Personhood in abortion

[pnewton]

I wonder what makes people like Geist think the passage through the birth canal magically makes the human being a person. One question I like to ask, pro-abortion people is to define the difference between abortion and infanticide. There are no good answers.

 

[Geist]

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.

Well, if she was raped, what steps should she have taken beforehand since we all know the future? Should she have worn the iron chastity belt that day?

The rape in this situation has already been done in the past, which cannot be undone.

Again, you offer alternatives, and didn’t answer me; what do you do when all she wants is the abortion? No interest in services or carrying to term.

**Do you chain her up? **

pnewton:

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

And for the worlds 6,000,000,000 non-Catholics? And the God knows how many pro-choice Catholics?

That argument, is, again wholly subjective and biased in that your reasoning doesn’t apply to well over 6 billion people being based on Church teaching, when the vast majority of Earths denizens do not follow that Church, and even many of its members don’t follow it word for word or follow it much beyond showing up for Sunday Mass.

I would recommend people remember if you’re convinced you’re right, it doesn’t automatically mean other people think you’re right. Doesn’t make them wrong either.

Theres a whole lot of viewpoints on many issues out there and abortion is one of them.

 

[Geist]

I wonder what makes people like Geist think the passage through the birth canal magically makes the human being a person. One question I like to ask, pro-abortion people is to define the difference between abortion and infanticide. There are no good answers.

I’m not pro-abortion.

I can just understand the reasoning for both sides and am here to learn. If hard questions (Nate13 has already admitted to being annoyed by me) bother people, then don’t respond.

 

[pnewton]

And for the worlds 6,000,000,000 non-Catholics? And the God knows how many pro-choice Catholics?

A pro-choice Catholic makes no more sense than an agnostic Catholic. Someone may use the term, but is it contradictory. By the way, is there any other context except abortion where choice is used in this manner? “Choice” demands an object. Everyone pro-choice ice cream flavor. Yet the matter of the choice is always omitted by this term. I also feel the same way about “pro-life.” How is not in favor of at least their own life?

That argument, is, again wholly subjective and biased in that your reasoning doesn’t apply to well over 6 billion people being based on Church teaching, when the vast majority of Earths denizens do not follow that Church, and even many of its members don’t follow it word for word or follow it much beyond showing up for Sunday Mass.

Without doubt there are many other viewpoints. This does not make the matter subjective. In the middle ages, the predominant view point was that the Earth was flat. This did not make the shape of the Earth subjective, only debatable. Spiritual realities are just as objective, unless one is a materialist and thinks the spiritual does not exist. Take guilt. The feelings we have of guilt are subjective. But in the commission of a crime, actual guilt is not. The murder may or may not feel guilt for his crime, the jury may or may not know for certain if he killed or did not kill. Yet the actual fact of the murder is objective. Either he did or did not kill.

With personhood, when a human is a living soul is a matter known only to God. That does no make the matter subjective, just unknowable. For Catholics, since we believe in God, we believe in Jesus, we believe in the authority of Peter and we believe in the Holy Spirit, we trust that the answer we have is from the only one who knows for certain. No, this does not good to the non-Catholic. That is why I said authority comes first.

However, try this one on for the non-Catholic. Ask him if he know for certain that the thing he is about to snuff out is not a person. If we can not know apart from God, how does he know if it is or is not a human person? I think most will agree it is not knowable. Does this mean we have a green light to terminate it? If I am hunting in the woods and see what might be a deer, or might be a person, do I have the right to shoot? They call such an action, when it is a human (and it *might *be) manslaughter, a lesser class of murder.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not pro-abortion.

I can just understand the reasoning for both sides and am here to learn. If hard questions (Nate13 has already admitted to being annoyed by me) bother people, then don’t respond.

I didn’t say you were. I actually was unfair to you though in another way, and for that I apologize. What I should have said is why you would think that it is even possible that the birthing process would change one for not being a person to being a person. You did not give this as your opinion, only said it was subjective, meaning a possibility. Is this a clearer presentation of what you said?

 

[Geist]

I didn’t say you were. I actually was unfair to you though in another way, and for that I apologize. What I should have said is why you would think that it is even possible that the birthing process would change one for not being a person to being a person. You did not give this as your opinion, only said it was subjective, meaning a possibility. Is this a clearer presentation of what you said?

Yes. Its hard to get points across through typed words, its OK.

I only touched upon my personal views once before, and yes, I am pro-life. I’ll get back to this in a second.

