Zygote is a Human Being - Scientific Fact

[Giants]

But maybe many people, in the future, would suffer for this person’s not being born. And I don’t mean suffer in terms of a void in relationships. I mean in terms of some practical effect that developed person would have had. You don’t know that. I don’t know that. The person consenting to the abortion doesn’t know that.

And yes, naturally, the opposite is also a possibility: that misery on future others will be prevented by such an act. But many atheists would still say that it is still affirmatively immoral, not amoral, to rationalize decisions to terminate any life based on suppositions of harm prevented or lack of good performed, or even the stastistical probability of a net neutral consequence by aborting that life.

That’s still not what I’m doing. I’m not rationalizing anything. If anything, I’m offering an objective basis for moral decisions. If there’s no suffering or well-being to be experienced in a given act, the act is without a moral component.

Incidentally, there’s another side to your argument for human potential. What if, by terminating a week-old zygote, the would-be parents don’t have their lives upended by an unplanned pregnancy? They can both keep working, raising their economic profile. And maybe a few years down the line, have a planned pregnancy when they’re more capable of supporting a child.

Now, I don’t know if that’s what would happen. I don’t know that that’s not what wouldn’t happen. But why is this hypothetical less compelling as an argument than the one you’re giving me?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ve already addressed this type of hypothetical.

No you haven’t.

You can stipulate the prisoner is unconscious and unaware, and you can further stipulate that there’s nobody to care about them being alive or dead. What you don’t account for is the so-called “collateral damage” of the act.

No. We’re assuming no collateral damage because anyone who could possibly have cared about him is now dead, and anyone who knows him currently despises him and would consider it a “good” to have him removed, given the harm this person has already done and “would likely do.”

But “likely” is a term of limited human perception. It is not predictive.

Likewise, your appeal to one’s potential doesn’t really hold up. A given human zygote might grow to contribute great things to society, or they might wind up a total psychopath, destined to cause misery wherever we go. I’m not suggesting we try to guess how someone would turn out - it’s impossible at any rate.

Wrong. I did already address that. You really have to read more carefully; this is the third time now you have failed to notice that I addressed points which you later claim I did not. As I said, It is indeed possible that a zygote will develop into a serial killer with no remorse, and never become rehabilitated. If we did have such powers of prediction, we could then argue whether it would be moral or amoral (then) to dispose of the person, but as human beings we do not have that predictive vision. But it’s a moot point, because we lack prediction; therefore we are in danger of altering history, macrocosmically or microcosmically, by rationalizing about the bad that “might” happen from the birth.

But I’ll say again - if you kill somebody in self-defense (a morally permissible act in Catholic theology), you’re also cutting off someone’s potential for future positive impacts on society.

That has zero to do with this thread. The premise of the OP was not killing in self-defense. Different theological concept entirely, not relevant here.

 

[Brendan]

I disagree that human rights apply equally to all humans.

So, to you then, there are really no such thing as humans rights, just rights that some humans have and some do not. Who, then is the arbitrator of what rights some humans have and others do not.

Is it the civil law, if so then I presume you have no problems with slavery, as that is an element of the civil law.

Other than the right to life, what are other human rights?

Declaration of Indepenance had a great start, Life, Liberty and the Pursuiit of Happiness

No, one wouldn’t. A human at my stage of development is fully capable of experiencing pain, grief, and suffering. Killing me, or someone I care about, would therefore be an immoral act. Destroying a collection of a few dozen cells, with no consciousness, awareness, or nervous system, with the consent of the mother and father, does not create anything like the same moral dilemma.

So if someone is unconscious then, and thus with no capacity to feel pain or grief, there are no issues with killing them?

 

[WallyS]

I just read most of Roe v. Wade the other day, and it’s “permitted” only insomuch as the woman has the right to privacy. If nobody can tell a woman’s pregnant, then she deserves the right to keep her medical affairs private, as well.

Does this mean that a woman deserves the right to kill something that Catholics don’t even believe go to “regular” Heaven, anyway???

