So is it or isn't it a human

[Doc_Keele]

Sigh, how would knowing that some babies never implant change behavior? Since we cannot know when and if a baby has been created until after implantation (as the article states on page 16), we cannot change any behavior because we do not have the knowledge. We can in principle say the embryo is a human being and alive, but there is nothing we can do to make it implant or even know if one dies. Therefore all we can do is pray for miscarried children, and I know people do this, both specifically and in general.

BTW, I skimmed the relevant article for the topic you were speaking on (since the whole article wasn’t relevant) and read that portion and commented. I don’t really know what your objection is, since the article itself claims that is cannot “clinically” know when a pregnancy occurs before implantation. That is the topic which was under discussion.

Right, you misunderstand what “clinically” means.
And you completely miss the point of the article, which is to say that if someone believes the zygote is morally equivalent to the born, then every effort should be made to prevent loss of zygotes/embryos as this is loss of human life on a massive scale. Nowhere in the article does the author address whether or not “the Claim” is true IIRC.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is just a technicality. St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe that abortion was “homicide” because he didn’t believe the child had a soul, yet - he considered it to be “pre-human.” However, he still believed that abortion at any stage of development (including what he considered to be the “pre-human” stage) was still a mortal sin, for interfering with the will of God in His creation of a human person.

The Church doctrine that abortion is always wrong has never changed. Just our understanding of when “quickening” occurs - we see the newly-fertilized egg moving independently and purposefully, showing that it indeed does have a soul, at that point in its development. (St. Thomas thought that the child was a passive recipient of actions done to it by the mother’s body, prior to the start of the second trimester; he had no way of observing that it moves around independently, and does things actively for itself.)

Thank you for clarifying this. I’d like to point out that both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were sinning human beings. They were not saints on earth. Augustine was a thief, a fornicator, and fathered at least one illegitimate child. I don’t know about Thomas Aquinas.

But I’ve read several times that whatever Augustine said while he was a mortal human being should be taken as truth because he was canonized and is a saint!

For some reason, people can’t seem to understand that both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas actually did some bad things. And they were also children of their times - scientific knowledge was rudimentary compared to what it is now. It’s still pretty rudimentary IMHO.

Just my thoughts here.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[jilly4ski]

Right, you misunderstand what “clinically” means.
And you completely miss the point of the article, which is to say that if someone believes the zygote is morally equivalent to the born, then every effort should be made to prevent loss of zygotes/embryos as this is loss of human life on a massive scale. Nowhere in the article does the author address whether or not “the Claim” is true IIRC.

I already answered this in my first paragraph in the post that you quote. There is nothing in human science at this point that can be used to save babies before they implant. for many reasons. 1:Because we cannot know if a human has been created there is nothing we can do to save babies. 2: Because science isn’t advanced enough to save babies in the first trimester babies if they are being miscarried how would science save babies before they implant?

This is completely off topic I suggest that you get back on topic and actually read people’s posts.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I already answered this in my first paragraph in the post that you quote. There is nothing in human science at this point that can be used to save babies before they implant. for many reasons. 1:Because we cannot know if a human has been created there is nothing we can do to save babies. 2: Because science isn’t advanced enough to save babies in the first trimester babies if they are being miscarried how would science save babies before they implant?

This is completely off topic I suggest that you get back on topic and actually read people’s posts.

I** do **read people’s posts, and this last post of yours has completely missed the point. I am not commenting nor is the author about the current state of science
He is commenting on the change in priorities that would occur if people who claim to believe in the full moral status for zygote/embryo actually acted on that belief in a coherent manner.

 

[Major_Tom]

If the fetus or embyro is human, then what should be the punishment for killing a fetus or embryo?

I see that no one has taken up your question yet! I was going to ask the same thing.

If one believes that the fetus is human, I would assume that the only punishment for killing/aborting a fetus would be the same punishment as any other kind of murder.

I don’t like abortion, but something in me can’t quite equate it with an offense that would warrant putting mother and doctor in prison. And to argue that the offense should NOT put the mother and doctor in jail… well, isn’t that in essence arguing that it is really isn’t murder? Any other kind of ‘lesser’ murder (such as due to the killer being drunk, or a genuine accident) all get prosecuted in courts, and at the very least result in probation, loss of driver’s license, etc.

Again, I hate abortion, but I’m very torn trying to reconcile the right way to attack the issue.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well there’s being “human”, and there’s being a “person”. You have to define exactly what you mean by stating what you mean when you say that the foetus is “human”.
If the foetus is a person (which the common law doesn’t recognize that it is), then killing it is murder.

 

[Ender]

I don’t really know what your objection is, since the article itself claims that is cannot “clinically” know when a pregnancy occurs before implantation.

It is useful to keep in mind that pregnancy is often defined as occurring at implantation, as opposed to beginning at conception. That is, life may begin at conception but pregnancy begins at implantation - or not. I don’t know which is the clinical definition; I just point that pregnancy can mean different things depending on who’s using the term.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t like abortion, but something in me can’t quite equate it with an offense that would warrant putting mother and doctor in prison. And to argue that the offense should NOT put the mother and doctor in jail… well, isn’t that in essence arguing that it is really isn’t murder?

I don’t think there has been any thought about putting the mother in jail but, yes, the abortionist should face prison.

Ender

 

[jmcrae]

Jilly4ski, I’m fascinated as to how you and jmcrae comment when you can’t even be bothered to look up the papers. It’s not that I can’t be bothered, it’s just that I haven’t got the time. I have looked at the abstracts however.
Do I have faith that this widely accepted fact backed up by many studies in peer-reviewed journals is true? Yes, I do. The only reason why you and jmcrae don’t I can think of is that it doesn’t suit you to believe it.