Even as an atheist, when I got my fiancee pregnant and went with her for the first ultrasound and saw the little half inch long gummy-bear (only had arm and leg buds, reminded me of a gummy bear) but what struck me was her heart, literally exploding with sound waves picked up by the machine with every beat, and I thought, “Hey, thats our baby, holy ****!”.

Now, to get back to the earlier point, someone else seeing that ultrasound could honestly and truly see just a collection of tissue and cells or whatnot. If this is what they truly see, how can they view an abortion as anything other than procedure?

This is where subjectivity comes into play. I can see it from their viewpoint too, I don’t agree with it, and I wouldn’t judge them for it, but I understand.

In issues of rape or severe fetal abnormalities it gets murkier, can one presume to tell someone what to do when the burden isn’t theirs to bear? A rape is a horrifically traumatic experience, yet the mother may find solace in the baby, or hate the very existence of the child.

And some special needs kids are destined for a life of being gawked at, or surgeries and pain, others will really have only minor disabilities.

In any event in these cases I will respect whatever decision the parents reach as it is their decision alone to make. Many here may disagree with that, but thats how I feel.

Now, to tackle a separate but related issue, the “pro life” vs “pro choice”…I dont understand the either/or there. I think everyone is pro-life in that we all want to live and see life grow and prosper…but God also gave us the ability for choice in every matter.

If a woman or a couple chooses to have an abortion, I am conflicted in that it is a God given right…not the abortion itself, but rather the freedom to choose it. I’m sure greater minds than mine have grappled with that. Maybe they have an answer?

 

[GEddie]

We all have free will, but the general society has seen fit to disallow certain uses of that will. I would not have the right to walk off with property belonging to you, although I’d be exercising my free will in so doing, and if I did, I’d be penalized.

Free will is not an argument for allowing abortion any more than it is for allowing theft.

ICXC NIKA

 

[SteveGC]

Geist,

Our society is made up of many people with varying beliefs, as you say. And these people bring their beliefs to bear when they debate politics, laws, and morals with other people in the public square. Of course you know this.

But don’t fall for the trap that secular society sets for people who believe in objective morality that originates from God. They attempt to exclude these type of people from society; or atleast from having a voice in politics and the legal system.

Here’s what happens. The vast majority of people in society have no clear and objective framework of morals. It is all a gray area; most do not have a compass, and many will defer most of their belief in “truth” to whatever laws are currently in place in society (i.e. murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc). Because current laws cover most major moral behavioral issues, there is a tendency to think it is quite complete and sufficient enough for everyone. You could say that most people follow the majority opinion regarding morals, and swing back and forth through their belief based on the whatever the most prevalent thought is, or how influential or convincing a group’s argument seems to be. It’s what happens when you have no solid foundation for morality.

Devout Catholics are the exception. We follow Church teaching, which is to say, we follow objectively true teaching on faith and morals. It is quite black and white. And it does not base itself on current societal laws, but on God’s law. Turns out most of societal laws do adequately address a large portion of objectively valid morals. But there are significant exceptions. Abortion and same-sex marriage are the most prevalent ones presently. Catholics know that these are objectively immoral acts. Not just immoral for themselves. Immoral for everyone who engages in them - whether they believe it or not. That’s the funny thing about absolute truth. It upsets alot of people who are relativistic about their morals.

It upsets them because, to them, the fact that others speak in absolutes about morality comes across as arrogant. They certainly have a right to disagree with our view, and they certainly can (and do) fight to make their view the more popular one. And that’s ok, if that’s all it was. But they don’t stop there. They play the “imposition” card on Catholics. They claim that our opinion, and our fight to make it popular, is “an imposition” on the rest of society. Now, how is that possible? How is it possible that a person, or group of people, who are valid members of the same society, who do nothing more than make their opinions known, and cast their vote based on their beliefs, just like every other member of society, how do they all of sudden become guilty of “imposition”? If we are guilty of imposing our beliefs on society, how is that others who believe in other things are not also imposing their beliefs on society (which includes us)? Think about that.

They think it is a valid claim because devout Catholics have solidarity and are able to be targeted as a unified group of people with beliefs unlike most others. They fail to see that we are also members of the same society. They fail to see that they themselves are also members of a group of people with shared beliefs. Problem is, that group is not easily identifiable in society. It’s not called anything. It has no label. And they have no easily identifiable foundational source for their moral stance. So they think they’re different. They don’t think they’re imposing beliefs, but they are. But Catholics can’t claim they’re imposing, even if they wanted to, because who is “they”? There is no name for them. They are random members of society who disagree with our position.

