Reasons not to consider the foetus human life

[Filippo_Bruno]

How would you classify an abortion performed later than that? Say, at twelve weeks, or later still?
And aside from abortion, when else is it morally acceptable to you for one human being to kill another (-or have another human being killed)?

The answers to these questions are irrelevant to the thread. I am simply pointing out that the question of abortion is not “when does a human life begin” but “when is it acceptable to terminate a human life?”

 

[markeverett49]

The answers to these questions are irrelevant to the thread. I am simply pointing out that the question of abortion is not “when does a human life begin” but “when is it acceptable to terminate a human life?”

For the Supreme Court in the Roe vs Wade decision,THE question was when does human life begin. The ruling holds that once the humanity of the fetus is no longer in doubt, abortions cannot be performed because American law holds that a human being is a person, period. (This has all changed subsequently, as the rationale for Roe collapsed but the court refused to overturn the case.)

Your position seems to be that the fetus is a human life but that human lives may be taken in some circumstances, and without due process at that. In that case, other examples ARE relevant because otherwise it seems like special pleading designed to deal with this one circumstance.

 

[TarkanAttila]

No, they are all alive and human.

Filippo:

But it doesn’t have brain activity at the point in time that I am discussing.

It seems there is something I’m missing.

Lemme see if I’ve got this straight:

1. You are trying to justify abortion within 6 weeks by saying its distinct lack of brain activity.
2. You believe that a foetus, a comatose individual, and a beating heart cadaver, two of which well and truly do not have functioning brains (foetus, BHC), but only one of which certainly never will (BHC), are all three human and alive.

So, to not have an active brain does not disqualify something from being alive AND human.

That is to say, not only is a foetus ALIVE, it is HUMAN.
And not only is a BHC HUMAN, it is ALIVE.

I’m afraid I don’t understand, then. How do you define a human life? And what legitimises the killing thereof?

Of course it is still human. Where have ever said otherwise. The point I made to another poster is that I will not call someone who aborts an anencephalic fetus a “murderer,” and I expect that some of you would.

Could you refer me to that post?

Even then, would you consider killing of an anencephalic baby outside of the womb to be murder, or no? And on what grounds?

This is untenable, unless you are going to outlaw war. A medic – even a Nazi medic – is generally violating no one’s human rights.

Which is why, under international law, medics are legally protected from attacks during war.

But yes. Peace and a lack of conflict are generally ideal.

However, if someone should commit a murder, or attempt to, or should violate human rights in some other way which can only be solved by a defencive act of killing them, to kill such a person would be an act of defence (to put it simply). Thus the Catholic Church has a just war theory and does not mandate pacifism. It sees killing is sometimes justifiable.

But only if someone kills for an unjust reason first.

The relationship between the father and the embryo is materially nil. As I pointed out earlier, all of the material of the embryos comes from the mother. This includes all of the physical DNA molecules.

Clearly no abortion should be undertaken without the consent of the mother.

Once again, could you reference that post? I’ll look for it, but from what I’ve been taught - a little thing called meiosis - I can’t say as I agree. If this were true, it would seem to me parthenogenesis would be the norm.

EDIT:

So I read some of the post you wrote to La Musica Senor on the previous page.

If it expresses a preference not to be killed.

Would that, therefore, mean, a comatose person would be OK for the killing since s/he is unable to ask whether he can be killed or not?

 

[SilverCamellia]

I have to say that I haven’t read the previous posts.
But simply I will say this.

If I had a female dog who was pregnant, I would consider her to be bearing puppies (ie young dogs) whatever the stage of development.

I do not know why this should not refer to human babies also.

 

[markeverett49]

I want to repeat my request for other examples of when it is okay to take an innocent human life without due process, take an innocent human life that is no threat to anyone. You appeal to the principle that it is sometimes acceptable to take a human life but I know of no OTHER case where it is acceptable to take an innocent human life that poses no immediate threat without due process.

