Why Abortion is Immoral

[redleghunter]

Presence of life is not proof of presence of personhood.

I hear that argument a lot from non-Christians.

As a Baptist how do you define the beginning of personhood?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I hear that argument a lot from non-Christians.

As a Baptist how do you define the beginning of personhood?

There are only valid and invalid arguements. They don't depend on whether or not I am a Baptist.

It is perfectly true, on the face of it, that the presence of life is not proof of personhood. There are many living things that are not persons. You cannot deny that logic.

Therefore, in order to establish personhood in a fetus, you must use another arguement other than the presence of life.
You don't have a valid argument for personhood in a fetus, you only have your opinion on that.

 

[redleghunter]

There are only valid and invalid arguements. They don't depend on whether or not I am a Baptist.

It is perfectly true, on the face of it, that the presence of life is not proof of personhood. There are many living things that are not persons. You cannot deny that logic.

Therefore, in order to establish personhood in a fetus, you must use another arguement other than the presence of life.
You don't have a valid argument for personhood in a fetus, you only have your opinion on that.

Yes but 'other things' are not distinctly human.

You would have to establish a cow or dog are life equal in worth to human life.

And other things never become persons. That is reserved for humans only.

So your example is invalid.

 

[jenny1972]

There are only valid and invalid arguements. They don't depend on whether or not I am a Baptist.

It is perfectly true, on the face of it, that the presence of life is not proof of personhood. There are many living things that are not persons. You cannot deny that logic.

Therefore, in order to establish personhood in a fetus, you must use another arguement other than the presence of life.
You don't have a valid argument for personhood in a fetus, you only have your opinion on that.

it has been established that a fetus is a human being a being is something that exists or is believed to exist and the fetus is of the human species therefore a human being that is alive . blacks were not considered people once either legally .

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes but 'other things' are not distinctly human.

You would have to establish a cow or dog are life equal in worth to human life.

And other things never become persons. That is reserved for humans only.

So your example is invalid.

No, the logic is inescapable. Mere life is not sufficient to establish personhood. Now you seem to be making the assertion that if it is human life, it is a person. But there are counter examples to that as well that even you will accept, such as human sperm and a human egg.

So even if it is "human", that is not sufficient to establish personhood. Personhood requires understanding one is a self, understanding one has a relationship with more than one's own self, and the ability to communicate and to build on past experiences. I'm not saying such is enough to make a person . . . but without these I'm saying personhood is not present.

There is an immortal human life living in scientific laboratories . . . a culture of human cancer cells that, provided with appropriate nutrients, continues to live on and on in the laboratory. It is kept alive for the purpose of studying cancer. It came from a human being. The logic of your words would assert it is a person. It is not.

There is a heart being rushed from a brain dead accident victim to a person in need of a heart transplant. It is human and alive. It is not a person.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

it has been established that a fetus is a human being a being is something that exists or is believed to exist and the fetus is of the human species therefore a human being that is alive . blacks were not considered people once either legally .

Hi Jenny! Welcome.

 

[SteveB28]

The only community that thinks that the time between "baby" and "sexually mature adult" one becomes a 'human being' is the so called pro-choice community all those outside the delusional pro-choice community disagree with that.

What errant nonsense. Please show me anyone who doesn't hold that an entity between baby and adult isn't a human being!?

 

[redleghunter]

No, the logic is inescapable. Mere life is not sufficient to establish personhood. Now you seem to be making the assertion that if it is human life, it is a person. But there are counter examples to that as well that even you will accept, such as human sperm and a human egg.

So even if it is "human", that is not sufficient to establish personhood. Personhood requires understanding one is a self, understanding one has a relationship with more than one's own self, and the ability to communicate and to build on past experiences. I'm not saying such is enough to make a person . . . but without these I'm saying personhood is not present.

There is an immortal human life living in scientific laboratories . . . a culture of human cancer cells that, provided with appropriate nutrients, continues to live on and on in the laboratory. It is kept alive for the purpose of studying cancer. It came from a human being. The logic of your words would assert it is a person. It is not.

There is a heart being rushed from a brain dead accident victim to a person in need of a heart transplant. It is human and alive. It is not a person.

With such subjective particulars you make a case for selective elimination of infants and toddlers.

I still reject your assertion that things other than humans can be persons. That is what your premise resides.

What is inescapable is the fact that persons only come from human life.

The egg and sperm example was already addressed. Each are reproductive precursors that when joined in fertilization produce a new and distinctive human life.

Your cancer cells example is invalid. It's cancer and left to grow will only be cancer. It has the DNA of the human who donated it. The cancer is not a distinct human life.

We have plenty of examples from our bloody human history of despots rationalizing who is or is not a person. Interesting such philosophies relied on a subjective analysis of the particulars.

 

[SteveB28]

A fetus absolutely is alive if it were not alive then the womans body would naturally expel it . A fetus is a fetus , just like a toddler is a toddler and a teenager is a teenager . All 3 are human beings but at different stages of human development . It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive and is a human being not something that those who are pro-abortion want to admit for obvious reasons .

There is no scientific fact that explains that a foetus is a human being.