But it’s ok for Catholics. Because even if we could, we wouldn’t claim any group with shared beliefs is “imposing” their religion, or their morals, or whatever, on the rest of us. We would acknowledge the simple and plain fact that they are simply united in their beliefs and are joining together to fight for their beliefs in the same society we all belong to, and in which we all have a right to cast our vote and make a case for our position. Catholics, in turn, deserve the same acknowledgement from them. Disagree with us if they want, and vote against our position if they will. No problem. But do not cast us out of the public square as aliens and imposers, simply because we are unified in our belief. And don’t do it because our morals are clearly based on religion. In a free society, your freedom to vote and make a voice is not based on the source of your moral beliefs, but rather on the simple fact that you are indeed a member of that free society.

 

[NicoleVentura]

Some people see the fetus as a child/human, and other see it as a glob of cells.

The fact that its part of the womans body technically makes it her body, which would give her the rights to do what she wants with the fetus.

It really is just about personal opinion. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. But I can guarantee you that they will never stop happening. If a woman doesn’t want it, she has two choices. Adoption or abortion. Well abortion seems easier and thats more than likely why they do it.

 

[SteveGC]

The fact that its part of the womans body technically makes it her body, which would give her the rights to do what she wants with the fetus.

From what source do you claim this? Or are you simply summarizing the fact that it is currently legal in this country?

It really is just about personal opinion. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. But I can guarantee you that they will never stop happening. If a woman doesn’t want it, she has two choices. Adoption or abortion. Well abortion seems easier and thats more than likely why they do it.

This is indeed the mantra of the moral relativist.

 

[GEddie]

Some people see the fetus as a child/human, and other see it as a glob of cells.

The fact that its part of the womans body technically makes it her body, which would give her the rights to do what she wants with the fetus.

It really is just about personal opinion. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. But I can guarantee you that they will never stop happening. If a woman doesn’t want it, she has two choices. Adoption or abortion. Well abortion seems easier and thats more than likely why they do it.

Except that it isn’t part of her body. “It” has genes that are distinct from hers. Half the time, the fetus is male; obviously not part of a female body.

When the fetal and maternal blood systems mix, and the fetal blood type is not the same, the woman’s body may reject the pregnancy. Bodies do not reject their own “parts”.

The “part of her body” statement is used only by defenders of abortion. No one else would make that claim.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Incomplete]

Some people see the fetus as a child/human, and other see it as a glob of cells.

The fact that its part of the womans body technically makes it her body, which would give her the rights to do what she wants with the fetus.

It really is just about personal opinion. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. But I can guarantee you that they will never stop happening. If a woman doesn’t want it, she has two choices. Adoption or abortion. Well abortion seems easier and thats more than likely why they do it.

The baby is in her body, not part of her body.

The mother’s heart, kidneys, intestines, etc, all these are part of her body. But the baby is not. It is in the mother’s body. The baby has completely separate DNA, with completely separate parts. The baby’s hands are not the mother’s hands, the baby’s heart is not the mother’s heart.

 

[pnewton]

It really is just about personal opinion. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. But I can guarantee you that they will never stop happening. If a woman doesn’t want it, she has two choices. Adoption or abortion. Well abortion seems easier and thats more than likely why they do it.

Rather than point out analogies with other immoral acts that criminal law prohibits, I would like to look at something very positive in your post, namely, an actionable solution that does not rely on overturning Roe v. Wade, but can not happen in the current political environment.

Your dilemna between abortion and adoption does occur. Making abortion illegal is one side of the equation, and one Catholics must support. However, in the meantime, we should also strive to make the other option much easier for women. Adoption is a win-win-win. The child gets to live. A couple gets a child they want. The women does not commit murder and have to face the judgement for that mortal sin. Catholics need to be supportive of adoption services and supportive of the women that make this difficult choice. I have one in my own family that took this route. It is regretable that certain political types will fight what should be an obvious good under the guise of homosexual rights. This is a battle that is more easily winable, at least in states that don’t codify special rights for homosexuals.

 

[Nate13]

Again, you offer alternatives, and didn’t answer me; what do you do when all she wants is the abortion? No interest in services or carrying to term.

**Do you chain her up? **

I thought I was pretty clear…

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???

If someone wants to murder someone you don’t help them…you do what you can under the law to prevent such a thing from occurring but you and I both know some abortions are going to happen. The law can vigorously pursue abortion doctors though and keep a lid of drugs that can cause abortions.

