Persuasive teachings on when human life begins

[Dale_M]

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?

I think your caution is a good one. It is wise to learn the horrible lessons of history.

But Christianity was used to justify the chattel slavery of the American South and Christianity was used to justify the oppression and even the extermination of the native peoples of America. This doesn’t mean that Christianity is irredeemable. I think the same is true of the concept of personhood. It is true that ideas can be abused, but past abuse doesn’t mean inherent abuse.

 

[Ender]

But Christianity was used to justify the chattel slavery of the American South and Christianity was used to justify the oppression and even the extermination of the native peoples of America. This doesn’t mean that Christianity is irredeemable. I think the same is true of the concept of personhood. It is true that ideas can be abused, but past abuse doesn’t mean inherent abuse.

Your comparison is inapt. That some Christians distorted the teaching of their faith to support evil says something about them, not about Christianity. Many of them do the same thing today in support of abortion; this is an indictment of individuals, not the faith they profess. Christians who used their faith to support slavery used something inherently good for an evil purpose (which they nonetheless believed to be good), you are trying to use something inherently evil for what you believe to be good (which is nonetheless evil).

The point about defining a person as a thing distinct from a human being is that it is inherently evil to do so. How do you justify arbitrarily defining some human beings as not fully human, not worthy of the protection of the law, and as disposable as animals?

Ender

 

[almeras]

i hope you don’t mind if i hijack you argument, that one is pretty
good

Warpspeedpetey,

I don’t mind at all. I know I read these posts looking for good material for the arguement.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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

Hi,

The thread title talks about when human life begins, but the question he’s dealing with is slightly different, when does personhood begin. The first step would be to define the terms, I would say.

Catholics don’t necessarily believe that personhood begins at conception. Life begins at conception, thats a biological fact, but not really the subject of the question.

Here’s the dictionary definition for personhood:

“the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings”

A zygote or fetus is an individual, and it has some human characteristics, but it does not have feelings. The bishops didn’t support that measure in Colorado because it is so problematic. Trying to prove that a fertilized egg is a person might subject the pro-life movement to ridicule. While a fertilized egg is biologically alive, and a human being, it doesn’t really have the most of the characteristics that we think of when we think of a person.

 

[Dale_M]

Your comparison is inapt. That some Christians distorted the teaching of their faith to support evil says something about them, not about Christianity.

The same could be said about the the individuals who abused the concept of personhood.

The point about defining a person as a thing distinct from a human being is that it is inherently evil to do so.

But you see, the concept of personhood is directly tied to human being. It concerns the distinction between human tissue and being human. And this is the heart of the abortion debate.

How do you justify arbitrarily defining some human beings as not fully human, not worthy of the protection of the law, and as disposable as animals?

We can’t use arbitrary criteria. We have to decide when the body is an empty shell, and when it is a human being. One possible criteria would be the presence of brain waves. But deciding upon such criteria has to reached with a good deal of societal discussion - certainly it shouldn’t be up to every individual to decide, as currently exists in the US.