Personhood in the abortion debate

[Servant31]

Hey how are you doing. Interesting debate. I’m not a philosopher and not familiar with the rules as such but I’ll chime and take anything or leave it.

It would seem the fundamental difference we’re describing is the soul. Does an embryo have a soul at the moment of conception. Animals, I believe, would meet the above criteria in a the first two circumstances. However determining if the embryo has or doesn’t could be Impossible imho. That’s a bit of the unfortunate reality of debate imo, you have to prove an “unprovable” claim, which most pure rationalists probably won’t accept.

Could you take a different tack. Near death experiencers often report that after death they are very much themselves, their consciousness is intact even after physical death. Their is at least one I’m aware of that had his experience even after neural activity was rendered completely inert due to an aggressive brain infection. From the scientific reductivist materialism perspective, this shouldn’t have been possible. The idea is that the consciousness isn’t derived from the biological status of the body, but innate in and of itself. Ie spirit.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’ve recently had an online debate with a pro-choice girl, who made the argument that an embryo, even though it is alive since conception, is not a human person until a later stage of developement, because it has not yet the cognitive faculties (such as intellect and will ) that are part of what a person is.

If someone doesn’t want to or doesn’t care about the fetus, there is nothing you can do to change their mind.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

“Yahweh called me when I was in the womb,
before my birth he had pronounced my name.”
Isaiah 49:1

What does Isaiah mean here if he was not a person with a soul in the womb?

“Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me”
Psalm 51:5

How is a body with no soul a sinner?

Are you sure you have presented the teachings of Judaism accurately? Where does Judaism claim ensoulment does not happen until birth?

You may make your own morality, I do not. I believe Jesus is the Messiah. I believe in the authority of His Church. I believe I have found the truth, and the truth determines morality.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And what word was it that I changed the meaning? I am disputing that dignity and worth are the same.

The combination of the two words with a forward slash should have let you know that the same general idea was being conveyed with two different words. If you’d like to argue the obvious point that the word worth can also have another meaning then feel free. I’m not going to disagree with you on that.

So per your examples you’re speaking about subjective worth in very general terms. ‘Worth’ as in a consensus of what society gets out of a person. I would argue that is not a measure of personhood. It’s too subjective and open to abuse. It’s reminiscent of the 19 century’s eugenics movement.

Likewise a frozen embryo and a child. Equal dignity? You might say so. But which do you save from the burning building?

A frozen embryo? It’s not living. It’s frozen.

What point are you trying to get across here?

We’re talking about women having abortions and why they individually don’t consider them a problem. That’s about as subjective as you can possibly get. The subjective worth that women grant the few cells they are carrying after conception. It’s not a measure of personhood. It’s a different matter entirely. Please consider them seperately.

We each consider different people to be worth more or less. That is undeniable. Your child is worth more to you than a complete stranger. Again, undeniable. Your child has more value to you. It’s subjective. There’s not getting around this.

Do they all have equal dignity? You could say yes. Do they have the same value to God? Again, you could say yes. But to you? No.

A frozen embryo is life suspended. A ‘potential’ life as we have heard said about an embryo. Ut you’d save the child over the embryo. Could you tell us why?

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

As a woman who has endured pregnancy, I respectfully disagree.
The woman’s body is the sculptor.

There’s one point that needs to be adressed.
The role of the woman’s body in the developement of the unborn is different from the role of the sculptor in the production of a statue.
In the latter case, a continual active voluntary action of the external efficient cause is required in order for the effect to be produced.
In the former, however, the only active action that is required in order for the effect to be produced is having a sexual intercourse (wich is always a voluntary action, unless you are raped ), wich always involves the possibility of conception. The developement of the unborn follows naturally and spontaneously. In this sense, we can say that the entire process is done at conception.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Do they have the same value to God? Again, you could say yes. But to you? No.

Who’s more important, universal, absolute and objective? The human of the divine? Because they are not equal. They can’t be.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Do they have the same value to God? Again, you could say yes. But to you? No.

Who’s more important, universal, absolute and objective? The human of the divine? Because they are not equal. They can’t be.

Sorry. I don’t understand the question.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Every man has the same dignity before God for being a man. But for every man, some people are more important than others. That’s because man is a finite, relative creature. God, however, is the infinite, universal and absolute creator. I think, I believe He crearly sees things in a better way than everyone of us, so we’d better trust Him and value His judgment more than man’s opinion.

 

[Brendan_64]

So human dignity gradually increases over time and through real connection(s).

So a person who has developed more connections with other people has more human dignity and therefore more inherent worth than someone who has developed less connections than other people? How would that play out for humanity?

 

[Vico]

QwertyGirl:

As a woman who has endured pregnancy, I respectfully disagree.
The woman’s body is the sculptor.

There’s one point that needs to be adressed.
The role of the woman’s body in the developement of the unborn is different from the role of the sculptor in the production of a statue.
In the latter case, a continual active voluntary action of the external efficient cause is required in order for the effect to be produced.
In the former, however, the only active action that is required in order for the effect to be produced is having a sexual intercourse (wich is always a voluntary action, unless you are raped ), wich always involves the possibility of conception. The developement of the unborn follows naturally and spontaneously. In this sense, we can say that the entire process is done at conception.

