unethical and illegal for me to just leave. When it comes to children, babies, and fetuses, whoever has custodial possession of them at that moment has certain responsibilities to at least keep them safe until they can get them to someone who take them.

Suppose, hypothetically I show up for my nanny job. Upon entering the house, the father rapes me (God-forbid), and immediately leaves. The father of these children just raped me and I now have physical and emotional injuries that any woman who is raped must endure. But I cannot ethically or legally leave these children alone. If I call 911 to send an ambulance for myself, the EMT’s would not leave them alone if there was no adult present to take care of them. I would need to stay with them until there was someone else who could take care of them. It doesn’t matter if it takes one hour, 12 hours, a week, or nine months. It is unethical for an adult to abandon a baby, fetus, or child when no one else is able to care for them. It isn’t about telling a raped woman, “just deal with it.” It has to do with the principle that you cannot punish someone because their father is a rapist.

Another example is what if a baby was born one week ago, and his father rapes his mother? She couldn’t simply abandon that baby because his father is a rapist. If she is too emotionally overwhelmed to raise him, she still has an obligation to minimally take care of him until proper authorities or an other adult is able to take him. Suppose she’s in a remote area and no one can come to help her for twelve hours. I would make the argument that she would be at least responsible to change his diaper, keep him comfortable, and feed him. If she had been breast-feeding up until that point and had no formula, I believe she would have an obligation to feed him from her body, even though the baby’s father raped her. A fetus is as much of a person as this newborn baby. As much as it sucks, a rape victim who is pregnant still has some responsibilities to her fetus. She has these until the time comes when she’s able to transfer that responsibility to others who are more able or willing to care for him.

I could show other examples of this, but this post is already long.

 

[SteveGC]

not for grabbing their shoulder–its not like that. but if you were living inside of someone and would die if removed, i would support the persons decision to remove you from their body regardless of the consequences.

and can you tell us why you value their decision to do so more than you value the human life that will die?

I mean, we both know I’ve asked you this a dozen times this week, and we know you’ve claimed that I’m an ignorant liar, not worthy of your time, but perhaps you’ll eventually answer the question? Because your repeated blunt statement that you value it more than human life really does beg the question “why”.

 

[SteveGC]

This is true, whether or not one views abortion OK really does boil down to whether or not you view an embryo/fetus a full person. Its a subjective argument, hence neither side can every be right (whether you like it or not, its always going to be open to interpretation).

Arguments stem from the subjective, sure. But objectively, one side is decidedly wrong, and the other decidedly right. Many pro-choice people become pro-life precisely because they see the error of their former opinion. They were shown how wrong they are.

Really? Thats one of the most arrogantly cruel things I’ve heard.

“Sucks you got raped lady, after going through the rigors and dangers of pregnancy for 9 months for a pregnancy you never asked for created from a horrifically traumatic experience, you get to raise the visage of your rapist forever. Because I said so! Have fun!”

Thank God thats a view I never heard before!

“Sucks you were born from a rape, kid. I know you’re an innocent human being and all, but since your mom was violently forced to conceive you against her will, you’ll just have to die so she’s not traumatized by the mere vision of you her entire life. Because I said so! See ya!”

Neither what you said, nor what I just said, is ever what the Church says. I just wanted to make sure you see things from both sides. We don’t murder simply because we think someone will be better off because of it. We come to her aid, offer her support and love, and we protect the life inside her. Perhaps her suffering will be great regardless of the help she receives, but the innocent life must not be killed.

 

[Incomplete]

This was posted on another thread:

The admission of personhood is the one thing I thought I would never see among pro-abortion people. Even if we get beyond rights, the absolute inhumanity of refusing to be inconvenienced to save the life of another is appallingly cold.

Sadly, I’ve seen this admission for quite some time now. Many now say, “of course abortion is taking a human life, but it’s still the woman’s choice because it’s her body.”

Of course, we all know there is a baby’s body involved as well.

I have family members who acknowledge this but still contend that a woman has some kind of “right.” One even goes so far as to say that if a mother bears a handicapped child and doesn’t want to care for it, she should legally be able to let it die.

These are people I care a great deal about. Please pray for them?

Regarding the argument in your OP, it just makes no sense. This is the kind of argument that takes us down that road where all human life is devalued, because everything is about “me”. In other words, the person you were quoting thinks what a woman wants (to not have a life inside of her, in this case) is more important than life itself. How long before you apply that to things that are less important? It is a clear misunderstanding of “rights”. I would contend that the baby has a right to life that supersedes the “right” of a woman to not be pregnant, guaranteed by the constitution and established by laws against killing others.

Even in cases of rape, the right to live supersedes. The person who is raped will spend a long time working through the trauma, whether or not they give birth, but because they will feel traumatized is no excuse to take a life. We don’t, after all, kill the rapist.

We also just assume that giving life will be worse for the victim of rape than aborting. I doubt, though, that there are any stories to show that. I have on occasion read of victims of rape who were healed through the birth of their child.

 

[Geist]

Arguments stem from the subjective, sure. But objectively, one side is decidedly wrong, and the other decidedly right. Many pro-choice people become pro-life precisely because they see the error of their former opinion. They were shown how wrong they are.

One cannot be objectively right in a purely subjective matter. The assumption one side is “right” is arrogant to me. Some view an embryo as a human being, others do not. This is a matter of opinion.

