Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Lizziebel]

Yes, it is different. I agree with you. My point was that simply because something is inside a woman’s body it doesn’t have to be part of that body. A woman does make the egg cell. And it is part of her. But the person I was debating with stated that both an unfertilized ovum and a fertilized ovum are part of “woman” (sic). I disagree. I believe that a fertilized ovum is a separate human being.

God bless,

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Bless the beasts and the children,
they have no voice, they have no choice…”

Definitely! Actually, my post was directed at that same person as well

God bless!

 

[Caramel]

Why does “basic biology” imply that it’s part of the woman and not something separate?

Because what else would it be?

And AFAIK, about a quarter to a half of all embryos get “flushed away” when they fail to implant in the uterine wall. This is also “basic biology”. Does this somehow imply that an embryo is part of the woman as well?

I know that a large number of ermbryos get flushed away. This doesn’t imply that an embryo is part of the woman. I’m saying that the embryo is NOT part of the woman. Please tell me was “AFAIK” stands for. I’m sorry but I have never run across that before.

And without various hormones supplied at just the right time by the mother, a fertilized egg is also a “dead end”.

No. Without various hormones (I assumed you are referring here to hormones that are necessary to maintain life), a fertilized egg is still a separate human being; it may end up being a deceased human being but we all end up that way. It is a human being with a soul.

And an egg doesn’t have the DNA of the woman producing it. The egg’s DNA is certainly derived from the woman’s, just as the DNA of an embryo is derived from the DNA of the woman and man, but the egg’s DNA is not the same as the woman’s. As you point out, it’s not the full genome of a human being.

I didn’t say that the egg has the same DNA as the woman who produced it. But the DNA that the egg has is provided by the woman. Where else would it possibly come from?

It strikes me that your argument isn’t based so much on inherent differences between embryos and unfertilized eggs and sperm separately, but on the practical implication that there’s just too many of them for us to care about all of them. However, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the same sort of moral or ethical basis for rights as an embryo.

Wait, you aren’t saying that unfertilized eggs and sperm should have the same rights as a fertilized egg are you? Are you? Am I reading what you wrote correctly? What rights do we give a sperm? What rights should we give a sperm? A fertilized egg is a human being. It should have all the rights that any other human being should have. An unfertilized egg or a sperm is not a human being. Maybe I am not reading this correctly.

God bless,

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Having one’s dreams come true is sometimes far more therapeutic than having them analyzed.” - anonymous

 

[Caramel]

Definitely! Actually, my post was directed at that same person as well

God bless!

Ooops!! Sorry about that!! I’m still getting used to this forum’s format. It’s a lot different from the forum that I used to debate the abortion issue on. Unfortunately that forum was shut down completely for about three years and when it came back it was entirely different. I lost touch with many friends when it shut down.

God bless you too!!

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Bless the beasts and the children,
they have no voice, they have no choice…”

 

[Caramel]

I was using the phrase in a more loose way. It is true a fertilized egg is a separate life, but it is bound to the woman. I am not saying they are both the same person.

OK, I agree.

I would add ingested food does become part of us in some chemical sense. Dental fillings are part of our bodies in that they repair pathology just like an artificial joint is part of us

.

Actually, only part of the food we ingest is used by the body. The rest is discharged by the body. And an artificial joint is not part of the human body, although I guess we could argue about that until the cows come home. I have metal hardware, coral, and cadaver bone in my back, which was fused. I don’t consider those things, especially the cadaver bone to be part of my body. And I have a container of the first metal that was put into my back. It’s rods and screws and nuts and bolts. It isn’t tissue.

Do you consider the bacteria present in the GI tract (that help to break down the food we eat) as part of the body? Or are they their own little bodies? Is a tapeworm inside a human body part of that body?

Yes, and my point is that process of gestation is natural.

I don’t know how to get back to my post to see what you are replying to. Sorry, I’m not used to this forum. I’ll get better. Promise.

Ok, not sure of your point?

Again, I’m not sure what my post stated. But I am very sure of my point.

Sorry, but why are you saying this? My point to the other poster is that it is natural that a developing baby is “part” of the mother. Not like an organ but part of her as in depends on her. There is a unique bond both physiologically and morally.

