Reasons not to consider the foetus human life

[Filippo_Bruno]

Do you believe there is ever a morally acceptable reason to terminate the life of an innocent child?

Absolutely I do. Clearly the Creator does too, otherwise there would not be so many miscarried fetuses with neural tube defects.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

Absolutely I do. Clearly the Creator does too, otherwise there would not be so many miscarried fetuses with neural tube defects.

I apolgize, I’ll rephrase: Do you ever believe there is morally acceptable reason for a human being to terminate the life of a child developing in the womb?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I apolgize, I’ll rephrase: Do you ever believe there is morally acceptable reason for a human being to terminate the life of a child developing in the womb?

Absolutely I do, because sometimes the mother’s body would otherwise bring an anencephalic fetus to term.

I suspect from your signature that you’d disagree with this. There is an old joke about a man in a flood that is relevant.

There was a huge flood in a village. One man says to everyone as they evacuate, “I’ll stay! God will save me!”

The flood got higher and a boat came, and the man in it says “Come on mate, get in!” “No,” replies the man. “God will save me!”

The flood gets very high and the man has to stand on the roof of his house. A helicopter soon comes and the pilot offers him help. “No, God will save me!” he says.

Eventually the man drowns. He gets to the gates of heaven and he says to God, “Why didn’t you save me?”

God replies, “I sent a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want?!”

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

If a mother murdered her new born baby, she would be called a murderer and jailed. Why is she allowe to kill it right before birth (and in some cases, partial birth). If she cannot see the baby or hear the baby, does that mean it is not alive? Or does the life growing inside her have to reach the age of 6 weeks before it can be called human? These pro-choice (a.k.a. pro-death) arguemtns are the reasons that murder is acceptable in today’s world. Abortion is never morally acceptable according to the Catholic Church’s stance - which is my stance. No mother should ever be given the right to kill her own child.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

I suspect from your signature that you’d disagree with this. There is an old joke about a man in a flood that is relevant.

Excuse my unintellegence, but I fail to realize how this quote/joke is relevant to the discussion - could you explain? Are you implying that abortion is granted as an “escape” option by God so that a mother doesn’t have to raise a handicapped child?

Perhaps this quote is more relevant: “I have noticed everyone who is for abortion is already born.” - Ronald Reagan

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

If a mother murdered her new born baby, she would be called a murderer and jailed. Why is she allowe to kill it right before birth (and in some cases, partial birth). If she cannot see the baby or hear the baby, does that mean it is not alive? Or does the life growing inside her have to reach the age of 6 weeks before it can be called human? These pro-choice (a.k.a. pro-death) arguemtns are the reasons that murder is acceptable in today’s world. Abortion is never morally acceptable according to the Catholic Church’s stance - which is my stance. No mother should ever be given the right to kill her own child.

Those are all good questions that would be answered differently depending on who you posed them to. I just want to make the point again that none of it revolves around the question of whether a fetus is human life, or when it becomes human – because it is taken as given that killing another human is sometimes acceptable.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

Those are all good questions that would be answered differently depending on who you posed them to. I just want to make the point again that none of it revolves around the question of whether a fetus is human life, or when it becomes human – because it is taken as given that killing another human is sometimes acceptable.

A fetus is human life. From the moment of conception. Conception marks a unique set of DNA in the womb of the mother. Conception marks a WHOLE genetic makeup for how the child will develop in the womb. Conception marks a determination of the sex. Life is there becuase those cells are multiplying and dividing and changing.

When had pregnancy become a disease only curable by abortion?

 

[Joe_5859]

I’ll just repeat myself to spare you the need to read:

The question for pro-choice and pro-life alike is not “is the egg/embryo/fetus/person alive” but “when is it morally unacceptable to terminate the life of the egg/embryo/fetus/person?”

But if you really want me to chase the red herring around for a bit, I’d say a “human person” appears when brain activity begins. As I understand it, this is around forty days gestation – which is the same figure that ancient civilizations often used for a time of ensoulment.

However, this has nothing to do with the moral acceptability of abortion. It might still be unacceptable to abort an embryo younger than that (since it is undeniably alive and it is sometimes unacceptable to kill nonhuman life), or it might be acceptable to abort a fetus older than that (since it is sometimes acceptable to kill human life.)