 

[Crescentinus]

We were lied to. Here’s the story:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Dr. Nathanson later converted and became a Catholic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

N
The relationship between the father and the embryo is materially nil.

At the moment of conception, the uniting of a mother and father’s chromosomes form a new and unique human being.

Before conception, an egg or sperm has only 23 single chromosomes. When the two unite at conception, the chromosomes combine to give the new cell the proper number of 46 chromosomes which make up a human being.

DNA holds the map of your genes in 46 chromosomes. Every cell in your body
contains your complete genetic blueprint (genome) in the 46 chromosomes in its nucleus.

 

[Faithdancer]

Sadly, some very prominent “ethicists” believe that invalids, etc. aren’t people and should be euthanized. If you haven’t before, and you have a strong stomach and a morbid curiosity, read up on Peter Singer.

That Singer has adherents to his views on abortion, murder of newborns, bestiality, etc. doesn’t indicate that he is right in any way, but only, sadly, shows how many other sick people there are in the world.

 

[Momofmyangels]

That Singer has adherents to his views on abortion, murder of newborns, bestiality, etc. doesn’t indicate that he is right in any way, but only, sadly, shows how many other sick people there are in the world.

I don’t believe prodigalson2011 was advocating for Peter Singer’s warped views, only that those atrocious thought processes were out there.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

It seems there is something I’m missing.

Lemme see if I’ve got this straight:

1. You are trying to justify abortion within 6 weeks by saying its distinct lack of brain activity.
2. You believe that a foetus, a comatose individual, and a beating heart cadaver, two of which well and truly do not have functioning brains (foetus, BHC), but only one of which certainly never will (BHC), are all three human and alive.

So, to not have an active brain does not disqualify something from being alive AND human.

That is to say, not only is a foetus ALIVE, it is HUMAN.
And not only is a BHC HUMAN, it is ALIVE.

I’m afraid I don’t understand, then. How do you define a human life? And what legitimises the killing thereof?

I’m not trying to justify abortion, before six weeks or after six weeks. I am justifying not considering those who have abortions as murderers. Furthermore I am arguing against any civil prohibition on abortions before six weeks, on the simple logical grounds that brain death is legal death, and embryos younger than six weeks have no functioning brain.

There is no legally relevant biological hard-and-fast line between “human life” and “nonhuman life.” If an embryo that’s implanted is considered human life, then a fetus in fetu is also human life. The legal distinction, while necessary, is arbitrary.

The logical conclusion of granting legal standing as a “person” to embryos is to investigate all women who suffer spontaneous abortions for negligence or intentional homicide. This is madness.

If this were true, it would seem to me parthenogenesis would be the norm.

Every molecule in every cell of an embryo is provided via the mother. DNA doesn’t just form out of nothing.

If it expresses a preference not to be killed.

Would that, therefore, mean, a comatose person would be OK for the killing since s/he is unable to ask whether he can be killed or not?

I said “I would not condone killing a human being that is currently able to have a preference for not being killed.” That’s all I said.

I didn’t say I would condone in general the killings of people not currently able to have a preference. I said if someone is currently able to express a preference for not being killed, I would certainly not condone someone killing them.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

At the moment of conception, the uniting of a mother and father’s chromosomes form a new and unique human being.

Before conception, an egg or sperm has only 23 single chromosomes. When the two unite at conception, the chromosomes combine to give the new cell the proper number of 46 chromosomes which make up a human being.

DNA holds the map of your genes in 46 chromosomes. Every cell in your body
contains your complete genetic blueprint (genome) in the 46 chromosomes in its nucleus.

This is irrelevant; cancer cells have 46 chromosomes, teratomas have 46 chromosomes, ectopic pregnancies have 46 chromosomes. If you’re going to count chromosomes to define a human, that’s a lot of nonhumans with Down syndrome we have around here.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I want to repeat my request for other examples of when it is okay to take an innocent human life without due process, take an innocent human life that is no threat to anyone. You appeal to the principle that it is sometimes acceptable to take a human life but I know of no OTHER case where it is acceptable to take an innocent human life that poses no immediate threat without due process.

