The Great Evil of Abortion

[HypnoToad]

Except, of course, we all know Jane is dead,

Then just find us a valid medical/scientific source that declares the unborn are dead until a defined point in their development.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then just find us a valid medical/scientific source that declares the unborn are dead until a defined point in their development.

Not dead, just not a person until the brain is developed enough for personhood to emerge. As Jane Doe may be considered "brain dead" we can say a newly fertilized egg, while alive, is not "brain alive".

 

[HypnoToad]

Not dead, just not a person until the brain is developed enough for personhood to emerge.

But your example is of a dead person. If the unborn isn't dead, then your example doesn't apply.

Also, can you provide a medical/scientific definition of this "personhood" that declares it a fact that it begins when you think it does? Not what they consider it should be, but as a known/proven fact?

 

[Jon Osterman]

So, where do you believe this "personhood" begins? At fertilisation? At the production of the sperm? At birth? Where? Please give a justification for your answer.

 

[SPF]

Sure, we can do that. We can look at the other end of life, at the time we pass away.

Say John Doe has a sister, Jane, and John is her only living relative. Jane is shot in the head, brain damaged and so much brain tissue is destroyed she is declared brain dead. The hospital is keeping her alive on machines and ask John for permission to harvest the organs and take the body off the respirator.

All your arguments in favor of personhood for Jane are present. She has been fertilized; indeed, the cells have even gone ahead and made a body! She has a full complement of DNA. And she has that beating heart so many attempt to use as a criterion. Everything one could possibly define in a single fertilized egg is present. Except, of course, we all know Jane is dead, really, and the moral choice to harvest her organs for the lives of others and allow the heart to stop is entirely appropriate.

There is your objectively based argument on why the distinction is real.

Hi Paul, thanks for taking the time to respond. Unfortunately, in reading your response I can't seem to locate any sort of an objectively based argument.

What I do read is an analogy, which in no circles of academia would ever suffice as an argument on its own. Especially an analogy such as the one you provided which is a borderline false analogy as it is discussing when a human being dies, not whether or not there is such a thing as a distinction between a human being and a human person and when said hypothetical distinction is established.

Therefore, I hope for your own intellectual integrity that you aren't basing your belief upon an analogy, and not even a cohesive argument.

I welcome you to actually provide an argument for your position, if you're capable of it.

As far as I understand science, we know that human life begins at conception. And so far as I understand Scripture, all humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. I think you will be hard pressed to establish the existence of a distinction between a human being and a human person. But good luck since you seem to believe it.

 

[SPF]

While we continue to give Paul some time to come up with a cohesive, objective, rational argument for his position, let me suggest that this issue is actually quite simple when considering the world from the perspective of the Bible being True.

1. All Humans possess inherent moral worth and value on account of being created by God, in His image.
2. Scientifically, we know that a new human being is created at fertilization.
3. Therefore, at fertilization, a new and unique human being with moral worth and value exists.

Given the above, abortion is without question, an immoral act.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Not really. When a miserable person experiences a miserable sex life and experiences an unplanned pregnancy and has not the ability to raise or care for a child, they may decide to end the pregnancy rather than expose the unborn to drugs, alcohol, or abandonment. That decision does not require a devaluing of either life.

My daughter, who has brain damage from Chemotherapy at age 5, has not aborted two pregnancies, and the results have been a challenge to all of us. But I don't presume to be the best decision maker in her life. I believe it is her decision.

Herin lies the problem with the phiosophy of "the end justi

It doesn't matter to the twins, it merely destroys your argument from identical DNA.




Truth is you have to resort to empty retorts because you tried to prove an article of faith by logic, which is impossible. It is your article of faith that a newly fertilized egg is a person already and it is my article of faith that it isn't yet a person. There is no logic to prove one way or the other. As a protestant, I go for scripture evidence for my religion, and this topic is not addressed in scripture. As a catholic, you have papal decree on your side, and that is sufficient for you. Not for me.

