Reasons not to consider the foetus human life

[markeverett49]

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.

I won’t let you get away with this. The soul is the form of a living thing. That is what a soul is. If you have a living creature, you have a soul. We have a name for creatures apart from souls: dead.

 

[TarkanAttila]

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

Would I want that defined as law? Yep. Now that we’ve got that established, let’s turn to why we’ve got our distinct and peculiar positions.

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

True. But what does make it unique is that it starts the process. Also, it’s the only substance that comes right straight from you. It’s your contribution to the pot.

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.

You are correct. Seems I’d confused it with… well, conception, I guess. Thank you for correcting me. It will help make future arguments more fruitful.

Nonetheless, replace the incorrect word meiosis with the correct word conception - or fertilisation.

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.

You and your wife - their father and mother - are the operative causes for their coming into the world. In that respect, yes, my friend. You are very much responsible for them.

One would think, therefore, a man ought to take responsibility for what messes he causes? If he brings life into the world that he did not want, one would think the adult thing to do would be to assist the woman he’s helped put into this mess rather than to abandon her. After all, if he had not slept with her, she would not be with child. It is HIS FAULT in part that life came into the world.

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.

In the genetic sense, yes. My good Catholic father and good Catholic mother did not cause my physical form to come into existence. They were not what caused me to be conceived. A violent Mexican prisoner and a Lutheran with bad allergies are my mother and father in the genetic sense. And in the legal sense as well. My birth certificate shows I was brought into this world by the Mexican and the Lutheran who conceived me, not by the Catholics who raised me.

That said, it does not mean in the legal sense that parenthood cannot be transferred over. And for the adoption process I am grateful. Otherwise many more children would be killed, or worse. But it does not change the facts. My adoptive parents ≠ my genetic parents.

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.

That they are.

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.

I don’t recall ever making that argument, but since you bring it up, you are correct. That alone is not enough to make it a distinct form of human life. What DOES differentiate an embryo from either a sperm or an egg is its chromosomes. Each one alone has 23 - half of the chromosomes of a human being. An embryo, on the other hand, has 46 - 23 from the father, and 23 from the mother. In terms of chromosomes, neither sperm nor egg are human. But from conception, an embryo is.

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.

What relevance does honeybee reproduction have to human reproduction? Sperm in humans specifically don’t transform into haploid creatures. They either die or form an embryo with the egg.

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.

I never said “genetic conception, therefore ensoulment”. Not the opposite. One is not causal of the other. However, a sperm and an egg are not human life. It is when the sperm penetrates the egg that a human life is begun.

My belief that the human soul is present in the human being from conception my drive the motivation for my argument. But I am not using scientific evidence to directly try to back that up. I’m arguing that it is human life, and it is murderous to kill it because it is human life and guilty of no crime whatsoever. To kill it is likened to offering up infants to Molech, or (for a more secular example), allowing infants to die from a lack of touch (as was the case for many infants in the large impersonal orphanages of the latter half of the 19th century).

I might also ask: why should we stop infanticide simply because the brain has formed? Why that milestone? Why not make it legal to kill them until they are able to crawl? Or speak? Or get a job?

 

[TimeEntrance]

In light of the call by Canadian parliamentarian Stephen Woodworth to reexamine section 223 of Canadian criminal code, which states that "a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, " I wondered to myself why anyone would not consider a conceived embryo a human being.

Examine a human embryo and compare it to an adult human - or at least their concepts.

An argument canot be made that an embryo is not genetically human. It shares the same 46 chromosomes adults have.

What about organs, arms, and limbs? Many beings outside of the womb are considered human even though they are missing limbs - or were never born with them - or organs. Some people, literally, are missing their hearts and have artificial ones. Are they not human because they don’t have a natural heart? Nonsense.

What of a brain or intelligence, then? There are many outside of the womb whom are invalids, or mentally incapacitated. Some are not capable of making good choices - or almost any at all. Are they less human? Should we slaughter invalids alongside foetuses? Of course not. Not only would that be barbaric and merciless, but even the mentally retarded are capable of loving others.