OK, I think we agree on a lot. Yes, the developing baby depends on the mother. I’m just saying that it isn’t part of the mother. It is going through stages while inside the mother. And there is definitely a unique bond both physiologically and morally. The mother needs to take every precaution to ensure that the developing baby is kept healthy, from conception on.

God bless,

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Bless the beasts and the children,
they have no voice, they have no choice…”

 

[gearhead]

Because what else would it be?

Its own entity.

I know that a large number of ermbryos get flushed away. This doesn’t imply that an embryo is part of the woman. I’m saying that the embryo is NOT part of the woman.

Okay, but when you were talking about unfertililzed eggs, it seemed like you were arguing that the fact they regularly get flushed away somehow implies that they’re part of the mother. Maybe that wasn’t your intent; maybe your point was just a non-sequitir. Was it?

Please tell me was “AFAIK” stands for. I’m sorry but I have never run across that before.

It stands for “as far as I know”.

No. Without various hormones (I assumed you are referring here to hormones that are necessary to maintain life), a fertilized egg is still a separate human being; it may end up being a deceased human being but we all end up that way.

I mean hormones that might not be needed to maintain the life of the fetus or embryo, but are necessary for normal development. IOW, the fetus or embryo won’t die just from not getting them, but they’re necessary in the sense that without them, the baby won’t survive outside the womb.

It is a human being with a soul.

See - this is the only argument I’ve seen on the abortion issue that actually logically flows from its basic premises and doesn’t imply that lots of things are persons when they’re really not.

However, it’s based on ideas that can’t be objectively demonstrated. At the end of the day, you say “it has a soul”, I say “no, it doesn’t” (though not so much because of any opinion of mine about fetuses; I just reject the concept of the soul generally), and there’s no way to resolve the issue or persuade either of us to change our mind.

I didn’t say that the egg has the same DNA as the woman who produced it. But the DNA that the egg has is provided by the woman. Where else would it possibly come from?

Okay. I thought you were making an argument similar to others I’ve seen in this thread. Looks like I was mistaken.

I’m not really sure what you’re arguing, then. Are you saying that because the egg’s DNA came from the mother, even though the egg’s DNA and the mother’s DNA aren’t the same, the egg is part of the mother? If you are, I think you’ll have to step through your argument in more detail.

Wait, you aren’t saying that unfertilized eggs and sperm should have the same rights as a fertilized egg are you? Are you? Am I reading what you wrote correctly?

I don’t think so. Right now I’m just hypothesizing.

The argument’s been made on this thread that various attributes of embryos make them “people”. I’m definitely not accepting that position; all I’m doing is pointing out what else the argument implies would also be “people” if it were true.

People here have argued that because an embryo has various characteristics, it’s a person. To begin with, we had these:

1. it’s human (as opposed to elephant or kangaroo)
2. it has unique DNA

While a fetus does have all those, I disagree that they imply “personhood”. Also, at the same time, I notice that a tumour also has all those things as well. If those are the only characteristics that something needs to be a person, then a tumour is a person.

Obviously, it makes no sense to call a tumour a person, so we can conclude that there was a problem with the list of characteristics. It was either incomplete or flat-out wrong. With that in mind, a third criterion was added:

1. it has the potential to develop into an adult human being.

This is the one that I’m addressing when I bring up the problem of unfertilized eggs. Yes, it has the potential to develop into an adult human… provided you “inject” it with hormones and other (name removed by moderator)uts at just the right time. But an egg also has the potential to develop into an adult human… provided you “inject” it with sperm at just the right time.

It’s possible to add some more criteria that would exclude unfertilized eggs, sure, but you always have a key problem: you have to be able to justify why you’re using them. Why does meeting this criterion imply personhood and not meeting it imply lack of personhood?

Like I alluded to before, I think that “it has a soul” is the only criterion I’ve seen that really meets this test. Unfortunately, it has other problems, as I mentioned.

Here’s what I think is going on with these lines of arguments. People have decided ahead of time that an embryo, fetus, baby, child, and adult are all people, and that nothing else is. With that in mind, they try to come up with a list of characteristics that are shared only by embryos, fetuses, babies, children and adults, but aren’t shared with other things. However, they don’t generally give regard to the test that their set of characteristics have to meet: they have to have some basis in the question of what makes a person a person.