I too am a Protestant. I too believe that a fertilized egg is a human being. I reach this belief, not in faith, nor as the result of a papal bull, but because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the complete and total word of God ( sola scriptura ). If God knows us before we were in our mothers womb, does he not know us the instant we are in our mothers womb ? If God knows us as a person as a fertilized egg, does that not make us as a fertilized egg most definitely a person ?

 

[Jon Osterman]

I too believe that a fertilized egg is a human being. I reach this belief, not in faith, nor as the result of a papal bull, but because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the complete and total word of God ( sola scriptura ).

Can you provide a bible verse where it says a fertilised egg is a human being? I am now quite curious...

 

[Clint Edwards]

Your last to statements seem to imply identical twins are a single person. Since they are not a single person, your reasoning there is flawed.

Suppose, some day, it becomes technically possible to take a blood cell from my body, treat it in such a way as to allow it to begin to express all its genes and grow into a fetus and a baby. A marvelous triumph of science. In such a case, wouldn't every failure to go ahead and do that to all my blood cells be the crime of failing to allow a baby to grow? Of course not. Your reasoning fails in that case as well.

A very flawed hypothetical. First, a zygote is the first direct result of the combination of two separate sets of DNA growing in the natural environment designed specifically for that purpose. You are trying to use potential ethical problems from a totally unnatural set of circumstances as sand in the eyes to confuse the issue. We aren't discussing the ethical problems of what maybe might happen in the sweet by and by, we are discussing serious ethical issues of what happens every day. False equivalencies lead to false conclusions

 

[Clint Edwards]

Can you provide a bible verse where it says a fertilised egg is a human being? I am now quite curious...

Yes, I will give you a few to think about. Let me look them up, I promise I will get back to you today. There is, of course, no verse that says "behold, the fertilized egg is a human being", but that is the inescapable conclusion from what is said.

 

[SPF]

Can you provide a bible verse where it says a fertilised egg is a human being? I am now quite curious...

Obviously there isn't one because the Bible is not a biological textbook. However, we know 1) scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, 2) Biblically, all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. Therefore, we can conclude 3) Unborn human beings possess inherent moral worth and value.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Can you provide a bible verse where it says a fertilised egg is a human being? I am now quite curious...

Here are the three that convinced me beyond any doubt, that a person exists at conception. " You did form my inward parts, you knit me together in my mothers womb, you knew me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret " Ps. 139: 13-15 " Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you " Jer. 1: 4-5 " You have been my guide since I was first formed, from my mothers womb, you are my God" Ps. 22:10-11

 

[SPF]

Let's also not forget the account of John the Baptist in Luke chapter 1. John, while yet in his mother's womb, leaps for joy at the sound of Mary's voice, who was pregnant at the time with Jesus. We are also told that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb. I don't think Scripture can get much clearer than that when it comes to acknowledging that born or unborn - we're all still humans in the eyes of God.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Not dead, just not a person until the brain is developed enough for personhood to emerge. As Jane Doe may be considered "brain dead" we can say a newly fertilized egg, while alive, is not "brain alive".

Not according to the Bible

 

[Jon Osterman]

Here are the three that convinced me beyond any doubt, that a person exists at conception. " You did form my inward parts, you knit me together in my mothers womb, you knew me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret " Ps. 139: 13-15 " Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you " Jer. 1: 4-5 " You have been my guide since I was first formed, from my mothers womb, you are my God" Ps. 22:10-11

These are only saying that we are made in our mother's womb, which I don't think anyone would dispute. None of these imply that we have individual identity at fertilisation.

In fact, these verses are contrary to the view that identity is made at fertilisation. The egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube, not in the womb, but the verse says "you knit me together in my mothers womb" implying that the parts happening prior to the womb are not "me".

 

[Clint Edwards]

These are only saying that we are made in our mother's womb, which I don't think anyone would dispute. None of these imply that we have individual identity at fertilisation.

In fact, these verses are contrary to the view that identity is made at fertilisation. The egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube, not in the womb, but the verse says "you knit me together in my mothers womb" implying that the parts happening prior to the womb are not "me".

These are only saying that we are made in our mother's womb, which I don't think anyone would dispute. None of these imply that we have individual identity at fertilisation.

