R
Rau
Guest
Is it the appearance of the head from the birth canal that marks the transition from non-human to human? The severing of the umbilical cord, or something else?
Why should pro-choicers think we sincerely think embryos are people?
- Status
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Excellent question, though I am not sure if it belongs to this thread. But, let’s hope that it does belong. I will present my opinion, which is only “binding” on myself.
First, I have to take exception with the description of “from non-human to human”. It is much too vague, I would like to you to clarify. The “entity” (to use such an emotion-free designation) is a human tissue (unless it is seriously mutant - and this opens up another scary can of worms!). But so is a malignant tumor. The difference is that under certain circumstances the fertilized egg can grow into something (an infant) what we definitely accept as a human being. One possible diving point is the “first breath”. Interestingly enough the word “soul” is the derivative of the word “breath” in several languages. The point is that this is the time when the newborn starts his (or her) biologically independent existence, when he is no longer dependent upon the mother’s biological resources. Anyone is able to provide the necessary nutrients and necessary care.
So a newborn is definitely a human **being{/b]. This brings up the obvious retort that one moment before the birth occurs, the fetus is exactly the same as he will be after the birth. So one can say that the act of being born is an arbitrary dividing point, and this objection has its own merit. But all such dividing points are somewhat “arbitrary”. A medical student cannot perform the duties of a licensed doctor one minute before she receives her diploma, even though getting that piece of paper does not add anything to her knowledge and ability to function as a physician.
During the ages the cut-off point was debated and different solutions were offered. Taking the first breath was one of them. Then there was the moment of quickening. Sometimes the “viability” criterion was offered. All of these are arbitrary, no question about that. The approach of believers and materialists is different. The believers argue for the existence of the “soul”, but they are unable to give a coherent definition of what the “soul” might be, and how can one detect if it is “there” or not. Not even the church declares a point of “ensoulment”. So that is not a good solution. If even the proponents are unable to offer the exact criterion of the dividing line and are unable to offer a method to see if the “entity” crossed that line of not, then it is not much of a solution.
The best method is the presence of the electro-chemical activity of the brain. Death is declared when the brain stops working, so it is obvious that the beginning of this activity can be the marking line of declaring someone a human being. Mind you, there is no consciousness at that point, no “thinking” at all. It is just a point when the brain starts “working”.
Of course, this is also an “arbitrary” dividing line. It cannot be avoided. You can respond or disregard it at your convenience. Thanks for reading it. Best wishes.
**
E
estesbob
Guest
Because we do. The idea that we have to prove that by blowing abortion clinics or killing abortion doctors is specious
T
thistle
Guest
Again you are getting all sulky and making silly sweeping statements.
I repeat something that everyone in this thread knows, except you and that is it is an act of murder to go into an abortion clinic and kill the doctor to prevent an abortion.
Show me a Church teaching that allows such an act. It most certainly does not come under self defence.
The Church clearly teaches it is not allowed to commit and evil act even to achieve a good.
T
thistle
Guest
Again you are getting all sulky and making silly sweeping statements.
I repeat something that everyone in this thread knows, except you and that is it is an act of murder to go into an abortion clinic and kill the doctor to prevent an abortion.
Show me a Church teaching that allows such an act. It most certainly does not come under self defence.
The Church clearly teaches it is not allowed to commit and evil act even to achieve a good.
St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, says “a man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evildoer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him” (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 3).
R
Rau
Guest
Excellent question, though I am not sure if it belongs to this thread. But, let’s hope that it does belong. I will present my opinion, which is only “binding” on myself.
First, I have to take exception with the description of “from non-human to human”. It is much too vague, I would like to you to clarify. The “entity” (to use such an emotion-free designation) is a human tissue (unless it is seriously mutant - and this opens up another scary can of worms!). But so is a malignant tumor. The difference is that under certain circumstances the fertilized egg can grow into something (an infant) what we definitely accept as a human being. One possible diving point is the “first breath”. Interestingly enough the word “soul” is the derivative of the word “breath” in several languages. The point is that this is the time when the newborn starts his (or her) biologically independent existence, when he is no longer dependent upon the mother’s biological resources. Anyone is able to provide the necessary nutrients and necessary care.
