We have not determined why embryos are not persons. Even if we could never know certainly who is right, we must refrain from acting, as to act would be murder. You never answered my arguments above.

Second, a liver cell is not a person, nor is a skin cell, nor is a hair follicle. An egg cell that joins with a sperm is a person. From the moment of conception onward it carries all dignity and duties inherent.

Third, if your standard of personhood is being able to live without external aid, you have a poor standard. Are people living on iron lungs persons? They cannot breathe, eat, or live without aid of medical professionals. Are retarded men persons? They depend more than children on their parents for a great deal. Are children persons? They depend on their parents for life. Are older men and women persons? They cannot survive often without aid at a nursing home, ect. Are you a person? You depend on society for a great deal, such as clothing and shelter and food production and electricity and heat. 

It is wrong to do so, but it is not of the same genus of murder. You are shifting the topic. Further, even in this event such an action is unlawful in a greater sense because it violates what the law intends by allowing a trial. It is also an injustice in a greater sense. Even if it violates no human law directly, it violates the natural law.

Now we are shifting the topic again. Breaking the natural law remains a crime, which is how an action can be wrong in the first place. It would be false, of course, if we define "murder" as purely a breaking of the positive human law. But it is not defined that way, and to push that definition is just sophistry. The act remains a crime, but not a crime against the law of man, but against natural law and against God.

Further, then let's make up a term for "great crime that ought to be prevented." Say, X. This term now applies to all actions committed with break the human law law or don't break the human law which violate the natural law in terms of violating another person's right to life. X applies to abortion, regardless of your sophistry.

I challenged you to consider your arguments before you present something so clearly absurd. It has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. It has to do with critically examining statements. It was no personal attack.

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Abortion is murder because it breaks the natural law and the eternal law. Murder is murder whether it breaks human laws or not, because it breaks a higher law.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Use of force in that context is justified for different reasons; it is legitimate self-defense. The doctrine of double effect.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Yes, but self-defense does not break a higher law.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

First, I have no idea what you are referring to in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, where you reference this phrase: "And all things whatsoever you shall ask in prayer believing, you shall receive."

 Second, I would point out that the question is not whether the Scriptures explicitly prohibit abortion, but whether a person exists from the womb. This, the Scriptures clearly maintain in speaking, for example, of Saint John who leapt in the womb. Likewise, it speaks many times of unborn children as precisely children. 

Third, I quote a much more comprehensive treatment of this passage than I can give from the website of the Priests for Life:

"Exodus 21: 22-25. The passage as cited in the NIV reads: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the courts allow. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye…." [...]

First, assuming the pro-abortion interpretation of this passage is correct (i.e. that the unborn's death is treated differently than the mother's), it does not follow that the unborn are not fully human. The preceding passage presents a situation where a master unintentionally kills his slave and escapes with no penalty at all (the lack of intent being proven by the interval between the blow and the death.). Yet few liberals would argue that Scripture considers the slave to be less than human. Likewise, it does not follow that the unborn entity is non-human simply because the penalty for its death is less than that given were its mother to die. It might be argued that both the slave and the unborn child had a lesser social status in Hebrew society, but it cannot be demonstrated from this that a lesser social status meant that one was less than fully human.

Second, even if abortion advocates are correct about this passage, it cannot be used to support abortion on demand. Liberals argue that any woman should be able to kill any baby at any point in the pregnancy for any reason or no reason. This passage, however, does not even remotely suggest that a woman can willfully kill her unborn child without justification. At best, it only shows that there is a lesser penalty for accidentally killing her unborn offspring than there is for accidentally killing her. "To move from this truth to the conclusion that abortion-on-demand is justified is a non sequitur," writes Beckwith in Politically Correct Death. (p. 143)

Third, this single passage cannot be used to invalidate other Scriptures which confer full human status on the unborn. As mentioned earlier, passages such as Job 3:3,10-16, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Galatians 1:15, etc. all treat the unborn as persons. The abortion advocate must somehow reconcile his own interpretation of this passage with these other Scriptures which are clearly not supportive of his view.