What of that, then? Love? There are many adults outside of the womb who choose not to love others - indeed, who choose to be very hateful to others (even if they’re just the neighbor next door and not Stalin, Hitler, or Nero). I might also argue that people in comas are immediately incapable of loving - even if they will wake up eventually. Should we be allowed to kill people who are in comas, even if there is certainty they will wake up?

Of course not.
**
Any other arguments or counterarguments? I’m trying to wrap my head around what logical reason our pro-choice brothers could possibly have for thinking the embryo is not human. To deny its humanity, it seems they would have to make an argument against some other human life outside of the womb, as well**.

I like your post, Tarkan.

My opinion is that societies are being used to enable certain behaviors a lot of us derive enjoyment or at least physical pleasure from. Behaviors that might otherwise be detrimental - or at least bring about some slight hardships.

And I no I’ve mentioned states being used to enable people in their vices, in one or more other threads. So, I don’t wish to belabor the point. But I think it’s true.

Abortion is one of those things I really don’t think the state should be enabling - or rather, I should say… enabling the promiscuous sexual lives of unmarried people.

But legalized abortion today probably has taken root because of democracy. A nation that was run under a Catholic monarchy wouldn’t legalize abortion I don’t think. I don’t think a Catholic theocracy like Vatican City would legalize abortion within its territories either.

With democracy you try to appeal to your constituents and probably certain interest groups as well. If a lot of women in your country want legalized abortion so they can have sex and not deal with consequences from it if they don’t want… then you as a politicians say, “Hey! I will fight for your right!”

And in democracies once something becomes a right it is as a rule of thumb… very hard to take away.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I didn’t read this whole thread. Actually, I didn’t read 99% of it.

Is Filippo arguing human life does not begin at conception - biologically (I’m not talking about philosophically)?

Both biology and philosophy need to find their own logical points at which “begin” or “conception” are applicable to the term human life. Which could possibly bring the term “pregnancy” under revaluation. If, for say, Catholicism is wrong on this issue, the term “pregnancy” would strike me as an oxymoron. The term “Planned Parenthood” with respects to it’s goals and fears, and the pretext of abortion would like wise strike me as illogical and absurd.

Fortunately, I could have sworn one of my biology books stated human life begins at conception. Which would put the explanatory power in the term “pregnant.”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pregnant

A woman that is pregnant but not pregnant, a woman that seeks an abortion because she’s not pregnant and the beginnings of human life has not occurred.

They say even the devil can quote scripture. I think even the devil can be literate in scientific terms and even in English using words like “pregnant.”

But hey… “You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”.

 

[jim1130]

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

Please excuse my ignorance or if I am misstating your position, but how did you come upon 6-weeks; that an abortion before 6-weeks was acceptable? Scientific data? Personal opinion? Authority other than your own?

 

[TimeEntrance]

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.

Well… I won’t engage in a debate at to when a human person comes into existence. I’m not sure what the term “person” is exactly considered to mean in the language of the different academic fields. So, I’ll admit ignorance there.

But as for human life the science of biology says it has a cycle (human life cycle) and it begins with the zygote. Growth and development are parts of that life cycle.

So, human life begins at conception. Which is exactly what the term conception denotes (a beginning) and through observation the ancients to the moderns have recognized that a female human’s pregnancy is logically and sequentially linked with that. In fact, we might logically argue that a female human can only be impregnated if and only if her egg is fertilized.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_%28biology%29

Human development (biology)

Human development is the process of growing to maturity. In biological terms, this entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being.

From a biological standpoint, human development is a continuum, starting with the germ cells (ovum and spermatozoon), through fertilization, prenatal development, birth, and growth to adulthood.

Since science seeks accuracy it’s important to figure out what species of life the zygote inside the pregnant woman is. If we can do that we might be able to give some probabilities or make predictions about the phenotype of that life once given birth to. I suspect that’s kind of the logic behind the punnet square. So, science drawing upon both logic and math can assert with some confidence that type of life of the zygote is Homo sapien.

 

[Miguel321]

I think it should be a decision made by the woman who will have to deal with the circumstances of having the baby, or not having the baby.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I think it should be a decision made by the woman who will have to deal with the circumstances of having the baby, or not having the baby.