Just throwing in some perspective. I’m not a woman, so I’m not going to act like I have any authority to tell a woman she doesn’t have a choice. Clearly, adoption should always be encouraged. But, again… I’m not a woman.

 

[Newbie2]

A baby born “without a brain” is already dead. A patient under anesthesia has a working nervous system, as evidenced by the fact that the anesthesia is actually doing its job.

It isn’t just a question of the potential suffering of the patient. The sufferings of parents, friends, and those with emotional attachments must be considered. Not to mention the person who would be doing the killing.

Well, I agree that you can’t compare a human zygote to a fly. That’s because, unless you’re arguing that the zygote as a soul worth caring about, you often visit more suffering on the world in killing a fly than you do by agreeing to terminate a week-old pregnancy.

Of course a zygote is ensouled immediately. I simply find it irrelevant to the abortion debate, particularly if made by those who do not even believe in the existence of souls.

The key is, when does a new human being begin? And we all know from biology that is at conception. At human being is a human being, regardless of stage of development.

For the record, Catholic philosophy defines a soul as the animating principle of a body. Without a soul, the body cannot live. By definition, any human being is ensouled from the first moment of its existence. A body without a soul is dead.

But the Catholic Church makes no claims to embryological doctrine; that’s the business of embryology. The only reason there was ever a debate about “ensoulment” is because theologians were unsure about the facts of embryology. There is no longer a reason for uncertainty. Embryology has solved the problem of when a new human being begins. Catholic philosophy merely states that any human being has a soul. And that it is wrong to kill any innocent human being.

It’s fine if you think the zygote is ensouled immediately upon conception. But what puzzles me is your assertion that the presence of the soul is not relevant to the moral question of abortion. If the zygote has no consciousness or nervous, it has no capacity to experience anything, including suffering. If the soul is not operative here, then I don’t understand on what basis the consensual termination of a pregnancy at the zygote stage is immoral?

But philosophically, why is the deliberate destruction of a new human being, but one with no capacity to experience or suffer in any way, an immoral act? I understand you probably assume this is self-evidently the case, but even if it were, it would not preclude there being an objective basis for this view.

Most people in your position argue that the presence of the soul is what makes abortion immoral. I just find it curious that you disagree.

Except that Catholic theology makes somewhat tortured use of language in order justify the taking of human life in certain circumstances. Taking another life for no good reason is considered “murder.” But taking another human life in defense of your own life is generally considered to be “killing,” and morally permissible.

If I take away your brain stem, you’re dead. Even if you still have most of your brain left. There’s nothing I need to read up on here. If you’re alive, that means you have a brain, or enough of one to keep you alive.

Again, I’m not talking about what defines a person. I’m talking about the moral calculus of abortion. For a moral question to have any weight, it has to matter to at least one conscious system, In this case, either the fetus/embryo, or the mother, or the father, or anyone else with a credible emotional investment in the situation. The problem is, it can’t matter to the embryo, because the embryo is not (yet) a conscious system.

Asserting that abortion is immoral because a zygote is already a person doesn’t progress the argument at all.

 

[Newbie2]

So, to you then, there are really no such thing as humans rights, just rights that some humans have and some do not. Who, then is the arbitrator of what rights some humans have and others do not.

Is it the civil law, if so then I presume you have no problems with slavery, as that is an element of the civil law.

Declaration of Indepenance had a great start, Life, Liberty and the Pursuiit of Happiness

So if someone is unconscious then, and thus with no capacity to feel pain or grief, there are no issues with killing them?

My thoughts exactly. It’s really easy to justify killing of the unborn if first, one does not ascribe any rights to them or perhaps just as shockingly equal rights to all other humans.

 

[edwest2]

I just read most of Roe v. Wade the other day, and it’s “permitted” only insomuch as the woman has the right to privacy. If nobody can tell a woman’s pregnant, then she deserves the right to keep her medical affairs private, as well.

Does this mean that a woman deserves the right to kill something that Catholics don’t even believe go to “regular” Heaven, anyway???

