Philosopy Thread~ Abortion

[FightingFat]

OK it looks like it’s gonna be my job to play devils advocate here

How is it different?

There is an issue of *time *here that is relevant. Toddlers are assumed as being fully conscious beings, or fully “assembled” as it were - blastocysts and early stage foetuses are not regarded as such.

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?

A cancer grows. The difference is in the essence- the natus

They also argue about the sound of one hand clapping.

You know St. Thomas was well known for having tremendous respect for all the thinkers that went before him. The Enlightenment scientists mocked the thoughts of others as simplistic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is an issue of *time *here that is relevant.

Prove that time is relevant

Toddlers are assumed as being fully conscious beings, or fully “assembled” as it were - blastocysts and early stage foetuses are not regarded as such.

As we say in the Infantry, “assume” is spelled “*** U Me.” If you are going to kill a living human being, you need more than an assumption.

A cancer grows. The difference is in the essence- the natus

And so does a toenail grow – but neither a toenail nor a cancer is a complete being.

You know St. Thomas was well known for having tremendous respect for all the thinkers that went before him. The Enlightenment scientists mocked the thoughts of others as simplistic.

And you consider St Thomas to be ideolgically descended from Buddists?

 

[JimO]

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

Because, this is a philosophy thread about abortion and I get this argument all the time. I was looking for some thoughtful discussion to help me in future debates, not an argument with a fellow pro-lifer, that’s why. And, frankly, your deduction below doesn’t work -
vern humphrey:

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.

What about identical twins - they have identical DNA? Does that mean they are a single being - no. My point, once again, goes back to your original post addressed me -
vern humphrey:

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.

A “human being” is a living person with a body and a soul. A dead body is not a human being. Parts of a human body containing unique DNA is not a human being. DNA alone does not make a human being. Because a human being is a person who has both body and soul, you cannot prove scientifically that an embryo is a person. You can deduce it philosophically, but you cannot “prove” it scientifically.

 

[JimO]

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

Because, this is a philosophy thread about abortion and I get this argument all the time. I was looking for some thoughtful discussion to help me in future debates, not an argument with a fellow pro-lifer, that’s why. And, frankly, your deduction below doesn’t work -
vern humphrey:

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.

What about identical twins - they have identical DNA? Does that mean they are a single being - no. My point, once again, goes back to your original post addressed me -
vern humphrey:

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.

A “human being” is a living person with a body and a soul. A dead body is not a human being. Parts of a human body containing unique DNA is not a human being. DNA alone does not make a human being. Because a human being is a person who has both body and soul, you cannot prove scientifically that an embryo is a person. You can deduce it philosophically, but you cannot “prove” it scientifically.

We can keep this up if you want…

 

[JimO]

vern humphrey:

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

*Because, this is a philosophy thread about abortion and I get this argument all the time. I was looking for some thoughtful discussion to help me in future debates, not an argument with a fellow pro-lifer, that’s why. And, frankly, your deduction below doesn’t work -

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.

What about identical twins - they have identical DNA? Does that mean they are a single being - no. My point, once again, goes back to your original post addressed me -

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.

A “human being” is a living person with a body and a soul. A dead body is not a human being. Parts of a human body containing unique DNA is not a human being. DNA alone does not make a human being. Because a human being is a person who has both body and soul, you cannot prove scientifically that an embryo is a person. You can deduce it philosophically, but you cannot “prove” it scientifically.

We can keep this up if you want to…

 

[vern_humphrey]

What about identical twins - they have identical DNA? Does that mean they are a single being - no. My point, once again, goes back to your original post addressed me -

Are you arguing that indentical twins aren’t human beings? That they aren’t entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us?

The embryo has its own DNA – that is, not the mother’s DNA. Hence it is not part of her body – as some pro-abortinists claim. The fact that she may have two chidren with the same DNA doesn not refute that fact.

A “human being” is a living person with a body and a soul.

And if the soul is part of the argument, the pro-abortionist has willy-nilly lost the debate.

A dead body is not a human being.

A dead body is not a living human being.

Parts of a human body containing unique DNA is not a human being.

No one claoims that your finger is a separate human being.

DNA alone does not make a human being. Because a human being is a person who has both body and soul, you cannot prove scientifically that an embryo is a person.