It doesn’t “suit” me to believe it, because I was brought up with the scientific method. Look at the data, first (which requires that there be identifiable physical evidence of a phenomon), see if the data is repeatable - if it is, then theorize, then prove.

All I asked was how they were doing the data collection, given that the primary observers in the case were actually unaware of the phenomenon. No answer seems forthcoming.

Neither, you, jmcrae nor ender seemed to have understood the paper, but never mind, I can only post it, I can’t make you comprehend it

The “paper” is a rant attacking the Catholic Church. It’s difficult to take it seriously, never mind comprehend it. It doesn’t contain anything resembling the scientific method as I was taught it in elementary school.

 

[jmcrae]

Well there’s being “human”, and there’s being a “person”. You have to define exactly what you mean by stating what you mean when you say that the foetus is “human”.
If the foetus is a person (which the common law doesn’t recognize that it is), then killing it is murder.

This is the Catholic position - that the human being is a person, from the moment of conception.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Why would a paper on philosophy follow the scientific method?
Naturally a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal will not meet your own demanding standards…

 

[LittleSoldier]

I see that no one has taken up your question yet! I was going to ask the same thing.

If one believes that the fetus is human, I would assume that the only punishment for killing/aborting a fetus would be the same punishment as any other kind of murder.

I don’t like abortion, but something in me can’t quite equate it with an offense that would warrant putting mother and doctor in prison. And to argue that the offense should NOT put the mother and doctor in jail… well, isn’t that in essence arguing that it is really isn’t murder? Any other kind of ‘lesser’ murder (such as due to the killer being drunk, or a genuine accident) all get prosecuted in courts, and at the very least result in probation, loss of driver’s license, etc.

Again, I hate abortion, but I’m very torn trying to reconcile the right way to attack the issue.

I will answer the question. “Doctors” (or anyone else) who actually perform the abortions should be charged with first-degree murder. Staffers should also be charged with first-degree murder. Women who procure abortions should be charged with first-degree murder.

This is not a victimless crime. A human being has been murdered.

I don’t believe in the death penalty - not for the “doctors,” the staffers, the mothers, and certainly not for the children.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well there’s being “human”, and there’s being a “person”. You have to define exactly what you mean by stating what you mean when you say that the foetus is “human”.
If the foetus is a person (which the common law doesn’t recognize that it is), then killing it is murder.

What “common law?”

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

What “common law?”

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

The common law which is the legal system for the US excepting Louisiana IIRC, the UK (except Scotland) and many parts of the world.

 

[jmcrae]

Why would a paper on philosophy follow the scientific method?

I was asking for scientific evidence of your claims. Why did you link me to a paper on philosophy (that was philosophy?!) in response? No wonder I’m confused …

Naturally a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal will not meet your own demanding standards.

Well, not if it’s not even on the same subject that I was asking about.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I haven’t got the time to look up these papers. I don’t give a flying fig if you believe the research or not, frankly.

This is what I noticed about the paper.

I couldn’t find the research methods for determining the number of deaths occurring before implantation, but I did find the references. One is from 1962 and the other is from 1967 and the two were combined in a paper in 1977.

I wasn’t able to google or bing either of the original papers, which isn’t surprising since one appears to have been taken from a book and they are both so old. I can’t drive the 65 miles to the nearest university to crawl through the stacks in the hopes of finding a copy. I’m disabled now. I’ve done it before so I know what it’s like. I can’t possibly do it.

But those dates bother me.

I know you don’t care but there are those here who do. If the paper does not have more current references then I wouldn’t take it seriously. Surely there have been improvements in determining zygote death since 1967!

The numbers of human beings that die before implantation may be very high. I’m sure they are. Numbers don’t change the fact that human beings die! What a ridiculous assumption! I hate to bring in an analogy, but I will. Let’s say there is a plague, no a Scourge, that kills off 90 percent of the population of Europe and Asia. Does that large number mean that those people who were killed were not important? Of course not!

It’s the same thing with the large numbers of human beings who die before implantation. It matters not one whit how large the number is because the number is irrelevant in this thread and the number does not determine the humanity of the beings who die.

There is one more problem I noticed with the “research paper” and one I hate to see: the word “fact.” Scientific method does not allow proof and it does not allow facts. There are no scientific facts!!! Whoever wrote that paper was most likely jumped on by any other researcher who read it, just for using that one word.

OK, I’m done (but what a disappointing research paper)!

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Jmcrae - but the paper quoted pertinent facts and referenced them. You are hopefully perfectly capable of looking up references?

Little Soldier - actually I can think of many subjects for which there would be little recent research, because there is no need to repeat previous research. I have been researching the use of polysomnography in parasomnias and most of the research is not that recent.

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae - but the paper quoted pertinent facts and referenced them. You are hopefully perfectly capable of looking up references?

Why not just link to the references?

Little Soldier - actually I can think of many subjects for which there would be little recent research, because there is no need to repeat previous research. I have been researching the use of polysomnography in parasomnias and most of the research is not that recent.

Ah - because the references are not available on-line. HMMM I wonder why not? (Perhaps they are speculative, and thus, not useful for modern day research.)

 

[Doc_Keele]

More speculation jmcrae. I find it truly amazing how you know the contents of these papers despite never having read them

 

[jmcrae]

More speculation jmcrae. I find it truly amazing how you know the contents of these papers despite never having read them

It would only take you one sentence to explain to me how it is that these researchers know the exact number of pre-implantation deaths, while the mothers themselves are unaware that they are even occurring.

There would be no need for anyone to have to chase down these obscure books.