U.S. courts go even further with the responsibility concerning males. This is why - and it frequently happens - that a male that legally acknowledges the child birthed by his girlfriend as hi, will be obligated by the courts to continue to pay child support for the child until the child reaches age 18 even if a few months after birth DNA tests shows the child is not biologically his.

According to U.S. courts the welfare of the child trumps the choice of the male.

So, U.S. courts expect males to deal with the circumstances of having a baby or not having a baby irrespective if any offspring produced are not biologically produced by the male.

But the U.S. Supreme Court went further in its decision of Roe For Men when it concluded that even if a man is tricked into having a child he never wanted to produce, he is still obligated to pay child support, because by having sex he engaged in risky behavior.

The U.S. Supreme Justices are neither logicians or scientists (and in case like the Dred Scot decision some of us today say they made the wrong decision). I say that because their position that by having sex one willingly engages in risky behavior (of potentially producing a child) and therefore must accept the consequences of producing another life if that so happens, can be logically and symmetrically applied to females.

So, we are left with judicial asymmetries:

(1) If by happenstance of birth you are male, the future welfare of a unborn child trumps your choice. And it is assumed it takes two to tango.

(2) if by happenstance of birth you are female, your future choice**(s)** will forever trump the welfare of a unborn child. And it is assumed it only takes one to tango.

I’m not a legal scholar - I’m not a law student or even well read on the law - but it seems to (but I could be wrong and misunderstand legal terminology) me that the asymmetrical decisions by the U.S. Supreme Justices (who regard themselves as the sole interpreters of the U.S. Constitution) violates equal protection under the law.

 

[Miguel321]

I think that just shows how flawed the system is. If a guy gets tricked into thinking that the baby is his, he has to pay for it. Not because it’s actually his or not, but because he engaged in risky behavior; that’s what he gets! That is just ridiculous.

 

[Robert_Caritas]

Hi Filippo Bruno,

I think that we have arrived at the core of the argument in the last post you addressed to me. Your investment in your metaphysical views is what is keeping you in your point of view. Your way of thought is shaped by your intellectual framework. So I hope that by discussing this core, we will make headway. And if we do, it will solely be by the grace of God almighty.

So here we go.

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.

“Religious naturalism” is akin to many movements, we find them in many places. In the words of Blessed John Paul II:
“A separate issue is the return of ancient Gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age. We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practicing Gnosticism — that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting his word and replacing it with purely human words.”
The view that I presented to you is what I see in common with many modern day forms of spirituality. It has many, many forms (New Age, Wicca…), but as John Paul II states, it is an old idea. Today it is what the Church has been denouncing as “materialism.”
This is also pan-theism, the view that God could be equal to nature. In fact, Christians believe that God is infinitely greater than nature – this view is deeply foreign to us.

There is something very true in saying that morals are aesthetic. This is that the living will of God, which speaks to you, is almost never communicated through words. It is communicated like beauty is to us – instantaneously and certainly. His will is the voice of our conscience.
But God’s will is outside of us. It is objective to us. It is the supreme form of logic and Truth. Truth is expressed in nature, in miracles, and in ethics, so far as these are in accordance with the will of God.
When materialists turn ethics into aesthetics, they abuse a great truth – that the greatest beauty and the greatest good are one. They distort it. As people our perception of beauty is too corrupt to be the basis of good. God’s voice is to be our guide, and he does this often through nature. But He is the measure of good, our aesthetic senses merely receive the good, and recognize it.
We recognize it because it recalls our true nature. We cannot live without God. If we cut ourselves off from him and try to obtain the rule of good through study of our aesthetic sense, we will get nowhere. We do not create beauty but we receive it.

God have mercy on us,
Robert

 

[TarkanAttila]

I think it should be a decision made by the woman who will have to deal with the circumstances of having the baby, or not having the baby.

Righto. And your mother should have had the right not only to kill you inside the womb, but an any time before you became a self-sustaining adult - if you have. Because, honestly, you were not only as much of a burden, but MORE of one once outside of the womb. Kids are expensive to raise in American society. So if you want to make that argument, infanticide and filicide in the name of saving money isn’t a far step in that direction, rest assured.

