Reasons not to consider the foetus human life

[markeverett49]

Well, to your credit, I think you’re doing an admirable job representing the Catholic side of this.

Although I am Catholic now, I was raised anti-Catholic. I was anti-abortion before I became Catholic. I did find the Church’s teachings on that subject–and related ones, such as contraception, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research—coherent and appealing. I think the Church was right about all those things despite living among people who thought the Church WRONG about them all. I think the Church’s position is the most REASONABLE one I have encountered on these matters.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

No it’s correct. The substance which is going to develop into a fully grown human being only comes into being at fertilization.

So the substance (that is to say, the essence) of a human being is having a unique set of 46 chromosomes?

In this view everything is one, and nothing truly exists. In fact, in this view we only decide what is what because it causes us pain to consider everything as being the same. Thus, everything is arbitrary – we just decide what a person is when it suits us, or our particular sensibilities. Ethics is reduced to aesthetics. Nature really teaches us nothing, because nature is just a big indiscriminate soup of particles.
Tell me if I am correct in characterizing your view.

Your characterization is uncharitably stated, but it seems correct. There isn’t teleology in the universe outside of the bare facts of natural processes, so it doesn’t “teach” us anything in the moral sense.

You contradict yourself – if everything [ethical] is arbitrary, then it clearly cannot be “reduced” (why not “expanded?” It’s just as valid.) to aesthetics, because those are not arbitrary.

In any case, this view doesn't hold, because nature does teach us things, and things do exist in nature. Trees exist, animals exist, different types of rocks exist, etc. People exist. We don't decide this. You can't decide that a rock doesn't exist when it's going to hit you in the head. Physical objects exist.
Thus, a human being exists. A sperm is not a human being, neither is an ovum -- this is very very clear. Also, a protein is not a sperm; separate atoms are not a protein, etc. Thus there exists a certain point when certain atoms are binded to make molecules, and a point when these molecules make up cells. And there is a certain point when two of these cells, an ovum and a sperm, cease to be what they were and bind to form a person, something new. 
Our observational capacities pin this down at fertilization.

I have never argued against considering a fertilized egg a human being. I have questioned why the same logic doesn’t apply to egg or sperm, and the answers are unsatisfactory. Gametes have unique genetic makeups, undergo the biological processes associated with life, and are undoubtedly human cells.

My point has always been that the question here is when is it acceptable to kill human life. You argue that it is acceptable to kill egg and sperm. I argue that it is acceptable to kill egg, sperm, and embryos younger than six weeks gestation.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Now you’re devolving from the merely untenable to the simply bizarre. Look up “sperm” in a zoology 101 textbook, will ya? Preferably under mammals. The mother provides all the nutrition from which the zygote replicates itself and begins to construct it’s body. But the genetic material that guides that growth and cell replication is sourced from BOTH father and mother.

No, all of the material in the cells comes from the mother, genetic material included. This material consists of copies of the original genome, half of which does come from the sperm.

LOL, your argument is just plain fun! So if I kidnap a 5 pound infant and go on the run and manage to hide until the kid is 6 years old, 50 pounds and I feed him food that is legally mine, then at that point he is 90% my child, right? That’s the extension of your logic. Nice work.

All I said was that the material contribution of the father’s sperm to a fetus is nil. This was in response to manualman claiming that an egg can’t be a human because it’s “100% sourced” from the mother. I pointed out that this is unremarkable because all of a fetus is “100% sourced” from the mother.

The problem here is one of philosophy and it’s likley to increase in severity over time as our culutre continues to dis-integrate. We quite literally don’t agree on the definition of “is” anymore. It’s like being from different planets.

I don’t see any cultural disintegration, so we are clearly in quite a bit of disagreement.

 

[markeverett49]

It’s certainly possible for something to be sinful without being murder. I am talking about murder, not sin.

You granted that abortion is homicide from the beginning by saying a fetus is a human being. You thought abortion could be justified because sometimes homicide is justified. Yes, sometimes it is, but that means it is justified homicide, not that it isn’t homicide at all. Your justification seems to be that if the fetus is less than six-weeks old, there is no functioning brain and therefore such a fetus would fail a brain-death test. (In short, it is okay to kill a fetus less than six-weeks old because it is ALREADY dead.)

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

“Homicide” refers to the killing of a legal person, which an embryo is not. There’s a difference among the biological, moral, and legal definitions of “human life” despite the Church’s attempt to conflate them.

 

[markeverett49]

“Homicide” refers to the killing of a legal person, which an embryo is not. There’s a difference among the biological, moral, and legal definitions of “human life” despite the Church’s attempt to conflate them.

Homicide is the act of one human being killing another human being. YOU granted that a fetus is a human being.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Homicide is the act of one human being killing another human being. YOU granted that a fetus is a human being.

OK, but the connotation of the word “homicide” is that a legal investigation or criminal charge is appropriate, which is not the case for an embryo. You’re essentially trying to assert that it’s murder in a different set of words. I disagree, no matter what words you use.

