Personhood in abortion

[Geist]

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.

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.

Thank you both, I actually understand the underpinnings of the objectivist pro-life position alot better now and how it relates to a pluralistic society.

 

[hazmat]

incomplete: a woman would still be regarded as having her entire body after a breast reduction, but the tissue removed was undeniably part of her. and people continue to develop and grow between birth and death in old age. a fetus that is literally, physically attached and growing from its mother is not really the same as simply being inside of something (e.g., being in a house).

im not saying theyre the same person, or that theyre conjoined twins or anything weird like that. so dont get me wrong. im just talking about when its appropriate to consider one thing a part of another, and i think a fetus that is literally attached to and growing from a body qualifies. if a fetus dies because it was removed from the womb, would you think its entire body was intact postmortem?

 

[GEddie]

incomplete: a woman would still be regarded as having her entire body after a breast reduction, but the tissue removed was undeniably part of her. and people continue to develop and grow between birth and death in old age. a fetus that is literally, physically attached and growing from its mother is not really the same as simply being inside of something (e.g., being in a house).

im not saying theyre the same person, or that theyre conjoined twins or anything weird like that. so dont get me wrong. im just talking about when its appropriate to consider one thing a part of another, and i think a fetus that is literally attached to and growing from a body qualifies. if a fetus dies because it was removed from the womb, would you think its entire body was intact postmortem?

I am not sure what your last question implies, because dead bodies are generally considered to be “intact”, unless physically damaged. We do not usually consider life to be a “part” of the body; it is a process that generates the body.

The fact is that a fetus is genotypically distinct from the woman (unlike your breast reduction example) and it’s various parts fulfill no function in her body. “It” is not part of her body. In the plan of God, her body plays the lead role in producing a new human life.

ICXC NIKA

 

[hazmat]

ok, if you dont consider life as being part of the body, then that puts things into perspective. as for the fetus not fulfilling a function in her body… that much is true, but given that its early separation from her body results in the fetus’ death, the inverse would be false.

 

[GEddie]

Sure, but no one would say that the woman is part of the fetus’ body: that would be silly.

All life is dependent upon resources outside the “body”. You would die if you couldn’t breathe; is Earth’s atmosphere a “part of your body?”

We do not consider life to be a part of the body because it fills the entire body. Also, you can examine a living person without seeing the life; you can examine the dead body and not see what is missing. All that we think of as physical “parts” remain after death.

Five hundred years of scientific study has not made physical human LIFE any less of a mystery.

Shalom, ICXC NIKA

 

[hazmat]

sure they would; it is correct to say so by definition. any parts that form a whole are mutually parts. to say the woman is part of the fetus doesnt contradict the fact that the fetus does not fulfill a function in her body.

you could make arguments–and many do–for earth and man being one, but that would go way off topic. anyway, your point was already taken; knowing that you regard life and body as separate puts things into perspective. you regard the life of the fetus as not part of her body, as you would regard her own life as not part of her body. it helps to keep that mind. thanks.

 

[Incomplete]

incomplete: a woman would still be regarded as having her entire body after a breast reduction, but the tissue removed was undeniably part of her. and people continue to develop and grow between birth and death in old age. a fetus that is literally, physically attached and growing from its mother is not really the same as simply being inside of something (e.g., being in a house).

im not saying theyre the same person, or that theyre conjoined twins or anything weird like that. so dont get me wrong. im just talking about when its appropriate to consider one thing a part of another, and i think a fetus that is literally attached to and growing from a body qualifies. if a fetus dies because it was removed from the womb, would you think its entire body was intact postmortem?

She would be considered a complete woman, sure, but she would have had her own tissue removed…tissue that has the same DNA she has, tissue that never had it’s own independent life.

When the baby is removed from the womb and dies, it’s body is not intact because that’s not how they remove it. They tear it into pieces. But all the body parts are the baby’s body parts. It’s arms and legs and heart and ears and nose…none of those are the mothers.

The parts that are part of the women’s body never, ever grow to be their own human person.

 

[hazmat]

incomplete: thats beside the point: an entire body is possible despite having parts of it removed (e.g., breast tissue). so to say its clearly not her body because her entire body remains after the baby is born is no good. the term, “entire body” is too relative for your purposes.

ok, so if the fetus were to die from being removed, without being torn into pieces, you would consider its body intact?

 

[Incomplete]

incomplete: thats beside the point: an entire body is possible despite having parts of it removed (e.g., breast tissue). so to say its clearly not her body because her entire body remains after the baby is born is no good. the term, “entire body” is too relative for your purposes.

ok, so if the fetus were to die from being removed, without being torn into pieces, you would consider its body intact?

Intact just means it’s all together, so of course, if the entire body were there, it would be intact.

