Why Abortion is Immoral

[redleghunter]

This is not what science says. Please debate honestly.

It is exactly what embryologists state so please read the entire thread as I will not post the same links and quotes from scientists for a 21st time.

 

[redleghunter]

What scripture specifically states that ensoulment takes place at conception?

Are we switching to religion now? I thought we were discussing scientific and philosophical claims. You can go back quite a few pages where I presented the Biblical case for life beginning at conception.

 

[redleghunter]

There is another aspect to think about, regardless of one's position on the personhood of the new life beginning to form.
Consider me as an organ doner. I have two kidneys, a liver, and a heart. Suppose four people, young and otherwise healthy, were in desperate need of organ donation, and I lived in a country where a despot ruled, who came up to me and told me I was going to have my organs harvested, because that would save four lives that would otherwise die, and my own life, being only one, could not morally be left to live . . . four lives saved versus one life saved seems to be a compelling argument. Is it moral for the ruler to have my organs harvested against my will?

Of course not. We recognize I have a right to the integrity of my own body, regardless of the life saving potential for the others. Indeed, if I were to propose committing suicide that the others might live, many participants in this forum would be horrified at that idea, you would argue against my doing that, in spite of the math, four lives being saved at the cost of the one.

Isn't it the same for the pregnant woman? Doesn't she have the final say as to the use of her body?

No not the same. Those organs are truly your own organs. They won't live on their own and they do not develop into a separate human being. A conceived life in the womb is a distinct human being and that is not opinion but scientific fact.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Interesting that human being established by scientific fact 'is a worthless term because it is too vague.' What makes your estimation of 'personhood' more valid than science? Please enlighten us with the supreme infallible opinion of some philosopher you obviously adhere to. I already posited up thread the opinions of bioethicist Peter Singer who believes personhood does not begin even with birth or the months after.

So what is your definition of 'personhood?'

It's like you're not even reading what I write. Let me try and make it simpler for you...

1. "Human being" is vague because it's used colloquially to describe two different things (biology and personhood). In your use of the term, you yourself are an example of this.
2. Science did not define "human being" since the phrase has been around since the late 1600's.
3. Personhood is used to establish rights rather than biology.
4. Once again, I don't care what Peter Singer thinks. If you insist on tying me to him for some reason, I'm going to lump you in with Fred Phelps.
5. It's logical to take the position that brain dead bodies aren't persons. Therefore, it's also logical to hold the position that brain functions should be used in determining personhood.
6. First semester fetuses don't display the higher brain functions that we associate with personhood. Therefore, first trimester fetuses aren't persons.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Are we switching to religion now? I thought we were discussing scientific and philosophical claims. You can go back quite a few pages where I presented the Biblical case for life beginning at conception.

I wasn't responding to you, and the beginning of life doesn't necessarily correspond with ensoulment. Jews believed ensoulment didn't happen until the baby took it's first breath.

So, what scriptures specifically state that ensoulment takes place at conception?

 

[redleghunter]

1. "Human being" is vague because it's used colloquially to describe two different things (biology and personhood). In your use of the term, you yourself are an example of this.

Human being is not vague, you are trying to make it so but it is not. Somehow you have separated human being from person based on your subjective assertion of some arbitrary developed brain activity.

A human being is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. That's the dictionary definition. The definition is compared to the stark difference of non Homo Sapien animals.

The question of when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question and not philosophical but answered by embryologists.[/QUOTE

2. Science did not define "human being" since the phrase has been around since the late 1600's.

Yes they do and we have a lot more 'science' on the matter today:

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

3. Personhood is used to establish rights rather than biology.

Personhood is the quality or condition of being an individual person. That's the basic definition. So we go back to when does one become a distinct individual person? Science has an answer for that and it is conception.

What you are referring to? Moral personhood, legal personhood or Constitutional personhood? Matters not as none of the aforementioned defines one as a human being. They are philosophical terms which thousands of opinions exist. So I ask, who is right in their assessment of 'personhood?'

