Reasons not to consider the foetus human life

[Catholic80]

Doesn’t that just make you rip your hair out in frustration? The first black president in our history holds as his most protected political priority the safeguarding of the legal status of women to own their unborn children as “chattel property.” We really learn nothing from history.

Do you know, I never even put the two together before reading your post, uch: but you are right… it is VERY ironic that Obama, who is of the heritage where people once thought people of African origin weren’t “persons” (Dred Scott decision), could then in-turn declare that same judgement on another human.

“Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.”

 

[TarkanAttila]

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.

First of all, forgive me for not doing so before, but welcome to the thread! I think you are just the sort of person I was hoping to get insight from!

Second, as per this quote, I would have to say I disagree. The embryo will - barring miscarriage, which is the exception, not the rule - develop a brain. Brain activity will only increase from conception to birth. And its activity will equal, if not surpass, that of a comatose patient before it is even out of the womb. (And if it doesn’t, this would apply to the child outside of the womb as well, wouldn’t it? In which case this would not be a good qualifier.)

Third, yes, some of the comatose have relationships. What if they did not? Would that make it OK for them to be euthanised?

Finally, prognosis. Erm… what’s your point?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

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.

I’m not a Catholic any more and I don’t believe in a soul, so I can’t answer these questions coherently. The statements “humans are given a soul at conception,” “humans are given a soul at 40 days gestation,” and “humans are given a soul at eight years of age” all look the same to me.

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?

This is fine. No person familiar with biology would dispute that an embryo (or an egg cell or a liver cell) is alive according to this definition.

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.

Correct. Not only is killing living things OK in some cases, it is often necessary for human existence.

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.

I would not condone killing a human being that is currently able to have a preference for not being killed.

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?

Not in utero, the child doesn’t and can’t exercise that choice. He or she is simply not capable of doing so.

If you want to focus on the ability to choose or form preferences, it’s possible that the cutoff comes a few months after being born. I certainly don’t want to make that the pivot point.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

The embryo will - barring miscarriage, which is the exception, not the rule - develop a brain. Brain activity will only increase from conception to birth.

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

And its activity will equal, if not surpass, that of a comatose patient befor it is even out of the womb. (And if it doesn’t, this would apply to the child outside of the womb as well, wouldn’t it? In which case this would not be a good qualifier.)

These are salient points. At this point in the discussion I am going to keep the focus on the weeks prior to brain activity, because for me this is the easiest case to make that abortion can be morally acceptable. I am not going to argue the point that abortion after six weeks is morally acceptable, nor am I going to spend much time on parsing the differences between morally unacceptable and legally impermissible.

I think if we can come to the agreements that abortion is killing, but not all killing is murder, then that’s some kind of common ground.

Third, yes, some of the comatose have relationships. What if they did not? Would that make it OK for them to be euthanised?

I was approaching the question from a legal point of view. Legally speaking, I think there’s absolutely no grounds for restricting abortions before six weeks of gestation, but I admit that there can be grounds for restricting or prohibiting them after six weeks of gestation depending on the circumstances and the moral theories employed.

The fact that people in comas often have established relationships throughout their lives, both legal and personal, and that all of these relationships are unique, and that each prognosis is unique, means that it is much more difficult for me to have an equivalently absolute position about the moral acceptability and legal permissibility of euthanasia.

I will differ with the Catholic point of view in saying that there are likely cases where euthanasia is acceptable, but there are also cases where it is not acceptable. It could well be that a blanket ban on euthanasia is the most legally prudent course to take.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

I’m not a Catholic any more and I don’t believe in a soul, so I can’t answer these questions coherently. The statements “humans are given a soul at conception,” “humans are given a soul at 40 days gestation,” and “humans are given a soul at eight years of age” all look the same to me.

I think I get it. You don’t believe in a soul - so you don’t believe the soul will live on after you die and there will be no eternal consequences to your mortal actions. Without consequences, you thus have no qualms killling a child in the womb becuase you believe the baby has no soul - thus is not going to an eternal life - and you don’t have an eternal soul - thus there will be no consequences for your decisions.

So it’s OK for someone to crash their car into your car because that is what they believe is morally right. It’s OK for someone to abuse a child out of the womb. But if you say any of these things are not OK, you are saying they all have consequences - it can’t be one or the other. And thus saying it’s not OK connotes a moral compass that you are using to decide if something is OK or not.

And if you admit to morality in situations (in ALL situations because it is all or none) you thus have to admit to consequences.

As I have read through your responses, your religion allows to you to believe/justify anything based on justifying your current actions.

You will be in my prayers. God bless you.

Chloe M.

 

[markeverett49]

Correct. Not only is killing living things OK in some cases, it is often necessary for human existence.

