Philosopy Thread~ Abortion

[FightingFat]

I have found the fundamental Catholic/ Thomist philosophical issues at the root of pro-life issues for us most useful when I find myself in an argument about abortion. I wonder if I shared what had been useful to me, others might like to add there own thoughts?

Starting from the establishment of a position that states that there are two primary principles of being; essence and existence (or whatness and thatness). Moving from being to existence upon identification of being leads to a definition of existence but in a particular (limited) way. Existence is finite; it has characteristics. Everything has essence (whatness) and defining characteristics (thatness). A living essence has a nature it is born with and that develops. Nature is therefore fixed and dynamic, it can be fulfilled-- it has a destiny! A things potency is according to it’s essence which exists in a unique way. Existence is a particular manifestation of this essence, it has it’s own personal historicity.

The Church maintains the idea of human nature as fixed and dynamic. A fertilized egg has an essence, a nature (as does everything) what is its nature? Of course, the answer must be human! yes, the physical manifestations of that person may change, the nature will not, and action follows being (when you know what something is, you know how you should behave towards it). Can you seperate the appearance of an embryo from the substance of its’ being??

So I ask you; is a fertilized egg a potential human being? OR A HUMAN BEING WITH POTENTIAL???

 

[Brain]

as soon as it is fertilized, it is a person with potential.

 

[Teflon93]

I have found the fundamental Catholic/ Thomist philosophical issues at the root of pro-life issues for us most useful when I find myself in an argument about abortion. I wonder if I shared what had been useful to me, others might like to add there own thoughts?

Starting from the establishment of a position that states that there are two primary principles of being; essence and existence (or whatness and thatness). Moving from being to existence upon identification of being leads to a definition of existence but in a particular (limited) way. Existence is finite; it has characteristics. Everything has essence (whatness) and defining characteristics (thatness). A living essence has a nature it is born with and that develops. Nature is therefore fixed and dynamic, it can be fulfilled-- it has a destiny! A things potency is according to it’s essence which exists in a unique way. Existence is a particular manifestation of this essence, it has it’s own personal historicity.

The Church maintains the idea of human nature as fixed and dynamic. A fertilized egg has an essence, a nature (as does everything) what is its nature? Of course, the answer must be human! yes, the physical manifestations of that person may change, the nature will not, and action follows being (when you know what something is, you know how you should behave towards it). Can you seperate the appearance of an embryo from the substance of its’ being??

So I ask you; is a fertilized egg a potential human being? OR A HUMAN BEING WITH POTENTIAL???

Clearly human—has everything intrinsic we consider human, but at the earliest stage of individual development.

I used to have pro-abortion types argue with me that a fetus wasn’t human because it was utterly dependent upon another human, until I asked them what would happen to a six-month-old child without other humans. Since they knew where that was going, they elected to drop it before I could even ask them if elderly Alzheimer’s patients stopped being human when they reached a similar level of dependency upon others.

 

[FightingFat]

What about the issue of consciousness? Some pro abortionists argue that a person is consciusness not matter. Where we might argue that a being is a compound of elements animate by a soul.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Well, ask them if they cease being human when they fall asleep-i.e. unconcious

 

[Greg27]

If we are speaking in Thomistic terms, it is helpful to consider the notion that the soul is the form of the body; God wills into creation at conception (if we assume Thomism is true) a full human being which is a harmony of body and soul. It could then be argued it is morally wrong to abort the child because after conception it is not simply unformed matter without form or with only potential form, but is an integral human being that is growing and developing through time, as willed and made by God into existence, from potentiality into actuality.

 

[Em_in_FL]

As soon as an egg is fertilized it becomes a new human being.
Let’s keep things rather scientific…
What scientifically “defines” a human being? It’s genetic code… DNA. You can look at a creature’s DNA and declare whether it’s a plant or animal or fungus… and you can determine it’s exact species.

Now, once you’ve established that we’re looking at human DNA… the question is the uniqueness of that DNA (since each unique human being has a unique set of human DNA).
The INSTANT an egg and sperm have united, a new and unique set of human DNA has formed. It has never existed before and it is totally unique.
At that exact moment, a scientifically unique “human being” has formed.

At no time in your life does your unique DNA change. You can age from infancy to adulthood and it never changes.
So to answer your question… a fertilized egg is a human being with potential.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What about the issue of consciousness? Some pro abortionists argue that a person is consciusness not matter. Where we might argue that a being is a compound of elements animate by a soul.

Everyone is unconscious for about eight hours a day. Do they cease to be persons when they go to sleep?

 

[catholicbuckeye]

As soon as an egg is fertilized it becomes a new human being.
Let’s keep things rather scientific…
What scientifically “defines” a human being? It’s genetic code… DNA. You can look at a creature’s DNA and declare whether it’s a plant or animal or fungus… and you can determine it’s exact species.