 

[gakroeger]

Here is a link to one of Scott Klusendorf’s presentations (the speaker who was the reason for me starting this thread). He explains the Pro Life position better then anyone I have heard. This is truth in its purest form. Pro Choice people will find this video very hard to watch unless they watch with an open mind. If they watch with an open mind, they will be pro life by the end of the video.

Video

For those who cannot watch video here is an audio only link

Audio

 

[PeterMuz]

What’s worse is when they conceded that it is alive, but deny that is is a human life. One of my friends claims that you are not human without higher thinking and life experiences, ergo not a human life, although it is alive.

You should ask you friend if it would be ok to abort 8 year olds or drunk people for that matter. I would say they both are probably without “higher thinking”.

*No, I am not comparing 8 year olds to drunk people. I think 8 year olds are a lot smarter than drunk people. j/k But really, I’m not comparing the two.

 

[PeterMuz]

People here have argued that because an embryo has various characteristics, it’s a person. To begin with, we had these:

1. it’s human (as opposed to elephant or kangaroo)
2. it has unique DNA

While a fetus does have all those, I disagree that they imply “personhood”. Also, at the same time, I notice that a tumour also has all those things as well. If those are the only characteristics that something needs to be a person, then a tumour is a person.

Obviously, it makes no sense to call a tumour a person, so we can conclude that there was a problem with the list of characteristics. It was either incomplete or flat-out wrong. With that in mind, a third criterion was added:

1. it has the potential to develop into an adult human being.

This is the one that I’m addressing when I bring up the problem of unfertilized eggs. Yes, it has the potential to develop into an adult human… provided you “inject” it with hormones and other (name removed by moderator)uts at just the right time. But an egg also has the potential to develop into an adult human… provided you “inject” it with sperm at just the right time.

It’s possible to add some more criteria that would exclude unfertilized eggs, sure, but you always have a key problem: you have to be able to justify why you’re using them. Why does meeting this criterion imply personhood and not meeting it imply lack of personhood?

Like I alluded to before, I think that “it has a soul” is the only criterion I’ve seen that really meets this test. Unfortunately, it has other problems, as I mentioned.

Here’s what I think is going on with these lines of arguments. People have decided ahead of time that an embryo, fetus, baby, child, and adult are all people, and that nothing else is. With that in mind, they try to come up with a list of characteristics that are shared only by embryos, fetuses, babies, children and adults, but aren’t shared with other things. However, they don’t generally give regard to the test that their set of characteristics have to meet: they have to have some basis in the question of what makes a person a person.

As far as I know, no woman has ever given birth to a tumor or an unfertilized egg. I am not making the argument that a fetus is a “potential” life, I am saying that at that point it IS a life. Just like someone if a coma depends on others for food, shelter and nourishment, so does a unborn baby or an 5 year old kid for that matter

 

[gearhead]

As far as I know, no woman has ever given birth to a tumor or an unfertilized egg.

Depends what you mean by “given birth to”. Most women of childbearing age have an unfertilized egg pass through their birth canal once a month.

I am not making the argument that a fetus is a “potential” life, I am saying that at that point it IS a life.

Okay… why?

Just like someone if a coma depends on others for food, shelter and nourishment, so does a unborn baby or an 5 year old kid for that matter

An unfertilized egg is also dependent on others for shelter and nourishment.

 

[sauce]

Depends what you mean by “given birth to”. Most women of childbearing age have an unfertilized egg pass through their birth canal once a month.

Okay… why?

An unfertilized egg is also dependent on others for shelter and nourishment.

Somebody needs a nap.

 

[tabsie3210]

And as far as the theological ideas go - what is a soul, when does the soul appear - most people are totally clueless. And to be honest, I find that most Catholics haven’t got a very in depth knowledge about what the CC teaches about the soul either. For example, the fact that the soul and body in all living things are equivalent to form and matter in all non-living things. Without that kind of understanding, it is hard to make people understand why even those few cells have a soul. And if a person doesn’t believe in the soul then the whole ground of the discussion is really shifted. (If it were true, I am honestly not sure that abortion would be immoral, so the disagreement in that case is very fundamental indeed.)

