So is it or isn't it a human

[chris_molter]

I find it interesting that many Christians use science to support that a fetus is a human (I am not disputing this). Despite this being in contradiction to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas who argued that the fetus undergoes several stages of pre-human development. Yet Christians discredit modern scientific thinking when it is used as an argument against Christian teaching.
~(this is not directed at anyone in particular  just a thought on this theme.)

It IS very interesting and a credit to the Church that she is not anti-scientific. St Thomas had the same incomplete understanding of human embryonic development as anyone else at the time. However, the basic ethical principle of the unborn child being a human person never changed, only our knowledge of the development of human life.

I’m wondering which modern scientific thinking you’re referencing in your last statement though.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Well, it ain’t a platypus.

I think almost every pro-abort agrees with … well… basic science that a human embryo or fetus is HUMAN. What they disagree with is that it’s a PERSON (with all the rights thereof).

So its alright to kill humans, just as long as there not persons? this is crazy

 

[CPA2]

I would first address the issue of whether or not a life is being taken during abortion.
After you have established a position on this affirming that indeed, abortion kills humans, you will then be ready to take on more specific situations including rape, incest, etc.

Personally, the most scientific and logical argument for the life present in a mother’s womb is the following:
• When an egg is fertilized by sperm, the two gametic cells become a zygote containing a genetic code completely different from that of the mother or father.
• This zygote at that moment is in every sense of the word, “alive.” It is undergoing the necessary metabolic processes needed to sustain life.
• By removing the zygote or the cells that the zygote transforms into during embryonic growth, a human life is terminated.

To address the more complicated issues that pro-choice advocates are likely to bring up, I pose the question: Is it ever acceptable to kill another human?

If there are no issues with this question, you can easily justify Catholic teaching–intentional abortion is unacceptable, but in cases where a mother risks an embryo/fetus’s life to preserve her own (especially if the mother has other living children), any resulting abortion is not sinful.

It is important to recognize the gravity of situations in which rape have occurred. Still, going back to the question of whether it is acceptable to kill another human-- you may argue that a living human should never be punished for the crimes of its parents.

 

[jmcrae]

I would first address the issue of whether or not a life is being taken during abortion.
After you have established a position on this affirming that indeed, abortion kills humans, you will then be ready to take on more specific situations including rape, incest, etc.

Personally, the most scientific and logical argument for the life present in a mother’s womb is the following:
• When an egg is fertilized by sperm, the two gametic cells become a zygote containing a genetic code completely different from that of the mother or father.
• This zygote at that moment is in every sense of the word, “alive.” It is undergoing the necessary metabolic processes needed to sustain life.
• By removing the zygote or the cells that the zygote transforms into during embryonic growth, a human life is terminated.

To address the more complicated issues that pro-choice advocates are likely to bring up, I pose the question: Is it ever acceptable to kill another human?

If there are no issues with this question, you can easily justify Catholic teaching–intentional abortion is unacceptable, but in cases where a mother risks an embryo/fetus’s life to preserve her own (especially if the mother has other living children), any resulting abortion is not sinful.

It is important to recognize the gravity of situations in which rape have occurred. Still, going back to the question of whether it is acceptable to kill another human-- you may argue that a living human should never be punished for the crimes of its parents.

Thank you, I think that’s a beautiful summary of this thread.

 

[chris_molter]

It is important to recognize the gravity of situations in which rape have occurred. Still, going back to the question of whether it is acceptable to kill another human-- you may argue that a living human should never be punished for the crimes of its parents.

I’ve seen pro-abortionists accept the science and logic that an embryo is a human person, but that abortion is still acceptable as a means of “self-defense” against an unwanted “intruder” in the woman’s body.

At that point, I have real trouble holding down my lunch, so I usually stop arguing.

 

[ceciliatherese]

technically, the pregnant woman has rights over the fetus, because the fetus is in her uterus, and that uterus belongs to her. Her body belongs to her, not to the fetus.

 

[jmcrae]

technically, the pregnant woman has rights over the fetus, because the fetus is in her uterus, and that uterus belongs to her. Her body belongs to her, not to the fetus.

Actually, both the woman’s body and the fetus’ body belong to God. We do not “own” our bodies. God is our Creator - we did not create ourselves; we do not “own” ourselves. God created both the woman and the child (the fetus) for His glory, and for His purposes.

 

[ceciliatherese]

Actually, both the woman’s body and the fetus’ body belong to God. We do not “own” our bodies. God is our Creator - we did not create ourselves; we do not “own” ourselves. God created both the woman and the child (the fetus) for His glory, and for His purposes.

It would be pretty hard to use that argument with someone who isn’t a christian.

 

[HickmanJosh]

technically, the pregnant woman has rights over the fetus, because the fetus is in her uterus, and that uterus belongs to her. Her body belongs to her, not to the fetus.

a person having rights over another…sounds a little strange, Doesn’t the child have just as much a right to its body as the mother has a right to hers?

 

[jmcrae]

It would be pretty hard to use that argument with someone who isn’t a christian.