So a newborn is definitely a human being{/b]. This brings up the obvious retort that one moment before the birth occurs, the fetus is exactly the same as he will be after the birth. So one can say that the act of being born is an arbitrary dividing point, and this objection has its own merit. But all such dividing points are somewhat “arbitrary”. A medical student cannot perform the duties of a licensed doctor one minute before she receives her diploma, even though getting that piece of paper does not add anything to her knowledge and ability to function as a physician.
During the ages the cut-off point was debated and different solutions were offered. Taking the first breath was one of them. Then there was the moment of quickening. Sometimes the “viability” criterion was offered. All of these are arbitrary, no question about that. The approach of believers and materialists is different. The believers argue for the existence of the “soul”, but they are unable to give a coherent definition of what the “soul” might be, and how can one detect if it is “there” or not. Not even the church declares a point of “ensoulment”. So that is not a good solution. If even the proponents are unable to offer the exact criterion of the dividing line and are unable to offer a method to see if the “entity” crossed that line of not, then it is not much of a solution.
The best method is the presence of the electro-chemical activity of the brain. Death is declared when the brain stops working, so it is obvious that the beginning of this activity can be the marking line of declaring someone a human being. Mind you, there is no consciousness at that point, no “thinking” at all. It is just a point when the brain starts “working”.
Of course, this is also an “arbitrary” dividing line. It cannot be avoided. You can respond or disregard it at your convenience. Thanks for reading it. Best wishes.
From this it appears that you do not know when to draw the dividing line. Or are you pointing to brain activity as definitive - once brain activity starts, it would be wrong to kill. Is that your view? Earliest brain activity is very early, say 6 weeks, and it becomes more and more sophisticated from then onwards for quite some years.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I simply presented my opinion, which I consider a good compromise. You can Google the phrase: “earliest fetal brain activity”, and get a whole lot of slightly different views. The general response is that before a certain time period there is no reason to consider the developing fetus to be a “human being” - because without a functioning brain there can be no human “being”.
R
Rau
Guest
Indeed. So it is wrong to kill the human after the brain functions, and before that, the entity is just “human tissue” - not problem to dispose of that.
How do you see the logic broadening to other creatures? Prior to brain activity - presumably no problem - just “Lion tissue” (say). After brain activity - a “Lion being”. Is it OK to kill a “lion being”? If so, why this being, but not a “human being”?
E
estesbob
Guest
In your opinion. And of course when we start determining when human life is worthwhile based on opinion great tragedy generally results-has it has in this country . Human life begins at conception . There’s absolutely no dispute about this .
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I suspect the feature that is left out of the accounting is the level of malice that may or may not be present in the act of committing an abortion. If it were clearly understood by abortionists themselves that killing a fetus is killing a human being (in a morally relevant sense) and they did so anyway, then the argument might be compelling.
In other words, it is not merely that pro-lifers need to genuinely think that in killing a fetus (or embryo) is tantamount to murder, but also that abortionists must also think so in order for a legitimate self-defense argument to be cogent.
Imagine a scenario where a nine year old boy picks up a rifle thinking it is a toy gun and points it at playmate ready to shoot. An adult coming onto the scene would not have warrant to kill the boy citing “legitimate” defense of the other child, not even if all other possible strategies for disarming the boy will not be effective and the other child does suffer a fatal gunshot. It would simply be unthinkable to kill the boy precisely because the boy is not acting from malice or with intent to commit homicide.
Now it may not be the case that abortionists are as innocent as the gun toting boy, (and there may even be some who are malicious killers who act with full knowledge of what they are doing. (There is a website that tracks the worst offenders.) The problem is that most abortionists take up space on the moral landscape somewhere between the innocence of the gun-toting boy and malicious murderers, some perhaps even intentionally using that “safe zone” as cover for committing atrocities.