Maybe I’m not explaining myself well. I’ll go back to something I said earlier. You were born with certain body parts. Those are yours. Those are part of you. Everything that shares your DNA is part of you.

The baby grows in the mother and is independent of the mother. It is not part of the mother.

Breast tissue has DNA, and is the same DNA as the mother’s DNA. When it is removed, she may still be a complete person, but the fatty tissue was, indeed, part of her. It shared DNA and was never going to be independent of her.

The baby kicks on its own, even in the womb. The fatty tissue does nothing on its own.

I hope that explained it better.

 

[hazmat]

yes, it did, incomplete. thank you for clarifying. i took one part of your response to be your entire rationale for distinguishing bodies. so, we simply disagree on when something can be considered a part of something else. probably a wasted question: would you be ok with abortion if the fetus was only removed, and not torn into pieces?

 

[Incomplete]

would you be ok with abortion if the fetus was only removed, and not torn into pieces?

Of course not. I am not ok with taking the life of a baby by any means.

 

[NicoleVentura]

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

This is indeed the mantra of the moral relativist.

Hi Steve. I see you did not understand my first comment. I think you should study the anatomy of the womb while the fetus is growing. It is inside her body, attached to her body, growing in her body, and using her bodies resources.

It is, without a doubt, part of her body. Which is where the abortion argument comes into play.

Since, it is technically her body before the fetus is born, many people think she should have the right to do what she wants with the fetus. Once it is born of course, she has no right to take away its life, because when its born, it is no longer part of her body. It is its own.

Think of it as a tumor. It is a growth, but still part of your body. Once it is removed, it is no longer part of your body. But since the tumor is part of your body, many would say you should have the right to do what you want with it. Just using an example. I know the two aren’t the same, but in many eyes, they are the same in context.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Steve. I see you did not understand my first comment. I think you should study the anatomy of the womb while the fetus is growing. It is inside her body, attached to her body, growing in her body, and using her bodies resources.

It is, without a doubt, part of her body. Which is where the abortion argument comes into play.

Since, it is technically her body before the fetus is born, many people think she should have the right to do what she wants with the fetus. Once it is born of course, she has no right to take away its life, because when its born, it is no longer part of her body. It is its own.

Think of it as a tumor. It is a growth, but still part of your body. Once it is removed, it is no longer part of your body. But since the tumor is part of your body, many would say you should have the right to do what you want with it. Just using an example. I know the two aren’t the same, but in many eyes, they are the same in context.

As others are pointing out above, it really depends on how you define “part”. But for me, that’s immaterial.

The logic as you’ve stated here would result in such a person believing that killing a child is within the mother’s rights up until the umbilical is cut. Obviously that is not the case. But the baby is still attached, and according to your logic, still a “part”.

Moreover, why do the vast majority of pro-abortion people oppose a mother’s right to a late term abortion? if they followed your logic, since the baby is still a “part” of her, then they should have no problem with such. yet they do. In fact, so much that it is largely illegal.

It seems quite clear, then, that the issue of whether or not it is a “part” of her is not really the primary focus. If it were, then late term abortions would be more mainstream and accepted.

Could it be that they oppose late term abortions because they finally begin to recognize a real person inside? A real person with unique DNA, unique characteristics, indeed a separate human being (despite being biologically dependent on mom)? Oh yes, indeed. This is why late terms are so strongly opposed. They finally can recognize a real human being.

So it begs the question. If it’s just as much a part of her when it’s just conceived as it is when the umbilical is about to be cut, or atleast just before it’s head emerges from the birth canal, then what is it that makes it ok to kill this life inside her when it is relatively unrecognizable as a full human being, but reprehensible to do when it is close to being born? Is it a different person when it is first conceived? Does it not have it’s full DNA makeup at that point?

Of course, we know what it really is - why it’s ok. It’s ok because it’s not visually recognizable. it’s largely invisible for quite some time. And isn’t it funny, though, that women who go for abortions do not also opt for ultrasounds? Why not?

Because they would see LIFE. Life worthy of protection. It’s instinctive. It has nothing to do some logic game about being a “part” of her, and hence her “right” to do with it what she wants. She would instinctively see a human being, even well within the first 12 weeks. And it is highly reasonable to believe that she would choose life upon witnessing this real life within her. But she doesn’t want to look. Turns out, abortion factories like PP don’t want her to look either.

 

[Geist]

Because they would see LIFE. Life worthy of protection. It’s instinctive. It has nothing to do some logic game about being a “part” of her, and hence her “right” to do with it what she wants. She would instinctively see a human being, even well within the first 12 weeks. And it is highly reasonable to believe that she would choose life upon witnessing this real life within her. But she doesn’t want to look. Turns out, abortion factories like PP don’t want her to look either.

My own state(Virginia) just passed a “mandatory ultrasound” law, waiting to be signed by the governor, who said he’d sign it when it got to his desk.

