Why should pro-choicers think we sincerely think embryos are people?

[Prodigal_Son]

I am to. I know that abortion is evil. A civilization that ceases to want children, neglects, abuses, uses and aborts children will self-destruct, Abortion is but one symptom and I often wonder where to start.

Christianity has had to deal with state sanctioned evil from the beginning. Early Christians saw slavery, the horrible games played out in coliseums, cruel executions and many other equally evil state sanctioned practices. Christianity has struggled against these practices through the centuries. I believe that the Christians are recognizing that the only real weapon is the changing of hearts and minds. It has never really worked to use force and “intifadas” These methods are the methods that makes the devil dance.

When Christians try using the weapons that the devil so freely offers, we can not win against those who have the greater knowledge in using them. Christians must learn how to use the weapons our merciful God has given us to fight against evil. That is why the statement, “The ends do not justify the means” is a bed rock truth that we must stand on. Christ’s truth, love, compassion, forgiveness and faith are the weapons that we must believe in and learn how to use.

I agree with most of what you write here – indeed, I think it is far more important than the point I am attempting to make! – but I also think that strong and strident action does sometimes help to change hearts and minds. My thinking, quite honestly, is deeply impacted by reading the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer’s friends thought it was best to just obey the “law”, use public relations, and wait out the injustices. Bonhoeffer was one of many Germans who disagreed. He saw that an unjust law is no law at all, and I believe he did a profoundly Christian thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Isn’t this a riff on the ‘fire in the lab’ hypothetical where you personally can save either a hundred embryos or one young girl.

Does anyone want to suggest that they’d save the embryos as opposed to the child? If not (and I sincerely hope you wouldn’t), then what are your reasons for not doing so?

Of course I’d save the embryos. Any Christian who wouldn’t doesn’t genuinely believe they are people.

 

[Rau]

My objection to these hypothetical questions is because they do live in the real world. No one knows what one would do in advance. To speculate on them is a waste of time.

For instance: rephrase this. Two children same age, one is obviously brilliant the other is severely handicapped and has a low IQ. You are their parent you have to choose. Which one lives?

Respectfully, I think blunt opposition to hypotheticals is often because the choices presented are (1) unfamiliar, (2) hard, or (3) arbitrary.

The question to be answered is **not so much “what would you do” **- because that factors in all kinds of imponderables, such as how the pressure of the decision would weigh in the moment, and other factors, including how to resolve a decision between arbitrary choices.

The better hypotheticals are when the choice is not between or among arbitrary alternatives (ie. the choices are morally distinct). And the better question to ask (if an understanding of morality is the focus) is always: “What would be the moral choice?”

With these comments, the hypothetical is to choose the moral choice from among these:

a) Choose not to save the embryos so that the girl can be saved; or
b) Choose not to save the girl so that the embryos can be saved.

Having said all that…varying the question to… “**which would you do…” **(rather than “which is moral”) is however interesting. If one’s immediate, gut reaction is to answer “save the girl”, it may indicate that the fact of the human reality of the embryo has not been entirely ‘internalised’. One knows it rationally, but has not internalised it. I can imagine that many of us would be affected by that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Respectfully, I think blunt opposition to hypotheticals is often because the choices presented are (1) unfamiliar, (2) hard, or (3) arbitrary.

The question to be answered is **not so much “what would you do” **- because that factors in all kinds of imponderables, such as how the pressure of the decision would weigh in the moment, and other factors, including how to resolve a decision between arbitrary choices.

The better hypotheticals are when the choice is not between or among arbitrary alternatives (ie. the choices are morally distinct). And the better question to ask (if an understanding of morality is the focus) is always: “What would be the moral choice?”

With these comments, the hypothetical is to choose the moral choice from among these:

a) Choose not to save the embryos so that the girl can be saved; or
b) Choose not to save the girl so that the embryos can be saved.

Having said all that…varying the question to… “which would you do…” (rather than “which is moral”) is however interesting. If one’s immediate, gut reaction is to answer “save the girl”, it may indicate that the fact of the human reality of the embryo has not been entirely ‘internalised’. One knows it rationally, but has not internalised it. I can imagine that many of us would be affected by that.

I suspect this is a very important distinction and goes to the heart of why hypothetical scenarios are not necessarily convincing as far as making moral determinations. The “solution” depends upon having a complete moral picture, which means proffered moral choices will be tentative.

Awful choice, but I pick the smart kid. She would have a better chance of a fulfilling life.

So embryos or young girl?

