Why Abortion is Immoral

patricius79 · Dec 30, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
The unborn human being in the first months of pregnancy clearly lacks ability to live outside the womb, to understand language, to make moral choices, to have any kind of higher mental life at all. Therefore it is not yet a person.
.

How does that follow? I realize that is your faith, but there isn't any logic there.

Peter Kreeft writes:

There is a common premise hidden behind all seven of these pro-choice arguments. It is the premise of Functionalism; defining a person by his or her functioning, or behavior. A "behavioral definition" is proper and practical for scientific purposes of prediction and experimentation, but it is not adequate for ordinary reason and common sense, much less for good philosophy or morality, which should be based on common sense. Why?

Because common sense distinguishes between what one is and what one does, between being and function, thus between "being a person" and "functioning as a person." One cannot function as a person without being a person, but one can surely be a person without functioning as a person. In deep sleep, in coma, and in early infancy, nearly everyone will admit there are persons, but there are no specifically human functions such as reasoning, choice, or language. Functioning as a person is a sign and an effect of being a person. It is because of what we are, because of our nature or essence or being, that we can and do function in these ways. We have human souls, and plants do not; that's why we can know ourselves and plants can't. Functionalism makes the elementary mistake of confusing the sign with the thing signified, the smoke with the fire. As a Zen master would say, "the finger is fine for pointing at the moon, but woe to him who mistakes the finger for the moon".
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

PeaceByJesus · Dec 30, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
I'm a conceived person. You are a conceived person. A fetus is not yet a person, even though it is the result of conception.

And just what is your criteria for being a human person? Birth, functionality?

Paul of Eugene OR · Dec 30, 2015

PeaceByJesus said:
And just what is your criteria for being a human person? Birth, functionality?

Ability to live independently, ability to begin mental life . . . as is present in the final stages of pregnancy.

Paul of Eugene OR · Dec 30, 2015

patricius79 said:
How does that follow? I realize that is your faith, but there isn't any logic there.

Peter Kreeft writes:

There is a common premise hidden behind all seven of these pro-choice arguments. It is the premise of Functionalism; defining a person by his or her functioning, or behavior. A "behavioral definition" is proper and practical for scientific purposes of prediction and experimentation, but it is not adequate for ordinary reason and common sense, much less for good philosophy or morality, which should be based on common sense. Why?

Because common sense distinguishes between what one is and what one does, between being and function, thus between "being a person" and "functioning as a person." One cannot function as a person without being a person, but one can surely be a person without functioning as a person. In deep sleep, in coma, and in early infancy, nearly everyone will admit there are persons, but there are no specifically human functions such as reasoning, choice, or language. Functioning as a person is a sign and an effect of being a person. It is because of what we are, because of our nature or essence or being, that we can and do function in these ways. We have human souls, and plants do not; that's why we can know ourselves and plants can't. Functionalism makes the elementary mistake of confusing the sign with the thing signified, the smoke with the fire. As a Zen master would say, "the finger is fine for pointing at the moon, but woe to him who mistakes the finger for the moon".
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

We really don't have any other guide except this functioning of which you speak. If you want to speak of potential only, then any stem cell could conceivably be harvested and grown into a full human being, if only the appropriate technology existed. As I see it, the only reasonable criterion is the existence of a brain capable of holding a human-level mind.

And it may be that we will eventually see the existence of a mechanical mind of sufficient ability to be termed a person. In fact, that is really by now merely a matter of figuring out what kind of programming would accomplish that with the computers we have now.

AirPo · Dec 31, 2015

PeaceByJesus said:
Which in principle extends all any and all unwanted persons, even if innocent and through not fault of their own.

No, it doesn't.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Ability to live independently, ability to begin mental life . . . as is present in the final stages of pregnancy.

Newborns are not able to live independently. Yet it is gravely evil to kill a newborn.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
We really don't have any other guide except this functioning of which you speak.

I realize that that is what many believe, but there is no scientific or rational proof for such a pro-abortion position.

People with less functionality--such as infants, the mentally delayed or mentally ill, or in a coma--are not less human.

Hitler may have agreed that they are less human, but rational people and Christianss certainly are not at liberty to agree with him.

Belk · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
Newborns are not able to live independently. Yet it is gravely evil to kill a newborn.

Newborns most certainly are able to live independently. What they are not able to do is live unassisted.

