T
ThomasToo
Guest
I’ve seen one that’s close–and miles away–‘nuke an unborn gay baby whale for Jesus.’ I think that’s a meme overload.
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Dizygotic twins need not concern us, since they each begin as individual zygotes: one ovum, one sperm. That can occur if more than one ovum is released from the ovaries. Monozygotic twins separate between two and ten days after fertilization. So if the concern is that a newly fertilized ovum might split into monozygotic twins in the next few days, and therefore might not yet be a unitary entity, at least we should be able to agree that once that time frame is passed, a unitary entity exists, whether one or two. A distinct human being.
At every point after conception, of course, the offspring, whether single or twin, is separate and distinct from its mother.
It is noteworthy that even identical twins will not have identical DNA. They will both have identical nuclear DNA, but not identical mitochondrial DNA.
Boethius is a worthy philosopher, but not particularly grounded in human embryology and genetics.
From a philosophical standpoint, Catholic philosophy does consider that human beings have the quality of personhood just by the fact of being human. There is no such thing as a human being who is not a person. But that’s philosophy, not embryology.
At every point after conception, of course, the offspring, whether single or twin, is separate and distinct from its mother.
It is noteworthy that even identical twins will not have identical DNA. They will both have identical nuclear DNA, but not identical mitochondrial DNA.
Boethius is a worthy philosopher, but not particularly grounded in human embryology and genetics.
From a philosophical standpoint, Catholic philosophy does consider that human beings have the quality of personhood just by the fact of being human. There is no such thing as a human being who is not a person. But that’s philosophy, not embryology.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Well lets see, you used a random point in human development to define “personhood” which is highly variable between individuals and difficult to determine. Should every woman who wants an abortion have to go in for a scan of the brain of the human in her womb to determine if the baby is a person (by your definition) and whether he/she may be killed? (this seems rather prohibitive for both sides). All development of children is variable and cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed by age. So if we use your person definition we say abortions are allowed up to the third trimester, we may be killing “persons” who have already reached “personhood.” This seems like the definition of arbitrary to me.
And the government must not have arbitrary and capricious laws, especially in such matters as killing “persons.”
T
ThomasToo
Guest
He wasn’t talking about embryology, but his remains the prevailing definition of ‘person’ (‘an individual substance in a rational nature’ [De Trinitatae]). Do you dispute this definition or are you arguing that a zygote that will become two individuals still represents ‘an individual substance’?
I know the Catholic philosophy on the matter–to be frank and hopefully not insulting, probably better than you given an MA in Catholic Moral Theology (funny story for another time and place)–but it is not really a philosophical standpoint that has firm footing outside the body of theology and is therefore ill suited for the creation of coersive laws in Western liberal democracies (cf. Jeffery Stout’s Democracy and Tradition).
T
ThomasToo
Guest
It’s not random when I have reasons, nor is it arbitrary… You may disagree with me and that is entirely your prerogative but to accuse falsely that I give no reason is contemptible.Well lets see, you used a random point in human development to define “personhood” which is highly variable between individuals and difficult to determine. Should every woman who wants an abortion have to go in for a scan of the brain of the human in her womb to determine if the baby is a person (by your definition) and whether he/she may be killed? (this seems rather prohibitive for both sides). All development of children is variable and cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed by age. So if we use your person definition we say abortions are allowed up to the third trimester, we may be killing “persons” who have already reached “personhood.” This seems like the definition of arbitrary to me.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Because if ours IS true, then abortion is the brutal murder of children and must be stopped. And it might be true.
If yours is true, and we make abortion illegal, at least no (or, if you want to quibble, far less) lives are being lost.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
So people who believe that cows–for example–are reincarnations of people and that all sentient (capable of feeling pain) animals have the right to life, and who may be true, should get to forge their ideology into coercive law binding on everyone including those who do not share their beliefs?
If their view is true then meat production is brutal murder and must be stopped and they may be rights.
If ours is true and we make meat production illegal then far fewer lives are being lost.
Doesn’t quite seem right to me.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
You only stated that you think that certain brainwaves show personhood. Not why those brainwaves make us a human, nor did you give an exact age at which fetuses have these brainwaves (because it is impossible to p(name removed by moderator)oint an age because it would be highly variable between individuals). I did not mean to say that you had no reasons, only that you have not (fully) expounded them here, and that for a government to implement your rule (unless requiring a scan to determine) legally would be arbitrary and struck down. I am sorry if it came across as “you didn’t have any reason.”