Just throwing in some perspective. I’m not a woman, so I’m not going to act like I have any authority to tell a woman she doesn’t have a choice. Clearly, adoption should always be encouraged. But, again… I’m not a woman.

That’s baloney. Why do they sell pregnancy test kits? To prove what? Nothing? And if she consented to having sex, where was the man? In another room? He is required for her to get pregnant.

What choice? Kill my baby or let him live? And it SHOULD BE “our baby” unless she got pregnant by herself.

Peace,
Ed

 

[balto]

Sorry about responding late to this.

Except that, by that same logic, I could argue that your intolerance of a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices causes me suffering. And we can got back and forth forever.

Life is a more fundamental right than liberty. A woman’s right to reproductive liberty cannot deny another’s right to their life. Women do have reproductive liberty by the way sans abortion “rights.”

Except that it doesn’t. Not really. Nor does the right of complete strangers to make this decision, for themselves, cause you suffering. These are both qualitatively different from my point. In my example, if I could be killed amorally by any sociopath, provided that my death were painless and nobody would miss me, that would mean we’d live in a world where you could potentially suffer the same fate. In other words, there would still be a moral component to the question, because other people with a real stake in the situation would be affected. On the other hand, you can’t credibly claim that a complete stranger terminating her pregnancy causes you any suffering.

I do have a real stake in the situation. I was born in 1990 which means that my mother could have legally aborted me and then I would never have had a chance to live. This has already happened to 50,000,000+ people and it needs to end. So yes I can claim that someone’s abortive “rights” do cause me suffering under your definition. I just read recently that Steve Jobs’ parents were considering having him aborted. Had that happened, you could kiss all your Apple products goodbye and Microsoft would be ruling the world . As an analogy, does it directly affect you that someone was murdered in some city somewhere? No, but does that mean you don’t care about the fact that people are being murdered. I doubt it, although it seems that you shouldn’t care under these premises.

I disagree that human rights apply equally to all humans. In this case, I don’t consider it immoral to terminate a pregnancy, even at an advanced stage, if it’s determined that the mother’s life is in danger.

And here’s the real issue. Rights don’t apply equally to all people. You’re right in a way, since with due process we can deprive people of their rights. Other than that yes they do have equal rights. But that’s not occurring as it concerns abortions. Not only does the unborn child have no say, but neither does the father. And furthermore at an advanced stage the unborn child can and does feel pain so it should not be allowed under your assumptions.

 

[raikou]

There’s an old philosophical problem. A doctor has 4 dying patients in his care. One needs a heart transplant, another - new lungs, another - new kidneys, and the last - a new liver. The doctor has no organs to transplant, but in his waiting room is one person with completely healthy organs. He can simply take the new patient into a separate room, kill them painlessly, and dissect them for their healthy organs. So we lose one life, but 4 other people live.

Is this moral? Not at all. The raw math - saving a net 3 lives - doesn’t justify this behavior. The reason its immoral, notwithstanding the grief and pain of friends and loved ones, is because of the collateral damage. None of us would want to live in a world where we could be dissected at any moment, just for being on the wrong end of a numbers game.

Your prisoners example fails because it doesn’t account for this kind of damage. Would you want to live in a world where you or someone you love might one day be that kind of prisoner?

The reason why this is immoral is that the doctor will commit murder as a means to save the life of the other 4. The ends do not justify the means.

But why is murder wrong? Suppose this prisoner has no relatives to grieve for him. Suppose he is already sentenced to life imprisonment. Suppose that whatever good he can contribute can be more than made up for if the other four lived. Suppose no one would know what you did if you killed this person… If you were the doctor, will you still kill him?

Our moral instinct and conscience will still prohibit us from this murder because THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING HAS INTRINSIC DIGNITY AND VALUE. Regardless of whatever benefit this life can give to society or whether he has relatives to grieve for him, it’ll still be wrong to kill him. His life has value in itself.

