Why is abortion harmful?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You must know that if you use terms like ‘murdered’ then anyone on the other side of the discussion will immediately turn off. But to continue anyway…

Well, it is so from the point of view of logic… If you think that killing a person is immoral, then you should be against abortion…

I spend post after post explainng that a lot of people don’t consider what a woman carries shortly after conception to be a person and…you simply ignore it.

And to show that this is just not some theist position, here’s the Jewish position:

‘But why is it the fetus whose life is sacrificed for the mother, and not the other way around? Apparently, the unborn child, although a living being, does not yet have a status of personhood equal to its mother.’ https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/529077/jewish/Judaism-and-Abortion.htm

Taken to the extreme, some rabbis would argue that it is not a person until actually born. A position with which I disagree.

I hope that you can see that there are different views on this. Held honestly.

 

[Billy76]

Yeah they are . . . deficient . . . arguments, that personhood is subjective. Personhood is intrinsic to a person, it come when one is created. If personhood is subjectively applied, it also means it can be subjectively taken away and ceases to retain any actual meaning.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I spend post after post explainng that a lot of people don’t consider what a woman carries shortly after conception to be a person and…you simply ignore it.

What definition of personality is not invented I have not seen any definition of which would not be counter examples among the people of which it is customary not to kill.

Sorry. I can’t parse that.

 

[o_mlly]

And to show that this is just not some theist position, here’s the Jewish position

The crucial difference between Catholic and the Jewish thinking on abortion, as I understand the article, is not the person hood of the child but the categorization of the child as as “rodef”, an unjust aggressor with murderous intent. Catholic thinking is that the child is an innocent person.

Without the “rodef” categorization of the child, the matter of the child’s person hood becomes moot. So which is more reasonable? Can a non-person act with murderous intent? If the child is “rodef” then, it seems, the child must be a person, i.e., one capable of intending its acts toward an end-in-view, a moral person. So it would seem logical that one cannot be "rodef " and a non-person at the same time. Or, as Catholics teach, is the child an innocent person in the womb? The latter seems the only reasonable conclusion.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And to show that this is just not some theist position, here’s the Jewish position

The crucial difference between Catholic and the Jewish thinking on abortion, as I understand the article, is not the person hood of the child but the categorization of the child as as “rodef”, an unjust aggressor with murderous intent. Catholic thinking is that the child is an innocent person.

Without the “rodef” categorization of the child, the matter of the child’s person hood becomes moot. So which is more reasonable? Can a non-person act with murderous intent? If the child is “rodef” then, it seems, the child must be a person, i.e., one capable of intending its acts toward an end-in-view, a moral person. So it would seem logical that one cannot be "rodef " and a non-person at the same time. Or, as Catholics teach, is the child an innocent person in the womb? The latter seems the only reasonable conclusion.

I’m far from an expert on Rabbinical law. But there’s this:

‘While the Talmud gives the full status of humanness to a child at birth, the rabbinical writings have partially extended the acquisition of humanness to the 13th postnatal day of life for full-term infants. The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: “ the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day .” Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born’ .The beginning of human life

And as regarding Catholicism, there’s also this:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...ith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

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).

 

[o_mlly]

I’m far from an expert on Rabbinical law. But there’s this:

‘While the Talmud gives the full status of humanness to a child at birth, the rabbinical writings have partially extended the acquisition of humanness to the 13th postnatal day of life for full-term infants. The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: “ the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day .”

Nor am I an expert in Jewish Talmud. I can only criticize its claims based on reason.

To claim humanity at a specific time w/o evidence in support makes such a claim entirely arbitrary. Why not the 12th or 14th day postnadal day? How did one know in antiquity the exact day of conception in order to arrive at the 40th day? Similarly, why not the 39th day or the 41st? We know now factually that the embryo is not “mere water” so the teaching must be rejected.

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).

You cite an endnote and truncate it which distorts the teaching. The very next sentence of the endnote, clarifies the teaching. I cite the entire endnote for others to read:

19. 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. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul (Empahsis mine).

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m far from an expert on Rabbinical law. But there’s this:

‘While the Talmud gives the full status of humanness to a child at birth, the rabbinical writings have partially extended the acquisition of humanness to the 13th postnatal day of life for full-term infants. The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: “ the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day .”

Nor am I an expert in Jewish Talmud. I can only criticize its claims based on reason.

It’s just as nonsensical to say ‘here is a person at this exact moment and not a moment before’ as it is to say that a blastocyst is that person.

And we all know what the church’s teaching is. But it’s worth pointing out that ‘there is no unanimous tradition on this point’. I’d guess that not that many people would have been aware of that comment.

Both points made to illustrate that there are differing religious positions on this.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s just as nonsensical to say ‘here is a person at this exact moment and not a moment before’ as it is to say that a blastocyst is that person.