But you wouldn’t because you assert the child, or infant, is an innocent human life guilty of no crimes and utterly harmless. It is your duty to protect your own children should you decide to raise them. Well, fine. But it was human life from conception. You must protect it from conception because otherwise you’d be a hypocrite.

If you’re so keen not to be a hypocrite, or filicidal, I recommend you only have sex when you are ready to have children because otherwise it’s possible, if not likely, you will bring at least one new human life into the world “on accident”. Sound tough? Suffice to say… you and the society you are soaking in are just soft. Complacent. Quite arrogant. And very ignorant. Especially of history.

I think that just shows how flawed the system is. If a guy gets tricked into thinking that the baby is his, he has to pay for it. Not because it’s actually his or not, but because he engaged in risky behavior; that’s what he gets! That is just ridiculous.

Well, genetically, if a child can be traced to his father… it is his. We don’t trick anyone, Miguel. But, hey. If you lose your mortgage at a roulette wheel, should you pay up? If you break your leg doing a daredevil trick, is it your fault? People do stupid, risky things that hurt others for stupid reasons all the time. Why should sex be any different?

Consider it. Sex is the way we bring human life into the world. One way or the other, it takes male ejaculate and one egg to bring human life into the world. So who’s the stupid one if he ejaculates into a woman and thinks there’s not any possibility of it impregnating the woman he has sex with? Even “the pill” doesn’t come with any 100% guarantees. You brought it on yourself.

That said, it’s not all bad. A new human life is a good thing. It’s good for the economy. It’s good for the society. It’s good for you and your retirement. Cos without it you’re not likely to be resting all that easy. So if you do create any kids, ever, Miguel - accidentally or on purpose - I suggest you raise 'em well, to be productive, and to have many children to cover their butts, so they can pay your social security when you’re retirement age. Cos you aren’t gonna be retiring otherwise. Ask the senior citizen workers at your local Walmart or Walgreens if you don’t believe me.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Please excuse my ignorance or if I am misstating your position, but how did you come upon 6-weeks; that an abortion before 6-weeks was acceptable? Scientific data? Personal opinion? Authority other than your own?

That is when brain activity begins; it is therefore the earliest possible time that a consciousness could exist. (For the purposes of this thread, I am leaving aside the exact nature of the consciousness and the moral acceptability of killing conscious beings.)

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Well… I won’t engage in a debate at to when a human person comes into existence. I’m not sure what the term “person” is exactly considered to mean in the language of the different academic fields. So, I’ll admit ignorance there.
…

But as for human life the science of biology says it has a cycle (human life cycle) and it begins with the zygote. Growth and development are parts of that life cycle.
…

So, human life begins at conception. Which is exactly what the term conception denotes (a beginning) and through observation the ancients to the moderns have recognized that a female human’s pregnancy is logically and sequentially linked with that. In fact, we might logically argue that a female human can only be impregnated if and only if her egg is fertilized.
…

Since science seeks accuracy it’s important to figure out what species of life the zygote inside the pregnant woman is. If we can do that we might be able to give some probabilities or make predictions about the phenotype of that life once given birth to. I suspect that’s kind of the logic behind the punnet square. So, science drawing upon both logic and math can assert with some confidence that type of life of the zygote is Homo sapien.

I don’t disagree with anything you have said above. As I have written previously, the thread’s original question is actually irrelevant to the abortion question. The question is “when is it morally acceptable to kill human life,” not “when does human life begin?”

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

“Religious naturalism” is akin to many movements, we find them in many places. In the words of Blessed John Paul II:
“A separate issue is the return of ancient Gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age. We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practicing Gnosticism — that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting his word and replacing it with purely human words.”
The view that I presented to you is what I see in common with many modern day forms of spirituality. It has many, many forms (New Age, Wicca…), but as John Paul II states, it is an old idea. Today it is what the Church has been denouncing as “materialism.”
This is also pan-theism, the view that God could be equal to nature. In fact, Christians believe that God is infinitely greater than nature – this view is deeply foreign to us.

I am aware of the Church’s longstanding opposition to this mode of religious thought. It is one of the reasons I am no longer Catholic. To the Church’s credit, at least fellow Catholics are no longer burning us at the stake.