So what you have done here is show that the criteria you determine to be relevant and critical to the moral choice leads you to decide in one direction. Suppose you had complete access to the nature of morality (the good) as such and a fully informed certainty as to which of the “subjects” would actually lead a “fulfilling” life. It would seem to me that rather than choosing the “smart kid,” you would be lead to choose a particular individual, possibly the handicapped child in this scenario or the embryos in the other.

The issue is that our moral choices are limited by access human beings have to relevant data in terms of making informed moral decisions.

Extrapolate this to God (aka omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipotence,) it would seem that the moral decisions made by God, would necessarily be the correct ones – certainly more correct than you taking the option for “the smart kid” given your uncertainty that the smart kid would indeed live the most “fulfilling life.” Indeed God could choose the embryos over the young girl AND that could be the correct moral choice despite the human penchant for choosing the more fully developed young girl.

Furthermore, this leads to the question of God “choosing” those who “merit” eternal life and those who do not. Given God’s 3omni attributes, a determination on the part of God that the handicapped child merits eternal life while the “smart kid” might not could be the case despite our insistence that “smart” is the definitive (or only) criteria by which determinations of fitness are to be based. It is only our moral limitations (which ought to be recognized as such) that keep us from seeing the complete moral picture.

This ties into the thread topic, but I am out of time this morning, so I’ll leave off by saying that human moral determinations are prone to error no matter how certain those making them are. That does not, however, excuse us from making – as moral agents – the best decisions we can when we must. It is just that humility ought to keep us from being so sure we are right when we do so.

 

[Ignatius]

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing for.
2. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing or dying for.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.
   .

The reasoning is specious, completely fallacious and ignores the foundational fact that is the reason that abortion is wrong. The reason that abortion is wrong is that murder is wrong and so Killing those innocent unborn children is wrong. It is the same reason they aren’t willing to murder the abortion doctors, because murder is wrong.
It is perfectly consistent if you are willing to do an honest analysis, but they are being dishonest and ignoring the foundational principal that it is based on.

 

[HelenRose]

Awful choice, but I pick the smart kid. She would have a better chance of a fulfilling life.

So embryos or young girl?

Every effort should be made to save both. Every effort should be taken to secure the health of both the girl and the baby until it is possible to use cesarean section to deliver a child.

Girls between the ages of 9 and 13 are “little” mothers. You can see this most often with big sisters who care for their younger siblings. A ten year old big sister (and I was fortunate to have one) is the most loving and most giving of all mothers.

When an adult rapes a girl a terrible cruel and horrible action has taken place in her very soul. When more adults kill her baby she is forced to deny the existence of her being who she is.

Adults kill unborn children because adults have the power and don’t want to face the reality and needs of children.

Hypothetical questions are just that. Hypothetical excuses for evil actions.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Every effort should be made to save both. Every effort should be taken to secure the health of both the girl and the baby until it is possible to use cesarean section to deliver a child.

When an adult rapes a girl a terrible cruel and horrible action has taken place in her very soul. When more adults kill her baby she is forced to deny the existence of her being who she is.

This sounds good and all, but wouldn’t forcibly cutting into a child in lieu of less-traumatic procedures (such as early-term abortion) be compounding the violation? Not only will the child have to deal with the mental trauma caused by the sexual assault, she’ll be left with a permanent reminder in the form of a cesarean scar, not to mention stretch marks. Wait until a couple of years down the line when the standard teen-girl body-image problems start popping up…

Girls between the ages of 9 and 13 are “little” mothers. You can see this most often with big sisters who care for their younger siblings. A ten year old big sister (and I was fortunate to have one) is the most loving and most giving of all mothers.

But they’re not mothers. They only have the most superficial similarities to mothers. What kind of life experience can a 19-year-old give a 10-year-old daughter? Given that teenagers are impulsive and prone to poor judgement under the best of circumstances, what kind of steady, moral guidance can they provide a child just a few years younger than them? And, that’s not even considering the *possibility *of pent-up resentment the parent will feel for the child born as a result of a violation, along with trust issues, issues towards the opposite sex, and all the various trauma that potentially follow sexual assault. I’m not saying that all children born as a result of rape are resented by their parents, but it’s naive to think that it doesn’t happen. I imagine the result would be greatly magnified by the immaturity of the parent in question.

It’s a bad situation all around, one with no easy black-and-white answers.