 

[markeverett49]

OK, but the connotation of the word “homicide” is that a legal investigation or criminal charge is appropriate, which is not the case for an embryo. You’re essentially trying to assert that it’s murder in a different set of words. I disagree, no matter what words you use.

What I am pointing out is the position YOU took from the beginning—that a fetus is a human being. That’s what you said. That is your position: the fetus is a human being. But you also want to say that although a) a fetus is a human being and b) abortion ends the life of a fetus, nevertheless, c) abortion is not ending the life of a human being. You can’t have it both ways, saying that a fetus is a human being if you DON’T abort it but is NOT a human being if you do.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

What I am pointing out is the position YOU took from the beginning—that a fetus is a human being. That’s what you said. That is your position: the fetus is a human being. But you also want to say that although a) a fetus is a human being and b) abortion ends the life of a fetus, nevertheless, c) abortion is not ending the life of a human being. You can’t have it both ways, saying that a fetus is a human being if you DON’T abort it but is NOT a human being if you do.

Where did I ever say that abortion doesn’t end the life of a human being?

 

[manualman]

You argue like Bill Clinton under prosecutor questioning. Asserting that the embryo receives all of its genetic material from the mother is precisely the same sort of dishonest tactic the prez used to deny his affair. You know better, but you choose to deceive using words that are technically true, but calculated to give the wrong impression. It’s one thing to honestly come from a worldview that disbelieves in teleology. At least you admit that. It’s rather another to bend the truth to rationalize a position you desperately want to defend. You clearly comprehend the biology well enough to see the difference between a source of nutrition and a source of substance, but pretend you don’t in order to score argument points.

I’m out of here.

 

[markeverett49]

Where did I ever say that abortion doesn’t end the life of a human being?

You are saying it NOW when you insist that abortion is not homicide. You claim that this is because homicide involves the death of a legal person by a legal person, but this is not the standard definition, or even the standard legal definition. Homicide is the killing of one human being of another. You can’t say both that the fetus is a human being AND that killing one is not a case of killing a human being, which is to say, homicide.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

You clearly comprehend the biology well enough to see the difference between a source of nutrition and a source of substance

I understand biology well enough to see that there’s no magic substance involved in fertilization.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

You are saying it NOW when you insist that abortion is not homicide. You claim that this is because homicide involves the death of a legal person by a legal person, but this is not the standard definition, or even the standard legal definition. Homicide is the killing of one human being of another. You can’t say both that the fetus is a human being AND that killing one is not a case of killing a human being, which is to say, homicide.

If you are defining homicide strictly as “killing one human being by another,” then yes, abortion is homicide. But the word “homicide” has the additional connotation that an immoral or illegal act may have occurred, which is not the case with aborted embryos.

 

[markeverett49]

If you are defining homicide strictly as “killing one human being by another,” then yes, abortion is homicide. But the word “homicide” has the additional connotation that an immoral or illegal act may have occurred, which is not the case with aborted embryos.

Thank you.

 

[TarkanAttila]

No, abortion [edit: didn’t see the 2nd question so added:] before six weeks can’t ever be murder.

Well, then, you aren’t saying they have to justify themselves. You’re saying their act is already justified because by your definition they’re already not guilty.

You are defining the one who gets an abortion (at least before 6 weeks) as not a murderer and abortion (at least before 6 weeks) as not murderous. Please don’t pretend to be saying anything otherwise.

It provided a set of chromosomes for a single cell. Guess what? Every copy of those chromosomes was made from material provided solely from the mother. All of the trillions or quadrillions or however many copies of the DNA were created by the embryonic cells from nutrients provided by the mother.

To repeat: materially speaking, the father’s contribution to the fetus is nil.

Do you realise what you’re saying? I don’t think you do because without the sperm all of the copies of DNA within every cell would not exist. The egg would not grow without the sperm. No sperm, no pregnancy. Your contribution to your daughters is half of all of their chromosomes. Now, materially they did grow within their mother’s womb, and not within you. BUT if your sperm had not met her egg and started meiosis your two daughters would not exist.

Your contribution is VITAL. Without THE ORIGINAL, THE EGG WOULD NOT GROW.

It’s like saying that all of the copies of Shakespearian literature render Shakespeare’s contribution to English drama, literature, and vocabulary nil because CLEARLY English society could have made up all these whimsical phrases, plays, and characters al by themselves without the aide of Mr. Shakespeare. It is absurd.

I don’t think I can state this clearly enough: the contribution of the sperm makes all the difference. Material or not, no sperm, no child. You are half responsible for your child because without the original half of the chromosomes your child has, it would not exist.

So suck it up and admit that your two daughters are your own. I’m not just saying that to you. I’m saying that to anyone (not you) who thinks that they have no responsibility for the children they bring into the world. Yeah, sure the woman has to carry it, but it’s yours, too. If you hadn’t had sex with your wife/GF/etc, that child would not exist. So be a man and take responsibility for it. You AND her created that child. You AND her are responsible for it.

OK, rant over. Sperm contributes half the chromosomes of the original and without it no baby. Carthage must be destroyed. The end.

If a fully-grown person had their brain removed or damaged to that extent, I would not consider their killing a murder. It is likely too difficult to write law to cover those cases though.

