Why Abortion is Immoral

[quatona]

Then your criteria was flawed.

These weren´t my criteria. I just worked from the criteria as presented in the argument. That´s what you do when you scrutinize the validity of an argument.

And yes a conceived homosapien is its own life. A sperm cell belongs to its owner and not distinct. The original OP has it about right.

That´s your philosophical interpretation. It´s not a "biological distinction".

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I thought we visited the sperm and egg example earlier.

Both belong to the host and contain the DNA of the host and are not distinct. When the two join a natural miracle occurs creating a new and distinct human life.

From:


WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

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

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

To hear some people tell it science is what it's all about, its always right. But when you use science to support your side of the argument those same people just want to blow it off and say "No that's not right".

Sounds to me that they have no clue what to believe they just want to argue...

 

[Armoured]

To hear some people tell it science is what it's all about, its always right. But when you use science to support your side of the argument those same people just want to blow it off and say "No that's not right".

Sounds to me that they have no clue what to believe they just want to argue...

Where doe science argue that "a new human being begins at conception"?

 

[joshua 1 9]

To hear some people tell it science is what it's all about, its always right. But when you use science to support your side of the argument those same people just want to blow it off and say "No that's not right".

Sounds to me that they have no clue what to believe they just want to argue...

Yes exactly they are very quick to turn their back on science when it does not serve their purpose or their agenda. Good that Creationists do not have that problem because there is no conflict between Creationism and the Bible. There is only a problem when man's opinions do not line up with the truth. That is what Science is all about, weeding out those things that do not prove to be true.

 

[redleghunter]

That´s your philosophical interpretation. It´s not a "biological distinction".

I believe my comments are supported by the following embryologist:


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

 

[redleghunter]

Where doe science argue that "a new human being begins at conception"?

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

 

[Armoured]

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

I skimmed it and couldn't see that claim. How about a direct quote?

 

[patricius79]

Well this is a thought that is groping towards a good answer but it is not yet a rigorous definition. To say one grows into the ability to perform personal acts . . . . and call that a qualifying definition . . . allows one to accept a pair of sperm and egg, not yet conjoined, to be called a person. They could grow into one that performs personal acts, after all. And another thing . . this concept of "personal acts" is too vague to be used without definition of what a personal act is.

I think a person is a being with an inherent, natural capacity to perform acts such as reasoning, choice, language, and loving, whether or not a person's capacity for such acts is presently being exercised. Hence, newly conceived humans, persons in comas, newborns, people dying, people with mental disabilities or illness, are all as much persons as you or I.

As Kreeft says:
One grows into the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a person.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

This would obviously not apply to a sperm or egg in themselves, because they do not not have the inherent capacity to reason, decide, love, etc. Even genetically, they are not fully human. They are merely particular dispositions of matter which are capable of uniting with their opposite (an egg unites with a sperm, or a sperm with an egg) to become a new organism through being received by a human person for the purpose of personal expression.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think a person is a being with an inherent, natural capacity to perform acts such as reasoning, choice, language, and loving, whether or not a person's capacity for such acts is presently being exercised. Hence, newly conceived humans, persons in comas, newborns, people dying, people with mental disabilities or illness, are all as much persons as you or I.

A newly formed embryo does not yet have such a capacity. That capacity only comes with development down the road, and - here is the crux - if its life is cut short before the capacity is developed, that personhood was never there in that embryo.

Personhood is never a static, frozen thing. Unless there is a dynamic, an activity, you cannot have personhood. So we look to the extension in time for that personhood, backward and forward in time. If that personhood has never been achieved anywhere between the start and the end of the living thing, that living thing was not a person.

If you think the mere presence of a complete set of workable DNA is enough to make a person, you might as well say a book can be a person, if it is long enough and complicated enough.

 

[quatona]

I think a person is a being with an inherent, natural capacity to perform acts such as reasoning, choice, language, and loving, whether or not a person's capacity for such acts is presently being exercised. Hence, newly conceived humans, persons in comas, newborns, people dying, people with mental disabilities or illness, are all as much persons as you or I.

As Kreeft says:
One grows into the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a person.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

This would obviously not apply to a sperm or egg in themselves, because they do not not have the inherent capacity to reason, decide, love, etc.

A sperm and a fetus both have the capability to - given certain developments - grow into the ability of reasoning etc.
Just adding some buzzwords like "inherent" (without explaining how you discern an "inherent" capacity from a plain capacity) doesn´t change that.

 

[patricius79]

A newly formed embryo does not yet have such a capacity. That capacity only comes with development down the road, and - here is the crux - if its life is cut short before the capacity is developed, that personhood was never there in that embryo.
.

The embryo is in one's personhood, otherwise the embyro could not develop their inherent capacity to reason, choose, love, pray, etc.

The same applies to newborns, which one must likewise never kill, however convenient it may seem to our sociopathic frame of mind.

A person with a mental disability or illness, likewise, has an impaired or underdeveloped capacity for thinking reasoning loving praying, but the personal capacity is still there, otherwise it could not be impaired.

They are no less persons than anyone else.

I praise God for His Infinite Mercy on us in Mary and her Divine Son!

 

[joshua 1 9]

I believe my comments are supported by the following embryologist:


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

The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. If that individual does not enter into this world they will enter into heaven. They say there are lots of children in Heaven. Jesus said: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". There is energy invested in a male and a female joining together to create a new individual. Sometimes they nurture that life and bring it into this world and sometimes they don't.

 

[redleghunter]

I skimmed it and couldn't see that claim. How about a direct quote?

. 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.

 

[Laury]

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.

You do realize that this "whole human being" at that stage is nothing other than a clump of stem cells, right?

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.

Well, that does happen... quite commonly, actually. Most people have little genetic mutations that they carry with them and pass on to the next generation. They are not monsters, these are usually traits like a bigger nose, long fingers etc. Of course it can turn out to be a more gross mutation, like multiple limbs etc.
To be honest, it is more UNLIKELY that this process would make a perfect replica, like you claim it does.

 

[redleghunter]

You do realize that this "whole human being" at that stage is nothing other than a clump of stem cells.

Are you implying the clump of cells are not a distinct human life?

Or are you entering in a philosophical opinion that although human the clump of cells have no value?

 

[Laury]

Are you implying the clump of cells are not a distinct human life?

Yes, because it's not alive, and not human either.

Stem cells are basically "blank cells" that have the potential to become any kind of cell.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, because it's not alive, and not human either.

Stem cells are basically "blank cells" that have the potential to become any kind of cell.

Embryologists disagree with you.

As I pointed out in several posts. It is not a matter of opinion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Embryologists disagree with you.

As I pointed out in several posts. It is not a matter of opinion.

That facts that are not in dispute are what the cells are like, what they grow into if all goes well.
The conclusion that is a matter of opinion is whether the first few cells qualify, at that point, as a person.

 

[patricius79]

That facts that are not in dispute are what the cells are like, what they grow into if all goes well.
The conclusion that is a matter of opinion is whether the first few cells qualify, at that point, as a person.

The newly conceived human zygote could not grow into functional personhood unless he/she were not already a person. But if one is in doubt about when personhood begins, they are definitely and profoundly obligated to not do any killing.

 

[VirOptimus]

The newly conceived human zygote could not grow into functional personhood unless he/she were not already a person. -snip-

This is simply not true.