Finally, the pro-abortion interpretation of this passage (that a person who kills an unborn child only incurs a fine) has come under heavy fire from many Biblical scholars. There is a great deal of discussion about the phrase, "no serious injury." "No serious injury to whom?" asks theologian R.C. Sproul. Liberals, of course, argue that the phrase only applies to the mother. But only a few translations, such as the Jerusalem Bible, actually interpret the verse in this way. When read in the original Hebrew, the passage seems to suggest that both the mother and the child are covered by the lex talionis -- the law of retribution. The Hebrew term ason (harm/injury) is clearly indefinite in its reference, and the expression lah (to her), which would restrict the word "injury" only to the mother, is missing. Hence, the phrase, "no serious injury" seems to apply equally to both mother and child and if either is harmed the penalty is "life for life, tooth for tooth, hand for hand," etc. According to Hebrew scholar Dr. Gleason Archer, "There is no second class status attached to the fetus under this rule. The fetus is just as valuable as the mother." (Cited in J. Ankerberg and J. Weldon, When Does Life Begin, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989 pp. 195-6. See also, Meredith Kline, "Lex Talionis & the Human Fetus," Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 [1985-1986] pp.73-89.)"

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

That leads you straight into the error pointed out earlier. You would then have to accept that all actions of every dictator, like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao are perfectly and completely morally justified and that I can make ice cream good for my teeth merely by passing a law.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Are you hard of reading? Because something is not illegal does not mean it is not morally wrong. Jeez H. Christ on a popscicle stick, you just keep saying that if killing as Hitler did wasn't illegal then it would be morally justified as if you hadn't been corrected repeatedly. It borders on insanity. Morality exists regardless of laws. Murder is the illegal taking of human life. But just because the taking of a life is not illegal, and therefor not murder, does not mean it is not immoral. Even if Hitler's actions broke no laws they would still be immoral, even though they would not be murder. They would not be morally justified. Immoral they would still be. There would be no moral justification. Moralo justificationo still no existo. Hitler - bad, Mao - bad, Stalin - bad; we don't need laws enacted that make the act of the taking of human life in such a manner and for such reasons illegal to consider it immoral. Enacting a law or not enacting a law does not change the designation of an act from moral to immoral, from right to wrong. If killing humans for enjoyment is made legal by a crazed world enacting a law to legalize it, it does not suddenly become moral, and if a society enacts a law forbidding donating blood, donating blood does not suddenly become immoral. Have I said it enough times in enough ways to keep you from making the same ridiculous unsupported comment or would you like me to repeat myself some more?

Uh, no.

Natural law is the one that most thinking people loathe - "might makes right" or "the law of the claw" or "an eye for an eye". It's the one that lower order animals operate under.

The rights you call natural law came later as humans began to form societies.

Agreed. In fact, this and many other issues could be settled in the US today with the enactment of one amendment to the Constitution that grants each individual domain over his/her own body. Basically, that any adult citizen of the US in good standing has the right to decide what is put into or taken out of his/her body. Hence, a woman can at any point insist that anything -- including a fetus -- be removed from her body posthaste. She cannot necessarily insist that it be killed upon removal, but she has the right to not have any more to do with it.

This amendment would also legalize all drugs, prescription and otherwise.

-- Kirbert

As natural law proceeds from humans by their nature (your own admission) it is a human law. Your "natural law is higher than human law" idea is dead by your own hand.

Do you not check your previous posts to see whether you contradict yourself? 

When did man stop being human? 

I would just like to say, I have not read a fucking page of this thread, nor do I intend too.

I'm sure all the lame, standard arguments have been hashed out. It's not like we haven't all discussed this before.

At any rate, I wanted to make a simple point. What we are debating here is when personhood begins, NOTHING else.

None of us, not even the people supporting pro-choice (and let's be honest, it isn't pro-choice, it's pro-abortion) would ever support killing a full fledge person who had rights and autonomy simply via the mother's choice (life-threatening pregnecy, maybe, but that's another matter).

And none of us, not even the pro-life people (and let's be honest, it isn't pro-life, it's anti-abortion) would tell a person she did not have authority over her own body unless they honestly thought the life of another actual person was at stake.

So in that regard, we ought to be on the same page and simply asking: what the hell constitutes a PERSON. NOT A HUMAN. A human and a person are different things. A human would be a body without a head, with no mind, or even a lump of skin. A person on the other hand has rights, has voilition, lots of stuff - it's more than a lump of human DNA. So when does a human become a person? Is it at conception? The first trimester? The third? At 18? That's the question, and the ONLY important question in this argument.

Below is a sum up of my thoughts on the subject. The only two cents I'll be contributing to this discussion, because I've had this discussion way too many times. Take it for what you will.

Personally, I'd probably call a human that possessed the above aspects of conciousness a person, not a person with rights such as you and I would have, but still a person. Rights, I think are requisite on the ability to reciprocate them, but this is beside the point of actual personhood, IMO. This would be a person that would require constant supervision by parents or asylum staff, and never be allowed to drive a car or handle sharp things, but still I think a person none the less.

Now the traits I've describe do not, in fact can not manifest until VERY late in gestation. Which is why I'm OK with unrestricted abortion up until the third trimester at a minimum. I'm OK with abortion to save the mother even after that - afterall, even if I considered the fetus a person at that point, the fetus's rights cannot usurp the mother's. Still, by the third trimester, you should have made a fucking decision already.

My two cents, well more like dollar twenty.

I repost my original argument why this is still wrong:

If we cannot agree that an embryo in a mother's womb is a person, we still have a clear moral obligation to reject abortion as murder. To propose an example, consider that we are driving a car. On the way, we hear a story on the radio that a crazed murder has placed boxes in the middle of the street, some filled with tied-up school children and some not. Inside the box, he may have hid a busload of school children, but we don't know. We look up and see a large cardboard box in the middle of the road. Do we swerve away? YES! To act in such a way as to possibly commit murder is as bad as to commit murder itself. If I decided that, because I don't know whether it's filled with people or not, I ram every cardboard box I see at 98 miles per hour, I would be guilty of murder.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

And why would that be? I see no reason it is irrational.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Actually, no, it's not. The issue you describe lies at the crux of the legal argument -- how and when to distinguish between a living entity that can be destroyed without legal consequences and one that is protected by law. A very important issue, to be sure, but actually not the main issue that needs to be resolved.

The real crux of the argument is: When is it beneficial to society to protect the life of an organism? There are, after all, costs and downsides to providing such protections, so society must have compelling reasons to do so.

In the case of adult human beings, the general case is fairly clear-cut. A considerable investment of time and resources has been expended in bringing that human being to the point of being a contributing member of society. Allowing him to be destroyed willy-nilly would not only be a waste of such time and resources, but it would also discourage similar expenditures on other individuals in the future. This can be observed in some third world societies where human life has become so cheap that families have many, many children in hopes that one or two will survive, and they put very little effort into raising any one of those children -- no proper schooling, not even sufficient food in many cases.

In the case of adult human beings who have already demonstrated that they are a scourge to society rather than a contributor, there becomes little or no reason for protection. The resources spent raising this person have already been wasted, there's little hope of recurring that expense now. Some argue that it's worth the effort to try and turn these people's lives around, but I'd argue that statistics indicate it is not. The effort would be better spent raising new specimens better.

In the case of an unborn fetus, society hasn't contributed any time or resources at all yet. The parents may have, but if they choose to discard the results of those efforts, they probably should be permitted to do so. If brought to term, they will be expected to contribute considerably more time and resources to raise this human being to the point of adulthood.

It's perhaps worthy of note that, when the Bible was written and when several others of our time-honored notions of murder and protection were established, every human being was potentially a valuable addition to society. Societies desperately needed every helping hand they could get. That is not the case today. Today every additional human being is actually a detriment to society; the world is overpopulated by a factor of at least 10 and possibly by a factor of 100 or more. From a benefit to society standpoint, we should be encouraging any policies that result in fewer human beings being born. And religions are doing mankind a grave disservice in failing to recognize this development.

-- Kirbert

Here's an opinion that's likely to cause consternation:

If I were the one establishing the policy, I would permit abortions on the mother's directions, without question or qualification, up until about three weeks after birth. That's right, I'd allow her to kill off her newborn baby if she sees fit.

This would allow such practical benefits as calling the whole thing off if the baby turns out to be massively deformed, or if its brains were seriously damaged during a difficult childbirth. Really, it would be better if such horrible developments were not a life sentence on the parents to care for a hopelessly debilitated child. Everyone involved would truly be better off if this child were euthanized immediately and the parents moved on to have another child.

And, up until this point, society as a whole has very little invested in this child. Society doesn't really need more children, and if the mother chooses to terminate this life now rather than subject herself and society to the costs of supporting it, I'm with her. Even if the child appears to be perfectly healthy.