I don’t know - there’s a group online, The Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League (web page: godlessprolifers.org/home.html ) who believe that abortion is wrong, period, because it’s life-denying. On scientific grounds, these atheists and agnostics believe that human life starts before birth and that abortion destroys the one shot at life that a child has.

I’d also like to note that a LOT of the people on this site are for the complete abolition of abortion, meaning they don’t want to make allowances for rape/incest or the life/health of the mother. I find that impressive, compared to some lukewarm or Cafeteria Catholics who say it’s okay to abort under certain circumstances. And while I disagree with their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I appreciate and admire their willingness to take a stand against abortion, believing that life beings before birth.

So really, in regards to whether there’s a soul, as we Catholics believe, or not, as these Atheists/Agnostics believe, it doesn’t really matter when you have the science and the desire to see everyone get a shot at life.

As for Catholics being unaware of when a soul “enters” the body, I always find it hard to believe that anyone could doubt that a soul is present from the moment of conception. Just look at the Old Testament, in the book of Judges. Samson was consecrated to God before his birth, so much so that his mother was told to abstain from alcohol, because as a Judge, Samson wasn’t allowed to drink alcohol. And that’s outside of the knowledge that our Savior was concieved body-and-soul together. Gah.

 

[Benadam]

I

So really, in regards to whether there’s a soul, as we Catholics believe, or not, as these Atheists/Agnostics believe, it doesn’t really matter when you have the science and the desire to see everyone get a shot at life.

 

[gakroeger]

tabsie3210;5798298:

I
That’s a good point. It’s far more effective to argue that life is a continuum of being. Species is not defined according to the developemental stages it passes through. Whether it has recieved a soul or not makes little difference if it is ended. 'I am a continuum of human life. Whether I am tissue unaware of ‘my’ existence , or unable to be life that others of my species can identify as one of their own, it is me at every moment and if I am not allowed to continue it is me that has not continued to be.

One bit of reasoning that prevails among those who confuse managing the consequences of not being able to choose freely with the ability to choose freely is this; even though it is admitted that the ‘exact’ moment human life begins is not known, the choice to end that life can still be considered a responsible choice that human freedom demands. That acts that kill human life are considered responsible, even dutifull, as long as what is killed may or may not be human.

Excellent thought. One I had not thought of, but very logical and difficult to deny. I disagree that we do not know when the exact moment human life begins, however, this is still an excellent argument against abortion even for those who claim not to know.

 

[MattLark]

My e-mail signature block includes
P. S. Please be Pro-Life-choice. Choice’s great, but life is the sine qua
non of each and every choice, so, your life, mine, all lives are gifts
to you, me, each other and when holy to the Sine Qua Non. Amen.

In the attempt at improvement and variety am considering
P. S. Please be Pro-Life-choice or Pro-choice-LIFE: choice’s should be great, but LIFE is
the sine qua non of each and every choice, so, your life, mine, all lives are gifts
to you, me, each other and when holy to the Sine Qua Non, Who chose you. Amen.

Whether one chooses Life or Life is always chosen seem to be two heads of the same coin impossible to enjoy without a personal life that realizes fulfillment in itself in and with others who recognize the Ultimate Choice.

 

[CWBetts]

My e-mail signature block includes
P. S. Please be Pro-Life-choice. Choice’s great, but life is the sine qua
non of each and every choice, so, your life, mine, all lives are gifts
to you, me, each other and when holy to the Sine Qua Non. Amen.

In the attempt at improvement and variety am considering
P. S. Please be Pro-Life-choice or Pro-choice-LIFE: choice’s should be great, but LIFE is
the sine qua non of each and every choice, so, your life, mine, all lives are gifts
to you, me, each other and when holy to the Sine Qua Non, Who chose you. Amen.

Whether one chooses Life or Life is always chosen seem to be two heads of the same coin impossible to enjoy without a personal life that realizes fulfillment in itself in and with others who recognize the Ultimate Choice.