So you can’t say “ah! a human person begins at conception!” and expect the argument to be won, nor could I say “ah! a human person begins at 6 weeks!” and expect the argument to be won, nor could someone else say “ah! a human person begins at birth!” and expect the argument to be won.

It’s a profound waste of time, morally speaking.

I’m trying to make sure I understand you correctly. So you’re saying that whether or not the unborn is a person is irrelevant to the abortion debate? The only thing that matters is what conditions might exist in which it is morally permissible for us to kill a person?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Excuse my unintellegence, but I fail to realize how this quote/joke is relevant to the discussion - could you explain? Are you implying that abortion is granted as an “escape” option by God so that a mother doesn’t have to raise a handicapped child?

Perhaps this quote is more relevant: “I have noticed everyone who is for abortion is already born.” - Ronald Reagan

It is relevant because our ability to determine that a young fetus has no forebrain is God’s way of telling us that an abortion is morally acceptable or even demanded.

You don’t raise an anencephalic child, by the way: you watch it die.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I’m trying to make sure I understand you correctly. So you’re saying that whether or not the unborn is a person is irrelevant to the abortion debate? The only thing that matters is what conditions might exist in which it is morally permissible for us to kill a person?

Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. For example, I could grant you the claim that a person begins at fertilization, but could make an argument that it is morally permissible to “kill” a person with no brain activity. (This is somewhat odd use of the word “kill” because brain death is often the legal marker of death anyway.) That would mean that abortion is permissible until around six weeks.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

It is relevant because our ability to determine that a young fetus has no forebrain is God’s way of telling us that an abortion is morally acceptable or even demanded.

You don’t raise an anencephalic child, by the way: you watch it die.

No. God creates life in the womb. He also gave us the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill” Why would He then say something that is contradictory to His laws He has given us? It would then make Him imperfect, and thus not God.

Do you believe that simply becasue our limited human knowledge is not able to detect brain movements that the child isn’t alive? There are no brain movements in a brain-dead patient, yet they are alive.

I do know what an anencephalic child is. Six months ago our dear friends found out their child was anencephalic. They did not abort it. The mother carried that baby to full term, gave birth to her and her wonderful siblings and parents were able to hold her, tell her they loved her, and kiss her goodbye. She was also able to be baptized. Even that brief glimpse at life that she had was better than being murdered in the womb.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Six months ago our dear friends found out their child was anencephalic. They did not abort it. The mother carried that baby to full term, gave birth to her and her wonderful siblings and parents were able to hold her, tell her they loved her, and kiss her goodbye. She was also able to be baptized. Even that brief glimpse at life that she had was better than being murdered in the womb.

I’m not going to imprison someone who makes a different choice than your friends did, sorry. And I won’t call them murderers any more than I’d call your friends necrophiles.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

I’m not going to imprison someone who makes a different choice than your friends did, sorry. And I won’t call them murderers any more than I’d call your friends necrophiles.

Their child was alive when she was delivered.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. For example, I could grant you the claim that a person begins at fertilization, but could make an argument that it is morally permissible to “kill” a person with no brain activity. (This is somewhat odd use of the word “kill” because brain death is often the legal marker of death anyway.) That would mean that abortion is permissible until around six weeks.

I respect your honesty and your consistency. Many self-described pro-choice people want to rationalize abortion as okay because of their belief that it’s not really a person (which to me then begs the question, what is it then?)

Would you say there is a difference between a person who is brain dead and a person who simply has not developed brain activity but will certainly do so? What about coma patients?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I respect your honesty and your consistency. Many self-described pro-choice people want to rationalize abortion as okay because of their belief that it’s not really a person (which to me then begs the question, what is it then?)

Would you say there is a difference between a person who is brain dead and a person who simply has not developed brain activity but will certainly do so? What about coma patients?

I don’t think the potential to have brain activity in the future is the same as already having it, so there’s not a difference between someone who was brain-alive and is now irretrievably brain-dead, and an embryo that doesn’t yet have a brain.