What struck me as odd was…did anyone think to remember competent adults cannot be forced to undergo any medical tests or procedure against their will, without a court order?

All it takes is one woman to say “no”, and after it winds through the courts at great taxpayer expense it will be overturned.

the other problem is early pregnancies need a vaginal transducer inserted into the vagina to get an image, so, if it ever was forced, they’d have a rape case as well.

I’ve said it before, legislation isn’t the answer to this. No one seems to think about a laws implementation, only getting it passed.

 

[pnewton]

My own state(Virginia) just passed a “mandatory ultrasound” law, waiting to be signed by the governor, who said he’d sign it when it got to his desk.

What struck me as odd was…did anyone think to remember competent adults cannot be forced to undergo any medical tests or procedure against their will, without a court order?

All it takes is one woman to say “no”, and after it winds through the courts at great taxpayer expense it will be overturned.

The law is such that the women are not forced to undergo an ultrasound. It is only necessary if they choose to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade did not eliminate all states rights, so it may be that they can still regulate the means of abortion.

 

[SteveGC]

My own state(Virginia) just passed a “mandatory ultrasound” law, waiting to be signed by the governor, who said he’d sign it when it got to his desk.

What struck me as odd was…did anyone think to remember competent adults cannot be forced to undergo any medical tests or procedure against their will, without a court order?

All it takes is one woman to say “no”, and after it winds through the courts at great taxpayer expense it will be overturned.

the other problem is early pregnancies need a vaginal transducer inserted into the vagina to get an image, so, if it ever was forced, they’d have a rape case as well.

I’ve said it before, legislation isn’t the answer to this. No one seems to think about a laws implementation, only getting it passed.

Well, that’s a fair point you make. But in my post, I was not necessarily advocating for mandatory ultrasounds. I indeed think we should be sensitive to the ramifications of laws, but those ramifications have to be weighed against the good the law itself would reasonably achieve.

Anyway, my point was to emphasize the motivation behind requiring ultrasound (or more significantly, the fear of it’s requirement by pro-choicers), not the advocation for it’s implementation.

 

[ryecroft]

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

Hmmm…I don’t think that most out there believe that when they are having sex, they have “explicity invited and gave permission for the child to be in and use the mother’s body”…especially if birth control was used. There are some that are hoping and praying to get pregnant, but I don’t believe that’s the majority of those (yes, even married) who are having sex.

Personally, with the original comment, I have to wonder. I have kidney disease (seriously, I do) - now, unfortunately, it’s likely that I’m going to go down a road where I likely could need a transplant one day - does this mean that no matter who I found having a kidney that is compatible with mine, that they should have no choice but to give it to me? I would hope that someone might avail themselves to do this, but I would never want anyone compelled or forced to give me one.
This gives rise to another thought on my part, although Catholic, does this mean that if I believe that a woman should carry her pregnancy to term (regardless of the circumstances)- that then this unborn child’s life is more important than someone who needs a transplant? Or if the mother becomes ill during the pregnancy and has a good chance of not living if the pregnancy is not stopped - does this mean the fetus’s life is more important than hers? There are so many ways to look at this.
God Bless

 

[Geist]

The law is such that the women are not forced to undergo an ultrasound. It is only necessary if they choose to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade did not eliminate all states rights, so it may be that they can still regulate the means of abortion.

Maybe, the proponents were adamant it doesn’t force one to look at it, just it be done, they say its to correctly estimate gestational age, not place a barrier to abortion.

The critics say it adds cost and complexity…but we know why they don’t want the ultrasounds done; they’re afraid women will look and change their minds.

My concern is more the legality of mandatory ultrasounds…whether one must look or not. I really don’t see any court finding in favor of forcing people to undergo tests/procedures against their will, theres alot of established case law on that front.

 

[NicoleVentura]

That’s not my logic Steve. I was telling you how pro-choice people think.

 

[kama3]

The logic as you’ve stated here would result in such a person believing that killing a child is within the mother’s rights up until the umbilical is cut.

What you are ignoring is that a pre-viability fetus cannot be separated from its mother without killing it. It’s part of the woman in a sense that it’s practically inseparable.

That aside, where does the material the fetus is made of comes from? The mother’s body.

Could it be that they oppose late term abortions because they finally begin to recognize a real person inside?

Yes! See images here: dana.org/news/brainhealth/detail.aspx?id=10050

A 3rd trimester fetus looks very much like a newborn (and is able to survive premature birth), but during the 1st trimester it looks completely different.

Does it not have it’s full DNA makeup at that point?

You’re overemphasizing the importance of DNA. If DNA was the sole criterion, then monozygotic twins shoud be a one person no? Obviously, they are not. Also, what about cloning? If a woman is pregnant by the way of cloning herself, then by your logic that child would not be a (separate) person.