There is something very true in saying that morals are aesthetic. This is that the living will of God, which speaks to you, is almost never communicated through words. It is communicated like beauty is to us – instantaneously and certainly. His will is the voice of our conscience.
But God’s will is outside of us. It is objective to us. It is the supreme form of logic and Truth. Truth is expressed in nature, in miracles, and in ethics, so far as these are in accordance with the will of God.

I agree with what you have written above, but let us bring it back to the context of this thread. In nature, anywhere from 15% up to 50% of human pregnancies end in miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). What can we discern about the will of God from this brute fact? The way I see it, there are a few possible conclusions (setting aside the atheistic and deistic propositions):

1. 
   *]God is actively killing these humans for no reason.
   *]God is indifferent to these humans.
   *]God is punishing these humans for the sins of other humans.
   *]These aren’t humans at all, so God is not protecting them from the rest of His creation in any way.
   
   I welcome other suggestions, but aesthetically speaking, the second proposition is by far the most appealing to me.
   

   When materialists turn ethics into aesthetics, they abuse a great truth – that the greatest beauty and the greatest good are one. They distort it. As people our perception of beauty is too corrupt to be the basis of good. God’s voice is to be our guide, and he does this often through nature. But He is the measure of good, our aesthetic senses merely receive the good, and recognize it.

   I have never seen a theodicy that doesn’t offend the conscience while preserving this construction of God. To quote David Attenborough,
   But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And *, ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy’.
   

   We recognize it because it recalls our true nature. We cannot live without God. If we cut ourselves off from him and try to obtain the rule of good through study of our aesthetic sense, we will get nowhere. We do not create beauty but we receive it.

   I would say that you are separating us from God in the statement “We do not create beauty but we receive it.” We are the beauty, an infinitesimal portion of it anyway. There is neither creating nor receiving – there is participation and awareness.*

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

One would think, therefore, a man ought to take responsibility for what messes he causes? If he brings life into the world that he did not want, one would think the adult thing to do would be to assist the woman he’s helped put into this mess rather than to abandon her. After all, if he had not slept with her, she would not be with child. It is HIS FAULT in part that life came into the world.

So children are sometimes used by God as punishment for sexual immorality? Interesting. I personally wouldn’t use the word “fault” to describe my role in my (planned) parenthood.

In the genetic sense, yes. My good Catholic father and good Catholic mother did not cause my physical form to come into existence. They were not what caused me to be conceived. A violent Mexican prisoner and a Lutheran with bad allergies are my mother and father in the genetic sense. And in the legal sense as well. My birth certificate shows I was brought into this world by the Mexican and the Lutheran who conceived me, not by the Catholics who raised me.

That said, it does not mean in the legal sense that parenthood cannot be transferred over. And for the adoption process I am grateful. Otherwise many more children would be killed, or worse. But it does not change the facts. My adoptive parents ≠ my genetic parents.

Your genetic parents are no parents at all, in my opinion based on what you have described. 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.

What relevance does honeybee reproduction have to human reproduction? Sperm in humans specifically don’t transform into haploid creatures. They either die or form an embryo with the egg.

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 never said “genetic conception, therefore ensoulment”. Not the opposite. One is not causal of the other. However, a sperm and an egg are not human life. It is when the sperm penetrates the egg that a human life is begun.

My belief that the human soul is present in the human being from conception my drive the motivation for my argument. But I am not using scientific evidence to directly try to back that up. I’m arguing that it is human life, and it is murderous to kill it because it is human life and guilty of no crime whatsoever. To kill it is likened to offering up infants to Molech, or (for a more secular example), allowing infants to die from a lack of touch (as was the case for many infants in the large impersonal orphanages of the latter half of the 19th century).

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

I might also ask: why should we stop infanticide simply because the brain has formed? Why that milestone? Why not make it legal to kill them until they are able to crawl? Or speak? Or get a job?

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

 

[jim1130]

So children are sometimes used by God as punishment for sexual immorality? Interesting. I personally wouldn’t use the word “fault” to describe my role in my (planned) parenthood.

Your genetic parents are no parents at all, in my opinion based on what you have described. 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 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.