 

[HelenRose]

This sounds good and all, but wouldn’t forcibly cutting into a child in lieu of less-traumatic procedures (such as early-term abortion) be compounding the violation? Not only will the child have to deal with the mental trauma caused by the sexual assault, she’ll be left with a permanent reminder in the form of a cesarean scar, not to mention stretch marks. Wait until a couple of years down the line when the standard teen-girl body-image problems start popping up…

But they’re not mothers. They only have the most superficial similarities to mothers. What kind of life experience can a 19-year-old give a 10-year-old daughter? Given that teenagers are impulsive and prone to poor judgement under the best of circumstances, what kind of steady, moral guidance can they provide a child just a few years younger than them? And, that’s not even considering the *possibility *of pent-up resentment the parent will feel for the child born as a result of a violation, along with trust issues, issues towards the opposite sex, and all the various trauma that potentially follow sexual assault. I’m not saying that all children born as a result of rape are resented by their parents, but it’s naive to think that it doesn’t happen. I imagine the result would be greatly magnified by the immaturity of the parent in question.

It’s a bad situation all around, one with no easy black-and-white answers.

So we kill the unborn child for the sins of his or her father and because the unborn child may have a difficult life.

It is strange how we use words. You use the word embryo and I use the words unborn child. An unwanted child is an embryo and a wanted child is a child.

At what point does an “embryo” become a baby?

Hypothetically speaking now:

I picture myself in the hospital room of pre-mature babies. There they are, tiny, helpless and loved. What would we think if an individual would storm in to this room and behead and cut off the arms and legs of all these babies? Can you imagine horror that would overcome the media?

Explain the difference between these pre-mature babies, maybe weighing 1-2 pounds, and an unborn baby. I can not see the difference.

Hypothetical question for you.

If you saw procedures used for an abortion being perpetrated on a baby of the same premature age: a baby you have held in your arms, how would you respond?

 

[Mike_Dye]

The answer seems pretty obvious to me.(Of course I could be wrong). The reason we don’t resort to more dramatic means to stop abortion is that we, like I suppose many German people in WWII, are not willing to pay the price. If we are more forceful, and I DO NOT mean violent, we will be put in jail and sued and a bunch of other bad stuff. Sure we know that abortion and killing embryos is completely evil and from the devil himself but we still would rather be comfortable. If we have to go to jail we will miss American Idol on TV and other important things, and people will make fun of us and stuff. It is just too high a price for Christians to ,pay.

 

[HelenRose]

Let us say (Hypothetically) that a young girl gave birth to a very premature baby, would the same questions be asked? The sad life the poor baby will have; the trauma for the girl to give up her baby; all the legal issues that will follow - would we even consider killing the baby?

 

[HelenRose]

The answer seems pretty obvious to me.(Of course I could be wrong). The reason we don’t resort to more dramatic means to stop abortion is that we, like I suppose many German people in WWII, are not willing to pay the price. If we are more forceful, and I DO NOT mean violent, we will be put in jail and sued and a bunch of other bad stuff. Sure we know that abortion and killing embryos is completely evil and from the devil himself but we still would rather be comfortable. If we have to go to jail we will miss American Idol on TV and other important things, and people will make fun of us and stuff. It is just too high a price for Christians to ,pay.

There must be a change of heart, I agree. Those of us who are horrified by this slaughter also need to find ways to help and support mothers and babies. Government programs are only pitiful poor bandages. Christians must get their hands dirty by changing diapers and caring. We do what we can do, where we are at and what skills we have.

Many Christians and non-Christians alike are beginning to understand that this is not an entertaining hypothetical argument but real life and real death.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

So we kill the unborn child for the sins of his or her father and because the unborn child may have a difficult life.

Two points: I advocated for early-trimester abortion; also, in the hypothetical scenario presented, there were no allowances made for the continuing physical and mental health of the mother. If I read you correctly, you were advocating for the girl to be an active parent of the child, with no appreciation for the difficulties to both the parent or the child.

It is strange how we use words. You use the word embryo and I use the words unborn child. An unwanted child is an embryo and a wanted child is a child.

At what point does an “embryo” become a baby?

I would say when its features are appreciably human, and when it can exit the birth canal and and live without being in defiance of a natural death.

Also, the comparison to premature babies is kind of irrelevant; it doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s great that severely premature babies can be saved–it’s a miracle of technology–but it’s a state of existence doesn’t exist outside of humankind. Prematurely hatched eggs don’t grow up into healthy birds. Prematurely born mammals don’t live for long outside of the womb. How many religious edicts arise from protecting the natural order of things? As I said, it’s a medical miracle that we can preserve life at an early state, but it’s technically against the natural order. Thus, it’s a poor example to use against another violation of the same natural order.