You are misusing the highly presumptuous phrase “Sine Qua Non.” It can be translates as "without which there is nothing " or “the foundation.” Your terminology of “Pro-Life-choice” lacks any conviction whatsoever. this is an issue where there can be no compromise!

 

[PeterMuz]

Depends what you mean by “given birth to”. Most women of childbearing age have an unfertilized egg pass through their birth canal once a month.

I understand that very well. Put Never has an unfertilized egg become a baby.

Okay… why?

Study the word potential. Potential is the sperm and the egg separately. Once that have come together, they do not create something new, but it grows. The point that you would call it a potential life, it is a complete being, meaning that all it needs is time and nourishment. It is well documented that at different weeks the baby starts to feel or hear or whatever. This is the most innocent form of human life, one that is totally and completely dependent on someone else.

An unfertilized egg is also dependent on others for shelter and nourishment.

I fail to see your point, unless you are agreeing with me. But once again, an unfertilized egg is not a life. It is more accurate to call an unfertilized egg a potential life.

 

[Christopher68]

You are misusing the highly presumptuous phrase “Sine Qua Non.” It can be translates as "without which there is nothing " or “the foundation.” Your terminology of “Pro-Life-choice” lacks any conviction whatsoever. this is an issue where there can be no compromise!

CW,

In reading some of your posts, you seem very hardline on all ‘life’ issues. I’m just curious, what is your desired end result (from a legal standpoint)? I’m assuming you would legally ban all abortion in all circumstances. What about birth control? Would you legally ban all artificial birth control? What about laws against premarital sex or masturbation?

 

[gearhead]

I understand that very well. Put Never has an unfertilized egg become a baby.

That seems a bizarre statement. Every baby started out as an unfertilized egg.

Study the word potential. Potential is the sperm and the egg separately.

No, it’s not. If the sperm and egg aren’t alive - actually alive and not just “potentially” alive - conception does not occur.

I fail to see your point, unless you are agreeing with me. But once again, an unfertilized egg is not a life. It is more accurate to call an unfertilized egg a potential life.

I’ll try to break it down more simply. Consider the things under discussion:

• fertilized egg: we both agree this is not a person.
• embryo or fetus: we disagree on whether this is a person.
• five-year-old child: we both agree this is a person.

Regardless of our respective positions, we can both agree that the category “things that depend on others for shelter and nourishment” includes both things that are people and things that aren’t. Therefore, the mere fact that a thing depends on others for shelter and nourishment does not automatically make it a person.

That’s all I was trying to get at.

 

[sauce]

I don’t know - there’s a group online, The Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League (web page: godlessprolifers.org/home.html ) who believe that abortion is wrong, period, because it’s life-denying. On scientific grounds, these atheists and agnostics believe that human life starts before birth and that abortion destroys the one shot at life that a child has.

I’d also like to note that a LOT of the people on this site are for the complete abolition of abortion, meaning they don’t want to make allowances for rape/incest or the life/health of the mother. I find that impressive, compared to some lukewarm or Cafeteria Catholics who say it’s okay to abort under certain circumstances. And while I disagree with their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I appreciate and admire their willingness to take a stand against abortion, believing that life beings before birth.

So really, in regards to whether there’s a soul, as we Catholics believe, or not, as these Atheists/Agnostics believe, it doesn’t really matter when you have the science and the desire to see everyone get a shot at life.

As for Catholics being unaware of when a soul “enters” the body, I always find it hard to believe that anyone could doubt that a soul is present from the moment of conception. Just look at the Old Testament, in the book of Judges. Samson was consecrated to God before his birth, so much so that his mother was told to abstain from alcohol, because as a Judge, Samson wasn’t allowed to drink alcohol. And that’s outside of the knowledge that our Savior was concieved body-and-soul together. Gah.

Your reference to Samson is very refreshing. Thank you.

 

[Caramel]

Its own entity.

Okay, but when you were talking about unfertililzed eggs, it seemed like you were arguing that the fact they regularly get flushed away somehow implies that they’re part of the mother. Maybe that wasn’t your intent; maybe your point was just a non-sequitir. Was it?

They are part of the woman because they are derived from her tissue, are present in her when she is born (I don’t know when they form during her fetal life - this is something I need to find out.) They are as much a part of her as a lung cell.

