Personhood of the fetus

[edwest2]

Very often in our progressive society he has been been pushed off and told to push off whether he likes it or not - as a prelude to pushing off the undesired outcome of their encounter…

“progressive”? We were lied to:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Peace,
Ed

 

[WTSherman]

Is a bad idea to micro-analyze these kinds of debates. It should be very clear right or wrong to everyone. Problem here is everyone wants to debate what is inarguable. Good and evil are clearly divided. It is folly trying to reason with the Lord.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

'm having difficulty because of the following. A woman chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, which means what? She’s going to have a baby.

An abortion is entirely elective in most cases. It is not a healthcare issue in most cases.

Where is the man? He contributed his DNA to a new person. Why is he off the hook?

What do you mean when you say he is off the hook?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

OK, so it’s an arbitrary legal construct. Like any other arbitrary legal construct, it can therefore be relabeled. So the pro-abortion argument, “But a fetus isn’t a person!” is doubly bad. It has no bearing on the moral argument and isn’t even an impediment to the political one.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is a legal construct and a morally terrible one at that. I cannot think of a good reason to *legally *distinguish between human beings and persons with regards to humanity.

 

[johnnyjones]

None of the details about the formation of a child in the womb actually means much to the hard core pro-“choicers”. If “it” doesn’t “look like a baby” they toss all reason out the window and side with termination. As well, some, because of the fact that we can’t see the child through the skin, use that as an excuse to mentally blind themselves to the person growing within.

Some pro -“choice” people are enlightened by facts but most just hold to the abortion doctrine no matter what. It’s just a way to excuse everything. God save us.

 

[Perplexity]

Ok. I don’t want to get too much into this since it’s not my main point, but I can’t help observing one thing. In the examples you cited (putting down a horse or dog), there is generally a presumption against doing this without a very good reason. In both you examples, you give such reasons. The simple fact that I own the horse or dog does not give me the moral right to put it down. In fact, I expect we would say that I have an obligation to protect the animal’s well-being and that putting it down may only be done for a compelling reason (the animal is suffering and will not heal).

Now, if you are comparing the case of the fetus to this, it seems you would have to agree that one does not have the ability to abort on demand, but only for a compelling reason. So, even if you are granting less than I would like, your examples still seem to imply that there is a strong presumption against aborting a fetus except for a compelling reason.

I can understand how you’d draw this implication from the examples I raised, but the only analogy I wished to call attention to was an action’s being lamentable but not morally forbidden. I don’t think these actions need be such that their performance is only prudent or moral if they’re demanded by some compelling reason.

1. If the being that was the fetus (F) no longer exists, what happened to it? When did it cease to exist. Every major organic part of F is still in organic existence (though transformed and developed). Every part of F has developed into me. All of me has developed from F. And by the basic metaphysical principle we are using, if a being has once existed and has never ceased to exist, it exists today. This seems to be the case with the being that was the fetus.

I think the fetus became me when it developed the in principle ability to access mental states, like pain.

1. At most this would force you to choose between which is more warranted, the claim that I was once a fetus or the claim that souls do not exist. Given the strength of the argument that I was once a fetus, one might easily make that choice.

I suppose some might find substance dualism more plausible than that they weren’t fetuses.

1. But would it require even this? The problem with your objection is that it could work just as well against the claim that I am the same being I was 10 years ago, as the claim that I am the same being I was as a fetus.

I’m not sure what objection you have in mind. The whole material continuity thing was my attempt to figure out what you thought persisted throughout the changes. As I suggested, it doesn’t seem like material could perform this job since the material that composed the embryo is probably entirely different from that which composes the fetus. You called me out on this, suggesting material replaces approximately every 7 years, I’m not really in a position to defend my original claim. But, I still don’t think material could be the thing which subsists throughout change since the fetus would be composed of matter that didn’t form the embryo. So, we’d have to ad hocly select which matter persists. Even then, it’d eventually all get swapped out.

In short, it seems that if I accept your argument against the claim that I was once a fetus, I will also be forced to accept the absurd claim that I was never once a child.

I’m not sure which argument you’re talking about. I only suggested matter couldn’t be a candidate for the persisting thing since matter swaps periodically.

Now, I actually agree with some of your points about the metaphysics of personal identity. I haven’t fully decided but actually suspect that you have given a good argument for the existence of the soul (might be fun to try out on another thread). Since, I swap out all the particles in my body every 10 years, and still remain me, the existence of a soul does strike me as a good way of explaining the continuity of personal identity over time.

This is actually an adaptation of the Theseus Ship paradox made by Chisolm. He called this adaptation the Entia Successiva argument. Zimmerman uses a version of it in Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion.