In fact, these verses are contrary to the view that identity is made at fertilisation. The egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube, not in the womb, but the verse says "you knit me together in my mothers womb" implying that the parts happening prior to the womb are not "me".

No, they are saying that we are known by God at or before conception, thus meaning we are a person at conception. Womb isn´t a scientific term, it may not even be the exact Jewish definition for the word translated womb. Womb has historically been known where babies are both conceived and carried. The point is clear. If God knows us before or at conception, we are persons IN HIS EYES at the exact same time. Exhaustive anatomy is irrelevant to the matter.

 

[Zoii]

Hi. I would like to preface this by saying that I am a pro-life Catholic, and I always have been.

I want to discuss the evil of abortion. I notice that many pro-lifers get hung up arguing about the evil of murdering babies, whether or not a fetus is a human, etc., and they fail to see the greatest evil of it all: the idea that one human life has more intrinsic value than another. This idea has manifested itself through all of human history: as slavery/racism, Nazism, and today, abortion. Slavery in pre-Civil War America was rooted in the idea that a white person's life was more valuable than a black person's life. Once this idea had been accepted, whites (not all whites) could then attack and dehumanize blacks to the point where they would consider them as property, not people. And once they did this, once they reached this point, they could justify the rape, beating, and enslavement of black people "because they're only property, after all."

Similarly, as you most likely already know, Hitler had the idea that the life of an "Aryan" was naturally more valuable than the life of a Jew. (Of course, if you were to ask the Internet why Hitler hated Jews, it would tell you that he believed "Jews were a destructive influence in any society." That comes from the aforementioned idea.) When Hitler came to power, he gradually passed laws restricting the rights of Jews. He eventually began to treat them like cattle, marking them with the Star of David (and numbers at concentration camps).
Hitler felt justified in killing millions of Jews because he had dehumanized them to the point where they were barely more than cattle.

Abortion today is akin to a "sibling" of racism and Nazism. All three are manifestations of the same horrible idea. In order to justify abortion, you must first accept that the life of the mother has more intrinsic value than the life of the baby. Once you accept this, you can dehumanize the baby to the point where you can justify its murder by saying that it is "only a cluster of cells." Furthermore, you can then divert the argument away from the root of the evil and point it elsewhere, wasting time arguing about whether or not a fetus is a human.

In retrospect, we know how evil such things as slavery and the Holocaust were. We look back on these evils and we swear to never let something so horrible happen again: and yet it continues, right before our very eyes. Why do we never learn?

What verses are you using to identity that abortion is a sin?

 

[Clint Edwards]

What verses are you using to identity that abortion is a sin?

God declares an unborn child a person. ( see my post in this thread ). Premeditated killing of a person is first degree murder, murder is a sin.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God declares an unborn child a person. ( see my post in this thread ). Premeditated killing of a person is first degree murder, murder is a sin.

Well, you're reading your conclusion into the interpretation of those verses. It isn't a necessary interpretation. Not the first or last time that has happened.

Take this verse: " Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you " Jer. 1: 4-5"

Since it clearly says the time God "knew" Jeremiah was BEFORE Jeremiah was formed in the womb, I fail to see how it in any way implies it was at the moment of conception that Jeremiah became a person. Clearly God was viewing from outside our time frame completely, and it would be more logical to conclude that God views our whole existence from His eternal perspective; and those fertilized eggs that die before even starting a brain simply never were people.

Just as logical an interpretation as yours.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

These are only saying that we are made in our mother's womb, which I don't think anyone would dispute. None of these imply that we have individual identity at fertilisation.

In fact, these verses are contrary to the view that identity is made at fertilisation. The egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube, not in the womb, but the verse says "you knit me together in my mothers womb" implying that the parts happening prior to the womb are not "me".

Scriptures never say a baby was conceived. Scriptures always say the woman conceived. So for that to be a moment in the life of the egg, it would have to defer the definition of conception to at least the time the now fertilized egg becomes implanted into the wall of the uterus. Until that happens, the woman has not conceived, regardless of what the egg is doing.