“Sucks you were born from a rape, kid. I know you’re an innocent human being and all, but since your mom was violently forced to conceive you against her will, you’ll just have to die so she’s not traumatized by the mere vision of you her entire life. Because I said so! See ya!”

Sounds as fair to me. If its what the woman chooses I respect it, if she chooses not to terminate, it’s her business. My stance has no “because I said so”, yours does.

I respect free will, you do not it seems.

Also, if someone is aborted, having never existed, you don’t need to you know, explain anything to them.

Neither what you said, nor what I just said, is ever what the Church says. I just wanted to make sure you see things from both sides. We don’t murder simply because we think someone will be better off because of it. We come to her aid, offer her support and love, and we protect the life inside her. Perhaps her suffering will be great regardless of the help she receives, but the innocent life must not be killed.

And if the woman in question wants only to be rid of her unwanted burden? Then what?

Chain her up?

 

[Geist]

But if the unborn is a person, you favor executing them for a crime they had no part in committing. That is worse, IMO, in the sense that to be killed is the worst human outcome.

Unlike rape victims, fetuses have no voice or feelings and so it is easy to minimize them in favor of the the interests of others. However, if you assume the unborn is a person, that is the one thing you cannot do. A human being does not become nonhuman just because their larynx or mind isn’t working. Else you should beware falling asleep!

Again, this is purely subjective and the opinion will, once again, derive from whether you view an embryo or fetus as a person.

To me, it is obvious that the fetus is a human being. It is alive, it is genotypically human, and it will never become a cat or a blade of grass, but if not interfered with, a full sized human being.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has disputed what an embryo will be under normal circumstances, but rather if its fully human at the point of being an embryo.

Therein lies the controversy.

 

[Nate13]

And if the woman in question wants only to be rid of her unwanted burden? Then what?

Chain her up?

No, you take the reasonable steps you can to prevent it from occurring and make sure your providing all the necessary services for her to carry the baby to term and offer him/her up for adoption if she does not wish to raise him/her.

Do you ask such questions when we talk about murder of a 2 year old child and her mother? That child is 100 times easier for the woman to kill if she wanted to as opposed to when the child was still in her womb. There are many cases where you cannot stop it from occurring, but you sure as heck don’t hand the woman a knife to help her out or offer to have society pay for her to “take care” of the child for her???

 

[pnewton]

One cannot be objectively right in a purely subjective matter. The assumption one side is “right” is arrogant to me. Some view an embryo as a human being, others do not. This is a matter of opinion.

No, it is not subjective, any more than the existence of God is subjective. It may not be scientifically knowable, but that does not make it subjective. Not unless one makes the self-contradictory assumption that only what is scientifically knowable is objective.

In this context (Catholic), it is irrelevant. The Church has spoken. That is that. If one has no faith in the Holy Spirit to help guide us, then one is not Catholic. It is a matter of putting first things first, namely, divine authority. If we trust in God and believe that the Church is the Bride of Jesus, endowed with the charism of guiding us into Truth, then it is our faith in God that lets us accept as true that which can not be proven by science.

I find the scientific arguement more politics than science anyway. I remember the observation of Peter Kreeft that prior to Roe v. Wade no science textbook said anything but an embryo is a human person. Afterwards not one textbook mentioned it.

 

[fred_conty]

Usually it is argued that the early stages of the fetus is not a person.
But in truth, no one can say. But this movie does give this some thought.

Watch www.180move.com It lasts 30 minutes. The last 10 are the best.

 

[SteveGC]

One cannot be objectively right in a purely subjective matter. The assumption one side is “right” is arrogant to me. Some view an embryo as a human being, others do not. This is a matter of opinion.

That’s just it. It’s not subjective matter. Even for a non-believer, it should follow logic that when all is said and done with your life, and every other life, when the darkness comes, whatever moral foundation you believe in (even relativism), the embryo is either a human life worth protecting, or it isn’t. Someone is wrong. Just because a non-believer hasn’t come up with which one it is yet doesn’t negate the fact that the truth is out there waiting for them to discover. It might be subjective to some people, in the present moment…but it is not subjective in the end - when it matters. Catholics simply have that knowledge already - before the non-believer has it. Call it arrogance if you want. Truth hurts, and sometimes makes one feel inferior. But we’re just the messengers, friend. We’re inferior to the truth too.

Sounds as fair to me. If its what the woman chooses I respect it, if she chooses not to terminate, it’s her business. My stance has no “because I said so”, yours does.

Yours indeed did say “because I said so”. verbatim. But that is of no consequence. You seem to be suffering from a belief in the myth that a woman owns the person inside her.

I respect free will, you do not it seems.

I respect free will when it is used according to it’s designed purpose from God, Who gifted it to us. If your version of “free will” is, let everyone do what they will, then I’m surprised you don’t have the same criticism for every law ever passed in this country. Those laws were designed for people who abused and violated the basic moral tenets of free will. Free will is not the freedom to do whatever you want, it’s the freedom to do what you ought. It is linked directly with objective morality.

Also, if someone is aborted, having never existed, you don’t need to you know, explain anything to them.

So, it’s ok since I don’t have to explain to them why I killed them? Is that how it works? What happens when I have to explain to God?

When “someone is aborted”, that means there was a life before the abortion. So I’m unsure why you say that they “never existed”.

And if the woman in question wants only to be rid of her unwanted burden? Then what?

Chain her up?

You won’t get very far in understanding so long as you refer to new life as an “unwanted burden”, even from a rape victim’s perspective. But if she wants to be rid of it, I’m sure she’ll find a way.