F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, and that’s the point. We cannot locate any point in time after conception when the unborn goes from non-human to human
Last edited:
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Well, actually the point is that there is NO time when the unborn goes from non-human to human. It becomes human when it acquires human DNA – which is at the moment of conception.
If we can declare someone who has human DNA is not human, what keeps us from declaring Catholics, Jews or Blacks-- or anyone we don’t like – are not human? Could we decide that when you go in to a nursing home, you loose your humanity?
B
Brendan
Guest
Abortion is far more than just letting someone die. It is actively trying to kill them. The entire goal of an abortion is to kill someone.
So no the analogy is NOT obvious. The closer analogy would be to hold someone underwater until they died.
That is rightly restricted by the government, as should abortion be, for exactly the same reason.
B
Brendan
Guest
Exactly!! Biologically, it is human through it’s entire development process, from zygote to fetus to infant to toddler to child to pre-adolescent to adolescent to adult. At NO POINT does it change species.
That is not a matter of option, that is a matter of scientific fact.
C
Convert3
Guest
It comes down to how an individual defines morality. It can be the morality as taught by God, or the morality of man. The morality of man focuses on self interest. The morality of God focuses on what is just.
Some of it is already happening. Actually one of the arguments of pro-abortion ethicists is that one is a person only from the point at which one thinks and is aware of oneself as a subject - it’s easy to draw the conclusion of what happens when people are not aware of themselves any longer.
With the same logic, but from the opposite starting point, the clear link between abortion and protection of the weakest was highlighted in the French case of Vincent Lambert, a tetraplegic man with limited consciousness who was “euthanized” by stopping his life support (alimentation).
The French prosecutor in charge of the case said one couldn’t declare Vincent Lambert’s right to life as a supreme value, because then one would have to admit that unborn babies, who are presumed to have limited consciousness as well, have a right to life too.
P
PetraG
Guest
Hippocrates was an exemplar among ancient physicians, not the average, but he practiced medicine not as a tradesman looking out for himself but as the practioner of an art of sacred importance:
I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygeia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant…
I will apply dietetic measure for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and in holiness I will guard my life and my art…
Note that he considers giving an abortive drug similar to assisting a suicide, and foreswears both. This is not something that requires a Abrahamic appreciation of the truth concerning the human person.
Last edited:
A
Ana_v
Guest
If I may add some important perspective which may seem unrelated at first but which I will connect to the social controversy over abortion…
In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas says something interesting about the proposition: God exists.
He says that this proposition is “self-evident in itself” but not “self-evident to us”.
What does that mean? He explains that a proposition is “self-evident in itself” when upon grasping the subject and the predicate, the truth of the proposition is obvious.
For example:
Every whole is greater than its part.
Every apple is a fruit.
As long as you understand the meaning of “part” and “whole”, and the meaning of “apple” and “fruit”, the truth of the proposition is self evident.
Since according to Aquinas, God’s essense is his existence (i.e. the very essence of God is being/pure actuality),
he says that “God exists” is a proposition that is self evident.
And yet he says it’s not self evident to us. Why?
Because, he says, not every one who hears the term “God” comprehends it.
The precise meaning of the term “God” is not obvious. And not everyone believes that essence and existence are the same in God.
Relating this to abortion:
While I think abortion is gravely evil, I am very generous with giving the benefit of the doubt to those that identify as pro choice because I believe that the proposition:
Abortion is intrinsically evil
Is not a self evident proposition.
And I think the evidence of this is that even among those who identify as Prolife, a minority are opposed to abortion in all cases. Which means most people believe that abortion is justifiable in at least some situations.
That doesn’t mean they’re correct. I’m simply saying, I genuinely believe that the intrinsically evil nature of abortion is not self-evident.
In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas says something interesting about the proposition: God exists.
He says that this proposition is “self-evident in itself” but not “self-evident to us”.
What does that mean? He explains that a proposition is “self-evident in itself” when upon grasping the subject and the predicate, the truth of the proposition is obvious.
For example:
Every whole is greater than its part.
Every apple is a fruit.
As long as you understand the meaning of “part” and “whole”, and the meaning of “apple” and “fruit”, the truth of the proposition is self evident.