Would you consider a normal pregnancy one of those cases?
Please share your list of “often necessary” killings of those living things who are also human beings.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I think I get it. You don’t believe in a soul - so you don’t believe the soul will live on after you die and there will be no eternal consequences to your mortal actions. Without consequences, you thus have no qualms killling a child in the womb becuase you believe the baby has no soul - thus is not going to an eternal life - and you don’t have an eternal soul - thus there will be no consequences for your decisions.

So it’s OK for someone to crash their car into your car because that is what they believe is morally right. It’s OK for someone to abuse a child out of the womb. But if you say any of these things are not OK, you are saying they all have consequences - it can’t be one or the other. And thus saying it’s not OK connotes a moral compass that you are using to decide if something is OK or not.

And if you admit to morality in situations (in ALL situations because it is all or none) you thus have to admit to consequences.

As I have read through your responses, your religion allows to you to believe/justify anything based on justifying your current actions.

Please do not presume to speak for me. Of course I have a moral compass. Of course I know that my actions have consequences. In fact, there is nothing else here; in the universe there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences. Life isn’t some kind of game or test where we “win” if we do it well enough.

The practice of moral living without appeal to an absolute divine law is older than Catholicism. Having a sense of right and wrong is not dependent on belief in a soul or in a deity.

You will be in my prayers. God bless you.

Thank you.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Would you consider a normal pregnancy one of those cases?
Please share your list of “often necessary” killings of those living things who are also human beings.

A killing – even of a human being – does not need to be necessary in order to be morally acceptable.

When I mentioned necessary killing, I was just pointing that all of us would die, if we weren’t ourselves killing thousands or millions of other living things each day.

 

[markeverett49]

A killing – even of a human being – does not need to be necessary in order to be morally acceptable…

Which killings of human beings do you find morally acceptable?

 

[TarkanAttila]

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

Effectively, neither does a comatose person.

These are salient points. At this point in the discussion I am going to keep the focus on the weeks prior to brain activity, because for me this is the easiest case to make that abortion can be morally acceptable. I am not going to argue the point that abortion after six weeks is morally acceptable, nor am I going to spend much time on parsing the differences between morally unacceptable and legally impermissible.

What do you make of anencephaly? While babies with it usually do not survive long, they do survive outside of the womb for a while. There’ve been a couple of cases of a baby with it that lived two or three years.

Is it still human?

I think if we can come to the agreements that abortion is killing, but not all killing is murder, then that’s some kind of common ground.

I think we can agree to this:

1. Abortion is killing
2. Not all killing is murder

What we do not agree on is this:

3a. Abortion is killing, but not murder.
or
3b. Abortion is killing, and murder.

If we are to determine which of these is correct, we must have some criteria to determine the difference between murder and non-murder.

I propose that if any of the following criteria is not held:

A. Whatever we propose to kill is human life
B. Whatever this human life is doing is not violating others’ objective human rights - such as life, and freedom

Killing is acceptable. If both of these criteria are met, however, you have murder.

Agreed? Would you care to add or subtract something?

I was approaching the question from a legal point of view. Legally speaking, I think there’s absolutely no grounds for restricting abortions before six weeks of gestation, but I admit that there can be grounds for restricting or prohibiting them after six weeks of gestation depending on the circumstances and the moral theories employed.

I think I am arguing from a more biological perspective - one closer to natural law - of which we can usually be certain of - and more removed from malleable, capricious human law.

The fact that people in comas often have established relationships throughout their lives, both legal and personal, and that all of these relationships are unique, and that each prognosis is unique, means that it is much more difficult for me to have an equivalently absolute position about the moral acceptability and legal permissibility of euthanasia.

I will differ with the Catholic point of view in saying that there are likely cases where euthanasia is acceptable, but there are also cases where it is not acceptable. It could well be that a blanket ban on euthanasia is the most legally prudent course to take.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Which killings of human beings do you find morally acceptable?

I find aborting a human embryo of less than six weeks gestation morally acceptable.

 

[TarkanAttila]

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

Effectively, neither does a comatose person. Until he comes out of his coma, you wouldn’t know the difference between a coma patient and a beating heart cadaver without a doctor.

(What an age we live in where there is such a thing as a beating heart cadaver.)

While a BH cadaver will never gain brain function, however, a comatose person will, as will a growing embryo. Until then, all three are effectively dead, inhuman, insapient, however you like.

These are salient points. At this point in the discussion I am going to keep the focus on the weeks prior to brain activity, because for me this is the easiest case to make that abortion can be morally acceptable. I am not going to argue the point that abortion after six weeks is morally acceptable, nor am I going to spend much time on parsing the differences between morally unacceptable and legally impermissible.

What do you make of anencephaly? While babies with it usually do not survive long, they do survive outside of the womb for a while. There’ve been a couple of cases of a baby with it that lived two or three years.

Is it still human?

I think if we can come to the agreements that abortion is killing, but not all killing is murder, then that’s some kind of common ground.

