Reasons not to consider the foetus human life

[thesmiter1]

I read the OP and will put in my 2 cents. Sorry if there are already arguments going on, but I’ll just throw my experience in.

I volunteer occasionally for Students for Life at the local university. It’s a huge university, so we get lots of people. When we do this, my main tactic is to first get a grasp of the person’s argument as to why abortion should remain legal. The arguments are always that (1) The fetus is dependent on the mother, so it is the mother’s choice (2) It does not have all the necessary parts of a fully developed human, and thus is not a human (3) The fetus may not be wanted and shouldn’t endure a life of being unwanted (4) the mother is not fit to have it (5) generic ‘my body, my choice.’ I’ve heard other novel arguments, but the dependency and viability outside of the womb are the arguments I hear the most.

I will often listen to their questions, and then ask what they define the fetus as. They are often puzzled, and sometimes don’t know how to respond. I bring it down to biology: Is it an organism (has parts that serve to continue the life of the whole)? Yes. Does it have a human mother and father? Yes. Does it have entirely unique DNA (and thus all the building blocks for life)? Yes. Is it growing and developing constantly into a more fully developed human? Yes. Is it, at that stage of life, required to have all the parts of a fully developed human to survive? No. Will its continued existence in the womb result in anything other than its birth or natural death, or both? No.

Seldom anyone will argue against these points. I then bring up that we are both the result of a fetus that survived, and are still growing and developing. Obviously we survived, were born, and are continuing to natural death, like any other life form. They often admit, then, that it is a human being. But here’s the kicker: many of them believe it is still acceptable to kill it. They’ll argue ‘personhood’, and if someone is brain dead then you can pull the plug (to which I’ll respond with the point that, at that stage of life, they do not need a brain, whereas a brain dead person does need one and lost its function somehow, and they already admitted to this).

So, in the end, all you can do is make them think a little. They may come to the same conclusions, but many years from now, some of the stuff you said, coupled with the grace of our Lord, may have an effect. All we can do is show them the Truth. How they respond is up to them. Don’t get disheartened when they remain blind.

 

[TarkanAttila]

So children are sometimes used by God as punishment for sexual immorality?

I would not call caring for another human being a punishment. Anyone can, even if it means giving up your motherhood to let them be adopted into another family.

Interesting. I personally wouldn’t use the word “fault” to describe my role in my (planned) parenthood.

The point being YOU are part of the cause. YOU. Not ONLY your wife. YOU TOO.
Without YOU, your two daughters wouldn’t exist.

Your genetic parents are no parents at all

Okay… first let’s define “parent”. Thefreedictionary.com gives one definition as: “One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother.” By definition, my biological parents fit the bill. And if my biological mother was OK with at least letting me live in her womb, I’d say that counts as nurturing me, also.

So… whether they were just an “egg and sperm donor”, they are parents by definition, and I recognise that.

When you ask who yours parents are, you ask “where did I come from?” My biological parents are my material origin. My morals, culture, standards of living, and other things originated in my parents (even if these things changed over time).

The impression that I get is that they were largely sperm and egg donor. They don’t have any responsibility toward your well-being and nor should we expect that.

The rule of pregnancy and child-rearing is for the original, material parents to also be the cultural and moral parents also. That is how it has been for not only the vast majority of humans throughout history, and even before history, but for other species as well. It’s the rule, not the exception, which defines things. Adoption definitely is and should be an exception.

Even then, if the mother does choose to carry it to term, she cares for the foetus even before it exits the womb and is a mother in the nurturing manner as well as the material. One could even say it is an act of parenting for a parent to give up their child for adoption if he/she/they believe they cannot handle it.

The relevance is that it undermines a purely biogenetic understanding of fertilization as a single unique event causing a new person to form. But you have disavowed this argument (I think it was manualman’s anyway), so it’s not very relevant.

I haven’t disavowed it. Nevertheless, if this is manualman’s argument and not mine, I should kindly like to nip this line in the bud.

Well, in that case, given the miscarriage rate, God Himself is by far the greatest abortionist in the universe.

But do you think, when God does kill, or when we die, it is always a punishment - an execution by the judge, jury and executioner of a kangaroo court which wants you to suffer forever.