Since according to Aquinas, God’s essense is his existence (i.e. the very essence of God is being/pure actuality),
he says that “God exists” is a proposition that is self evident.
And yet he says it’s not self evident to us. Why?
Because, he says, not every one who hears the term “God” comprehends it.
The precise meaning of the term “God” is not obvious. And not everyone believes that essence and existence are the same in God.
Relating this to abortion:
While I think abortion is gravely evil, I am very generous with giving the benefit of the doubt to those that identify as pro choice because I believe that the proposition:
Abortion is intrinsically evil
Is not a self evident proposition.
And I think the evidence of this is that even among those who identify as Prolife, a minority are opposed to abortion in all cases. Which means most people believe that abortion is justifiable in at least some situations.
That doesn’t mean they’re correct. I’m simply saying, I genuinely believe that the intrinsically evil nature of abortion is not self-evident.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not Cicero though.
G
goout
Guest
This reduces the question to opinion. Opinion is not self evidence, opinion is an assertion.
I like ice cream.
Ice cream is terrible.
But we are not dealing with subjective opinions when we evaluate an action morally.
What is self evident is the objective good that a moral evaluation of killing innocents points to. Right? When you speak about abortion being intrinsically evil, you are speaking in reference to an objective good, not to opinion.
What is that self evident objective good?
It is good to exist.
Any reasoning person in good mental health can observe, and actually demonstrates self evidently by his/her very drive to live…that existence is good.
We might try to deny this is self evident, but now you are left to parse language to to the point of insanity. As follows:
What is existence?
Existence is not necessarily good…look at those who are suicidal! Who is human and who’s not? What is abortion? What is evil? What is intrinsic? is there such a thing as morality?
The only argument to self evidence is to run language games with the intention of dulling the expression of the objective good.
And this is the state of our culture: we have talked ourselves out of respect for human existence and human nature.
We are not a very smart people (generally speaking)
Last edited:
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It is not an opinion that the unborn child has DNA. That is a scientific fact. And having DNA it must be human. When you kill the unborn child, you are killing a living human being – and that’s called “murder.”
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
In other words, we can’t admit reality, because we might be inconvenienced when we want to commit murder.
G
goout
Guest
You must have read the first line of my post and stopped.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I read it. I just said it more succinctly.
F
fhansen
Guest
Ok, if I didn’t make myself clear, that was the original point. There’s no magical time we can logically point to other than conception- no arbitrary determinations necessary in that.
Last edited:
A
Ana_v
Guest
I don’t think it does.
It’s one thing to say “these sample of opinions about abortion tell us _________ about the people who hold these opinions”.
It’s another thing to say “these sample of opinions about abortion establish what abortion is”.
My previous post has to do with the first.
I think that most people who assess the morality of abortion do so on extrinsic grounds, the way we would assess the morality of a particular war, for example.
Again, I’m not saying it is correct to do that, but that I think that’s how most people approach the morality of abortion.
And that is why I try to be very patient and give the benefit of the doubt to pro-choicers ( I don’t begin by assuming they are malicious or in obstinate denial). I try my best to assume they are people of goodwill, even if I think they are wrong (i.e. I err on the side of thinking they are sincerely mistaken, rather than unabashed defiance of truth).
Last edited:
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I think you should either stop identifying as Catholic or change your views on abortion preferably the latter. I was pro-life long before I became Catholic , quite literally my whole life. We do not need more people calling themselves Catholics that support the mass Slaughter of innocent children. Abortion is murder, it is also discriminatory it always harms women and children. How many abortion survivors have you met? I grew up with at least one, he’s no less of a person than you are
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And one day every one of us will be handicapped. And that will solve the problem of Social Security – instead of sending old people monthly checks, just put them to death.
Exactly. Protecting the unborn is also protecting ourselves, the day we will be old and sick and “useless” by this society’s standards.
There was a thread on assisted suicide recently. In some countries who have legalized it, the pressure to die on elderly people whose health requires expensive treatment is real.
God have mercy on us.
There was a thread on assisted suicide recently. In some countries who have legalized it, the pressure to die on elderly people whose health requires expensive treatment is real.
God have mercy on us.
- Status