Plus proper nutrition, rest, and safety from biological and physical dangers.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

If a sculptor doesn’t want to make a statue, he simply doesn’t begin to make it.
If a woman doesn’t want to have a pregnancy, she simply doesn’t have sexual intercourses.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Plus proper nutrition, rest, and safety from biological and physical dangers.

These are things that the mother already does for herself.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Plus proper nutrition, rest, and safety from biological and physical dangers.

These are things that the mother already does for herself.

Yes, but not in the identical way – modifications are needed through use of intelligence.

 

[neophyte]

Does an embryo have a soul at the moment of conception.

Of course it does. The soul is the principle that animates a living body. The embryo is a living body, therefore it has a soul.

 

[Servant31]

Right but the context is to ask the question, how do you demonstrate that or argue it to a person that doesn’t already believe that it does.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

We’re talking about women having abortions and why they individually don’t consider them a problem.

What does this have to do with abortion? Are you saying that abortion is okay because you think women don’t have a problem with it? Regardless, I would bet that most women do consider having an abortion as being somewhat traumatic. Even if some don’t, I could easily make the claim that it’s because they may be immature, or lacking a conscience. Does the fact that a serial killer not have a problem with murder have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not murder is okay.

Your child has more value to you. It’s subjective. There’s not getting around this.

This is simply based on attachment. I’ve already stated what I think about that. Again, what does any level of attachment have to do with a justification of abortion. It’s purely subjective and open to abuse. Because a woman has no attachment to an orphan that no one wants, does that mean she can kill the orphan? Why not?

A frozen embryo is life suspended. A ‘potential’ life

Not necessarily. But it deserves the respect that it is due. Which is less than the respect that a ten year old is due. I’m sure you’ll ask why I say that so I’ll answer now. It’s because the frozen embryo is not living, and because of it’s state being frozen and outside it’s proper environment, doesn’t necessarily have the potential to live. Not at all the same situation as an embryo in utero.

 

[Magnanimity]

So a person who has developed more connections with other people has more human dignity and therefore more inherent worth than someone who has developed less connections than other people? How would that play out for humanity?

Hi Brendan, it plays out in the ways that I illustrated with my examples of various folks passing away. Did you see that list (fetus, 1 month old, 10 year old, etc)? And can you see that, in each instance, the loss of the person is experienced very differently by those left behind based on the extent of one’s mutual entanglement of life while here on Earth?

So, the manner of reasoning I’m using here is moving from what is observed to be fairly universally true about human reactions to different folks dying and then trying to determine what implications this has for human personhood. As in, what would have to be antecedentally true for us all to react differently to people passing?

 

[Brendan_64]

So, the manner of reasoning I’m using here is moving from what is observed to be fairly universally true about human reactions to different folks dying and then trying to determine what implications this has for human personhood

But that leads to different people having different levels of ‘personhood’ depending on their social connections with others. Does a solitary, introverted, individual without a large family or a wide circle of connections have less ‘personhood’ and therefore less right to life than a popular, socially connected, gregarious individual?

 

[neophyte]

Right but the context is to ask the question, how do you demonstrate that or argue it to a person that doesn’t already believe that it does.

The same way you do it with someone who doesn’t believe that the sky is blue.

 

[Magnanimity]

Is it based just on the reciprocity of the two in a relationship?

Well yes, I believe so. If one thinks deeply about what they mean by reciprocity of relationship, on some level it must mean that you see yourself in the other and the other sees herself in you. That is to say, the very essence of relationship consists of mutual, reciprocal formation of one another. So, you are who you are today by virtue of the closest people in your life having helped to form you. Your children help to form who you are, as do your parents, as do your closest friends, as does the priest, university professors, coworkers that you’re close with, all of these people contribute to the formation of you. So the more that someone has contributed to the formation of who you are, like in the example of your 10-year-old child, then when the loss of the child comes suddenly, part of the devastation is that one of the major contributors to who you are is cut off, and that source of identity for you will no longer contribute to your identification. But we can’t lose sight of the mutuality here. Your child helps to form who you are, but it happens in reverse too, you help to form who your child is, as do her best friends, as do her teachers, her lacrosse teammates, the priest, etc. See what I’m getting at? No one (and I do mean no one) self-creates or self-forms in an isolated way. Such a person would be Tarzan. Humans exist, in the most rudimentary way, as persons-in-relation. To be a person in relation to another is human life considered in its most basic and fundamental aspect.

But I don’t see how the closeness of a given relationship has any bearing on the personhood of either person involved.

The closeness is just another way of saying that this “other” exists in a tighter, reciprocal, co-identity with me. My 10 yo daughter helps to form me—to create who I am. And the more intertwined she becomes with my heart and mind, the more valuable she is. And not just valuable, relative to me. If humans are meant to be communal, as certainly seems to be the case, then the more a person intertwines and inserts herself into the selfhood of others, then yes, although we could say that all humans have a baseline value, this value is also subject to possible augmentation (or receding, as in the case of those who couldn’t care less for anyone outside of themselves, like the solitary old man example I originally gave above).