Why is abortion harmful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eaglejet23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You cannot separate personhood from a human. They are one in the same. If you believe you can, YOU have to provide biological evidence that shows the biological process in which the human person becomes a human being. Where is this evidence Freddy?
 
So what exactly is the difference between ‘human’ and ‘human being?”
 
Eaglejet23 said:
Hello everyone, recently I’ve taken a more pro-life stance and have become more vocal about it. However, whenever I have a dialogue, it seems that I’m underprepared for the discussion. If you have sources or links as to why abortion is wrong either for the child or women, I would love to read it. Usually, the people I have a dialogue with are atheists so I’m not sure I can appeal to God.

In this thread, I will play opposition and try to steelman pro-choice arguments to better prepare myself.
Click to expand...
Guys, there have been a number of posts stating that it is a matter of scientific fact that a zygote is scientifically described as a ‘human being’. I am waiting for anyone to show me that that is indeed true.

Otherwise what we have is personal opinion. And mine carries no more weight than yours. It is just my personal opinion. If you want to claim that those few cells are a person then that is your decision. If you want to describe as a zygote as a small ‘human being’ then that is your right.

I understand your position and respect it. But I don’t agree with it.
 
Oh so now it sounds more like semantics.

The zygote is human. But not a ‘being’. According to somebody’s made-up biologist.

Again I ask, what is the difference between a human and a human being?
 
Freddy, what we’d like is your definition of human and your definition of human being.
 
Freddy, in order to say that there is a difference between being a human and being a human being, you need to provide biological evidence that such a distinction exists. Otherwise they are one in the same.
 
stpurl said:
Freddy, what we’d like is your definition of human and your definition of human being.
Click to expand...
Your definition of human being is whatever one has at the moment of conception. That’s not mine.
stpurl said:
Is the human zygote a part of the development of a human person from conception to death? If so, then the zygote is as much a human being as a fetus…
Click to expand...
And there is no bright line when what a woman carries becomes a person. What she carries will have more of whatever we use to define a person as the pregancy evolves. From a point where it has none as a zygote, to a point where it has almost all the attributes we’d use to define personhood.

Asking when that point occurs is like asking when a boy becomes a man. There is no specific point. But we all know the difference between a four year old and a forty year old.
 
WA_Catholic said:
Freddy, in order to say that there is a difference between being a human and being a human being, you need to provide biological evidence that such a distinction exists. Otherwise they are one in the same.
Click to expand...
It’s personal opinion from my viewpoint. It’s you guys that are saying that it’s a scientific fact. I am still waiting for that scientific fact.
 
Yes because until you can prove that there is a separate biological process which produces personhood, being a human and being a person is one in the same. Thus, scientifically, all humans are human beings. Unless you can prove otherwise.
 
WA_Catholic said:
Yes because until you can prove that there is a separate biological process which produces personhood, being a human and being a person is one in the same. Thus, scientifically, all humans are human beings. Unless you can prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Are you really not reading what I am writing? I don’t have to prove anything. I said it’s my personal opinion that a zygote is not a human being.

I’m going to duck out of this thread for a while because all I am doing is wasting my time in repeating the same things post after post.

In tbe meantime, if anyone wants to post a quote or a link that shows that it is a scientific fact (as has been claimed) that a zygote is a ‘human being’ (and not just human) then I’ll call back in later to check.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
personal opinion that a zygote is not a human being.
Click to expand...
Personal opinion means nothing. You need to show that being a human being is biologically different than being a human. Otherwise they are one in the same. And if they are one in the same then scientifically a zygote is a human being. You need to show that being a human being is separate from being a human. Please show this evidence.
 
Given Fred’s position, it seems logical to put to Fred the question - “when is the earliest moment in the development of my offspring that we can say we have a human being?” But I believe I know his answer - “I don’t know, I can’t draw the line”.

Another question to ask might be - “at what age - after conception - does it cease to be morally OK to kill my offspring?” And why then? Perhaps he’ll complete the circle and say - “you can’t kill the offspring once he becomes a human being”.

And lastly - perhaps the actual stage of development of our offspring is not the relevant factor in determining when termination is morally acceptable (contrary to Fred’s thinking). Perhaps it is enough to note the course that is set for a genetically complete, unique & newly existing individual.
 
Last edited:
Since it becomes difficult to determine at what point is a fetus too developed to be aborted, you are really left with two options: cannot kill something from moment of conception, or, can kill something up until the moment of birth.

I think most people would object to killing a baby that is 9 months developed and therefore, if a line cannot be determined, you have one choice, to protect life from moment of conception.

If having a heart beat is what matters, then why can’t I beat up a corpse? Clearly something without a heart beat still has dignity.

If feeling pain is what matters, then is it okay to kill someone with CIPA (Congenital insensitivity to pain with anidrosis)? Clearly we would say the dignity of someone is not based on whether or not they feel pain.

Dignity is based on being in the image of God, no other human construct can be used to determine this and therefore, life has to be protected from the moment of conception all the way to natural death. Protecting the dignity of life does not end at birth but rather all the way through life.
 
I would even say, if personhood like Fred says, determines whether a human being should be killed, what is to say a newborn is a person? Does being out of the womb confer personhood? Consciousness? And if either of those do confer consciousness then what is the biological process that confers personhood.
 
Freddy said:
Are you really not reading what I am writing?
Click to expand...
Oh, we recognize what you write. You want to kill the child and in order to do so you wish to make the child subhuman. Your logic is not novel. We’ve seen this play before:

Untermensch (German pronunciation: [ˈʔʊntɐˌmɛnʃ] ((Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)listen), underman , sub-man , subhuman ; plural: Untermenschen ) is a Nazi term for non-Aryan “inferior people” often referred to as “the masses from the East”, that is Jews, Roma, and Slavs (Poles, Serbs, Russians, etc.)
 
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
[2270] Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

[2272] Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae ,”
 
You sometimes hear/ read " it’s about not allowing men to control our bodies …" to which I reply,
Abortion gives men complete control over women’s bodies. They are free to enjoy uncommitted sex, with no worries about fatherhood, because abortions are freely available. Men are free to use women for sex - no strings attached, while women are tricked into imagined " feminist liberty " as they are being used and then persuaded to murder their own babies. This is the ultimate abuse. By Men.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top