Personhood in the abortion debate

[VanitasVanitatum]

You can’t use God when you are arguing against an atheist.

 

[Magnanimity]

But that leads to different people having different levels of ‘personhood’ depending on their social connections with others.

It seems that folks above balked at my use of the word “dignity” here. And I haven’t used “personhood.” The person is the subject of the discussion. And the terms that have been used above are “value” and “worth.” And yes, at least one implication of why the passing of various folks from this Earth entails different experiences for us seems to suggest that the value/worth of a person can be variable (even granting some sort of baseline value to all humans). Would we really want to say that the value of Mother Teresa is equivalent to the fetus who passes away in utero?

 

[Brendan_64]

Would we really want to say that the value of Mother Teresa is equivalent to the fetus who passes away in utero?

Yes. The intrinsic value of human life is not based on some sort of utilitarian principle.

Is the value of the life of a CEO more than the value of the life of a homeless person?

 

[Magnanimity]

The intrinsic value of human life is not based on some sort of utilitarian principle.

Correct. I have said nothing about utilitarianism, nor do I think it is related to this discussion.

Is the value of the life of a CEO more than the value of the life of a homeless person?

I assume you’re getting at some sort of power dynamic in this question? My arguments above have nothing to do with power.

The CEO could be the loneliest person on Earth bc he might actually detest everyone around him and only tolerate the presence of his employees bc he has to in order to run the company. Let’s say he’s divorced too and estranged from his own children. No real friends to note. Doesn’t give philanthropically. High intrinsic worth/value? I wouldn’t think so.

And if we consider the homeless state of someone like St Anthony of Egypt or St Francis, would we say that their “homelessness” has anything to do with their value/worth? It would seem not.

So, power is not a relevant factor here. What is relevant is how intermingled/intertwined/co-identified a person is with others.

And let’s please not forget that Christ never alluded to “equality” in Heaven. He rather constantly noted inequality in the life to come. Some will be “greater” than others. The last will be first and the first, last.

 

[debgab]

I’ve been watching this video; a talk by Vicky Thorn, she is founder of Rachel’s vinyard, a ministry for women (and men) affected by abortion., she is giving a talk about “What They Didn’t Teach you in Sex Ed”. I didn’t know most of the stuff she’s talking about and I’m still watching the video, but I stopped because I thought something she said was profound and maybe something to say to the female person you are talking to about abortion; it was this “the baby inside a mother’s womb does the work of building the placenta not the woman” (mother). So the baby itself provides the way for recieving the sustenance that it needs to survive. This is the way I understand it.
Debbie

 

[Brendan_64]

I assume you’re getting at some sort of power dynamic in this question? My arguments above have nothing to do with power.

No, I’m not. I’m assuming that the CEO will have more connections with others.

I do not accept that a person’s intrinsic value is defined by how others perceive that person, or how many positive relationships a person has with others. Surely the life of a solitary loner with no social networks, family or friends has just as much worth as someone who has lots of positive connections with others? Our intrinsic value is not based on how much our fellow men love us or connect with us.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

We are basically saying the same thing. And as you’ve said upthread, a pro-choicer’s argument is similar but with a major difference. While I, and possibly you, would say that the intrinsic dignity of a person cannot be added to, a ‘gradualist’ argument would say that the attachments formed in a relationship build upon the intrinsic dignity of the person to form a ‘worth’.

although we could say that all humans have a baseline value, this value is also subject to possible augmentation

“this value”, I would argue, cannot be built upon. It stands alone upon conception and gives a person the right to life. It is distinct from any added value. Any ‘value’ that is given to a person after conception is subjective, personal, varying and therefore it can’t be intrinsic and can’t be added to be part of the thing that’s intrinsic. It’s what I would simply call attachment on a personal level.

Any kind of ‘social’ worth, as in Mother Teresa vs. an embryo, is also subjective…but on a level that only considers the past and the present. But the future may see the embryo have a ‘greater’ social worth than Mother Teresa. So there is something to be said for an intrinsic social worth in people, one that we can’t immediately see.

 

[Magnanimity]

Thanks @1Lord1Faith. I think that you and I would probably have to have a sit down together in order for me to really drive home the points I’m trying to make. What I’m describing here is pretty foreign to normal western ways of thinking of human beings. So, I think some of my thoughts just aren’t really connecting with how (perhaps) you approach the world. But I do Appreciate the dialogue!

 

[Magnanimity]

No, I’m not. I’m assuming that the CEO will have more connections with others.

And I am not at all talking about how many people know who a certain person is. Knowing who someone is has nothing to do with co-identities or personal entanglement or persons-in-relation. My points are not being grasped (which I totally understand), so I’m going to press the pause button for myself in this thread.

 

[Freddy]

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.