The fact that abortionists have very different motives, including, possibly, genuine concern for women, makes premise 2 rather dubious since abortionists are not an homogenous entity and the act of killing another human being is not always an act of malice, which would seem a requirement in order for “defense of the innocent” to legitimize proportionate intervention such as lawful killing of the perpetrator.
I think this may solve your perplexity.
I
Ignatius
Guest
The reasoning is specious, completely fallacious and ignores the foundational fact that is the reason that abortion is wrong. The principal involved is the prohibition against Murder. The reason that abortion is wrong is that murder is wrong and so Killing those innocent unborn children is wrong. The reason murdering a abortion doctors is wrong is 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.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I’m so glad you weighed in, Peter. Your comments are helpful and wise, as usual. And I’m glad you, for one, didn’t think that I’m “advocating killing abortionists”, as so many here did. I keep feeling misunderstood, although it’s probably just because of my lack of skill in communicating subtleties.
I agree that malice matters, though I’m not sure how much it matters. Traditionally, it is permissible to kill enemy combatants in a just war, even though – so far from being malicious – these combatants may be doing the morally right thing, given their state of knowledge. Just so, I think that aggression against an abortionist might be justified for the sake of the victim. Your 9-year-old with a gun case is good, and it gives me pause. But I think part of what matters there is that a 9-year-old *is not capable of knowing *the true moral meaning of his actions, whereas a 30-year-old soldier or abortionist isn’t THAT ignorant.
I’m not sure. It seems like either (a) it is wrong to kill non-malicious enemy combatants, or (b) it is not intrinsically wrong to violently impede an abortion, whatever the moral state of the abortionist.
But either way, the moral ignorance of many abortionists IS a very good reason not to harm them, given our current political situation. It would be a bit like attacking ordinary slave-owners in 1855. Still, I’d be interested in the modern-day equivalent of the slave escape infrastructure of the 1850s. The Underground Railroad made abolitionism MORE popular, and I think it would work the same way, if we thought of the war against abortion as a sort of intifada (though kept VERY strict moral standards).
How can we *undermine *abortions, whether or not we obey the law? What is the purpose in obeying a law that is built to kill babies?
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Why would I broaden that logic indiscriminately? That makes no sense. If we would ever encounter a different species with an ability to think like humans do, we should extend the same treatment to them as “honorary” humans. I am not a DNA-chauvinist, who considers his own biological makeup as sacrosanct. Maybe I am a sentient-chauvinist, who considers the ability to think and reason to be superior and worthy of protection.
That is your opinion, to be respected but not accepted. But consider this. An overwhelming majority of the fertilized eggs fail to implant into the uterus wall, they simply get flushed out from the woman’s body. Is that a “spontaneous” abortion? Or a failed pregnancy? According to you opinion, those “entities” are humans, who will die because they could not get into the necessary environment to grow. In a hurricane or tsunami thousands of people die. We consider those deaths a great tragedy. Is the death of those flushed-out eggs also a great tragedy? Or is it something to shrug off as “who cares”?
You are mistaken. Murder is a legal term. As long as abortion is legal it cannot be called “murder”. Just like defending oneself and others is a legally allowed action, and therefore it is not a murder. Just like the intentional killing in a war is not a murder. Also state sanctioned executions are not murders. Be careful to use the proper terminology.
The principle of self-defense (or defending others) is not absolute. Using lethal force is only allowed in there are no other options. The only problem with the reasoning presented by Prodigal_Son is that he failed to show that there are no other option to prevent abortions. It is a practical issue, not a theoretical one.