You’ve already made three special exceptions – “not innocent,” “poses an immediate threat,” and “with due process,” so I see no issue with adding a fourth, “is an embryo younger than six weeks.”

 

[TarkanAttila]

I’m not trying to justify abortion, before six weeks or after six weeks. I am justifying not considering those who have abortions as murderers.

Ah…
http://r14.imgfast.net/users/1417/11/70/26/smiles/3828209772.png

Scuzzi, what difference does it make whether you justify the person or the act? You are basically saying the same thing: abortion is not murder, and the person who seeks abortion is not a murderer. Same thing, different words. Either way, you justify the act, removing the label from it as murder and the label of its actors as murderers.

Now, if, on another hand, we were to argue whether someone who has had an abortion is an evil person, that would be a different matter entirely. Someone can by definition commit murder and not necessarily be evil, if they are ignorant of the act’s evilness, or of the gravity of the evil, or of its gravity even in the face of the good that is trying to be accomplished.

Furthermore I am arguing against any civil prohibition on abortions before six weeks, on the simple logical grounds that brain death is legal death, and embryos younger than six weeks have no functioning brain.

So the fact that human embryos have a normal observed pattern of developing brains over time (due to the process in which humans are made, meiosis), while BHCs have a normal observed pattern of never developing new brain matter (due to the fact that their brain has died), has absolutely no bearing to you at all?

It is, in the case of human life, simply the present circumstances of brain, not future ones, which you take into consideration when considering what is legal to kill and what is not? Am I correct?

There is no legally relevant biological hard-and-fast line between “human life” and “nonhuman life.” If an embryo that’s implanted is considered human life, then a fetus in fetus is also human life. The legal distinction, while necessary, is arbitrary.

OK…

A BHC is brain dead. Therefore it is not human life, because, by legal definition, brain death is death. It is human, but it is dead.

An embryo has no brain. It would seem by your definition, since it lacks a brain, it should be legally dead. Yet clearly under normal circumstances an embryo is very much alive and ever-growing.

Am I understanding this correctly?

The logical conclusion of granting legal standing as a “person” to embryos is to investigate all women who suffer spontaneous abortions for negligence or intentional homicide. This is madness.

Well, so much for the brain argument.
Hm. Your conclusion doesn’t make sense to me, as a spontaneous abortion is one that is not deliberate. It simply happens due to no fault of the mother.

Every molecule in every cell of an embryo is provided via the mother. DNA doesn’t just form out of nothing.

Ummm… can we get a sperm cell over here plz? Half of the DNA and chromosomes of the new life comes from the sperm, thank you very much.

Are you a woman, by any chance? (And if so, could I have your Skype? )

I said “I would not condone killing a human being that is currently able to have a preference for not being killed.” That’s all I said.

I didn’t say I would condone in general the killings of people not currently able to have a preference. I said if someone is currently able to express a preference for not being killed, I would certainly not condone someone killing them.

Ok. I get that, I get that.

So where does one, then, draw the line with people who are NOT able to express a preference? I’m sure the above questions will answer that fairly well.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Scuzzi, what difference does it make whether you justify the person or the act? You are basically saying the same thing: abortion is not murder, and the person who seeks abortion is not a murderer. Same thing, different words. Either way, you justify the act, removing the label from it as murder and the label of its actors as murderers.

No, I am saying that someone who has an abortion must justify that act for themselves and their situation. I am simply saying that I am not going to call them a murderer, and will oppose efforts by others to do so.

So the fact that human embryos have a normal observed pattern of developing brains over time (due to the process in which humans are made, meiosis), while BHCs have a normal observed pattern of never developing new brain matter (due to the fact that their brain has died), has absolutely no bearing to you at all?

Should it?