I mean hormones that might not be needed to maintain the life of the fetus or embryo, but are necessary for normal development. IOW, the fetus or embryo won’t die just from not getting them, but they’re necessary in the sense that without them, the baby won’t survive outside the womb.

So you mean that they might not be needed to maintain the life of the fetus or embryo, but without them the fetus or embryo will die outside the womb? You have definitely gotten me confused about what you are trying to state here. The fetus or embryo won’t die from not getting them, but the baby will die from not getting them?

See - this is the only argument I’ve seen on the abortion issue that actually logically flows from its basic premises and doesn’t imply that lots of things are persons when they’re really not.

However, it’s based on ideas that can’t be objectively demonstrated. At the end of the day, you say “it has a soul”, I say “no, it doesn’t” (though not so much because of any
opinion of mine about fetuses; I just reject the concept of the soul generally), and there’s no way to resolve the issue or persuade either of us to change our mind.

OK, say it doesn’t have a soul. So does this mean there is no afterlife for it? And if there is no afterlife, if the embryo/fetus if aborted, you are taking away the only life it has. That would be very sad.

I’m not really sure what you’re arguing, then. Are you saying that because the egg’s DNA came from the mother, even though the egg’s DNA and the mother’s DNA aren’t the same, the egg is part of the mother? If you are, I think you’ll have to step through your argument in more detail.

Yes, I am saying that. The egg is tissue derived from the woman, whether it will be fertilized or not. It is part of the woman. But if the egg is fertilized, it is immediately a separate human being and person and should have all the rights that all other persons have.

The argument’s been made on this thread that various attributes of embryos make them “people”. I’m definitely not accepting that position; all I’m doing is pointing out what else the argument implies would also be “people” if it were true.

Here’s what I think is going on with these lines of arguments. People have decided ahead of time that an embryo, fetus, baby, child, and adult are all people, and that nothing else is. With that in mind, they try to come up with a list of characteristics that are shared only by embryos, fetuses, babies, children and adults, but aren’t shared with other things. However, they don’t generally give regard to the test that their set of characteristics have to meet: they have to have some basis in the question of what makes a person a person.

Can you prove to me that a fertilized ovum is not a person? If it is not a person, abort away. I wouldn’t care, except I personally think that life is precious - all life, not just human. But that is my own feeling.

I didn’t decide ahead of time and then try to come up with a list of characteristics that are shared by embryos, feti, babies, etc. but not shared by anything else. Why, if we don’t know when a person becomes a person, do we take the chance of erring? When do you think a person becomes a person? At birth? If so, why? The only difference that I can see between a born baby and an unborn baby is one of stages. And that is from my study of biology. I do believe that a fertilized ovum is a person and has a soul. You say it doesn’t have a soul. Can you prove this? You are saying it is not a person. Can you prove this? No, you can’t, as I can’t prove that it is a person from a scientific standpoint. I can’t prove it and you can’t prove it because in science you can’t prove anything. You can only present evidence.

If you want to drop the idea of a soul, fine. We will then debate simply on science. No religion, no philosophy. It doesn’t matter. A fertilized ovum is STILL a human being and it is still a person. Feti at younger and younger ages are being born early and being saved by medicine. Are these prematurely born babies persons? Of course. So go backward. If a fetus is a person, so is an embryo because the only difference between the two is an arbitrarily defined gestational age. So, an embryo is a person. Go back a bit more. If an embryo is a person, so is a fertilized egg. Why? Again, because the only difference is one of a stage of life. You do agree, don’t you, that a fertilized egg is alive? It certainly isn’t dead, although it may die well before birth. But then, we all die.

A fertilized ovum, embryo, fetus, born baby, child, adult…they are stages of a human life that are defined by the characteristics of each stage. An adult differs from a child in the amount of brain tissue, the closure of the “soft spot” on the skull, etc. A child differs from a born baby in brain and other bodily development. Keep on going back and you will see that it goes back to the fertilized ovum which has all the components necessary to develop as a human being. As a person. I don’t understand why pro-aborts cannot see this!!

Had to cut your quotes - sorry, it wouldn’t let me post my reply because it was too long.

caramel