Remember: the Catholic Church teaches as true that there is an afterlife. And if it is something God the Father has dominion over - AND which we DO NOT - isn’t it possible He can kill life here on Earth to bring it to a better life in Heaven? Does He not make the dead more alive than they were before?

On the other hand, if you kill someone, even as an embryo, how do you know you have sent him or her to Heaven and not Hell? (Again, assuming the afterlife does exist.)

Because that’s the milestone that is most conservative in defining when a consciousness could begin. It is the exact opposite of legal death being brain death.

I don’t think this argument works well, then. Because a brain-dead organism is already dead. You can’t kill it. On the other hand, an embryo’s brain is active from its generation. Before it has a brain, though, it… well, doesn’t have a brain. So how can you judge human life to be brain dead if if doesn’t even have a brain? Once again, I turn to anencephaly. Sure, I understand you don’t consider them to be worthy of life without a brain. Yet somehow they defy your understanding of death by being alive even without a brain.

I propose a different definition for personhood based on death and life. Beginning with death. Death proper is when the body ceases to function at all. The blood no longer moves. No neurons firing. It sits. Inert. Actually, not quite, because it is decaying and decomposing - something living bodies don’t do. From the moment the body as a whole begins to decompose without regenerating or maintaining itself, it is dead and no longer a human being.

Conversely, conception begins the generation and regeneration of the human being, when the egg and sperm no longer decay when they exit the uterus, but when they begin to grow and maintain each other and the other cells. And it will continue to do that from conception, through birth, education, working age, retirement age. Even on the deathbed when the skin is saggy and the hands are bony and it’s difficult to see through your eyes marred by cataracts, your body is maintaining you.

But when you die, maintenance of your cells, organs, and the rest ceases.

I guess I shall say I believe absolute life and absolute death define our personhood in this case - not legal death.

In an absolute sense, the consciousness line very well could be late-term or even postnatal, but we are certainly allowed to prohibit these on moral sensibilities alone.

What moral sensibilities other than sentimentality and emotions and because it looks like a human? A beating heart cadaver also looks human and very much alive. (Ask anyone who was the relative of one.)

In my opinion there’s no justification for prohibiting abortion prior to six weeks, because no consciousness could possibly be destroyed.

The same could also be said for those who are comatose, asleep, or passed out if you kill them fast or stealthily enough.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I read the OP and will put in my 2 cents. Sorry if there are already arguments going on, but I’ll just throw my experience in.

Not at all. Thanks for your post.

snip

They’ll argue ‘personhood’, and if someone is brain dead then you can pull the plug (to which I’ll respond with the point that, at that stage of life, they do not need a brain, whereas a brain dead person does need one and lost its function somehow, and they already admitted to this).

This summarises my entire discussion here with Filippo.

So, in the end, all you can do is make them think a little. They may come to the same conclusions, but many years from now, some of the stuff you said, coupled with the grace of our Lord, may have an effect. All we can do is show them the Truth. How they respond is up to them. Don’t get disheartened when they remain blind.

Thanks. I’m beginning to understand that.

You can push them to the end of the cliff. But you can’t make them fall off.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I read the OP and will put in my 2 cents. Sorry if there are already arguments going on, but I’ll just throw my experience in.

I volunteer occasionally for Students for Life at the local university. It’s a huge university, so we get lots of people. When we do this, my main tactic is to first get a grasp of the person’s argument as to why abortion should remain legal. The arguments are always that (1) The fetus is dependent on the mother, so it is the mother’s choice (2) It does not have all the necessary parts of a fully developed human, and thus is not a human (3) The fetus may not be wanted and shouldn’t endure a life of being unwanted (4) the mother is not fit to have it (5) generic ‘my body, my choice.’ I’ve heard other novel arguments, but the dependency and viability outside of the womb are the arguments I hear the most.

I will often listen to their questions, and then ask what they define the fetus as. They are often puzzled, and sometimes don’t know how to respond. I bring it down to biology: Is it an organism (has parts that serve to continue the life of the whole)? Yes. Does it have a human mother and father? Yes. Does it have entirely unique DNA (and thus all the building blocks for life)? Yes. Is it growing and developing constantly into a more fully developed human? Yes. Is it, at that stage of life, required to have all the parts of a fully developed human to survive? No. Will its continued existence in the womb result in anything other than its birth or natural death, or both? No.

