Why is abortion harmful?

[o_mlly]

The first part, the part that I quoted, reflects something approaching my views. That’s why I quoted it as a contrast to the Catholic position. But it’s no more authorative than the Catholic position in my view.

Now that we both reject the authority of the Jewish law in this matter, we can return to what science offers and to the philosophical question posed to you some time ago:

Because science cannot tell us the point at which a soul is infused, we may not treat the child as souless, i.e, inhuman at any point of its existence. Science can tell us that the being can be nothing else other than a human being. Therefore, the Catholic teaching on the accepting the presence of human life from conception is the only moral conclusion possible especially if the act under consideration is to kill that life.

Freddy:

Nobody would be idiotic enough to suggest that it could.

Good. That’s a start. Now give us your philosophical argument in opposition to the Catholic teaching cited that would make the killing of that life a moral act.

You’re on.

 

[VeryBlessed]

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation (the implantation of the blastocyst).

I find this line of argument entirely irrelevant to the abortion debate. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there is a moment in which the soul is infused that is somehow down the road some days or weeks from conception. The inevitability of the infusion of the soul, makes a whole argument about “when” seems silly. If the infusion of the soul is inevitable, then abortion always murders a person with a soul, whether they technically have received it or not. To claim a moment of infusion at any point other than conception, in today’s world, given what we know about scientifically about conception and very early fetal development, seems like justifying abortion on the basis of a technicality.

 

[Freddy]

Good. That’s a start. Now give us your philosophical argument in opposition to the Catholic teaching cited that would make the killing of that life a moral act.

I’m repeating myself. I don’t consider what a woman is carrying shortly after conception to be a person. I’ve said that more times than I could count. The Jewish position is exactly the same. Except they don’t consider there to be a person until birth.

I know you obviously don’t agree with that but what is it about that view that’s so difficult to understand?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation (the implantation of the blastocyst).

I find this line of argument entirely irrelevant to the abortion debate. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there is a moment in which the soul is infused that is somehow down the road some days or weeks from conception. The inevitability of the infusion of the soul, makes a whole argument about “when” seems silly. If the infusion of the soul is inevitable, then abortion always murders a person with a soul, whether they technically have received it or not. To claim a moment of infusion at any point other than conception, in today’s world, given what we know about scientifically about conception and very early fetal development, seems like justifying abortion on the basis of a technicality.

I don’t believe in the soul myself but I think the argument runs that without it, whatever the woman is carrying is not a person. No more so than the egg or the sperm I would imagine.

 

[Eaglejet23]

You don’t understand how it’s “harmful” to dismember or burn the skin off a baby in the womb? You don’t think that is painful to it?

It seems that my post there left some confusion. I’m aware of the horrific process of abortion, but whenever I bring this up with a pro-abortionist, they say it’s not human or not a person. If I were to say that it’s wrong because the process is painful, they could respond with then that killing animals is wrong because they feel pain. Note that I don’t hold this position, but it’s difficult to use the process of abortion as a reason against abortion when they don’t consider it human in the first place. What I should have said is how it’s just harmful to women since that’s the main argument for abortion. If I knew sources to prove that abortion was anti-woman for the women planning to get an abortion, then that would help. I couldn’t say, “Remember, half those babies in the womb are female babies. They’re women too” because the pro-abortionist doesn’t consider them as women.

 

[o_mlly]

I know you obviously don’t agree with that but what is it about that view that’s so difficult to understand?

The reason I do not agree is that your view is irrational. You may say you feel the child is not a human being but you have offered no argument in support to think the living being could be something else than a human being.

 

[Rau]

I’m repeating myself. I don’t consider what a woman is carrying shortly after conception to be a person. I’ve said that more times than I could count.

I suspect you rely on the word “person” in a somewhat self-serving (even circular) fashion. What is a person? A human being that it would be wrong to kill? So why is it OK to kill some human beings and not others? You can’t assert “because they are not a person”!!

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Do they have a heart beat?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m repeating myself. I don’t consider what a woman is carrying shortly after conception to be a person. I’ve said that more times than I could count.

I suspect you rely on the word “person” in a somewhat self-serving (even circular) fashion. What is a person? A human being that it would be wrong to kill? So why is it OK to kill some human beings and not others? You can’t assert “because they are not a person”!!

No. Not a human being. A human being is a person and vica versa. A zygote is human - nobody denies that. But it is not a human being.

 

[Rau]

A zygote is human - nobody denies that. But it is not a human being .

The difference being?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A zygote is human - nobody denies that. But it is not a human being .

The difference being?

If something is human it contains human dna. Something that contains human dna is not necessarily a human being.

If you think that a zygote is a person then we’re not only not on the same page, we’re in different libraries.

 

[Rau]

If you think that a zygote is a person then we’re not only not on the same page, we’re in different libraries.

You’ve ducked the question Fred. I ask again. What is difference between my human offspring at the very early stage (zygote) and a human being?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you think that a zygote is a person then we’re not only not on the same page, we’re in different libraries.

You’ve ducked the question Fred. I ask again. What is difference between my human offspring at the very early stage (zygote) and a human being?

You’d have to do some pretty involved testing just to confirm the zygote is human. It could be a chimp or a rodent. What’s your definition of a person? A fertilised human egg? Can’t you think of any substantial differences between a newly born baby and a few cells?

 

[Rau]

I conclude you do not know. I suggest mere youth does not distinguish the too.

 

[Freddy]

I conclude you do not know.

Is this a person?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’m going to suggest that you don’t know either.

 

[goout]

Rau:

Freddy:

If you think that a zygote is a person then we’re not only not on the same page, we’re in different libraries.

You’ve ducked the question Fred. I ask again. What is difference between my human offspring at the very early stage (zygote) and a human being?

You’d have to do some pretty involved testing just to confirm the zygote is human. It could be a chimp or a rodent. What’s your definition of a person? A fertilised human egg? Can’t you think of any substantial differences between a newly born baby and a few cells?

Freddy I can come up with a better argument for your position than you just did.
First of all, the supposedly “involved testing” is already settled science.
It not only can’t be a chimp or a rodent, it is de facto not.

The substantial differences are stages of development, potency, and capacity, and if your position is to be consistent, you should accord those stages of development more or less value as human beings and more or less protection. And that is obviously what you are doing.

Your position is an appeal to the power of one human being over others. That’s all it is. And unfortunately using power as the barometer of human value leads to barbarism.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

We should be asking why abortion isn’t harmful. Becuase even pro choice people can’t say otherwise.

 

[Freddy]

Your position is an appeal to the power of one human being over others.

That’s exactly the point I am not making. But stating the point I am making time after time after time seems a waste of time.

 

[goout]

goout:

Your position is an appeal to the power of one human being over others.

That’s exactly the point I am not making. But stating it time after time after time seems a waste of time.

Then answering the question for us would be the charitable thing.

You’ve ducked the question Fred. I ask again. What is difference between my human offspring at the very early stage (zygote) and a human being?

 

[goout]

We should be asking why abortion isn’t harmful. Becuase even pro choice people can’t say otherwise.

Let me just note that in another thread you believe God holds innocent life in very low esteem. That makes advocacy for helpless life very difficult to take seriously.