I think even non-Christians would acknowledge that they did not create themselves, and that we are all called to virtue - whether by the good of society as a whole, or by God.

 

[ceciliatherese]

a person having rights over another…sounds a little strange, Doesn’t the child have just as much a right to its body as the mother has a right to hers?

The woman owns her her own uterus… she has a right to decide who resides in her uterus and pulls resources from her body to sustain itself.

 

[jmcrae]

The woman owns her her own uterus… she has a right to decide who resides in her uterus and pulls resources from her body to sustain itself.

Even a landlord with an unwanted tenant doesn’t have the right to kill the tenant, and is required to give notice to the tenant in writing, delivered to where the tenant can read it at least 24 hours before the notice period begins.

How about we give her the right to give him nine months’ notice to move out of there and find a new dwelling place.

 

[Ender]

The woman owns her her own uterus… she has a right to decide who resides in her uterus and pulls resources from her body to sustain itself.

It is hard to know where to begin to respond to something so bizarre but this shows how far one has to go even to attempt to justify the wanton destruction of a human being. Even the language used shows the strangeness of the concept. The phrase “who resides in her uterus” is a tacit admission that there is a who, a person, in there. Even on its own terms this concept fails.

A woman having sex does so with the full knowledge that, despite precautions and perhaps against her wishes, the result of the act could be the creation of a child. It may be true that the child was not invited in but it is surely true that the child is there because of the action of the mother and the mother has no more moral right to destroy the child in her womb than she does to destroy the child in her home. The woman may well be dissatisfied with the situation of an unwanted pregnancy but since she is the one responsible for the situation she is the one who must bear the consequences.

Ender

 

[jmcrae]

It is hard to know where to begin to respond to something so bizarre but this shows how far one has to go even to attempt to justify the wanton destruction of a human being. Even the language used shows the strangeness of the concept. The phrase “who resides in her uterus” is a tacit admission that there is a who, a person, in there. Even on its own terms this concept fails.

A woman having sex does so with the full knowledge that, despite precautions and perhaps against her wishes, the result of the act could be the creation of a child. It may be true that the child was not invited in but it is surely true that the child is there because of the action of the mother and the mother has no more moral right to destroy the child in her womb than she does to destroy the child in her home. The woman may well be dissatisfied with the situation of an unwanted pregnancy but since she is the one responsible for the situation she is the one who must bear the consequences.

Ender

While I agree with this in principle, I think we also need to get away from language that portrays a pregnancy as a “punishment.” Pregnancy has always been considered to be a blessing from God. It is not a “consequence” in any kind of negative sense; certainly, it is not a “punishment” for sex, regardless of how the sex took place.

Although it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage, it is never a sin to be pregnant. Pregnancy is God’s sign that He is making something good come of a bad situation, if there is a bad situation there.

There is a miracle taking place inside the woman’s body when she is pregnant - a new person is coming into awareness, as each sense is developed - hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, and tasting.

 

[ceciliatherese]

It is hard to know where to begin to respond to something so bizarre but this shows how far one has to go even to attempt to justify the wanton destruction of a human being. Even the language used shows the strangeness of the concept. The phrase “who resides in her uterus” is a tacit admission that there is a who, a person, in there. Even on its own terms this concept fails.

A woman having sex does so with the full knowledge that, despite precautions and perhaps against her wishes, the result of the act could be the creation of a child. It may be true that the child was not invited in but it is surely true that the child is there because of the action of the mother and the mother has no more moral right to destroy the child in her womb than she does to destroy the child in her home. The woman may well be dissatisfied with the situation of an unwanted pregnancy but since she is the one responsible for the situation she is the one who must bear the consequences.

Ender

A child inside your home will not automatically die if you leave it with someone else. A fetus will stop developing into a child if separated from a woman’s womb. No one is under any obligation to finish that process.
The uterus is the private property of the woman, and no one is allowed to use it against her will, even to sustain it’s life.
the embryo’s location makes all the difference. Two entities residing within the same body cannot have equal rights. One will always have more right to determine how the body is used than the other. Since the two entities reside within the woman’s body, the woman is the one whose rights should take precedence.

 

[HickmanJosh]

The uterus is the private property of the woman,

and your putting a price on what is priceless

 

[HickmanJosh]

from a woman’s womb. No one is under any obligation to finish that process.

And what of the child? because the child’s body is not yet finished growing and doesn’t posses the ability to sustain itself its ok to terminate it?

 

[Doc_Keele]

There’s two distinct concepts here - being human, and being a human being.

 

[Ender]

There’s two distinct concepts here - being human, and being a human being.

Actually I think there is only one concept - being human and being a human being are the same thing, although I recognize the attempt to invent a distinction between the two so that one may arbitrarily define a human being as somehow different from - and necessarily more than - being merely human. Humanity has had some experience with these arbitrary distinctions as blacks, Jews, and native cultures can attest. Needless to say those experiences have not been positive ones. Nor, apparently, educational.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

No, there are two definitions for the two terms that are distinct. Simple logic tells us “human” must mean something different from “human being”.