Now, once you’ve established that we’re looking at human DNA… the question is the uniqueness of that DNA (since each unique human being has a unique set of human DNA).
The INSTANT an egg and sperm have united, a new and unique set of human DNA has formed. It has never existed before and it is totally unique.
At that exact moment, a scientifically unique “human being” has formed.

At no time in your life does your unique DNA change. You can age from infancy to adulthood and it never changes.
So to answer your question… a fertilized egg is a human being with potential.

It is often said that it is not so much that atheists deny the existence of God, as it is that they choose not to acknowledge Him. In other words, they would rather be able to do as they please when they please without having to live according to the wishes of a higher power. I wonder if the point with “Pro-Choice” people isn’t that they deny the unborn child is a human being or not (I know they still argue it) but they just choose not to acknowledge that it is, so they can continue to have abortion.

The thought crossed my mind yesterday - imagine there was an endangered animal at a zoo, one of 4 left on the planet; the animal becomes pregnant - it is the lone hope for the continued existence of the species. Then, one morning it is reported that the zoo keeper decided to abort the unborn animal, claiming that it would have had a lousy life in a zoo w/o other animals of the same species, whatever - and that he felt abortion was the best for the creature - no animal would have wanted to live the life that animal was destined to. The outrage that would be expressed - rightfully so - by everybody - including Pro-Choice people - would be incredible! Hypothetical, true, but it is almost a given that Pro-Choice people would be outraged that this endangered species lost an unborn animal. But any human being is worth more than any animal, endangered or flourishing! Sometimes I wonder if Pro-Choice people have become “ok” with the fact that abortion is murder of a human being but don’t want to give it up as their lifestyles may have to change…

 

[JimO]

What about the issue of consciousness? Some pro abortionists argue that a person is consciusness not matter. Where we might argue that a being is a compound of elements animate by a soul.

We are created when God infuses a soul into the biological matter we call our body. It is completely arbitrary on our part that we have decided what the size, shape, or composition of our “body” should be before we are willing to acknowledge it as capable of “containing” our soul. The soul is not limited by space or time, thus, a soul can be as complete in a newly fertilized egg as it can in a fully-formed body. We use our body to communicate with the animated world, but our soul continues to “be” whether we are awake, asleep, in a coma, brain damaged and unable to communicate, etc. Thus, consciousness isn’t a good measure because we cannot determine when it is present precisely because it is when the soul is united with the body.

Also, the DNA argument isn’t real strong because the presence of our DNA doesn’t indicate the presence of our soul. Our DNA is present in every part of our body, including dead skin, parts removed during surgery, etc. It’s also present after we die. Just my random thoughts…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Also, the DNA argument isn’t real strong because the presence of our DNA doesn’t indicate the presence of our soul. Our DNA is present in every part of our body, including dead skin, parts removed during surgery, etc. It’s also present after we die. Just my random thoughts…

The DNA indicates the presense of the human being. When the embryo manifests human DNA, it is human – no doubt about it. And it is entire, a being in every sense of the word.

 

[JimO]

The DNA indicates the presense of the human being. When the embryo manifests human DNA, it is human – no doubt about it. And it is entire, a being in every sense of the word.

True, but it doesn’t indicate the presence of a soul. Those who argue that the embryo isn’t a person (with a soul) until some arbitrary point during the pregnancy or at birth can prove that human DNA can be present without the presence of the soul and will use this to justify their belief. My point is that through faith we believe that God creates a person at the point of fertilization and infuses the embryo with a soul. Thus, the presence of DNA does indicate that this has happened, but DNA is not direct evidence that the soul is present.

 

[vern_humphrey]

True, but it doesn’t indicate the presence of a soul.

What evidence do you have that the body pre-exists the soul?

Those who argue that the embryo isn’t a person (with a soul) until some arbitrary point during the pregnancy or at birth can prove that human DNA can be present without the presence of the soul

No, they can’t. They may say your soul isn’t in your finger, but they can’t prove you don’t have a soul in your entire being.

Similarly, the embryo, no matter how small, is entire in itself. And they can’t prove it isn’t a human being.

My point is that through faith we believe that God creates a person at the point of fertilization and infuses the embryo with a soul. Thus, the presence of DNA does indicate that this has happened, but DNA is not direct evidence that the soul is present.

That’s trying to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare. The Church tells us the infant is a human being from the moment of conception. If you use the “soul” argument, you must accept that.

If you discount faith and rely on science, science tells us the embryo is a living human being from the moment of conception.

 

[JimO]

What evidence do you have that the body pre-exists the soul?

You have misunderstood what I am saying. I never said the body pre-exists the soul. I stated that our DNA can exist in the absence of the soul, such as in a piece of detached skin, or in a dead body. The presence of DNA does not, in itself, prove anything about the existence of the human person. The existence of the soul is a matter of faith.

No, they can’t. They may say your soul isn’t in your finger, but they can’t prove you don’t have a soul in your entire being.

Again, you missed my point. You are right, they can’t prove that the soul is not present, but they can prove that your DNA is present in a severed finger (which doesn’t “contain” the soul), so they will argue that a fertilized embryo can exist without a soul. Obviously, I’m not agreeing with this position and I’m not trying to defend its merits. I’m simply stating the arguments I’ve heard.

Similarly, the embryo, no matter how small, is entire in itself. And they can’t prove it isn’t a human being.

This is the very point I made in my first post.

That’s trying to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare. The Church tells us the infant is a human being from the moment of conception. If you use the “soul” argument, you must accept that.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but you misunderstood my point. I do believe that God creates and infuses the soul from the moment of conception. My point is that although the presence of DNA in a newly fertilized egg is evidence that fertilization has taken place and that we believe God has, at the moment of conception, created a new soul, using the presence of DNA as a scientific argument that a soul is present won’t carry the day with an atheistic scientist.

If you discount faith and rely on science, science tells us the embryo is a living human being from the moment of conception.

I never said it doesn’t.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have misunderstood what I am saying. I never said the body pre-exists the soul. I stated that our DNA can exist in the absence of the soul, such as in a piece of detached skin, or in a dead body. The presence of DNA does not, in itself, prove anything about the existence of the human person. The existence of the soul is a matter of faith.

It is the existance of the whole of the human being that is at issue – no one claims dandruff is alive.

Again, you missed my point. You are right, they can’t prove that the soul is not present, but they can prove that your DNA is present in a severed finger (which doesn’t “contain” the soul), so they will argue that a fertilized embryo can exist without a soul. Obviously, I’m not agreeing with this position and I’m not trying to defend its merits. I’m simply stating the arguments I’ve heard.

The answer is, the embryo is whole and complete in itself – the finger is merely part of a body.

In addition, of course, if they want to introduce the soul into the argument, they must willy-nilly accept a theological argument – and they can’t win a theological argument.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but you misunderstood my point. I do believe that God creates and infuses the soul from the moment of conception. My point is that although the presence of DNA in a newly fertilized egg is evidence that fertilization has taken place and that we believe God has, at the moment of conception, created a new soul, using the presence of DNA as a scientific argument that a soul is present won’t carry the day with an atheistic scientist.

First of all, if the atheistic proponent of abortion introduces the concept of soul into the argument, he loses at that point.

Secondly, if he chooses to argue science, we can prove the embryo is a living human being:

1. It is living – if it weren’t, there would be no argument.
2. It is human – it has human DNA.
3. It is a being – it has is own DNA.

The atheistic proponent of abortion cannot advance a stronger argument to prove that he, himself, is a living human being. What is true of him is true of the embryo.

 

[JimO]

It is the existance of the whole of the human being that is at issue – no one claims dandruff is alive.

Vern, you seem to be arguing with a third party because we appear to be talking past one another.

My one point addressed to your earliest post directed at me is that the presence of DNA in and of itself is, apart from faith, is insufficient evidence that a human being (including the soul) is present. However, since this isn’t a very profound idea, I will concede the argument and sign off. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you seem to be arguing with a third party because we appear to be talking past one another.

Why worry about some bogus pro-abortion argument, other than to show how to refute it?

My one point addressed to your earliest post directed at me is that the presence of DNA in and of itself is, apart from faith, is insufficient evidence that a human being (including the soul) is present. However, since this isn’t a very profound idea, I will concede the argument and sign off. Sorry for the confusion.

The presence of a complete being with human DNA is evidence of a human being. If that human being is living, it is murder to kill it without due process of law.

 

[edwest2]

Everyone reading this began as an embryo. The embryo has only one intrinsic identity - it is human.

Regards,
Ed

 

[FightingFat]

Everyone is unconscious for about eight hours a day. Do they cease to be persons when they go to sleep?

That’s a different definition of consciousness. What I was referring to was the growth of consciousness, our growth of perception. Buddhists argue that humanity is not physical but a manifestation of consciousness.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s a different definition of consciousness.
How is it different?
FightingFat;2394658:

What I was referring to was the growth of consciousness, our growth of perception.

Everyone agrees that the embryo grows (that’s part of the proof that it’s living.) How does the fact that it is a growing living human being somehow prove that it’s not a growing living human being?

Buddhists argue that humanity is not physical but a manifestation of consciousness.

They also argue about the sound of one hand clapping.