And we all know what the church’s teaching is. But it’s worth pointing out that ‘there is no unanimous tradition on this point’. I’d guess that not that many people would have been aware of that comment.

Both points made to illustrate that there are differing religious positions on this.

Dis-proven or unproven by science, we dismiss the Talmud claims in antiquity regarding the onset of the child’s humanity. 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.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

 

[Freddy]

A souless life?

 

[o_mlly]

A souless life?

? …

 

[whatistrue]

You should talk to women who have had no problems in having an abortion and see what they say.

I have known and talked to many women who have had abortions. None were completely unaffected. Of course that is anecdotal, but so would it have been if any said “no problem at all”.

ETA: And of course that really isn’t relevant to the “saving vs. killing” statement, since I was speaking in objective terms, not subjective.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Freddy:

A souless life?

? …

That’s your argument in opposition to the Catholic teaching? Really, you believe some kind of zombie being exists in the womb? Methinks too much tellie and not enough great books.

 

[harshcshah]

Matt Fradd discusses abortion with Stephanie Gray

A debate on abortion hosted on Matt Fradd’s channel

 

[Freddy]

That’s your argument in opposition to the Catholic teaching? Really, you believe some kind of zombie being exists in the womb? Methinks too much tellie and not enough great books.

I’m with my Jewish friends on this.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m with my Jewish friends on this.

The medieval ones? They are dead, you know.

Nobody would be idiotic enough to suggest that it could.

Well, I guess there is one.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m with my Jewish friends on this.

The medieval ones? They are dead, you know.

Not the ones that I know.

‘To put it plainly, Jewish law allows for abortion. For the first 40 days of gestation, a fetus is considered “mere fluid” (Talmud Yevamot 69b), and the fetus is regarded as part of the mother for the duration of the pregnancy. It is not considered to have the status of personhood until birth…’ https://forward.com/opinion/393168/why-are-jews-so-pro-choice/

You must have known this.

 

[sainteriksrose]

It tears a baby limbs apart, killing it and also most likely the soul of the mother and doctor and whomever else is involved in the decision making process…

If the whomever you’re speaking with doesn’t believe they themselves have a soul, then look up the stats of the well-being of women who have had abortions, the health problems they have, including increased risk of different kinds of cancers if they’ve used any kind of artificial birth control.

 

[o_mlly]

‘To put it plainly, Jewish law allows for abortion. For the first 40 days of gestation, a fetus is considered “mere fluid” (Talmud Yevamot 69b), and the fetus is regarded as part of the mother for the duration of the pregnancy. It is not considered to have the status of personhood until birth…’ https://forward.com/opinion/393168/why-are-jews-so-pro-choice/

You must have known this.

Truncating a citation that changes the meaning of the quote is disingenuous. Here’s the full citation from your article.

For the first 40 days of gestation, a fetus is considered “mere fluid” (Talmud Yevamot 69b), and the fetus is regarded as part of the mother for the duration of the pregnancy. It is not considered to have the status of personhood until birth; the Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) teaches that if the mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy, even in labor, the fetus may be sacrificed to save her life, unless the baby’s head has already emerged.

Remember the “rodef” concept? Fred’s abortion on demand for any reason up to, I don’t know, until Fred feels it’s no longer OK, does not comport with Jewish law.

In general, citing an authority in support of one’s position based on the beliefs of that authority grants that source’s beliefs as authoritative in other matters as well. Do you also now believe in God? If not then we can dismiss your appeal to an authority that you do not respect as incredible.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

‘To put it plainly, Jewish law allows for abortion. For the first 40 days of gestation, a fetus is considered “mere fluid” (Talmud Yevamot 69b), and the fetus is regarded as part of the mother for the duration of the pregnancy. It is not considered to have the status of personhood until birth…’ https://forward.com/opinion/393168/why-are-jews-so-pro-choice/

You must have known this.

Truncating a citation that changes the meaning of the quote is disingenuous. Here’s the full citation from your article.

For the first 40 days of gestation, a fetus is considered “mere fluid” (Talmud Yevamot 69b), and the fetus is regarded as part of the mother for the duration of the pregnancy. It is not considered to have the status of personhood until birth, the Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) teaches that *if the mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy, even in labor, the fetus may be sacrificed to save her life, unless the baby’s head has already emerged.

Remember the “rodef” concept? Fred’s abortion on demand for any reason up to, I don’t know, until Fred feels it’s no longer OK, does not comport with Jewish law.

In general, citing an authority in support of one’s position based on the beliefs of that authority grants that source’s beliefs as authoritative in other matters as well. Do you also now believe in God? If not then we can dismiss your appeal to an authority that you do not respect as incredible.

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.