So killing an anencephalic child out of the womb wouldn’t bother you at all?

Well, at least you are consistent. Would that it were so easy for me.

Yet somehow… while the brain does control all of the personality stuff and all that… I can’t help but wonder how a human being without a brain manages to survive out of the womb, even if it doesn’t live long.

 

[manualman]

If you are defining homicide strictly as “killing one human being by another,” then yes, abortion is homicide. But the word “homicide” has the additional connotation that an immoral or illegal act may have occurred, which is not the case with aborted embryos.

Nice. So when a Gestapo thug murdered a Jew in Nazi Germany, it wasn’t a homicide. After all, German law at the time did not consider it so. Go tell the AJC and Israeli consulate. Similarly, I guess it wasn’t a homicide when an 1850’s American killed his black slave in order to teach the others a lesson about rebellion. After all, the law said the slave was merely chattel property, not a person.

How convenient for us that all we need to do is set the laws the way we want them in order to define morality the way it suits us.

The problem with evil is that it doesn’t always look mean and scary. The ideas you are espousing are evil, though I’m sure you’re a perfectly nice person. Sadly, that just isn’t enough. One can’t be content with being nice, one needs to actually discern what is good from what is evil. Otherwise we’ll wander back down the road of the slavers and the Nazis and the Aztecs. In many ways, we already have.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Thank you.

As he and I have been talking, he also considers beating heart cadavers human life. So he might have a very different understanding of the term “human life” from you or me.

We say life begins at conception, and ends at natural death. If I understand this correctly, it is the original point in time when the body as a whole ceases functioning or an increase in function, with or without medical assistance.

 

[jim1130]

If a fetus is not a human being, at what point does it magically become a human being?

I had heard on a Catholic Radio Show on Sirius XM that when President Obama was asked the question “when does a fetus become a human being” he answered that it was above his pay scale to render a decision. The radio speaker commented that one would think President Obama would err on the side of caution and choose conception rather than be dismissive and offer a cop out answer. I am not sure when President Obama said what he said. I am just going off what the radio host said.

 

[markeverett49]

Yesterday or the day before, several blog sites posted links to a video of Obama—perhaps still a Senator then–saying that a fetus is “potential life.”

wnd.com/2012/10/video-obama-calls-fetus-potential-life/?cat_orig=health

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

You are defining the one who gets an abortion (at least before 6 weeks) as not a murderer and abortion (at least before 6 weeks) as not murderous. Please don’t pretend to be saying anything otherwise.

This is exactly right, just as you define someone who does it as murderous.

Do you realise what you’re saying? I don’t think you do because without the sperm all of the copies of DNA within every cell would not exist. The egg would not grow without the sperm.

The egg would not grow without a hundred billion other substances, chemicals, and hormones, either. This hardly makes sperm something unique.

Your contribution to your daughters is half of all of their chromosomes. Now, materially they did grow within their mother’s womb, and not within you. BUT if your sperm had not met her egg and started meiosis your two daughters would not exist.

That’s not what meiosis is. Meiosis is how sperm cells are formed and how egg cells are formed. This might seem nitpicky, but it is more relevant considering a later point.

I don’t think I can state this clearly enough: the contribution of the sperm makes all the difference. Material or not, no sperm, no child. You are half responsible for your child because without the original half of the chromosomes your child has, it would not exist.

So suck it up and admit that your two daughters are your own. I’m not just saying that to you. I’m saying that to anyone (not you) who thinks that they have no responsibility for the children they bring into the world. Yeah, sure the woman has to carry it, but it’s yours, too. If you hadn’t had sex with your wife/GF/etc, that child would not exist. So be a man and take responsibility for it. You AND her created that child. You AND her are responsible for it.

You are correct that I am responsible for my children and that they are my own, but you are incorrect about the reason. They are my children and I am responsible for them because I chose to have them, and have accepted the responsibility of raising them. It has absolutely nothing to do with a sperm cell. Would you insinuate that adoptive parents are not the real parents of their children, responsible for caring for and raising them? Because that’s the conclusion to be drawn from your genetic construction of parenthood and personhood.

OK, rant over. Sperm contributes half the chromosomes of the original and without it no baby. Carthage must be destroyed. The end.

No, let’s take a closer look at sperm. Gametes are interesting things. I mentioned earlier that they are genetically different than the somatic cells of the parent. Again, they are genetically distinct organisms. This shoots down the argument that because an embryo has different genes from the mother, it is somehow entitled to the same legal protections that a fully developed child would have.

During meiosis, haploid cells are formed. In humans these cells are sperm cells and egg cells. However, in many other species, these cells grow into complex multicellular organisms. For example, a drone honeybee is haploid. Genetically speaking, it is more analogous to a human sperm than to a human man.

I mention this as a passing example of the underlying problems of conflating the scientific facts of fertilization – i. e. transforming from a haploid to a diploid organism – and the theological arguments of human ensoulment or the origin of a spiritual essence of a human being. You are certainly welcome to believe that a human soul enters the body at conception, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that there is a biological basis for this claim. There are more things in the universe than are dreamt of in your theology.