The same applies to the zygote. If human life has INTRINSIC VALUE, then we will protect both #1 a human being or #2 something ALREADY SET to become a human being. We will not DO ANYTHING that will CAUSE the loss of an innocent human life, which is murder. Hence, regardless of whether the zygote is already human or not, science has proven that it’s ALREADY SET to become a human being, and thus requires our protection by this principle. To deny this is to deny that human life has intrinsic VALUE.

You might ask, what about in the prisoner hypothetical scenario? Wouldn’t “not killing the inmate” CAUSE the death of the four patients? No. Remember that their cause of death are their natural illnesses. You are not causing them to die - you have merely failed to find a treatment after reasonable attempt. That is not murder. But harvesting the prisoner’s organs - this is murder.

 

[raikou]

I just read most of Roe v. Wade the other day, and it’s “permitted” only insomuch as the woman has the right to privacy. If nobody can tell a woman’s pregnant, then she deserves the right to keep her medical affairs private, as well.

Does this mean that a woman deserves the right to kill something that Catholics don’t even believe go to “regular” Heaven, anyway???

Just throwing in some perspective. I’m not a woman, so I’m not going to act like I have any authority to tell a woman she doesn’t have a choice. Clearly, adoption should always be encouraged. But, again… I’m not a woman.

Is the right to privacy weightier than the right to life? How can you exercise your privacy if you are not alive? If anyone can kill you, you cannot even claim the right to privacy because you are dead.

Proof that right to life > right to privacy. If a patient discloses to a doctor that he is about to kill somebody, the doctor is bound by law to disclode this information to save that person’s life. He is bound to notify this person about to be killed and inform the relevant authorites (Tarasoff decision). I also suppose that if someone is reported to be about to be murdered inside a private home, the police can barge in to save that life and restrain the murderer.

PS. BTW, Catholics are not required to believe that all unbaptized persons won’t go to heaven. Limbo for unbaptized infants is merely a theological opinion and is not a doctrine. But this is beside the point. The reason abortion is wrong is that human life has intrinsic value and dignity throughout its continuum - from conception to natural death.

 

[WallyS]

raikou:

You make all most excellent points. Very difficult to disagree with that. And just to reaffirm what i said earlier, on a personal level… I would do anything to try and convince a woman considering abortion to, at minimum, give it up for adoption. But, on a national level, I just don’t know!! Again, I do not have the body and mind of a woman. I have never understood the woman, and I will never understand the woman. This is my whole personal stance on the matter. Heck, I might even reason with a woman that wants an abortion because she was raped. Terrible, I know…

I do want to point out one comment that you made, and alter it slightly in order to gauge your opinion…

“We will not DO ANYTHING that will CAUSE the loss of an innocent human life, which is murder.”

I presume this means that you believe contraceptives are a loss of life, as well, correct??

In your last post, you make excellent points regarding the right to life superceding the rights to privacy and property. But if there is no conception, then there will be no legal matter on the issue of any particular person (born or unborn) having their rights infringed upon. Correct??

The body of the woman is the ark of the child. To force that woman to bear a child in an improper state of mind seems like not the best idea to me. Consent is a very big part of this, for sure. If the child is born to a woman that is going to kill it, one is able to remove the child from the grips of the woman. But up until that point, where the child is truly independent in terms of ability to LIVE… the woman could potentially be a terrorist holding the “zygote” hostage. But that doesn’t mean you can’t negotiate with her until the baby is safe.

Something like that.

 

[Ender]

Is the right to privacy weightier than the right to life?

What most people don’t realize is that the “right to privacy”, which we all know was the underlying rationale for deciding Roe, was abandoned by the court as the justification for abortion. The Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe, was decided on the basis of “liberty”. I know it’s hard to keep track of the twists in logic necessary to constitutionally and logically sustain the argument in favor of abortion, but there it is. We may now ignore privacy, as the court has done, and must now contend with the liberty argument.

Here’s another fun fact about these two decisions: we’re all familiar with the “penumbra” argument used in Roe to locate a constitutional right not actually in the Constitution, but less familiar is some equally specious reasoning in Casey. Specifically this claim that things are whatever we want them to be.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Ender