Seldom anyone will argue against these points. I then bring up that we are both the result of a fetus that survived, and are still growing and developing. Obviously we survived, were born, and are continuing to natural death, like any other life form. They often admit, then, that it is a human being. But here’s the kicker: many of them believe it is still acceptable to kill it. They’ll argue ‘personhood’, and if someone is brain dead then you can pull the plug (to which I’ll respond with the point that, at that stage of life, they do not need a brain, whereas a brain dead person does need one and lost its function somehow, and they already admitted to this).

So, in the end, all you can do is make them think a little. They may come to the same conclusions, but many years from now, some of the stuff you said, coupled with the grace of our Lord, may have an effect. All we can do is show them the Truth. How they respond is up to them. Don’t get disheartened when they remain blind.

Thank you for this

You’re statement of knowledge gained from subjective experiences(s)? is helpful with me understanding of the 10 universal principles and how they pertain to the five non-negotionables.

Shalom
God bless

 

[BobCatholic]

Peter Singer.

He says that healthy babies up to 30 days after birth may be killed.

He is pro-infanticide.

Give him time. He’ll increase that number. Murderous types always do.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

The rule of pregnancy and child-rearing is for the original, material parents to also be the cultural and moral parents also. That is how it has been for not only the vast majority of humans throughout history, and even before history, but for other species as well. It’s the rule, not the exception, which defines things.

This is silly. It was the rule for the vast majority of humans throughout history to not be vaccinated, or to eat spoiled meat, or to succumb to entirely preventable diseases.

Adoption definitely is and should be an exception.

No, adoption is the rule – it’s just the case that most biological mothers also assent to being parental mothers to their babies when they are born. It’s so much the rule that there is very little legal rigamarole around taking charge of the child you just gave birth to. It takes an act of will to be a parent; it is not something that is unavoidable, even when a woman is already pregnant.

Even then, if the mother does choose to carry it to term, she cares for the foetus even before it exits the womb and is a mother in the nurturing manner as well as the material. One could even say it is an act of parenting for a parent to give up their child for adoption if he/she/they believe they cannot handle it.

I don’t disagree.

Well, in that case, given the miscarriage rate, God Himself is by far the greatest abortionist in the universe.

But do you think, when God does kill, or when we die, it is always a punishment…

Remember: the Catholic Church teaches as true that there is an afterlife…

On the other hand, if you kill someone, even as an embryo, how do you know you have sent him or her to Heaven and not Hell? (Again, assuming the afterlife does exist.)

I can’t really speak to any of this because there is no heaven or hell. All I can do is observe that a huge proportion of pregnancies end in miscarriage, so any claims of a deity that cares about the embryos in these pregnancies are highly suspect. Making up a story about a heaven where some will go to, but not all, just complicates the claims further.

I don’t think this argument works well, then. Because a brain-dead organism is already dead. You can’t kill it.

No, the vast majority of it is still alive. This is why organ donations work.

On the other hand, an embryo’s brain is active from its generation. Before it has a brain, though, it… well, doesn’t have a brain. So how can you judge human life to be brain dead if if doesn’t even have a brain? Once again, I turn to anencephaly. Sure, I understand you don’t consider them to be worthy of life without a brain. Yet somehow they defy your understanding of death by being alive even without a brain.

No, I gladly assert they’re quite alive, biologically. I am just using brain death as the line for when a person is no longer considered a live person by the law. For the purpose of this discussion, a legally dead person is one that cannot be murdered. It seems to me that this same line should be operational for embryos that do not yet have a brain.

I propose a different definition for personhood based on death and life. Beginning with death. Death proper is when the body ceases to function at all. The blood no longer moves. No neurons firing. It sits. Inert. Actually, not quite, because it is decaying and decomposing - something living bodies don’t do. From the moment the body as a whole begins to decompose without regenerating or maintaining itself, it is dead and no longer a human being.