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

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

May I please ask that you demonstrate some caution with replies because although I believe you want to clarify the opinion of the poster, I am not convinced any intent was made by the poster to that which you interpreted.

I do NOT believe the poster intended to infer that children are used by God to punish those who are sexually promiscuous. In our culture, we tend to want to assign blame. We prefer the question “Why did this happen to me?” rather than “Now that this has happened what am I going to do about it?” If a people choose to ask the first question is may be natural to identify a scapegoat or excuse. In this case, it is easier to blame God then take responsibility. In fact, the position we should take is to protect the innocent, in this case the child, who is the result of promoscuity rather than intent.

As a Catholic, I am called to protect innocent life. The unborn and elderly are two examples of innocent life to protect. Life as a whole should be protected; however, there are those evils in the world that must be confronted. I do not believe in capital punishment because of the risk to a falsely imprisoned individual (how many inmates have been released due to DNA?). Not everyone in prison is innocent; albeit, not everyone in prison is guilty. Means should be used to identify the innocent and the guilty. And if we have the resources to lock someone up and throw away the key that should be the alternative to the death penalty.

But I do believe innocent people, people unable to protect themselves, should be protected from the likes of violent dictators and despots or the thief who breaks into the home in the middle of the night brandishing a weapon.

And for me, life begins at conception, not when the brain begins to function. In trying to find an analogy, I struggle. Perhaps does life begin for a plant when its first leaf appears? Or well underground where no one can see it?

 

[manualman]

… To the Church’s credit, at least fellow Catholics are no longer burning us at the stake.

Yes, society has advanced far beyond the mere retail killings that once occurred and gotten into the wholesale slaughter of human beings by the millions. Great progress you’ve brought there. Nice work.

 

[aragonjohn1]

In light of the call by Canadian parliamentarian Stephen Woodworth to reexamine section 223 of Canadian criminal code, which states that "a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, " I wondered to myself why anyone would not consider a conceived embryo a human being.

Examine a human embryo and compare it to an adult human - or at least their concepts.

An argument canot be made that an embryo is not genetically human. It shares the same 46 chromosomes adults have.

What about organs, arms, and limbs? Many beings outside of the womb are considered human even though they are missing limbs - or were never born with them - or organs. Some people, literally, are missing their hearts and have artificial ones. Are they not human because they don’t have a natural heart? Nonsense.

What of a brain or intelligence, then? There are many outside of the womb whom are invalids, or mentally incapacitated. Some are not capable of making good choices - or almost any at all. Are they less human? Should we slaughter invalids alongside foetuses? Of course not. Not only would that be barbaric and merciless, but even the mentally retarded are capable of loving others.

What of that, then? Love? There are many adults outside of the womb who choose not to love others - indeed, who choose to be very hateful to others (even if they’re just the neighbor next door and not Stalin, Hitler, or Nero). I might also argue that people in comas are immediately incapable of loving - even if they will wake up eventually. Should we be allowed to kill people who are in comas, even if there is certainty they will wake up?

Of course not.

Any other arguments or counterarguments? I’m trying to wrap my head around what logical reason our pro-choice brothers could possibly have for thinking the embryo is not human. To deny its humanity, it seems they would have to make an argument against some other human life outside of the womb, as well.

i reccomend pages 18, 23, and 65 of ten universal principles a brief philosophy of the life issues by Fr. Robert Spitzer for a brief refutation of these arguments also the beginnings of each chapter are quite good at this.

• play.google.com/books/reader?id=TMhZvJeA5aIC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en

hope this helps
Shalom
God Bless

 

[Robert_Caritas]

I am aware of the Church’s longstanding opposition to this mode of religious thought. It is one of the reasons I am no longer Catholic. To the Church’s credit, at least fellow Catholics are no longer.

I agree with what you have written above, but let us bring it back to the context of this thread. In nature, anywhere from 15% up to 50% of human pregnancies end in miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). What can we discern about the will of God from this brute fact? The way I see it, there are a few possible conclusions (setting aside the atheistic and deistic propositions):

1. 
   *]God is actively killing these humans for no reason.
   *]God is indifferent to these humans.
   *]God is punishing these humans for the sins of other humans.
   *]These aren’t humans at all, so God is not protecting them from the rest of His creation in any way.
   