Well, yeah. No problem with that. But He’s not making the decision here. A woman (that finite, relative creature that you mentioned above) is making it. You need to understand why she can make it. It will help solve the problem.

 

[Freddy]

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.

That would solve it! Now, if we can solve the problem about what to do when she just wants to have sex, we’ll have it cracked.

Unfortunately, God decided to make the sexual drive one of the strongest urges that exist in any animal on the whole planet. So that, coupled with the church teaching on contraception, was only going to lead to one result.

Tough problem…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

Nothing I have said, certainly in my post to you, was in any way a means of arguing that abortion is morally correct. I personally do not think it’s morally wrong but I am not pursuing that.

You seem to think that any attempt to try to understand why women have abortions is a tacit approval of them having them. Consequently, you read what you want into any post that does that and ignore any points made. However incontravertable.

If you want to argue rather than discuss then I’m not interested.

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.

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

That’s quite a trite answer to a very reasonable question that I think deserves a lot more thought.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Unfortunately, God decided to make the sexual drive one of the strongest urges that exist in any animal on the whole planet. So that, coupled with the church teaching on contraception, was only going to lead to one result.

Tough problem…

The problem is not in God’s commandments, but in man, who doesn’t follow them, even though he has the real capacity to do so, being rational. We are not beasts, our actions are not fundamentally determined by our natural istincts.

Well, yeah. No problem with that. But He’s not making the decision here. A woman (that finite, relative creature that you mentioned above) is making it. You need to understand why she can make it. It will help solve the problem.

No decision made by man is morally legitimate, if it goes against God’s law. That’s what sin is, an action that goes against God’s law.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Consequently, you read what you want into any post that does that and ignore any points made.

I’m sorry Freddy, what points did I miss. I thought I had kept up with them. Maybe not since you say I’ve ignored any points you’ve made.

It was my fault to assume that you don’t think abortion is morally wrong. Furthermore, this thread isn’t necessarily about the morality of abortion. So, the discussion of personhood and it’s related attributes, and how they impact Church teaching and social behavior regarding abortion is the topic of this thread.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What I’m describing here is pretty foreign to normal western ways of thinking of human beings. So, I think some of my thoughts just aren’t really connecting with how (perhaps) you approach the world.

Well, I think I understood what you posted about it. I am familiar with the basic concept. The interconnectedness of people is a Catholic teaching. There’s the many parts in one body, the communion of saints, do unto others as you’d have them do unto you, etc…Maybe I just don’t give the interconnectedness of people as much weight as you do when it comes to attachment between people. But I’m willing to learn more if I’ve missed something. Maybe you could provide a link to something that explains it.

 

[neophyte]

That’s quite a trite answer to a very reasonable question that I think deserves a lot more thought.

I never thought that the Argument from Definition was trite.

 

[vz71]

You seem to think that any attempt to try to understand why women have abortions is a tacit approval of them having them. Consequently, you read what you want into any post that does that and ignore any points made. However incontravertable.

Does one need to know the rationale behind armed robbery to know it is wrong?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Unfortunately, God decided to make the sexual drive one of the strongest urges that exist in any animal on the whole planet. So that, coupled with the church teaching on contraception, was only going to lead to one result.

Tough problem…

The problem is not in God’s commandments, but in man, who doesn’t follow them, even though he has the real capacity to do so, being rational. We are not beasts, our actions are not fundamentally determined by our natural istincts.

Well, yeah. No problem with that. But He’s not making the decision here. A woman (that finite, relative creature that you mentioned above) is making it. You need to understand why she can make it. It will help solve the problem.

No decision made by man is morally legitimate, if it goes against God’s law. That’s what sin is, an action that goes against God’s law.

You’re kinda missing the point. Whether any decision is against God’s law is irrelevant because that obviously doesn’t prevent people making those decisions. And unfortunately, more often than we’d care to admit, our actions are indeed determined by our (God given) natural instincts.

So we need a solution other than ‘you shouldn’t be doing it’.

 

[BornInMarch]

that would mean its ok to stab a mental patient in a psych ward to death, so that’s obviously a false standard

By the logic described it would also be acceptable to kill someone who is asleep.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Consequently, you read what you want into any post that does that and ignore any points made.

It was my fault to assume that you don’t think abortion is morally wrong. Furthermore, this thread isn’t necessarily about the morality of abortion. So, the discussion of personhood and it’s related attributes, and how they impact Church teaching and social behavior regarding abortion is the topic of this thread.

Exactly. And I’ve spent quite some time trying to explain why women don’t think having an early abortion is a problem. And that reason is specifically tied into the concept of personhood.

Ignore that if you like. But it beats me that you could want a solution to a problem when you refuse to acknowledge the reasons for said problem.

And note that I am not asking you to agree that someone who doesn’t consider a few cells to be a person is correct in that thinking. You just need to acknowledge that fact. Then move on from there.