5. It's logical to take the position that brain dead bodies aren't persons. Therefore, it's also logical to hold the position that brain functions should be used in determining personhood.

Who determines 'brain dead?' That's right medical doctors who are scientists. You trust them to determine brain dead but not the start of a human being.

Plus your logic is flawed. Brain dead means dead. It is not a live human being developing. Before pulling the plug on a brain dead person an advanced directive is needed or permission from the family. Some form of consent knowing the wishes of the brain dead person. Embryos get no vote. Not a very good comparison.

Now, what group, organization or magisterium gets to decide what constitutes brain activity commensurate with 'personhood?' Who is going to stand in judgment to decided who is a person or not? Government? The medical profession? Philosopher kings? Who exactly and when? That would have to be determined since you want to ignore science altogether and deny at conception we have a new human being which is developing towards being eventually a full adult. So we have from conception to full adult a process of development and you must now determine the 'when' and 'why.' I already gave you quite a few examples, using your approach, of those who don't see newborns as 'persons' because their brains are not developed for higher learning. Are they wrong and why are they wrong?

6. First semester fetuses don't display the higher brain functions that we associate with personhood. Therefore, first trimester fetuses aren't persons.

That is your subjective analysis based on a preconceived conclusion. A flawed conclusion at it.

Again, your 'logic' led many, many others to much different conclusions. Some not considering Downs pre-born and newborn as persons. Some not considering newborn babies up to toddler as 'persons.'

We truly do live in a brave new world. Where our society is now trying to define human life by eugenics.

 

[redleghunter]

I wasn't responding to you, and the beginning of life doesn't necessarily correspond with ensoulment. Jews believed ensoulment didn't happen until the baby took it's first breath.

So, what scriptures specifically state that ensoulment takes place at conception?

Why would you separate a soul from a life? SOME Jews believe what you posted above. The Hebrews of TaNaKh knew better from YHWH revealing his Mind on the matter:


As YHWH reveals:

Jeremiah 1: Lexham English Bible (LEB)

4 And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you came out from the womb I consecrated you;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

As Hebrews perceived:

Psalm 139:13 Lexham English Bible (LEB)


13 Indeed you created my inward parts
you wove me in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you, because I am fearfully
and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works,
and my soul knows it well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was created secretly
and intricately woven
in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my embryo
and in your book they all were written—
days fashioned for me when there was not one of them.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why would you separate a soul from a life? SOME Jews believe what you posted above. The Hebrews of TaNaKh knew better from YHWH revealing his Mind on the matter:


As YHWH reveals:

Jeremiah 1: Lexham English Bible (LEB)

4 And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you came out from the womb I consecrated you;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

As Hebrews perceived:

Psalm 139:13 Lexham English Bible (LEB)


13 Indeed you created my inward parts
you wove me in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you, because I am fearfully
and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works,
and my soul knows it well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was created secretly
and intricately woven
in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my embryo
and in your book they all were written—
days fashioned for me when there was not one of them.

None of those verses are inconsistent with personhood coming along with adequate brain development.

I am puzzled by how those who think personhood begins at conception use the verse "Before you were formed in the womb I knew you" because clearly that refers to a time BEFORE conception, so how can it be used for that?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No not the same. Those organs are truly your own organs. They won't live on their own and they do not develop into a separate human being. A conceived life in the womb is a distinct human being and that is not opinion but scientific fact.

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head. Why is it immoral to sacrifice my one life for harvesting organs to save four other lives? Please answer that. Nobody is saying the organs would live on their own. But they could save lives.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's like you're not even reading what I write. Let me try and make it simpler for you...
. . . . ..

Some of these discussions are like trying to reason with a tape recorder.

 

[redleghunter]

None of those verses are inconsistent with personhood coming along with adequate brain development.