Finally, I think the more important question is when does an embryo stop being an embryo? At its earliest development, a human embryo is not appreciably different from the embryos of fish, birds, etc. Would you call the embryo in the first row a “baby”? Could you hold it in your arms and show it love?

 

[HelenRose]

I see the baby from the beginning.

Fortunately, God is merciful. I believe that that a young girl who has not been able give life to her baby will most certainly find love and grace in the arms of Jesus.

But, those who have taken her child and have killed it: they and our society that condones the killing of children will have to give answer.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Two points: I advocated for early-trimester abortion; also, in the hypothetical scenario presented, there were no allowances made for the continuing physical and mental health of the mother. If I read you correctly, you were advocating for the girl to be an active parent of the child, with no appreciation for the difficulties to both the parent or the child.

I would say when its features are appreciably human, and when it can exit the birth canal and and live without being in defiance of a natural death.

Also, the comparison to premature babies is kind of irrelevant; it doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s great that severely premature babies can be saved–it’s a miracle of technology–but it’s a state of existence doesn’t exist outside of humankind. Prematurely hatched eggs don’t grow up into healthy birds. Prematurely born mammals don’t live for long outside of the womb. How many religious edicts arise from protecting the natural order of things? As I said, it’s a medical miracle that we can preserve life at an early state, but it’s technically against the natural order. Thus, it’s a poor example to use against another violation of the same natural order.

Finally, I think the more important question is when does an embryo stop being an embryo? At its earliest development, a human embryo is not appreciably different from the embryos of fish, birds, etc. Would you call the embryo in the first row a “baby”? Could you hold it in your arms and show it love?

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lybo2fjLoe1qbn6nco1_500.png

The embryos in the first rows are animals and a human in the earliest stages of development the first seven are animals the last is a human. A human that will develop into an adult. Just as you did and I did. Obviously if I were destroyed in that stage I would not be here typing this right now, so yes I can love the developing human in your illustration.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

quote=Prodigal_Son Are you familiar with the level of development most fetuses are at when the majority of abortions occur? They are not “fertilized eggs”. They have a head, arms and legs, a heart, a brain, and so on. They are most likely capable of feeling pain. They move on their own.
[/quote]

Sorry, irrelevant. If you accept that a fertilized egg is already the equivalent of a fully grown human being, this distinction does not matter. Now it is true that even the church is silent about the moment of “ensoulment”, so there can be a room for discussion. But in that case until we reach a certain point in the development, the being is just a collection of cells. I would advocate the point when the brain’s electro-chemical activity starts. This a huge concession, but I wonder if such a compromise will be accepted or rejected. Of course this is just my opinion, so it can be disregarded.

Do you (personally) believe that having scrambled eggs is the same as eating fried chicken? (And not all eggs are sterile.) Can you use an acorn to create a load-bearing log upholding your house?

quote=Prodigal_Son In your opinion, is it permissible to kill a premature baby? Why or why not?
[/quote]

Such open-ended questions cannot be answered. It is impossible to make a declaration in vacuum, without considering all the circumstances. Just like one cannot (or should not) confuse a “murder” with a “homicide”.

 

[thistle]

ProdglArch,

First of all, I want to clarify that you have my position all wrong. This may be my fault, for not making it clear. I think killing abortionists is an AWFUL idea, given the current political climate. But I think killing an abortionist, in theory, could be just as justifiable as killing the guard who is about to start the gas chambers at a concentration camp – if the conditions were such that you would GENUINELY SAVE INNOCENT LIVES by killing that guard (and if there were no less harmful options).

In the concentration camp case, Catholic teaching is that such a killing is not murder, and is not wrong. This is because of the principle of double effect – which seems to also apply in a case where you can prevent an abortionist from committing an abortion (and permanently save the child’s life), but only by killing the abortionist.

Similarly, sabotage and theft can be justified by Catholic teaching, in cases where double effect applies. It might apply here, since the things we would be sabotaging are the instruments of murder.

Killing in defense of the innocent is not a penalty. Neither is killing in self-defense.

I agree that this is very important. And you’re totally right that winning hearts and minds is the goal. But consider – sometimes PASSION wins hearts and minds. I, for one, was very happy with Lila Rose’s infiltration techniques. She showed passion for the good, and I think it helped others see more starkly how important it is to FIGHT this battle.

I agree, 100%. I am not a better person than abortionists, and I very much long for their conversion. But again, I’m talking about saving an innocent life, not killing a person as some sort of punishment.

Absolutely!