 

[AirPo]

I was pointing out your arguments deal with subjective presuppositions.

Which is incorrect.

 

[fhansen]

There is no scientific fact that explains that a foetus is a human being.

Yes, science doesn't really need to explain it. "Fetus" just defines the unborn-up to birth.

 

[redleghunter]

There is no scientific fact that explains that a foetus is a human being.

You are incorrect as I pointed out several times.


A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down�s or Turner�s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes ofgametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.


https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html



Edit: adding attribution



WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

 

[fhansen]

You are incorrect as I pointed out several times.


A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down�s or Turner�s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes ofgametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.


https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html



Edit: adding attribution



WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

You are incorrect as I've pointed out twice now:

FETUS
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

Mirriam Webster

Unless you prefer to maintain that the unborn is still not human shortly before birth

 

[redleghunter]

You are incorrect as I've pointed out twice now:

FETUS
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

Mirriam Webster

Unless you prefer to maintain that the unborn is still not human shortly before birth

Are you advocating human life does not begin at conception?

What do you take exception with in what I posted from a scientist?

 

[Blondepudding]

I don't think an absolute can be defined using religious standards in this case.

What I believe is immoral is the trespass of individuals opinion on the issue as pertains to other than themselves. And in their hoping to breach the laws that state as a woman I own my body and can make my own choices about it.
Those individuals that believe my life is subject to their preference are deluded and not uncommonly also hypocritical and inconsistent in giving a life to the homeless and abandoned one's that are born already.
The argument that we must have more people born regardless of the will or desire of those in charge of the avenue by which more are born is selfish and indifferent to quality of the living.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't think an absolute can be defined using religious standards in this case.

What I believe is immoral is the trespass of individuals opinion on the issue as pertains to other than themselves. And in their hoping to breach the laws that state as a woman I own my body and can make my own choices about it.
Those individuals that believe my life is subject to their preference are deluded and not uncommonly also hypocritical and inconsistent in giving a life to the homeless and abandoned one's that are born already.
The argument that we must have more people born regardless of the will or desire of those in charge of the avenue by which more are born is selfish and indifferent to quality of the living.

Rationalizing is not a moral or ethical stance.

Are we not constantly demanded to show the science involved in every discussion. Why is it when science clearly defines human life beginning at conception, the usual science only advocates run for the philosophical security blanket of subjective ethics?

 

[jenny1972]

No, the logic is inescapable. Mere life is not sufficient to establish personhood. Now you seem to be making the assertion that if it is human life, it is a person. But there are counter examples to that as well that even you will accept, such as human sperm and a human egg.

So even if it is "human", that is not sufficient to establish personhood. Personhood requires understanding one is a self, understanding one has a relationship with more than one's own self, and the ability to communicate and to build on past experiences. I'm not saying such is enough to make a person . . . but without these I'm saying personhood is not present.

There is an immortal human life living in scientific laboratories . . . a culture of human cancer cells that, provided with appropriate nutrients, continues to live on and on in the laboratory. It is kept alive for the purpose of studying cancer. It came from a human being. The logic of your words would assert it is a person. It is not.

There is a heart being rushed from a brain dead accident victim to a person in need of a heart transplant. It is human and alive. It is not a person.

so by your definition of personhood a human being does not become a person until they are able to understand that they are a separate person , in other words their mental ability , mentally disabled humans of any age then might not be considered "people" at any age according to your definition . And when does a child become a person when they develope a certain level of awareness how would that be determined since we do not know the thoughts of others unless those thoughts are communicated to us until the human being is able to articulate these concepts to others they are not people ? This might not be until late childhood or adolescence so young children and disabled people or the elderly are not considered people ? using mental ability to define personhood is the most dangerous slippery slope i can imagine .

 

[jenny1972]

True, but by then we already have a metabolism, a human physique and some Brain activity. There is at least the possibility that we are in since sense 'someone'.
It is true that we can't pinpoint any specific time when a fetus /baby becomes ' someone, probably because there is no such special moment. Nature usually doesn't deal in clear distinguishable states, it is only or human minds that try to find then.
But it is clear from what we know about fetal development that our self begins somewhere between the 20th week of gestation and since months after birth.
That is why I find no moral is issues with abortion prior to week 20 of gestation .

so if awareness and consciousness determines if a human being is a person or not what if someone you cared for had to have a difficult operation and the doctors put them into a temporary coma to help them heal from the operation and machines kept them alive during this temporary time . Is that human being still a person when they are in the coma ? is it ok to kill them if someone came in and shot them should they be charged with murder or is that ok because they are not a person during that time ?

 

[jenny1972]

What errant nonsense. Please show me anyone who doesn't hold that an entity between baby and adult isn't a human being!?

there are many people who consider the stage before a baby (fetus and even before the fetus stage) is a human being including scientists . That humanity begins at birth is specific only to a certain group of "people"

 

[jenny1972]

There is no scientific fact that explains that a foetus is a human being.

a fetus exists (is a being) a fetus belongs to a certain species we are discussing a fetus of the human species . being+human(scientific proof of both)= human being