And it's not as though this isn't consistent with "natural law". Many animals kill their newborn young, often for no better reason than they have more offspring than they can support.

-- Kirbert

I'd be happy to. Where will the cameras be set up?

Many a Christian has come to that same conclusion, and many millions of non-Christians have died at their sword as a result.

Well, here I must take a time out to discuss the meaning of the word "moral". My own personal definitions of "moral" and "ethical" differ in that morals are societal conventions and routinely vary from one society to the next. As an example, whether or not it is moral to take more than one wife. Morals are often established by the reigning dominant religion of the society.

Ethics, on the other hand, are universal, and can readily be appreciated by anyone of any religion. For example, it may be moral or immoral to take more than one wife, but it is clearly unethical to take a second wife without telling the first!

Now I readily admit that I may be the only one who recognizes such a distinction between ethics and morals. Theists often express the opinion that the two words are synonymous -- which makes sense, since to their minds anything that goes against the teachings of their church would be considered unethical. But to those of us that think rationally, there is a universal right vs. wrong that doesn't require Biblical teachings or the fear of eternal damnation.

Now back to your question, "do right and wrong answers exist to moral questions?" My answer would be that, yes, the right answers would be the ones that coincide with ethical responses, while wrong answers would include any that serve no purpose other than the personal gain of individuals at the expense of others -- and that includes those individuals passing around the silver plate on Sundays.

That's easy: You decide to do what is best for all involved, not just yourself.

I must confess I'm not sure I understand that statement. "Pleasure and pain" might relate to the question of what is best for all involved, I guess -- the most pleasure, the least pain might qualify as the definition of what's "best".

-- Kirbert

kirbert, why three weeks? why not 8 years, 15 years, etc.

it seems to be well thought out, but the implications for eugenics' arguments are worrisome.

The major precept is that intentional killing of innocent persons is always and everywhere wrong. From conception until natural death, innocent people ought not to be killed.

I support charity all the time. Don't assume the contrary. Christians have a great problem with lack of medical care, poverty, neglect, and the like. There is just a BIG problem with killing children, euthanizing retarded men and women, and killing people to "save" them. I am not denying that poverty is bad. I am not denying that many children are brought up in bad homes. But one can NEVER use an evil means to achieve a good end. You cannot use a greater evil to eliminate a lesser.

There's a reason that Catholic Charities, and other Catholic organizations, exist.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Tell that to all the Muslims killed in Iraq this week.

And therein lies one of the problems facing society today. People who are raised as atheists have perhaps the strongest code of ethics of any citizen. But those who are raised as theists often see no basis for ethics whatsoever other than their chosen religion. Once it occurs to them that their religion is a sham -- as it often does in this day of worldwide communication and free exchange of ideas -- these people end up floundering with no moral compass whatsoever. If they manage to muddle through for a while, they often develop a viable code of ethics on their own eventually, but a great deal of consternation can develop in the meantime.

In a sense, yes. It involves a sense of pride: "What kind of person do I choose to be?" I, personally, take great pride in being honest to a fault and taking responsibility for my own actions.

Of course, many religions do their level best to eliminate any semblance of pride or responsibility -- Christians, I believe, teach that pride is a sin -- which is another reason that theists who falter in their faith tend to flounder. Among other things, they are often ashamed that they ever believed any of that malarky, which just makes it all that much more difficult to develop a healthy case of pride.

First off, you might have me confused with someone else here. I'm not entirely sure that I disagree that personhood and murder are social constructs. Does a lion killing an antelope consider it murder? Does he consider that antelope a "person"? I guess I haven't thought it through, but offhand I think I'd agree that they are social constructs.

When it comes to legal issues, social constructs are, and should be, the basis for law. This is part of what constitutes a "civilization".

Of course, the question then becomes what social constructs are appropriate and what ones should be altered or abolished.

I think I'll stop there, see how that floats.

-- Kirbert

I think that a fetus is a person but I still think that women should be able to have abortions.

The right to life is not absolute. If the thing you need to live is something that you have no right to in the first place then you don't have a right to live. 

What if I was dying and the only thing that could save me was sex with my neighbor's wife? If my neighbor's wife wants to come over and let me throw a shot into her then that's great, that would be very generous of her. But I don't have a right to sleep with her just because that's what I need to live.