This definition of death extends at least several hours after the current idea of death. An embryo’s heartbeat doesn’t start until around the same time neural activity starts. Moreover, an embryo isn’t doing any regenerating or maintaining of itself. Without the life support system in the uterus, it would be quite dead.

What moral sensibilities other than sentimentality and emotions and because it looks like a human? A beating heart cadaver also looks human and very much alive. (Ask anyone who was the relative of one.)

Sentimentality is a legitimate reason to regulate something. Calling something murder when it’s not, however, is not legitimate.

In my opinion there’s no justification for prohibiting abortion prior to six weeks, because no consciousness could possibly be destroyed.

The same could also be said for those who are comatose, asleep, or passed out if you kill them fast or stealthily enough.

That’s not what I mean by “consciousness” and I think you know that. But to take the bait, in those cases there was someone awake before and they may wake up again, but in the case of an embryo no one has been awake.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

He says that healthy babies up to 30 days after birth may be killed.

He is pro-infanticide.

Give him time. He’ll increase that number. Murderous types always do.

I found this excerpt of a book by Peter Singer, just so we are all clear on what is being discussed.

 

[BobCatholic]

I found this excerpt of a book by Peter Singer, just so we are all clear on what is being discussed.

Yup. How predictable. Those who lust for blood never stop lusting.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I found this excerpt of a book by Peter Singer, just so we are all clear on what is being discussed.

I should like to see his chapter 4 arguments before I make any judgement of them. I very much doubt I would agree with him, especially given this little nugget:

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror…On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that… collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.

And others like it throughout this excerpt.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I would think that you’d welcome Singer’s arguments, insofar as they imply that because abortion is acceptable, then infanticide and euthanasia must also sometimes be acceptable. The infanticide one is particularly powerful against many people who identify as pro-choice.

Apparently Chapter 4 of the book is called “What’s Wrong with Killing?” You can see portions of it at Google Books.

I don’t subscribe to utilitarian ethics though, so I’m certainly not going to defend this other than putting the Singer namechecks into context.

 

[TarkanAttila]

This is silly. It was the rule for the vast majority of humans throughout history to not be vaccinated, or to eat spoiled meat, or to succumb to entirely preventable diseases.

Fair enough. Though it is also the most cost-effective, and frankly logical. Nothing beats making and raising kids for free, with someone you know, have the best in mind for, and who has the best in mind for you (i.e, whom you love and who loves you) and will until death.

The oxytocin a husband and wife receive during the coital act mentally binds them together so they are more prepared to stay together. It takes a strong act of will - or a strongly promiscuous culture such as ours - to shake that chemical bond between husband and wife.

No formula needed, either. In general, the mother’s body prepares for the child to come into the world by lactating. And when she feeds the child their bond grows closer still through that same drug, oxytocin. And her milk contains valuable nutrients, like colostrum, which inherently help an infant to develop.

Nature is just screaming at us: THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO HAVE AND RAISE A CHILD!

Of course, that does NOT mean that adoptive parents can’t raise children well. Even two gays can raise a child to be fairly healthy in all respects. But this is THE BEST way. Nature stacks the aces in favour of it - unlike spoiled meat, a lack of vaccination, or preventable diseases.

No, adoption is the rule – it’s just the case that most biological mothers also assent to being parental mothers to their babies when they are born.

I see what you mean, but that’s a fudging of the meaning of the word “adopt” - so as to render it meaningless. Then it just means “choosing to raise the child” - which ALONE is not what that word means in any sense, and you know it.

It’s so much the rule that there is very little legal rigamarole around taking charge of the child you just gave birth to. It takes an act of will to be a parent; it is not something that is unavoidable, even when a woman is already pregnant.

Yes - it takes an act of the will to open your legs to another person. Don’t do it and none of this will be a problem for you!

I can’t really speak to any of this because there is no heaven or hell.

And this is why you cannot understand the way we think. Because you don’t believe in Heaven or Hell, which do exist as moral realities. Even an atheist should come to be able to understand this.

Tell me, Filippo: what is the highest end of humanity? Whatever that end is, that is the Heaven of your beliefs, so to speak. The unfulfillment of that or the opposite is Hell. In a sense like this, both of us have a Heaven and a Hell.