A BHC is brain dead. Therefore it is not human life, because, by legal definition, brain death is death. It is human, but it is dead.

An embryo has no brain. It would seem by your definition, since it lacks a brain, it should be legally dead. Yet clearly under normal circumstances an embryo is very much alive and ever-growing.

You are mixing legal and metaphysical terminology. By legal death I mean the point where resuscitating measures and life support no longer need to be administered. Since the mother is providing this sort of life support for an embryo, the analogy seems rather clear.

Well, so much for the brain argument.
Hm. Your conclusion doesn’t make sense to me, as a spontaneous abortion is one that is not deliberate. It simply happens due to no fault of the mother.

You need a legal investigation to confirm that, if the embryo is a legal person. Or should traffic accident deaths be written off as no fault of the driver?

Ummm… can we get a sperm cell over here plz? Half of the DNA and chromosomes of the new life comes from the sperm, thank you very much.

You do understand that DNA is matter, yes? And that the matter used to form DNA in embryonic and fetal cells is provided by the mother and only the mother?

Are you a woman, by any chance? (And if so, could I have your Skype? )

Proud father of two daughters.

So where does one, then, draw the line with people who are NOT able to express a preference? I’m sure the above questions will answer that fairly well.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am content to leave it at the line I have drawn. You can call anything else you like murder, whether it is mercy killing or withdrawal of life support or a 10-week abortion. Just not an abortion of an embryo under six weeks gestational age.

 

[markeverett49]

This is problematic. Since a fetus without a functioning brain is alive, the brain-death standard has no place here.It would be absurd to hold that the fetus at that stage is brain-dead AND alive—and not only alive but very likely to have a fully-functioning brain soon without medical intervention. Pretty neat trick. All this would accomplish would be to cast doubt on the validity of the brain-death test (-which was not designed so that the deaths of fetuses could be pronounced.)If you want to stick to strictly logical grounds, before the brain comes to be, it cannot die. What you are talking about is NOT brain-death but rather, ‘the initial stage of human development, at which it is NORMAL for the brain to exhibit no functionality.’

 

[markeverett49]

You’ve already made three special exceptions – “not innocent,” “poses an immediate threat,” and “with due process,” so I see no issue with adding a fourth, “is an embryo younger than six weeks.”

These aren’t my exceptions, they’re standard, whereas ‘younger than six weeks’ is not. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone else suggest this should be the standard (-though I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else had.)

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

These aren’t my exceptions, they’re standard, whereas ‘younger than six weeks’ is not. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone else suggest this should be the standard (-though I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else had.)

St. Aquinas would be one such person.

 

[markeverett49]

St. Aquinas would be one such person.

No he would not. He thought ensoulment came around 40 days but he opposed abortion before then too. And of course, if he knew what we knew about embryology and fetology, he would hold that the soul was there from conception. This doesn’t even qualify as ‘nice try.’ It’s more of a cheap shot that backfired.

 

[markeverett49]

This is problematic. Since a fetus without a functioning brain is alive, the brain-death standard has no place here.It would be absurd to hold that the fetus at that stage is brain-dead AND alive—and not only alive but very likely to have a fully-functioning brain soon without medical intervention. Pretty neat trick. All this would accomplish would be to cast doubt on the validity of the brain-death test (-which was not designed so that the deaths of fetuses could be pronounced.)If you want to stick to strictly logical grounds, before the brain comes to be, it cannot die. What you are talking about is NOT brain-death but rather, ‘the initial stage of human development, at which it is NORMAL for the brain to exhibit no functionality.’

Unless, I hasten to add, you think everyone walking around today was once brain dead but now has an operable, resurrected brain…

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I am not talking about whether abortion is a sin, or whether it should be legal. I am talking about whether it is murder. Aquinas had the same line that I outlined in this thread.

Embryology is not relevant; neurology is. It’s a bit arrogant of you to presume to speak for the doctor of the church centuries after his death, isn’t it?