This is where you misunderstood me. I agree with you that killing abortionists, given the current situation, is an awful idea.

Saving an innocent life by killing a would-be murderer is not evil.

Are you a pacifist? Is killing in war ever justified?

It is evil and murder if you kill an abortion doctor to prevent an abortion!!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is evil and murder if you kill an abortion doctor to prevent an abortion!!

So it is morally permissible to forcibly defend all human life except the life of the unborn. Got it.

Have any principle to explain your judgment, or is it just ad hoc?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry, irrelevant. If you accept that a fertilized egg is already the equivalent of a fully grown human being, this distinction does not matter. Now it is true that even the church is silent about the moment of “ensoulment”, so there can be a room for discussion. But in that case until we reach a certain point in the development, the being is just a collection of cells. I would advocate the point when the brain’s electro-chemical activity starts. This a huge concession, but I wonder if such a compromise will be accepted or rejected. Of course this is just my opinion, so it can be disregarded.

You said that a fertilized egg is to a person as an acorn is to a tree. But fertilized eggs aren’t the only beings that we are aborting. We are aborting 2/3-month old embryos, mostly. In your analogy, they are MUCH more like saplings than acorns.

Do you (personally) believe that having scrambled eggs is the same as eating fried chicken? (And not all eggs are sterile.) Can you use an acorn to create a load-bearing log upholding your house?

Of course, eggs are meat, in a technical sense. Is that your question?

Such open-ended questions cannot be answered. It is impossible to make a declaration in vacuum, without considering all the circumstances. Just like one cannot (or should not) confuse a “murder” with a “homicide”.

So you have no principled objection to infanticide?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sorry, irrelevant. If you accept that a fertilized egg is already the equivalent of a fully grown human being, this distinction does not matter. Now it is true that even the church is silent about the moment of “ensoulment”, so there can be a room for discussion. But in that case until we reach a certain point in the development, the being is just a collection of cells. I would advocate the point when the brain’s electro-chemical activity starts. This a huge concession, but I wonder if such a compromise will be accepted or rejected. Of course this is just my opinion, so it can be disregarded.

Do you (personally) believe that having scrambled eggs is the same as eating fried chicken? (And not all eggs are sterile.) Can you use an acorn to create a load-bearing log upholding your house?

Scenario: Oak trees have gone extinct. One acorn remains. Is it as valuable (or more so) than an oak tree, given that it represents the only possible remaining hope for the continuation of oak trees?

Let’s try to separate out the issue of pragmatic value and moral worth, shall we? Considering the worth, as opposed to value, of the last remaining acorn brings us closer to thinking about the sacredness of beings (worth or intrinsic value) as distinguished from their mere practical utility (instrumental value.) It seems to me, conceding that the intrinsic worth of human beings is collapsible or reducible to mere utility is conceding the entire argument regarding morality, i.e., that human worth is merely contingent upon utility and not intrinsic to being human.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Prodigal_Son:

You said that a fertilized egg is to a person as an acorn is to a tree. But fertilized eggs aren’t the only beings that we are aborting. We are aborting 2/3-month old embryos, mostly. In your analogy, they are MUCH more like saplings than acorns.

My dear friend, you are preaching to the choir. I see the difference between them, it is (some) people on your side who do not.

Prodigal_Son:

Of course, eggs are meat, in a technical sense. Is that your question?

Only in the eyes of vegans. It is neither striped or striated muscle, nor it is smooth muscle. The egg is simply one huge cell - which is NOT meat in any sense of the word. And no, that was not my point. No sane person would confuse a fried egg with a whole chicken. There are not only quantitative but also qualitative differences.

Prodigal_Son:

So you have no principled objection to infanticide?

Of course I do. The point was that such a generic principle is insufficient in any specific case without taking all the circumstances into consideration. The idea of “intrinsically” evil actions does not exist in the secular world.

Maybe I was not clear enough, but I support the logic of your original premise. To put into a syllogistic form:

Premise #1: It is legally and morally permissible to use lethal force to prevent a murder of other human beings - if there are no alternate ways available.
Premise #2: Unborn children are human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore it is legally and morally permissible to use lethal force to protect the unborn - if there are no other ways available.

This is a crystal clear and logically correct line of reasoning. If the premises are valid, then it is not just logically correct, but also logically sound. Of course, the second premise is just the opinion of a small subclass of people, and the law does not agree with them. Therefore it is not legally permissible to use lethal force to prevent abortions. It is also incorrect to call abortions “murders”, but I can see that some people prefer such an emotionally driven wording, even if it is totally incorrect.