Belk · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
I realize that that is what many believe, but there is no scientific or rational proof for such a pro-abortion position.

People with less functionality--such as infants, the mentally delayed or mentally ill, or in a coma--are not less human.

exactly like there o no proof the other way. This whole argument rests on human opinion and ethics. Hence why all the arguing is going on.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Belk said:
Newborns most certainly are able to live independently.

Newborns are very dependent on others for their lives.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Belk said:
exactly like there o no proof the other way.

Many pro-abortion people would say that, but there is no scientific or rational proof for such a claim. And if someone isn't sure when personhood begins, then they are morally obliged to avoid any killing.

Belk · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
Newborns are very dependent on others for their lives.

No, Newborns are dependent upon others fore care. They are alive without having to be connected to another human being for resources.

Belk · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
Many pro-abortion people would say that, but there is no scientific or rational proof for such a claim. And if someone isn't sure when personhood begins, then they are morally obliged to avoid any killing.

Anybody who understands science would say it. Science does not deal with ethics and morality and should not be confused for such. And I am morally obligated to do no such thing.

PeaceByJesus · Dec 31, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Ability to live independently, ability to begin mental life . . . as is present in the final stages of pregnancy.

I see ["live outside the womb, to understand language, to make moral choices, to have any kind of higher mental life at all"], but do all conditions have to be met? And what of those who are considered as good as dead, with no potential to understand language, to make moral choices, to have any kind of higher mental life at all, and are utterly dependent on the care of others such as due to brain damage (not brain death)?

And if you personally somehow grade such as being worthy to be called persons, to what supreme standard do you appeal to against others tweaking your criteria to exclude all who are such from being persons? While human life is rather obvious, you cannot deny (except by faith in men) that your criteria can easily be understood to mean such are not, and it also could be even more liberally understood to exclude human life as being persons based on functionality.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Belk said:
No, Newborns are dependent upon others fore care. They are alive without having to be connected to another human being for resources.

Newborns can't stay alive without constant help from others. And it is wrong to kill them.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Belk said:
Anybody who understands science would say it. .

I agree that the issue of the conception of personhood goes beyond physical science, which is limited in its scope. But to claim that there is no definite rational evidence for when personhood begins has not been shown. And if one isn't exactly sure when personhood begins, then they are profoundly obliged--by ethical science--to avoid any killing.

Belk · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
Newborns can't stay alive without constant help from others. And it is wrong to kill them.

Constant huh? Can't set that baby down for a second or it just dies does it? It is not possible to leave it in a crib for hours at a time while it is sleeping?

Belk · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
I agree that the issue of the conception of personhood goes beyond physical science, which is limited in its scope. But to claim that there is no definite rational evidence for when personhood begins has not been shown.

Very well patricius79, by what quanta does one measure 'persoonhood'? How is it detected?

patricius79 said:
And if one isn't exactly sure when personhood begins, then they are profoundly obliged--by ethical science--to avoid any killing.

No, no they are not. You asserting it is so does not make it so.

The Cadet · Dec 31, 2015

Tree of Life said:
It does not address Marquis' argument at all. So his argument still stands.

His argument may still stand, but it is made irrelevant.

It fails to explain why we believe that a mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child.

But we don't. We accept adoption, don't we? A mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child only insofar as not caring for that child would lead to the death of the child. However, there is a fundamental difference between something living inside your body and something living outside of it.

Tree of Life · Dec 31, 2015

The Cadet said:
His argument may still stand, but it is made irrelevant.

If abortion is seriously wrong (as his still-standing argument claims) then it's Thomson's argument that is irrelevant.

But we don't. We accept adoption, don't we? A mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child only insofar as not caring for that child would lead to the death of the child.

We do accept adoption. Adoption is when another person takes full responsibility for the child - so allowing the former parents to completely abdicate their responsibility. In that case the birth mother no longer has this responsibility. But when there is no adoption then the responsibility still rests with the parents. They cannot abdicate it without someone else stepping in and remain morally intact.

However, there is a fundamental difference between something living inside your body and something living outside of it.

I will grant that there is indeed a spacial difference. But why is this difference morally significant?

Why Abortion is Immoral

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Finally Old Enough

Finally Old Enough

with a Touch of Grey

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Senior Member

Senior Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Senior Member

Senior Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Senior Member

Senior Member

SO COOL

Hide The Pain

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency