Persuasive teachings on when human life begins

  • Thread starter Thread starter BOBKAT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BOBKAT

Guest
Hello,

Can someone help me. I am taking an English comp class and I am on the argue/persuade essay, and while I was thinking of whether to argue or persuade one of my classmates decided to write his about a bill in Colorado about when personhood begins. This person thought it was very sad that so many people thought that personhood began at conception that he wants to write his essay arguing that it doesn’t. Well he helped me to decide, I now want to write my on persuading that it does begin at conception, and now I was wondering if someone here could direct me to some writings that may be helpful. I was just wondering tonight and even prayed about it, if I was doing enough for the culture of lfe, well I guess God gave me some work to do, but I would love any help anyone could give. I have some material, but I know this place is full of very wonderful Catholics who know this subject inside and out. Help me fight the good fight.

Thanks and God Bless
Kathleen
 
well, obviously google the subject.

but here are a few things i might google
  1. when dna forms, in the first cell thats a distinct person, dna is the legal way to identify someone with high mathematical certainty,
  2. people are recognized as seperate by their dna so the baby and the mother are each distinct at the moment the dna fuses
  3. that means the child has a legally identifiable identity
4 everybody else with unique dna has the right to life why not him

5 you will have to preempt his likely arguments i.e

survivablity of the fetus

you say that medical science is able to save them younger and younger and that viability is not a logical reason to abort

womans body issue

you say no its not, it has its own dna and therefore legal identity

im not an expert but there are very good arguments against abortion in general

as a matter of fact it is almost impossible to defend but im waiting to unleash that on the right thread, goodluck
 
Thanks, I did some googleing and came up with some really good things, I come here because I find some great information and I want to make sure I cover everything, I am doing the persuading in this essay.

God Bless
Kathleen
 
Don’t be fooled however. Pro-abortionists think everything stands or falls on when life begins. It really doesn’t because their best argument boils down to agnosticism on the question: meaning we ultimately don’t know. That cedes the argument to pro-life based on the Deerhunter principle–it is immoral to fire into rustling bushes without knowing what you are shooting.

Then again if you want to be pert: Even a drunk in the sleaziest bar bathroom who sticks quarters in the condom machine knows when life begins.
 
Here are some references:

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Remember, once a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm, ONLY a human can form. That embryo (or more specifically, that zygote) cannot become any other animal nor can it become either the mother or the father. It is a distinct, individual human.

Peace

Tim
 
BOBKAT said:
Hello,

Can someone help me. I am taking an English comp class and I am on the argue/persuade essay, and while I was thinking of whether to argue or persuade one of my classmates decided to write his about a bill in Colorado about when personhood begins. This person thought it was very sad that so many people thought that personhood began at conception that he wants to write his essay arguing that it doesn’t. Well he helped me to decide, I now want to write my on persuading that it does begin at conception, and now I was wondering if someone here could direct me to some writings that may be helpful. I was just wondering tonight and even prayed about it, if I was doing enough for the culture of lfe, well I guess God gave me some work to do, but I would love any help anyone could give. I have some material, but I know this place is full of very wonderful Catholics who know this subject inside and out. Help me fight the good fight.

Thanks and God Bless
Kathleen
Click to expand...
Life begins at conception.
 
Thank you,

Anyhow one more thing, would all this appy to the personhood of a fertilized egg, my thoughts would be since we are given a soul at conception our personhood does exsist at that moment, also Pslam 23 tells me of our personhood;however, this person may not believe in God so what is the argument for natural law that this person exsist.

Again thanks I am using this as a means of mental stimulation I don’t want to mess this one up.

God Bless
Kathleen
 
How can one argue that life begins at a time other than conception?

When human life starts is an absolute, so you can’t use viability because viability changes based on the technology. And, quite frankly, there are days I think my 18 year old isn’t viable outside the house. 🙂

So, if not viability, how about birth? That doesn’t work, because the day before birth, we know, the baby is essentially the same as the day of birth.

So, not viablity, not birth, how about first movement detected? Well, that’s entirely subjective, so that can’t be right.

There is no other defensible position other than when the sperm and egg come together and create the new, uique DNA of a human being.
 
BOBKAT said:
Thank you,

Anyhow one more thing, would all this appy to the personhood of a fertilized egg, my thoughts would be since we are given a soul at conception our personhood does exsist at that moment, also Pslam 23 tells me of our personhood;however, this person may not believe in God so what is the argument for natural law that this person exsist.

Again thanks I am using this as a means of mental stimulation I don’t want to mess this one up.

God Bless
Kathleen
Click to expand...
Belief in God isn’t required. One can be a complete athiest and, unless they absolutely reject science, understand that a human being exists at conception. The links I gave you earlier refer to several medical books. They don’t deal with the soul or any other theological concept. Rather, they deal with the science of embryology.

Peace

Tim
 
Bobkat,

Good luck with the essay. I believe the DNA arguement is your strongest arguement based on technology. One arguement I have made with pro abortion people that has quieted them didn’t have to do with the moment of conception. I ask them if they came up to an accident scene and found someone laying on the ground, how would they tell if they are alive or dead? They usually say check their pulse. So if it is fair to say a person is dead if their heart isn’t beating, then it is fair to say they are alive if their heart is beating. The heartbeat can be heard as early as 4 weeks. I know this isn’t at conception, but it lays the groundwork to show it is a life earlier then abortionists will admit. Once again good luck, and if you don’t mind please let us know how it goes. I would be interested in reading your essay.
 
That life begins at conception is no less a scientific fact than that the earth moves around the sun. This question is simply not debated among scientists.

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

What you are dealing with is not a question of when life begins but of when personhood begins. Since personhood is a political rather than a scientific term it has no specific meaning: it means whatever one wants it to.

You might point out other examples of when full “personhood” was denied to people: such as slavery and the Constitutional definition that a slave only counted as three-fifths of a free person. You can also investigate the Nuremburg Laws that Germany passed defining Jews as a separate race and therefore not entitled to civil protection.

You can find innumerable examples of one people persecuting another and underlying it all is the assumption that “you” are not like “us” and therefore maltreatment of you is justified. “Personhood” is a dodge used by people to excuse the exploitation of another human being.

Ender
 
almeras said:
Bobkat,

Good luck with the essay. I believe the DNA arguement is your strongest arguement based on technology. One arguement I have made with pro abortion people that has quieted them didn’t have to do with the moment of conception. I ask them if they came up to an accident scene and found someone laying on the ground, how would they tell if they are alive or dead? They usually say check their pulse. So if it is fair to say a person is dead if their heart isn’t beating, then it is fair to say they are alive if their heart is beating. The heartbeat can be heard as early as 4 weeks. I know this isn’t at conception, but it lays the groundwork to show it is a life earlier then abortionists will admit. Once again good luck, and if you don’t mind please let us know how it goes. I would be interested in reading your essay.
Click to expand...
i hope you don’t mind if i hijack you argument, that one is pretty
good
 
Ender said:
That life begins at conception is no less a scientific fact than that the earth moves around the sun. This question is simply not debated among scientists.
Click to expand...
And all authorities in the scientific community who attempt to even maintain some semblence of credibility have long since abandoned the argument that a completely separate, and unique individual human being does not exist from the moment of conception.
What you are dealing with is not a question of when life begins but of when personhood begins. Since personhood is a political rather than a scientific term it has no specific meaning: it means whatever one wants it to.
Click to expand...
Further personhood is a philosophical idea. Those who reject the idea of a rational soul (both a philosophical and theological principle) have no basis to introduce the argument of personhood into their justifications for abortion. It basically amounts to, as you point out, a person is only who we say is a person if it suits our corrupted desires. Obviously there must exist an absolute and unchangeable definition.
 
mapleoak said:
Further personhood is a philosophical idea. Those who reject the idea of a rational soul (both a philosophical and theological principle) have no basis to introduce the argument of personhood into their justifications for abortion. It basically amounts to, as you point out, a person is only who we say is a person if it suits our corrupted desires. Obviously there must exist an absolute and unchangeable definition.
Click to expand...
I agree that the concept of personhood is a philosophical idea, not just a political idea. And I think pro-choice advocates see personhood as the crucial matter. When life begins isn’t an issue for them. The question for pro-choice advocates is: at what stage of development does the fetus become a person?

I’m not sure about your rational soul argument. Just because someone doesn’t accept that concept doesn’t mean he or she believes we are ruled by corrupted desires.

An absolute and unchangeable definition… I think that would be the goal. Some would say a fetus becomes a person at viability, but that measurement changes with medical advances and availability of medical care. Others would say that personhood begins when measureable brain waves occur, which would be around 20-22 weeks. But it is possible that that too could change.

Personhood is a sticky issue. But I think it will be the means by which restrictions to abortion come about. I don’t think a total ban on abortion is likely in the US - even the voters of South Dakota rejected that, twice, despite exceptions being made for rape and medical endangerment of the potential mother.
Ender said:
You might point out other examples of when full “personhood” was denied to people: such as slavery and the Constitutional definition that a slave only counted as three-fifths of a free person. You can also investigate the Nuremburg Laws that Germany passed defining Jews as a separate race and therefore not entitled to civil protection.
Click to expand...
Your point is a good one - the idea of personhood has been abused. We need to tread carefully.
 
Dale_M said:
I agree that the concept of personhood is a philosophical idea, not just a political idea.
Click to expand...
Being a concept of subjective opinion, if the theological aspect of personhood is rejected, it has no place as a justification of killing the unborn. This would mean anyone whom I say is not a person can therefore be killed. To claim something (personhood) exists beyond the strictly biological process constituting the animation of a human being while at the same rejecting anything other than that biological process is a contradiction.
And I think pro-choice advocates see personhood as the crucial matter.
Click to expand...
Pro-abortion advocates deny human beings personhood (philosophically) relative to their situation. Since they view these other human beings as an inconvenience to them, they simply say they are not persons and therefore justify their deaths.
When life begins isn’t an issue for them. The question for pro-choice advocates is: at what stage of development does the fetus become a person?
Click to expand...
Whenever they decide to call them a person. The fact of the matter is, a murderer could care less whether the human being he is killing is a person or not. The intent is to end life.
I’m not sure about your rational soul argument. Just because someone doesn’t accept that concept doesn’t mean he or she believes we are ruled by corrupted desires.
Click to expand...
No, as I just pointed out, it indicates a contradiction.
An absolute and unchangeable definition… I think that would be the goal.
Click to expand...
And there must be an absolute, correct?
Some would say a fetus becomes a person at viability, but that measurement changes with medical advances and availability of medical care.
Click to expand...
Therefore this is a relative, not an absolute. So we cannot blindly kill innocent human being on the relative ‘hunch’ that it might not be a person.
 
mapleoak said:
Being a concept of subjective opinion, if the theological aspect of personhood is rejected, it has no place as a justification of killing the unborn. This would mean anyone whom I say is not a person can therefore be killed.
Click to expand...
Which is why, as a society, we need to come up with an agreed definition and not leave it up to the individual.
To claim something (personhood) exists beyond the strictly biological process constituting the animation of a human being while at the same rejecting anything other than that biological process is a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Yet in the examples I gave, biological markers of development would be used.
Pro-abortion advocates deny human beings personhood (philosophically) relative to their situation. Since they view these other human beings as an inconvenience to them, they simply say they are not persons and therefore justify their deaths.
Click to expand...
Which is why we should, as a society, come up with an agreed upon definition of when personhood begins, and not leave it up to the individual.
And there must be an absolute, correct?
Click to expand...
The absolute is that we should not be killing persons. Determining whether we would be killing a person with whom we cannot communicate will involve necessarily limited human means - biological measurements. A safety margin would be a good idea if biological measurements were indeed the standard by which personhood is determined.
Therefore this is a relative, not an absolute. So we cannot blindly kill innocent human being on the relative ‘hunch’ that it might not be a person.
Click to expand...
I think your point is a good one, but I am not convinced that the safety margin needs to be so large as to say that a zygote is a person.
 
Dale_M said:
Which is why we should, as a society, come up with an agreed upon definition of when personhood begins, and not leave it up to the individual.
Click to expand...
“Personhood” is an absolutely meaningless term; it is like an empty glass into which anything at all can be poured. It has no specific meaning that can be discovered; whatever it means is entirely subjective. There are no scientific tests that can define it and it is a dangerous fiction to believe that an entire class of humans should be defined as less than human by fiat.
The absolute is that we should not be killing persons.
Click to expand...
Morally you cannot simply vote on who is or is not a person. Have we forgotten already that this is precisely what the Germans did to the Jews? By your definition how can we say that killing Jews was wrong … didn’t the Germans define them as non-persons? How is that significantly different than what you propose to do with the unborn?

There is an article on just this topic at InsideCatholic.

insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4881&Itemid=48

Ender
 
Dale_M said:
Which is why, as a society, we need to come up with an agreed definition and not leave it up to the individual.
Click to expand...
And then make up a relative/absolute?
Yet in the examples I gave, biological markers of development would be used.
Click to expand...
Which, still are subjective.
olute is that we should not be killing persons.
Click to expand...
An absolute cannot be based on a subjective definition (person being subjective). That would mean it is not absolute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top