Making up a story about a heaven where some will go to, but not all, just complicates the claims further.

I’ma take it you weren’t well catechised?

No, the vast majority of it is still alive. This is why organ donations work.

Then death does not occur at the death of the brain. Is that correct?

No, I gladly assert they’re quite alive, biologically. I am just using brain death as the line for when a person is no longer considered a live person by the law.

Why do you always keep referring to human law? Are you a lawyer or something? Natural law, in any case (as you’ve stated) contradicts this. In human law the brain dead may not be a living person, but biologically you know this is not the case. When it comes to life or death, I subscribe to nature before human law. Imperfect human law. Which carried out sterilizations on innocent people in the 30s. Which put Asians into concentration camps in the 40s. Which did not give women a right to vote until the 10s. Which banned the use of alcohol for a decade before repealing said ban. I don’t care about human law, especially when it comes to life and death, because human law is most certainly fallible. And if human law properly carried out causes an unjust death it’s not only my fault, but the law’s fault.

This definition of death extends at least several hours after the current idea of death.

Not biologically, Filippo. You know that.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[TarkanAttila]

(CONTINUED…)

An embryo’s heartbeat doesn’t start until around the same time neural activity starts. Moreover, an embryo isn’t doing any regenerating or maintaining of itself. Without the life support system in the uterus, it would be quite dead.

Actually, it is maintaining itself, Filippo. In fact, it is growing itself. Because while it does rely on a direct line (the umbilical cord) between it and its mother to feed it and to remove waste - which in principle is really not so different from breastfeeding it when it’s out of the womb, save that in the foetus’s case it just happens to be on the wrong side of the womb - the baby is a genetically distinct entity from the mother from conception.

This is distinct from a tumor, which shares the same DNA and chromosomes etc with its carrier.

Sentimentality is a legitimate reason to regulate something.

Not by itself, it isn’t. Emotions are very, very poor arguments in favor of or against anything. At best they are amplifiers of good, logical reasoning.

Take the situation of a kid who finds box of kittens.

She asks her mother, “Mommy, can I keep 'em?”
Mommy says, “No. Put them back where you found them!”
The daughter protests: “But they’re so cute! So pretty! I can’t just abandon them!”
The mother replies: “You had better! We cannot afford to feed them - unless you want to give them your supper.”
The daughter, dreading the thought of going hungry, wimpers and carries the box of kittens back to the curb she found them at.

This is because logic trumps emotion - especially when logic uses emotion to amplify itself.

Calling something murder when it’s not, however, is not legitimate.

Again, logic tells us it is the purposeful (because it causes me suffering, for example) and intended killing (it does die) of an innocent (it is not intending to kill or harm you, it just is there) human (genetically distinct for either parent) life (growing, and maintaining).

I don’t see how you cannot understand that to be murder. It does not necessarily mean the person doing it is Hitler or anything. People have understandable reasons to commit murder. That does not mean murder is justifiable, or that it ceases to be murder because it is understandable. But anyone is capable of murder, not just sordid lowlife scum.

That’s not what I mean by “consciousness” and I think you know that.

Maybe I’m just stupid or something, but it seems to me there’s no remarkable difference between a person who is peacefully sleeping, a comatose person, a passed out drunk, an a foetus when it comes to killing it - as long as its state doesn’t change. Think on it. Is a sleeping person able to defend himself? No. Is a passed out person? No. Is a comatose person? No. As long as the sleeping, passed out, or comatose person does not wake up, it is not conscious by definition. It is unconscious. In fact, a person whose neurons are still active might be in just that kind of a state -* unconscious*.

…I think you’d best stick to using “brain dead”, if that’s what you meant.

But to take the bait, in those cases there was someone awake before and they may wake up again, but in the case of an embryo no one has been awake.

Ah. Interesting. So because a person was PREVIOUSLY conscious he ought to be treated as potentially conscious again? No… that’s a red herring.

Your argument is really no better than mine, now. For you also are saying because a human being outside the womb has the potential to be conscious, it ought not be killed. That’s exactly what I am saying for those within, even before 6 weeks.

 

[Faithdancer]

I live in a hyper-liberal environment

Oh, so you’re in Southern California too? Cool!