Her right to decide what goes in or comes out of her body would trump my right to live. And she wouldn't be doing me any injustice if she didn't give me what I needed.

If what you need to live is to parasitically grow in the body of another person then they can either allow you to do it or not but they are not morally obligated. 

Lastly, if murder and the like are all merely social constructs, I see no basis for any morality in your system whatsoever. You still have yet to give me a cogent foundation for your system.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Oh, so "Thou shalt not kill" has disclaimers and qualifications on it? Who gets to decide that enemy combatants are exempted while unborn fetuses are not?

Tell THAT to all the Iraqis killed this week!

True enough. It was justified by saying that they had weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Israel, right nearby, actually has weapons of mass destruction, and we didn't attack them. What's the difference?

Fair enough. Start with this: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. See how far you get. I'm not sure anything else is needed, might be able to derive everything needed for a complete code of ethics from that.

I guess I may be talking about two different things here: the basis for ethics, and the reasons an individual chooses to adopt them. I gave one good basis above. I contend that the pride that comes with choosing to be an ethical person is an excellent reason to choose to be ethical.

There is another reason that has been proven to work well in Japan: An individual will choose to be an ethical person because his actions reflect on his family. People who have no pride and couldn't care less what others think of them will nevertheless straighten up and fly right when convinced that their mother will be mortified by their misbehavior. IMHO, the US has completely missed the boat by insisting that families should not be ashamed of actions by their relatives.

Yet you feel no hesitation in attempting to force your beliefs on them?

Actually, no, it's not. I am only too familiar with the Catholic Church and their ways. While there are many truly selfless individuals involved, the church itself is always out to spread its influence. Always has been, always will be.

And the contention that the charities are a cost to the church is laughable. There hasn't been any money coming OUT of the Vatican in recorded history. The Catholic Church doesn't do anything productive, doesn't earn a living, it doesn't have any money of its own to be spending on these charities. They are ALL funded by the sheeple.

-- Kirbert

Does that mean they are persons? Persons that it's OK to kill?

I'm sure they feel better. No, wait, they're still dead!

I suppose you'd argue that Vietnam wasn't a religious war, either.

That might be grounds for starting a new forum topic. One way or another, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what makes a war just. I have some, too, but I have a feeling we might not agree.

How did you get that from "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"?

You don't see a justification for what? For being an ethical person? Or for having pride?

We are talking about civilization here. What constitutes a "right" answer is what is best for everyone concerned. And, sorry, it is reality, it's been the reality in Japan for generations, and they have the crime rate to show for it.

Civilizations evolve the same way organisms do. Eventually, civilizations with superior traits win out and civilizations with unworkable traits disappear. Unfortunately, the successful traits are not always those that we, as thinking, compassionate human beings, would necessarily prefer to succeed.

Well, first off, it's not truth, it's opinion. Nobody minds you having opinions. It's your inclination to force your opinions on others, at great detriment to them as well as to society as a whole, that is at issue.

Actually, I think you'll find that there are a great many atheists running hospitals and the like. They're just doing it for profit.

There is no question that theists are far more into charitable causes than atheists. That might be simply due to a lack of organization on the part of the atheists -- we don't see the need to get together once a week, so there aren't as many opportunities to say "Hey, why don't we all pitch in and help so-and-so?"

For my own part, though, I don't participate in charitable causes because nearly every one of them is gravely detrimental to society as well as to the individuals they purport to "help". One man's charity is another man's enabling, and whenever a charity is organized to the point of having any sort of established policy, it is always enabling.

-- Kirbert

St M wrote:

"Because there is no such incentive available to an atheist. You can't agree first on any moral premises. Then, you lack any good reason outside of vague self-interest to do any thing. Then, you also lack the incentive beyond that to care for those who offer no benefit to society or who cannot help society (read: poor and elderly, retarded, ect.). I'm not saying it to insult you. I just think there is no incentive (or, at least, a good one) in atheism for the vast charitable aid that Christianity is obligated by faith to give. Which is why atheists are not very often found in purely altruistic ventures."

Wow.

It's not like I've never heard the "You can't be be a good person and actually give a damn about the human condition without a belief in a Sky Daddy" before. Like the other times, you have no proof for this assertion.

Do theists get together and lay out their talking points ahead of time?