It seems pretty vulnerable to parodies though:

Between time t1 and t2, the USS Enterprise will have each of its composing particles replaced by a different one. Yet, the USS Enterprise persists throughout this change. Therefore, the Enterprise is other than its composing particles: therefore the USS Enterprise is immaterial.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Between time t1 and t2, the USS Enterprise will have each of its composing particles replaced by a different one. Yet, the USS Enterprise persists throughout this change. Therefore, the Enterprise is other than its composing particles: therefore the USS Enterprise is immaterial.

I wasn’t aware the USS Enterprise had a personality. The argument danserr makes is that the immaterial element (e.g., personality) is not displaced with along with the material element (e.g., component parts).

 

[sw85]

Is a bad idea to micro-analyze these kinds of debates. It should be very clear right or wrong to everyone. Problem here is everyone wants to debate what is inarguable. Good and evil are clearly divided. It is folly trying to reason with the Lord.

This fellow wins the “Most Regrettably Accurate Post in Any Thread, Ever” award. Reminds me of something I wrote a little while ago, about the defining characteristic of modernity being the will to disbelieve in the sacred. Rational engagement with such an attitude is fruitless. Which in turn reminds me of something Mother Theresa had said once, to the effect that when a mother slaughters her own children, what is there left of civilization to defend?

 

[atheistgirl]

A thought occurs to me, if the soul is created/infused at the exact moment of conception, establishing the personhood of the zygote, what is the Christian procedure when tube containing the embryo is removed? We’re talking about a human being here from the Churches point of view, aren’t we? Is there a Christian funeral/burial?

Sarah x

Bumping as I’d like an answer if possible.

I’ve done quite a bit of searching online and I can’t find anything helpful.

Anyone know?

Sarah x

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Bumping as I’d like an answer if possible.

I’ve done quite a bit of searching online and I can’t find anything helpful.

Anyone know?

Sarah x

For your information, any baptized Catholic in good standing has a right to a funeral within the Church and according to her liturgical practice. As for miscarriages, a miscarried baby may receive a Catholic funeral, though a family is not required to formally bury a miscarried child. Aborted babies can receive a funerial if the parents intended to have the child baptized.

 

[vz71]

It seems to match the definitions I have handy.

Your definitions are wrong.
You are free to look it up yourself, I will even do some of the legwork for you.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion

Every definition specifies termination of the pregnancy as the end goal.

I speculate what you are getting at is can ectopic pregnancies result in new independent lives being formed? There are some cases when it can. In many it can’t. Many scenarios in which they can’t can be identified ahead of time.

Actually, no.
What I am getting at is that the treatment specified for your scenario is not an abortion at all.
The stated purpose of the treatment is not the death of the unborn child as is the case with an abortion.

The treatment for your hypothetical scenario is something different entirely from abortion.

Abortion can be outlawed without altering the treatment of your hypothetical woman one iota.

The idea that we must keep abortion legal in case of cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother is really a spurious argument.

 

[fhansen]

Bumping as I’d like an answer if possible.

I’ve done quite a bit of searching online and I can’t find anything helpful.

Anyone know?

Sarah x

Probably rarely done, for the same reason that still-borns don’t receive much fanfare. It’s kind of relative; even those who die in youth generally don’t have as elaborate a service as older people may have simply because fewer had a chance to know them as a person, but that in no way implies that they were *not *persons. Theologically speaking, funeral services aren’t considered to provide any salvific benefit; we’re all in the hands of God at that point.

 

[JaKael02]

A thought occurs to me, if the soul is created/infused at the exact moment of conception, establishing the personhood of the zygote, what is the Christian procedure when tube containing the embryo is removed? We’re talking about a human being here from the Churches point of view, aren’t we? Is there a Christian funeral/burial?

Sarah x

Sarah,

I’m not 100% sure I understand the conversation exchange.

But the Church would view it as losing a life, a child. It’s difficult to have a funeral for a zygote (too small). Also, funerals are a cultural phenomenon for the living. Therefore, a mother may not desire a funeral because she has yet to bond with her child. (I’m not sure if my response is on topic or not).

I do know we are discussing scenarios in which account for less than 1% of abortions.

*According to the book, “Pro-Life answers to Pro-Choice Arguments”, U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Everett Koop, stated publically that in 38 years of Pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the mother’s life. *

Sarah – do you agree with the Church on this section below?

I mentioned previously: Church sides with saving as many lives as possible. I’ll explain:

Catholic Church does allow abortion in an effort to save the Mothers “Life”, if the Mothers life is in danger and the child CANNOT survive outside of the womb (too early into pregnancy). This is because the child cannot survive outside the womb and will die regardless and it’s better to save 1 life rather than 0 lives. Later in stages of pregnancy, usually the child can survive outside womb and abortion is not allowed or necessary. In which case, the Church would recommend an effort to save both lives.

Thought? I think we agree on everything?

 

[atheistgirl]

For your information, any baptized Catholic in good standing has a right to a funeral within the Church and according to her liturgical practice. As for miscarriages, a miscarried baby may receive a Catholic funeral, though a family is not required to formally bury a miscarried child. Aborted babies can receive a funerial if the parents intended to have the child baptized.

