The "personhood" argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter AFerri48
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
claymcdermott said:
Well, that rider is what abortion is. That’s my point. The “one” (see above) is human. And instinctively people acquiesce to the “Don’t kill innocent nonthreatening humans for convenience thing.” The pro-abortion crowd can only succeed by obfuscating the radical simplicity of the question.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with what I underlined there.

Either way, the original question was exactly how to define “what makes us human”.

To you, me, and many pro-lifers, the scientific definition is enough: life starts at conception, and an embryo is a human being in a different level of maturity (yet, still human).

The problem is in making others agree with:
  1. the fact that life begins at fertilization;
  2. that human life has inherent value;
  3. that every human life must be protected.
We currently have people discussing the ‘right’ to suicide, a situation that instantly overrides number 2 and 3. We have people that are in favor of infanticide (they call it ‘after-birth abortion’). Not that long ago, most countries were in favor of ‘race superiority’ ideals, and ‘ethnic cleansing’. We can’t really count with only the simple “a human embryo is a human being” to make them change their opinion on abortion.

To me, asking them what their definition of life and its value is (which is what the OP meant by the “personhood argument”), is a starting point. Better to know what in their reasoning needs change, than to insist on something (“protect life! All life is precious!!”) they don’t even agree with…

If life, to them, has no inherent value, you will waste time discussing why abortion is wrong. Instead, you might first have to discuss why life must be protected at all. See zyzz, for example: he values “intelligence” and “sentience” over “everything else”. To him,** life by itself has no value**: its value must be created by your capacity of being useful or productive, or something to that effect. And I’ll bet he’s not afraid of supporting suicide for Alzheimer’s patients, for those with terminal illness, or in coma…

Do you think saying “an embryo is a human being” is enough to convince him that abortion is wrong?
 
AFerri48. You said . . .
The context is that pro-choice people claim that abortion is okay because the zygote/embyro/fetus is not a person yet.
Click to expand...
The pro-abortion person uses this “argument” because it has a built-in materialist pre-supposition that denies personhood to a human being.
Denying the personhood of a human being makes it easier to rationalize killing it or some other abuse (slavery, child abuse, modern-day sex slavery, etc).

It helps give a little temporary “conscience salve” to the abuser (or those in cahoots with the abuser—out of agreement, or out of fear, or whatever).

It staves off cognitive dissonance . . . at least for awhile for the abuser. ("Since I am not ABUSING a real “person” here, I can look at myself in the mirror easier now. So beating up a crying baby is OK because its not a “REAL” person. Using that Puerto Rican or Thailand little boy or girl for gratification is no biggie because they are not real PERSONS–they are just . . . “whatever”)

“Aborting” this “blob of tissue” is OK because . . . . its not a real person yet.

And it causes a distortion of their moral order which contributes to a more chaotic society (“Killing California Condor eggs? Yeah. That’s a FELONY. Killing a pre-born baby? Oh. We don’t want to be judgmental and start legislating morality.”)
ALL groups in society that assert humans are something less than fully human have to do this sort of thing.

They MUST de-personalize human beings (“Terri Schaivo is merely a “vegetable” not a “person” I want to “give” her “dignity”.”)

It MUST be this way so it is easier to do away with or abuse these vulnerable people.
Black people? Less than a person = slavery.

Jewish people? Less than a person = Attempted genocide.

Christians, especially the last Century and a half? (but all throughout history too) Less than a person = Infidel (or whatever) = Attempted Genocide.

Disabled people? Less than a person needing “dignity”. = “The good death” or “euthanasia”.

Human persons that are still in the womb? Less than a person = “Abortion”.

The most vulnerable are at the most at risk to be . . . . “re-defined”.
So ask the pro-abortion person . . . .

What MATERIAL thing does a human being get . . . . that actually makes them a person?
After all, if these “embryos” are NOT PERSONS in the womb, they MUST have gotten SOMETHING from SOMEWHERE that finally brought them to the personhood status right?

So WHAT was it?
If it is NOT mere material, they MUST inherently possess this personhood and it “CAN’T” be THAT! (sarcasm warning here)

Why? Because if their personhood would be based upon something that includes their continually forming physical body but ALSO transcends that material body.

Then it suggests the “embryo” . . . has ALWAYS had this personhood from the time of their conception (if they posses something that transcends the mere physical). This would be unacceptable to the abortion proponent.

Personhood that transcends the birthing process suggests the “zygote” or “embryo” or whatever . . . . has ALWAYS been a person from the very time of their conception. (And we CAN’T have THAT! – according to the pro-abortion advocate)

Why? Because his/her personhood would by definition, include but transcend the material world.

So (according to the pro-abortionists implicit logic) the “embryo” who is NOT a person (according to them), and the 1 day old baby who now IS a person . . . . MUST have GOTTEN SOMETHING that helped then join the proverbial “personhood club”.
Then ask them: WHAT was this material good they received that now made them “come of age” into personhood?

Was it a “breath of air” that made this kid finally be a person?