Peter Plato:
Not true. “Malice” is not part of definition, though sometimes they add the phrase “with malice aforethought”. But that is nonsense. No one has access to the internal thoughts of the person. A professional hit-man may not feel any “malice” toward the victim. Murder is simply a legal term, meaning “the illegal taking of a human life”. Whether the zygote/fetus/embryo is considered to be a human being is irrelevant. As long as the process is legal, there is no murder.
E
estesbob
Guest
It is not opinion that human life begins at conception. As far spontaneous abortions go everyone dies at some point . The fact that we are all going to die does not mean it is okay for someone to take our life . As the father of a daughter who has had several miscarriages I can tell you it is a great tragedy. The fact that some lose their child before they’re even aware it exists does not make it any less of a tragedy. Either we respect human life or we don’t. Once we start debating what human life deserves to be protected and what doesn’t evil is sure to follow. Both slavery and the Holocaust were predicated upon the Opinion that some people weren’t fully human
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
But human tissue does not equal human beings. The word you used: “human life” washes away the difference. The sperm is alive and it will grow into a real human being if it happens to meet the egg, if the egg gets into the wall of the uterus, if it goes through the gestation period, etc… there are many changes, some are quantitative, others are qualitative. To disregard those changes and their significance is “bad” analysis.
You are sidestepping the issue. I was talking about the emotional impact (or the lack of it!) upon you when you consider fate of the millions of “children” who never had the opportunity to grow into a human being.
So do you feel depressed or devastated by the fact that most zygotes do not get implanted? That every day millions of so called “children” die due the fact that they never had the chance to get implanted? Do you care about it? In a hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami real human beings die, and we all consider it a great tragedy. In the case of flushed-out zygotes no one cares. Not even the most dedicated “pro-lifers” are upset because of the demise of those millions and billions of “humans”. Yet we are all upset upon hearing of a few dozens perishing in a natural disaster. Think about it, why is it so? Can you give me an explanation?
Don’t forget, both of those were accepted due to selective interpretation of biblical texts. But the real point is that human tissue does not equate to human beings. Even if one believes in the existence of that nebulous “soul” (whatever it may be) there is no “test” to find out if someone has it or not. And not even the church declares that “ensoulment” happens at the time of the sperm fusing with the egg. That should tell you that the question is far from settled.
Moreover, no matter how much we would like to avoid the dilemma of choosing one human being over another, such decisions are unavoidable. Every day people face hard decisions due to limited resources. Limited vaccines to treat people. Limited food to feed the needy. Sometimes we must make those hard choices, and some real humans will lose. Sad, but it cannot be helped.
R
Rau
Guest
I think your answer is that it is ok to kill a “lion-being” or a “chimpanzee-being”, even though we are at the point of having brain activity.
Why is the lion-being less worthy, less deserving to be free of killing, than the human being?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I suspect your definition of “malice” isn’t quite the same as the one I am using. The word “malice,” as I was intending was simply “with intent to do evil” or “wrongful intention.” In that sense, killing or taking the life of another person would presumably be “wrongful killing.” Thus anyone who killing another without justifiable reason or warrant would be exhibiting malice or intent to kill another without a justifiable reason. The presumption is on the side of “wrongful intention” where taking the life of another person is involved. Thus the agent involved in a killing or homicide would have to prove against the presumption that their action was not owing to illegal or wrongful intention (by, for example, claiming accidental death, negligence, self-defense, protecting an innocent, etc.)
I will say more (in another post) about your mistaken claim that murder is merely a legal term – it isn’t. It has to be a moral term BEFORE it could possibly be a legal one, otherwise a government (as representing a cohort of human beings) would need no authority beyond itself to make and enforce laws. There would be no basis beyond its own current aims by which just laws (as opposed to unjust laws) could be determined. Just laws would simply be defined as those laws currently promulgated and enforced by whichever government holds power. Which is shear nonsense since there would be no independent standard by which to determine whether any existing laws are objectively better or worse than any other alternative laws. Are you of the mind that existing laws are, defacto, no better or worse than any other?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Sentience is not the “ability to think and reason.” Sentience is the ability to detect and respond to external and internal stimuli in a directed sort of manner, typically for self-preservation.