You would never suggest that we should offer murders assistance in murdering people if they so choose, to make if safer for the murderer. I hear that argument a lot from people in that if we don’t have legal abortion you will have back alley abortions going on and women will be in danger. I feel for women who are driven to such actions in hopelessness, but if steps are taken to ensure they have help available if they wished to seek it out in carrying their baby to term, all of these women would have a way out. There would no longer be any reasonable excuse in my opinion for being driven to seek an abortion.

So my answer in short is I offer that person a way out that is moral, and take what steps I can to make the immoral/potentially dangerous choice as unappealing as possible.

 

[hazmat]

people are so opposed to the idea of it being a part of her body. but its literally, physically attached to her body, growing from her body… theyre definitely not separate bodies; if you separate them early on, the fetus dies–that would be called an abortion.

 

[Incomplete]

people are so opposed to the idea of it being a part of her body. but its literally, physically attached to her body, growing from her body… theyre definitely not separate bodies; if you separate them early on, the fetus dies–that would be called an abortion.

They share an umbilical cord, which is later cut. And the baby dies if you remove it early because it is not developed, not because it is part of it’s mother’s body. If you don’t feed your baby after it is born, it dies then, too, but nobody would say it is part of the mother’s body then.

You are right to use the word “attached”. That is correct. “Part of” is not correct. The baby grows in the woman’s body, and they definitely not the same body. Different DNA, different heart, brain, kidney, hands, arms, sometimes blood types, sometimes gender…everything. When the baby is born, it is whole of itself and the woman is still whole of herself.

A woman who is never pregnant, or a woman not currently pregnant, is not missing part of her body.

 

[hazmat]

that doesnt make sense: if a baby dies because its not developed, then it would die for not being developed whether attached to the mother or not. thats not the case, so that its “not developed” is not what causes its death. its not separate.

 

[Incomplete]

that doesnt make sense: if a baby dies because its not developed, then it would die for not being developed whether attached to the mother or not. thats not the case, so that its “not developed” is not what causes its death. its not separate.

It is attached while it is growing, yes. It is not “part of” the mother. It is attached to the mother.

When it is born and the mother is nursing, it is also attached. But separate.

 

[hazmat]

maybe im being more literal here–i wouldnt say a breastfeeding baby is attached to its mother. it is separate, as you say. a fetus, however, is definitely not separate while physically attached, and its early separation would result in death. if the fetus is separated, then i would regard it as being apart, and no longer a part of the mother.

but that i regard it as a part of the mother has no bearing on my position regarding abortion. so i wonder if whether its a part of the mother or not has any bearing on the position of a prolifer.

 

[Incomplete]

maybe im being more literal here–i wouldnt say a breastfeeding baby is attached to its mother. it is separate, as you say. a fetus, however, is definitely not separate while physically attached, and its early separation would result in death. if the fetus is separated, then i would regard it as being apart, and no longer a part of the mother.

but that i regard it as a part of the mother has no bearing on my position regarding abortion. so i wonder if whether its a part of the mother or not has any bearing on the position of a prolifer.

It makes a difference to some pro-choice people. This is from an earlier post:

The fact that its part of the womans body technically makes it her body, which would give her the rights to do what she wants with the fetus

But it is clearly not part of her body. Very clearly. As I said earlier, when the baby is born, the woman still has her entire body.

Maybe this will make it more clear.

When you are born, you have hands, eyes, brain, kidneys, liver, etc. All of these are part of you. In fact, when you are in the womb, these things are part of you. But there is no baby developing inside of you when you are born. What you have when you are born, those things are part of your body.

When the baby leaves the mother’s womb, the mother still has everything she had before she got pregnant. Those things are part of her body. The baby was in the mother’s body, sharing a placenta for nutrition, but separate.

When the family is in a home, they are not part of the home. They are living in the home. The baby lives in it’s mother’s body for nine months, where it is fed and where it grows, just like later it will do those things inside a building called a home. But it is separate. It kicks independently. It dreams independently, even in the womb.

Look at the things that actually are part of a women’s body. They all have the same DNA, and they don’t function separately from the woman. The baby inside the womb has different DNA and functions separately.

It is not all of a sudden a separate being the moment it comes out of the womb. Nothing changes about personhood once it’s out of the womb, even before the umbilical cord is cut. After birth but before the cord is cut, the baby is still attached to it’s mother, yet clearly it is a different person.