Was it “being able to tell his story” as one Ivy League “ethicist” has put it?

What if some guy says it is owning something (if this kid’s got an inheritance, if he’s rich, then he’s a “person”. Poor kids? NOT persons!). Is “money” able to define “personhood”?

If the answer to these questions from them is “no”, “no”, and “no”, ask them WHAT IS that material factor that finally defines that kid as a “person”?

What is the material thing that that “kid” who pre-born 2 days ago was NOT a person, now mystically magically BECOMES a person 1 day after birth?! (again sarcasm alert here)

They won’t know. And if they manufacture an answer, ask them WHY should you accept THEIR answer.

WHY NOT the guy who comes up with a DIFFERENT “manufactured” answer and says the kid doesn’t become a “person” until six months of age. **Or according to some “ethicists” the “kid doesn’t become a person until two years of age!” **

WHY discount THOSE GUYS who say THAT stuff? Are you going to “legislate personhood” at age TWO? (Why not? according to the pro-abortion line of thinking)
Then tell them the babies are persons because they have a body but also something that TRANSCENDS flesh. They ALSO have a SOUL.

Now the pro-abortion advocate will balk and want to have a discussion about how you know the kid has a soul or legislating souls or some such. Don’t go there. You’ve given them enough to think about at that point.

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

PS I’ll give you another argument I have used on the next post.
 
Deep down inside, we all KNOW abortion is wrong.
  • That’s WHY the press won’t show it.
  • That’s WHY we have to invent euphemisms to distort reality (“blob of tissue” instead of “growing person” . . . . “women’s rights” instead of “killing unborn humans” . . . . Women’s “Clinic” instead of “the place where these atrocities occur”).
  • That’s WHY abortion activists don’t want women fully informed of their decisions in this area.
God’s forgiveness is the remedy. But the devil, the flesh, and the world do not want women to be healed.

Talk to a woman that has had an abortion and you will hear things like: “I couldn’t forgive myself”. Or “I didn’t think I DESERVED forgiveness.” Or “I knew I didn’t deserve this second baby, so I went out and aborted IT TOO!”

You see a form of despair.

Confession is where these women can finally begin to substantially heal.

Confession is where these women can have this Sacramental encounter with God almighty in the way HE designed it to be.

And the road to the Confessional is truth (or Truth–Jesus Christ).

They need to be loved the way Jesus loves us.

They need to have truth gently, subjectively non-judgmentally (for them not the objective “action” which we ARE to judge) but honestly shared with them.

Incidentally. This doesn’t just go for women who are victims of having an abortion, but also for people who aid and abet abortion. Especially men who have in some way been involved with abortion (like the late Dr. Nathanson who aborted two of his own children! See here) and abortion providers that ALSO need healing (learn about The Society of Centurions here).
To help self-reveal that “deep-down-inside” truth to the abortion advocate, ask the anti-personhood person a test question.

Tell them (hypothetically) you were talking to a guy who said:

I think abortion should ONLY be legal for . . . .

(fill it in with whatever you think will have the most impact on the person you are discussing this issue with so as to drive home your point).

We will use a nazi/Jewish person example here just for arguments sake (but you can use any type of person or group to illustrate your point).

Here again is the question (using the “nazi” example) . . . .
If you heard I was discussing the life issue with a person who says he is a nazi, and this nazi person said . . . .

I think abortion should ONLY be legal for . . . . Jews.

(Would you conclude this is a person who respects the dignity of Jewish people?)

Based upon this nazi’s response would you conclude . . . .

A. “Oh. I see this nazi guy actually FAVORS Jewish people over all other people. He gives Jewish people “FULL RIGHTS” at least.”

Or would you conclude “B”.

B. “Wow. I see this guy hates Jewish people and wants Jewish people off of the earth, one-at-a-time if necessary.”

**The answer would clearly be “B”. **
Remember that the next time you hear someone say abortion should be OK for ANY person.

(Would you conclude this is a person who respects the dignity of humanity?)

Or would you conclude this person (at best) only SELECTIVELY respects the dignity of humanity. Or worse, wants much of humanity gone . . . one-at-a-time if necessary.

Then HOW FAR or WHERE can you move that “SELECTION” to?

When someone tells you they favor abortion, they are in effect to some extent, telling you of their anti-person worldview—even if they don’t consciously realize it themselves.

They have imbibed an error somewhere along the way (purposefully or accidentally).

And if they are of good will, if they are truth-seeking, if they are honest with themselves, . . . with God’s grace . . . . you can be used to help them OUT of that world view that re-defines some people as less than a person.
This is part of the reason WHY (I think it was) Karl Keating who (long ago) has said something to the effect of, if the guy is pro-abortion you don’t vote for him for “dog-catcher”.

Karl was warning us, that this guy has a world-view that is inappropriate for public leadership.

And since nobody starts out as “President” or “Senator”, but rather they start their career as “mayor” or some such, you don’t even want these guys for your “mayor”.

You don’t vote for them even for “dog-catcher”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top