Wup! You just lost it!

When did the **soul **become the province of science? What branch of science studies souls?

You can deduce it philosophically, but you cannot “prove” it scientifically.

Why would I need to prove it “scientifically?” Why would I even want to discuss it in this context.

Scientifically, I can prove the embryo is living. I can prove it is human. I can prove it is a being with its own DNA.

Ergo, it is a living human being.

 

[JimO]

Are you arguing that indentical twins aren’t human beings? That they aren’t entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us?

Obviously, no. In fact, I have identical twin sons and they are very much their own persons. You really do seem to miss the point I’m trying to make, though. Perhaps I’m being unclear. If I’m unclear, then please say so, but please don’t put words in my mouth (or in my posts). If you want to argue that DNA is sufficient evidence to convince atheists and agnostics (who don’t believe in the human soul at all), then be my guest and good luck.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Obviously, no. In fact, I have identical twin sons and they are very much their own persons. You really do seem to miss the point I’m trying to make, though. Perhaps I’m being unclear. If I’m unclear, then please say so, but please don’t put words in my mouth (or in my posts). If you want to argue that DNA is sufficient evidence to convince atheists and agnostics (who don’t believe in the human soul at all), then be my guest and good luck.

Yes, you are being unclear – did I mention hunting with the hounds and running with the hare?

1. The child – from the moment of conception is living. Any argument about that?
2. The child has human DNA – any argument about that?
3. The child is a complete entity, with its own DNA – and having a twin doesn’t refute that, since the DNA of the twins is not the mother’s DNA. It is therefore a being, not a fingernail or an appendix.

Therefore the child, whether single or twins, is a living human being.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Isn’t the female egg and male sperm already alive even before conception? Is the debate about what constitutes life, or a human life?

If either of those living cells, or any living organism for that matter were found on Mars I do not doubt the headlines would read :“LIFE found on Mars”, and not “Viable tissue mass found on Mars”.

To suggest the joined entity of human sperm and human egg is not human life is absurd. They are human even before they join and begin the mystery of development into a self sustaining person. We can find a hair from a crime scene and determine if it is human or from the family dog, but yet there is debate about what is growing within another living human being is life or a person at some particular point along the line.

Just because the embrionic human life must be nurtured by the mother for gestation; how is that different from the nurture required after leaving the womb untill the child can fend for itself for food and shelter?

Why is there consternation about masturbation for men, and the periods of a woman? On a deeper level I think it is because there is sanctity for human life in all its forms.

 

[Dispector]

I posted this in the other thread started by FightingFat. My response seemed to fit in here, too… so here it goes:

Human life is to be valued above all other life because as a human we have an obligation, in order to continue the well-being and development of the species, to participate in activities and actions conducive to the protection, safety, and health of our species. As a social creature our own well-being depends on the well-being of others in our group. Therefore, if other members of our group (or our species) thrive it is understood that we will thrive as well. (If you notice the Bible’s teachings all urge the kindness and behavior leading to the overall health of humanity as a whole… along with the personal spiritual health that leads from a life of faith)

When Does Human Life Begin?
Human life begins at the point of conception when sperm fertilizes the egg. Why? Because at that point of fertilization the very foundation and blueprint for that life has been created.

Furthermore, we must not simply look at what its current physical state is but look at what it will develop into as well. Just because the human may not survive in an environment outside the womb when it is a zygote does not make it any less of a human. It is in a fragile state and is in an environment necessary for its growth and development. If we were take a man or woman, strip them nude, and dump them on the South Pole they would not survive long. This is because they were not in an environment necessary for their physical survival.

Why Should We Care About A Fetus?
This seems blatantly obvious, but I figured I’d respond… you never know. Babies continue the species. They are also free of sin (besides original sin) and therefore innocent. It is morally and ethically abhorrible to destroy that which will continue life (and in a logical sense that which will continue our species). In addition, it is detestable to destroy a human which is completely weak and defenseless.

I was going to write more, but then I got tired of typing. I will try to have as logical of a conversation as possible within the constraints you have set forth.

Respectfully,
Mark

 

[quiet52]

“Human life begins at the point of conception when sperm fertilizes the egg. Why? Because at that point of fertilization the very foundation and blueprint for that life has been created.
Furthermore, we must not simply look at what its current physical state is but look at what it will develop into as well.”

It’s interesting that unborn calves are considered legal assets – in other words, they are part of existing inventory and are legally protected by law. Now that bald eagles are no longer considered “endangered” I’m wondering if it’s still a felony ($10,000 fine and/or one year of prison) to destroy an eagle’s egg in the U.S. Fertilized eagle eggs are legally considered to be “eagles.” The Oxford American Dictionary definition of “embryo” is: “an animal in the early stage of its development, before birth or emergence from an egg (used of a child in the first eight weeks of its development in the womb).” According to the same dictionary, the human critter becomes a “fetus” at eight weeks in his/her development. Becomes a “newborn” when delivered from the womb … a toddler, a middle child, a prepubescent, a teen, a young adult, hopefully eventually “developing” into an oldster.

A few judges decided to legally redefine, and devalue, humanness – and we Americans accepted it with a shrug of our shoulders. Let’s keep praying for those who deny God and who deny the dignity and holiness God gives to each of us from the moment of our conception.

Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfuly made; wonderful are your works. (Psalm 139)

 

[Dispector]

A few judges decided to legally redefine, and devalue, humanness – and we Americans accepted it with a shrug of our shoulders. Let’s keep praying for those who deny God and who deny the dignity and holiness God gives to each of us from the moment of our conception.

Yes, it is extremely sad. Our prayers should never stop on this topic.

Respectfully,
Mark

 

[FightingFat]

I think the state analogy is worth discussing here. Consider that the foetus is residing inside another being - akin to somebody being incarcerated in a foreign country.

We can request their release or fair treatment, and impose sanctions or other punitive measures - but barring direct action we cannot release that person from that state without that state’s permission, can we?

I mean how do we combat the argument that this is someone else’s decision?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think the state analogy is worth discussing here. Consider that the foetus is residing inside another being - akin to somebody being incarcerated in a foreign country.

We can request their release or fair treatment, and impose sanctions or other punitive measures - but barring direct action we cannot release that person from that state without that state’s permission, can we?

I mean how do we combat the argument that this is someone else’s decision?

Because it isn’t someone else’s decision. No one has the right to kill another innocent human being.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I think the state analogy is worth discussing here. Consider that the foetus is residing inside another being - akin to somebody being incarcerated in a foreign country.

I do not think it a good analogy.

I mean how do we combat the argument that this is someone else’s decision?

I agree, we should ask the baby if they want to live or die. The mother and father have already made their decison; they just might not like the consequence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not think it a good analogy.

I agree, we should ask the baby if they want to live or die. The mother and father have already made their decison; they just might not like the consequence.

Roe vs Wade was based on finding a “right to privacy” which was “emanating from the penumbra of the 14th Amendment.” Here is the first section of that amendment:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; **nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; **nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(my emphasis)

Notice anything strange about that amendment in the light of that decision?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Notice anything strange about that amendment in the light of that decision?

Yes, the decision as construed does not account for the personage of the unborn; which is wrong.

Just as the 14th is being used to apply citizenship to illegal foreign nationals born in the US; that too is wrong and not the intent of the Amendment.

 

[FightingFat]

Because it isn’t someone else’s decision. No one has the right to kill another innocent human being.

So how is it legal? Surely only because the state doesn’t recognise the humanity of the feotus until it is born? In side the womb it is an aspect of the mother???

 

[vern_humphrey]

So how is it legal? Surely only because the state doesn’t recognise the humanity of the feotus until it is born? In side the womb it is an aspect of the mother???

Abortion is legal in the same way putting Jews in gas chambers was legal in Nazi Germany. And just as moral.

 

[Kaninchen]

Abortion is legal in the same way putting Jews in gas chambers was legal in Nazi Germany. And just as moral.

Not wanting to interrupt for long . . . .

The Shoah was “extra-legal”, you wouldn’t find anything in the Reich Code of Justice about it (nor the whole range of ‘outside the law’ ‘Nacht und Nebel’-like activities for that matter).

It may seem a technical point but it’s rather important when actually trying to understand how it all worked.

. . . . . end of rhetorical flourish about abortion interrupt.