I think we can agree to this:

1. Abortion is killing
2. Not all killing is murder

What we do not agree on is this:

3a. Abortion is killing, but not murder.
or
3b. Abortion is killing, and murder.

If we are to determine which of these is correct, we must have some criteria to determine the difference between murder and non-murder.

I propose that if any of the following criteria is not held:

A. Whatever we propose to kill is human life
B. Whatever this human life is doing is not violating others’ objective human rights - such as life, and freedom

Killing is acceptable. If both of these criteria are met, however, you have murder.

Agreed? Would you care to add or subtract something?

I was approaching the question from a legal point of view. Legally speaking, I think there’s absolutely no grounds for restricting abortions before six weeks of gestation, but I admit that there can be grounds for restricting or prohibiting them after six weeks of gestation depending on the circumstances and the moral theories employed.

I think I am arguing from a more biological perspective - one closer to natural law - of which we can usually be certain of - and more removed from malleable, capricious human law.

The fact that people in comas often have established relationships throughout their lives, both legal and personal, and that all of these relationships are unique, and that each prognosis is unique, means that it is much more difficult for me to have an equivalently absolute position about the moral acceptability and legal permissibility of euthanasia.

Seeing as human law is and has been capable of an incredible degree of malleability, I don’t usually care about it in debates.

Personally speaking, though, there may be a point we might be able to discuss.

There are two relationships even an embryo has: its mother, and its father (i.e, its two progenitors). Now, I know many abortions do happen because the mother, father, or both seriously don’t want it. But what if one or both do? Does that have any bearing on whether an abortion can or might be done?

I ask because some women do have abortions that they do not want, thanks to the prompting of their parents, bosses, landlords, etc. And there are some fathers who do want the child they had a part in making.

From a legal standpoint, since it appeals to you, established IVF law has given men some say in whether or not they can keep their children (i.e, embryos). Could this also apply with a live and growing embryo?

I will differ with the Catholic point of view in saying that there are likely cases where euthanasia is acceptable, but there are also cases where it is not acceptable. It could well be that a blanket ban on euthanasia is the most legally prudent course to take.

I agree that a blanket ban of euthanasia is best.

In your mind’s eye… are there any parallels between killing a comatose person and an embryo?

 

[markeverett49]

I find aborting a human embryo of less than six weeks gestation morally acceptable.

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)?

 

[nickybr38]

What a timely post. I have been arguing with my fellow Canadians about this very issue and they are quite adamant that a fetus is NOT a viable human being.

head/desk It’s such a frustrating argument.

 

[nickybr38]

Okay, and I needed to add that this thread restored my faith in humanity a little bit. After being beaten down by pro-choice advocates it’s nice to hear that there are other people out there fighting the good fight.

 

[DaveBj]

I find aborting a human embryo of less than six weeks gestation morally acceptable.

Can you prove beyond doubt that a human embryo of less than six weeks gestation is not a human being?

And if you cannot prove that (meaning that there is a possibility that it is a human being), how can you justify not providing it the same protection as other human beings?

 

[markeverett49]

What a timely post. I have been arguing with my fellow Canadians about this very issue and they are quite adamant that a fetus is NOT a viable human being.t.

The word to watch there is “viable,” not human. Of course a fetus cannot fend for himself, but then, so long as he remains in the womb, he need not.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The word to watch there is “viable,” not human. Of course a fetus cannot fend for himself, but then, so long as he remains in the womb, he need not.

On top of that, if we were to broaden “viable” to mean “dependent” - which is basically the accusation against the foetus, that it depends upon its mother - I don’t think we could say more than just a few people, if that, could be said to be perfectly independent of anyone but God.

What do I mean? Well, when’s the last time you didn’t eat something bought from a store? That someone else grew, made, and packaged? Same with shirts. When’s the last time you made your own shirt?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Until then, all three are effectively dead, inhuman, insapient, however you like.

No, they are all alive and human.

What do you make of anencephaly? While babies with it usually do not survive long, they do survive outside of the womb for a while. There’ve been a couple of cases of a baby with it that lived two or three years.

Is it still human?

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.

A. Whatever we propose to kill is human life
B. Whatever this human life is doing is not violating others’ objective human rights - such as life, and freedom

Killing is acceptable. If both of these criteria are met, however, you have murder.

Agreed? Would you care to add or subtract something?

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

There are two relationships even an embryo has: its mother, and its father (i.e, its two progenitors). Now, I know many abortions do happen because the mother, father, or both seriously don’t want it. But what if one or both do? Does that have any bearing on whether an abortion can or might be done?

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.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Can you prove beyond doubt that a human embryo of less than six weeks gestation is not a human being?

And if you cannot prove that (meaning that there is a possibility that it is a human being), how can you justify not providing it the same protection as other human beings?

If you review my earlier comments, I gladly concede that an embryo is human – what else could it be?