Thank you Soldier of God.

I’m surprized there isn’t some more formal way of dealing with this in all cases for Catholic or other Christian families, since from the moment of conception the person forming has an immortal soul, from God.

I can’t see how medically disposing of the tube after a salpingectomy would be in line with the belief that the tube contains a person as fully human and with a soul, as a grown adult Catholic male.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

but that in no way implies that they were *not *persons.

I’m sure, and I’m not suggesting that, so I hope no one misunderstands.

I just thought, given the diginity of the human person, from the moment of conception, right through to death at old age, there would be some kind of more formal church process to deal with this.

I’m surprized there isn’t, considering the great emphasis placed on the embryo and fetus, but please don’t think I think that implies the Church thinks of them as ‘‘not’’ persons. I don’t.

Sarah x

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’m surprized there isn’t some more formal way of dealing with this in all cases for Catholic or other Christian families, since from the moment of conception the person forming has an immortal soul, from God.

I’m not sure what you mean by “more” formal. The liturgical process and funeral rites are the same for all regardless of the circumstance. If you mean why, in a miscarriage for instance, a couple isn’t required to formally bury a child because, in most cases, there are no appreciable remains to bury. However, the funeral rite and the Mass is performed. That is the essence of Catholic respect.

I can’t see how medically disposing of the tube after a salpingectomy would be in line with the belief that the tube contains a person as fully human and with a soul, as a grown adult Catholic male.

As per Catholic guidelines, a different way of laying to rest in no way someone at an earlier point of gestation is less than a person or less deserving of respect. Parents with more developed remains, however, are encouraged to bury their children.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m not sure what you mean by “more” formal. The liturgical process and funeral rites are the same for all regardless of the circumstance. If you mean why, in a miscarriage for instance, a couple isn’t required to formally bury a child because there may not be appreciable remains to bury.

I appreciate that, but what you’re saying is the Church, the Priest, will meet with the parents and perform the liturgical ceremony regardless of the condition?

That’s good, if that’s the case.

I’ve learned something.

Sarah x

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Your definitions are wrong.
You are free to look it up yourself, I will even do some of the legwork for you.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion

I actually did look it up. Interestingly enough the same company owns both one of the online dictionary that I used and the one that you have used.

Every definition specifies termination of the pregnancy as the end goal.

The lady that experienced the scenario had told me that the procedure she had was considered a “therapeutic abortion.” I checked a few medical dictionaries online (here’s one)

Therapeutic abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently. Abortion has been a legal procedure in the United States since 1973. An abortion may be performed whenever there is some compelling reason to end a pregnancy.

The treatment for your hypothetical scenario is something different entirely from abortion.

Well, it’s not completely hypothetical since I have an instance of a person that was in the scenario and shared some of the specifics of her situation (with her permission).

Abortion can be outlawed without altering the treatment of your hypothetical woman one iota.

Non-Therapeutic abortion could possibly be outlawed. Though I’m not sure where one would draw the line (rhetorically, to what degree of certainty must there be that the pregnancy would result in harm before a therapeutic abortion would be permitted?). That’s another discussion all together.

At any rate my only goal here was to answer the question in post #62 and explain why I thought “murder” was an inappropriate word for the scenario. I hope I’ve sufficiently done that with the information and view that I’ve shared. I’ll let you decide for yourself whether or not these other references are using the word “abortion” in proper context.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I appreciate that, but what you’re saying is the Church, the Priest, will meet with the parents and perform the liturgical ceremony regardless of the condition?

That’s good, if that’s the case.

I’ve learned something.

Sarah x

Yes, the funeral rites *should *be always conducted. Sadly, not everyone choses to do so.

 

[Neildown]

How can you not be a person if you are a human?

Trying to argue that a “person” and a “human” are two different things (in the context of this debate) is a very politically-correct way of scooting around the fact that the life of the human individual begins at conception. Completely regardless of the fact that the unborn child is dependent upon the mother, it is the development of an individual. Even if some of the posters here are living in their parent’s basement, the fact that they are dependent upon their parents doesn’t take away their individuality.

Going by the premise of the pro-choicers in the initial poster’s question though, such people would not be individuals. To make a more potent point though, lets not talk about people in their parent’s basement, but people with disabilities, physical or mental, who are completely dependent upon others for survival. Stephen Hawking is incapable of doing anything for himself - he needs machines and other people to keep himself going. He’s apparently still an individual though. One might say, “Well, he’s already been born,” or “his brain and heart can function independently, so that doesn’t count,” but a human is a human is a human. Why should total dependence upon the mother necessitate the nonexistence of an actual “individual” in an unborn child if you can still be dependent and an individual at the same time on any other level? It’s simply nitpicking at facts and concept for the purpose of justifying the action.