Intelligence or reason goes far beyond mere sentience and it would be helpful to not conflate the two.
The problem for you, as evident in the above portion of your post is that by confusing sentience and intelligence under the unbrella of “sentient chauvinist” means that you would be compelled to extend moral rights to all sentient beings unnecessarily since you are assuming (mistakenly) that all sentience-capable beings (animals) also “think and reason.”
I suggest you read the following article in Public Discourse along with the two postscript blog entries by Edward Feser where the distinction between sentience and intelligence are spelled out clearly.
thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14777/
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/04/animal-souls-part-i.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/05/animal-souls-part-ii.html
The key point by Feser is the way in which he (following Aristotle, Aquinas and Thomists) distinguishes between vegetative, animal (sentient) and human (rational) modes of life.
The following extract is from the Public Discourse article, but you may also gain more clarity from the first blog post where Feser outlines Popper’s depiction of language as one of the key marks of the difference between rationality and sentience.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I thought it was obvious in my previous post. But if it was unclear, I apologize. The reason is because humans are sentient, thinking, rational beings, and the lions are not. And I do not value the DNA, I value the ability to think in a rational manner. (Many humans are unfortunately excluded from this circle.)
Peter Plato:
If that is the case then the phrase is superfluous. The law already specifies that killing in self-defense is allowed. But of course, when one points a gun to the attacker’s head and pulls the trigger, then the intent to kill is already there - malice or not. You may try to say: “I did not really want to kill the sucker, I simply shot him point blank in the face. The death was a foreseen, but unintended consequence of pulling the trigger”. And no sane person will accept this cop-out. You did what you had to do.
Peter Plato:
Not so. The presumption of innocense stipulates that the defense can just sit quietly, and the prosecution must prove its case - beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, if you are not an American citizen, you might be unaware of this practice. In certain times the base principle was: “it is better for a thousand innocents to suffer needlessly, rather than have one guily escape unpunished”. Today the principle is the opposite. We say: “it is better for a thousand guilty ones to escape unpunished rather than have one innocent to be punished unjustly”. I rather like the second one. Do you?
Peter Plato:
How naive you are. The goverment enforces its laws by force (what a surprise!) - no matter what the population thinks. If the population does not like it, it can resort to “ballots or bullets”, whichever is available, but the final authority is always “brute force”. I and you may not like it, but our likes or dislikes have no bearing on reality. We do not like earthquakes or hurricanes either, but reality does not care.
Peter Plato:
Not in my opinion. But again, opinions do not count for much, if one does not have the power to do something about it. In Singapore there are laws about caneing someone who puts a chewing gum where it does not belong to. A dumb kid of a foreign diplomat put some spray paint on a car. He was caned with a wet rattan stick about a dozen times, and his buttocks will have the marks all his life. They execute drug “offenders”, sometimes even for minor possession. The funny thing is that the people over there have no problem with such draconian laws, they support their goverment. The reason is that they like their crystal clear environment and do not mind to have seriously curtailed freedoms. Different value systems, different laws. Most Americans would abhor such a legal system, and most Singaporean would abhor our freedom. So who is right? Which legal system is “objectively” better than the other? It’s all relative, you know.
Peter Plato:
I included both of them, without “assuming” anything. According to the dictionary here are the synonyms of sentient: “alive, apprehensive, aware, cognizant, mindful, sensible, conscious, ware, witting”. There is no “line in the sand” between these two categories. How typical is that you wish to engage in nitpicking at the expense of looking at the big picture, which was that I value rational thinking no matter what is the physical makeup of the entity might be. There is nothing special about the DNA of humans.
Peter Plato:
Why on Earth would I need to resort to reading these navel-gazers about something that is perfectly obvious to anyone who is willing to think? These people are still taken seriously as if nothing had happened in the last hundreds and thousands of years. Sheesh.
- Status