To my mind the abortion question is much more straightforward than the coma patient question. Coma patients will always have more brain activity than an embryo that doesn’t yet have a working brain. Coma patients also have families with longstanding relationships to the patient, and different doctors will have different prognoses about each individual patient.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

I don’t think the potential to have brain activity in the future is the same as already having it, so there’s not a difference between someone who was brain-alive and is now irretrievably brain-dead, and an embryo that doesn’t yet have a brain.

To my mind the abortion question is much more straightforward than the coma patient question. Coma patients will always have more brain activity than an embryo that doesn’t yet have a working brain. Coma patients also have families with longstanding relationships to the patient, and different doctors will have different prognoses about each individual patient.

So, if brain activity connotes life, is it also the timeline where God infuses a soul? Does it take someone to have a brain activity to have a soul?

If you believe this, has God told you babies have souls at 6 weeks? Because that has not been revealed to any of us as of yet. As a Catholic, I believe that God grants life at the moment of conception. And at the moment of conception, there is a soul becuase God has breathed life into that child. So despite brain activity, a soul would indicate a child of God, alive and present in his or her mother’s womb.

The defintion of life is: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Does not a fetus function and cell reproduce from the moment of conception?

So, just to understand and see we are on the same page: You would give that life begins at conception. But you just are OK with killing life because in some cases it’s ok.

Some times it’s ok to kill: self defense. When someone is conscienclly making the decision to harm one. But the baby isn’t harming the mother intentionally. Self defense -but what about someone who has no ability to defend themselves?

You a very free to dictate cases in which it is morally acceptable to kill. How would you feel if someone was discussing when it is morally acceptable to kill you? You have the ability to defend yourself physically, mentally and verbally. An unborn child in the womb does not have that ability.

Even a child with a handicap has never chosen that. It is not the baby’s fault it has deformities. You call for freedom of choice, but what about the child - doesn’t he or she have a choice in the matter of his or her own life?

 

[manualman]

Secondly, all of the material–including the DNA–in an embryo/fetus/newborn is “100% sourced” from the mother. There’s nowhere else the matter can come from. Sperm doesn’t magically make half of a baby appear. It doesn’t even make half of the chromosomes appear.

I’ll admit to being an engineer, not a biologist, but even I know that half a child’s genes come from the sperm and half from the egg. I’m aware that science has moved a bit on from Mendelian genetics, but he’s really not that far off in the basics.

Once the egg is fertilized a fundamental change in the genetic structure occurs such that the single cell organism simply isn’t a cell from either the father orthe mother’s body. It uses nutrition, oxygen and waste disposal provided by the mother to begin cell division, but from the moment of conception genetics conclusively demonstrates that it is a separate and distinct organism from the mother. This is really a basic biological fact and no amount of terminological trickery is going to alter that.

Nice try though.

 

[manualman]

It is relevant because our ability to determine that a young fetus has no forebrain is God’s way of telling us that an abortion is morally acceptable or even demanded.

You don’t raise an anencephalic child, by the way: you watch it die.

Sometimes that’s all you can do. What you DON’T do is pretend you are God and take onto yourself the role of dispensing death upon those whom you in your wisdom are better off that way.

Throughout this thread you make the recurring error of asserting that since there ARE occasions where human life can be taken, the taking of human life can’t be absolutely ruled immoral. What you consistently fail to consider is the principle that it is ALWAYS immoral to intentionally take the life of an INNOCENT human being.

 

[Robert_Caritas]

I’ll just repeat myself to spare you the need to read:

So you can’t say “ah! a human person begins at conception!” and expect the argument to be won, nor could I say “ah! a human person begins at 6 weeks!” and expect the argument to be won, nor could someone else say “ah! a human person begins at birth!” and expect the argument to be won.

It’s a profound waste of time, morally speaking.

I agree that it is a waste of time to give arbitrary and relative notions of when a human being begins. Some of these can be a heartbeat, neural activity, movement, the ability to live outside the womb, or birth. These are all arbitrary, depending on various definitions of what a human being is.
What is not arbitrary is that the essential origin of a human being is at conception. With this act there is a human being, without it, there are just cells that are on their way to dying. Several additional steps are going to be required for a human being to be conceived (many), but this is unquestionably the first one.
Therefore, regardless of when a human being becomes complete, the origin of a human being is unquestionably in conception. This is the true first step.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

^ to the three posts above me. You guys are able to eloquently explain what I was trying to get across. Bravo.