I am puzzled by how those who think personhood begins at conception use the verse "Before you were formed in the womb I knew you" because clearly that refers to a time BEFORE conception, so how can it be used for that?

Remember the OP is a non religious approach. Most of us kept to the OP with Christian sidebars now and then on Biblical matters. Now an atheist interjected wanting to know the Biblical reasoning.

He claimed Jews looked at ensoulment at birth. I pointed out that Hebrews in the OT did not have that view and provided Psalm 139.

I then provided Jeremiah 1:5 as YHWH revealing His Mind on knowing us. That's personal. You don't get to know tissue. So He knew Jeremiah before He formed him in his mother's womb.

Two points. One is God's sovereign design for us is even before He forms us. The other point is God is doing the forming.

So that's the Biblical revealed approach which is not what the OP is looking for. But since you asked.

 

[redleghunter]

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head. Why is it immoral to sacrifice my one life for harvesting organs to save four other lives? Please answer that. Nobody is saying the organs would live on their own. But they could save lives.

No Sir you missed the point. Those organs belong to you not some despot.

The embryo, fetus etc. is not an organ of the mother. It is a distinct human human being.

 

[VirOptimus]

It is exactly what embryologists state so please read the entire thread as I will not post the same links and quotes from scientists for a 21st time.

I have read your links, but they dont say what you want them to say. As several others have noted, your argument isnt scientific. You just start with a conclusion and twist science to fit that conclusion. Its not an honest tactic.

 

[redleghunter]

Some of these discussions are like trying to reason with a tape recorder.

Indeed. Some forgot to load the tape.

 

[redleghunter]

I have read your links, but they dont say what you want them to say. As several others have noted, your argument isnt scientific. You just start with a conclusion and twist science to fit that conclusion. Its not an honest tactic.

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists�not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some "scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the philosophical discussions on "personhood."

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

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which thespermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed withinfemale and malepronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

@Uncle Siggy how many times now?

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip a lot of links-

Exactly, you think that embryo and zygote equals a "human being" and therefore --> abortion is imoral. That is not what the links say. Your inability to understand the science and philosophy hinders your ability to debate honestly.

 

[redleghunter]

I have read your links, but they dont say what you want them to say. As several others have noted, your argument isnt scientific. You just start with a conclusion and twist science to fit that conclusion. Its not an honest tactic.

As I just posited in the previous post my argument is scientific and absolute.

You have it twisted. You and others are arguing from a subjective opinion of 'personhood.' That approach is nebulous and has thousands of opinions.

The science is settled. We have a new distinct human being at conception. Proving such human life of the human being is not a person is speculation. Take your pick of various philosophies. The burden of proof on the science deniers.

 

[redleghunter]

Exactly, you think that embryo and zygote equals a "human being" and therefore --> abortion is imoral. That is not what the links say. Your inability to understand the science and philosophy hinders your ability to debate honestly.

Yes abortion is immoral. That is a clear absolute. However those who say taking the life of another human being for purposes other than saving another life have to explain their morals.

Plus I thought atheists did not ascribe to morals but subjective situational ethics.

 

[VirOptimus]

As I just posited in the previous post my argument is scientific and absolute.

You have it twisted. You and others are arguing from a subjective opinion of 'personhood.' That approach is nebulous and has thousands of opinions.

The science is settled. We have a new distinct human being at conception. Proving such human life of the human being is not a person is speculation. Take your pick of various philosophies. The burden of proof on the science deniers.

No, your argument is in fact very weak, its neither scientific nor philosophical. As you can see from other posters in the thread noone is fooled. I will not debate this with you further as you cannot use honest tactics.

 

[redleghunter]

Exactly, you think that embryo and zygote equals a "human being" and therefore --> abortion is imoral. That is not what the links say. Your inability to understand the science and philosophy hinders your ability to debate honestly.

No I did not assert an embryo or zygote is a human being...embryologists have said so. Try reading what I posted and linked.