Therefore, if we implement your definition, practically, we would either be killing some persons who have gained these brainwaves or prohibiting some woman from aborting a non-person. Implementing your rule leads to arbitrariness~ allowing or not allowing killing or abortion based on a age/day not based in fact, (ie the presence of the brainwaves or personhood).
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Depends. Is it truly possible that meat production is brutal murder? I don’t think so. I think that’s a ridiculous argument, and I think most people would agree.
On the other hand, the argument that fetuses should be considered human persons is quite logical. Even if it might not be true, I don’t think that risk should be taken. And yes, I think it’s a MUCH bigger risk than cows being a human person. Call me crazy.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
How is it illogical? Why is it relevant what the many believe in regards to this question? Surely we can agree that truth of a supposition is untied to the number of people who believe/accept it.
This isn’t a question of which one you think is more likely. Your logic can easily be applied to another sort of situation which you have not distinguished other than saying you don’t think it’s possible. I don’t think it’s possible that a zygote is a person but that’s not really the point–in your reasoning in the post to which I responded.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Sorry for the confusion.
The fact of the matter is, as I have said above, that I’m not trying to implement my definition as national law. I am content to let everyone decide this question for themselves. If you think personhood begins at conception then by all means work to cut down the number of abortions that are performed by–for example–teaching adolescents about useful birth control in addition to abstinence and do not have an abortion.
P
presidentjlh
Guest
Concerning OP’s post, that entire idea that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is not just a complete logical fallacy, but is, in fact, completely wrong in its very argument. Why shouldn’t a man have a say on abortion? It takes two to conceive, men are just as responsible for pregnancies as women are. That’s not just the woman’s child inside her, it’s the father’s child as well.
J
JimG
Guest
“An individual substance in a rational nature” is a good definition of person. I’m pretty sure he meant “substance” in the Thomistic sense. Substance in that sense is distinguished from accidents which are perceptible as what we would call physical characteristics. In any case, every human being is an individual substance of a rational nature. One cannot, by observation, determine whether an early 1 day old embryo is one “individual substance” in the Thomistic sense, or two, as might be the case if it is an impending twin. We do know that it is a distinct human being, genetically and biologically distinct from both parents. Surely it is not the case that Catholic philosophy posits that some human beings do not have the attribute of personhood.
Even if you decide that the embryo is not an individual substance until two weeks, (which I do not grant), then surely at that point, the embryo is without doubt a distinct human being, and as such, must be endowed with the attribute of personhood by its very nature.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
That point being two weeks? My only point in the discussion thus far was to get to personhood is (or at least can be) more than just being human. I would also dispute whether an embryo or fetus possesses a rational nature until it exhibits the brainwaves I discussed above but frankly I don’t know that hashing it out here would be of benefit to either of us…
J
JimG
Guest
Well, we keep going between embryology and philosophy. Philosophically, having a rational nature is not the same thing as having brainwaves or even being conscious. My own view is that every human being has a rational nature, no matter its stage of development. I thought that was a Catholic philosophical consensus, but maybe not.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I’m sure you know that there are Catholics who disagree with you on that point and on whether abortion ought to be legally protected…
J
JimG
Guest
Apparently so, but the pope and magisterium are not among those approving legal abortion.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Oh, of course not but I’m curious–academically–how it will look in fifty or a hundred years. Not necessarily on the question of abortion but on other moral issues I can see the potential for movement. Then again, perhaps I’m just overly hopeful for the trend of history to move slowly left-ward to continue.
The Church has always done a very good job of keeping people in the fold which is a double-edged sword. Catholicism is without a doubt the largest sect of Christianity (although having hundreds of years more than everyone else is an obvious advantage) but the diversity amongst self-identifying Catholics is striking, sweeping and vast. There are Catholics who support legal abortion, marriage for homosexuals, the legalization of marijuana and the designated hitter rule. So too there are those who would happily ban abortion world wide, restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, re-institute prohibition and vocally oppose the designated hitter rule as abomination.
Food for thought I suppose.
J
JimG
Guest
There are indeed self-identifying Catholics who support legal abortion, homosexual marriage, legalization of marijuana, though I’m not personally aware of those supporting the DH rule. There are some who favor the ordination of women. But some of these things are simply impossible. The Church will not ordain women, will not approve direct abortion, will not approve gay marriage, whether in 50 years or 500 years. We might have married priests: that’s not an impossibility. We have a married priest in my diocese who has 12 children. (His wife, incidentally, does not favor a married priesthood.)
Some things are possible, some are not.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
If I may be so forward, is your parish one of those that is formerly Anglican? I’d be interested to learn more about Anglican Use if you know anything or would recommend any resources.
Sorry for being radically off topic…
- Status