   I welcome other suggestions, but aesthetically speaking, the second proposition is by far the most appealing to me.
   
   I have never seen a theodicy that doesn’t offend the conscience while preserving this construction of God. To quote David Attenborough,
   But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And *, ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy’.
   
   I would say that you are separating us from God in the statement “We do not create beauty but we receive it.” We are* the beauty, an infinitesimal portion of it anyway. There is neither creating nor receiving – there is participation and awareness.
   
   As we’re entering on heavily theological grounds, the knowledge from our statements can only be truly illuminated by the grace of God. In it truth is illumined, and falsity looses its illusory appeal.
   
   The problem of evil is totally resolved in Christian theology. The revelation of Christ fulfilled the Scriptures, and freed us from evil. Christians and materialists have very different perspectives on happiness. Happiness cannot exist in the present world, not fully. What we desire is eternal beatitude. This is the ultimate purpose of God’s salvation – at least the smallest part that we are now trying to understand.
   
   God’s gift of suffering and of pleasure are both graces leading to salvation. Lord Jesus-Christ said: “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” and “Woe to the rich, for they have their consolation.” The African children with worms growing in their eyes are probably much closer to salvation than many self-identified Christians. This is my view on the matter. The greatest pain in this world is little next to the consolations of heaven, and the punishment of hell.
   
   That is not to say that suffering is not a problem, but God has the highest possible perspective and control on this. When He kills a foetus or any person, it is his divine prerogative – as His creations we cannot hope to claim such authority. He knows how to make the greatest good out of the sum total of worldy suffering.
   
   On a mystical level we are integrated into the reality of God. For God is all. But we are fallen creatures, and so our will is not in accordance with the divine will. We have turned ourselves away from the total freedom that is the innocent obedience to God. Therefore the goodness that comes from the divine ordering becomes scarce in our soul. And the more that we turn away from it, the less ordered we are. The ultimate ordering of our various aesthetic senses (good and truth), is the divine order. We can feel the pleasure of this perfect ordering when in a state of grace: when we perceive divine beauty, and divine good. Earthly beauty is an imperfect reflection of the beauty, but it also gives pleasure.
   
   When we do not obey God, we are not receiving his grace – and our senses and intuitions become corrupt and very limited. We become ego-centeric, and this ego cut off from grace can only lead us astray.
   
   Having a living relation with God through Jesus-Christ will give a strength previously unavailable. The ability for self-sacrifice is multiplied. In a materialist scenario, self-sacrifice can only be understood a mutually beneficial context. Self-sacrifice is impossible, for this would lead to the exhausting of one’s natural energies. In Christ, this requirement can be lessened immensely – if this is the will of God. The radical shift in the lives of many saints after their conversion is a testimony to this. Though in any serious parish you will here many first hand accounts of this.
   
   I agree with certain parts of what you have written, but without the understanding that comes from faith, you approach things only from the limited natural perspective. God is so much more than nature, and we are so limited. Though unless we accept servitude to the divine we cannot transcend our limitations.
   
   In Christ,
   

   Robert

 

[aragonjohn1]

up to (sic)?]50% of human pregnancies end in miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). What can we discern about the will of God from this brute fact? The way I see it, there are a few possible conclusions (setting aside the atheistic and deistic propositions):

1. 
   *]God is actively killing these humans for no reason.
   *]God is indifferent to these humans.
   *]God is punishing these humans for the sins of other humans.
   *]These aren’t humans at all, so God is not protecting them from the rest of His creation in any way.
   
   I welcome other suggestions, but aesthetically speaking, the second proposition is by far the most appealing to me.
   
   .

1. 
   Why don’t they teach logic (and many other things) in school these days?..……
   
   Ever heard of Suarez?
   
   -The Principle of Natural Rights (Suarez, Locke, Jefferson, and Paine)
   All human beings possess in themselves (by virtue of their existence alone) the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property ownership; no government gives these rights, and no government can take them away.
   • catholiceducation.org/articles/philosophy/ph0068.htm
   Hope this helps
   Shalom
   God bless you on you’re journey