Catholic stance on abortion

MatthewVII

So, it was brought up in another thread and a moderator suggested its own thread

I think the catholic church's stance on abortion is a prime example of what i think a definite lack of compassion on their part. The hardline uniformity of their values means that they lose out on the view of the individual, fail to realise that different people have different reasons for doing things, some valid, some not as valid. Some might call it cold.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of good reasons for abortion. Medical (something like Eisenmenger's syndrome), social, criminal or a combination mean that every woman's pregnancy is a unique experience which cannot adhere to any hard and fast rules.

Bottom line, is that when a woman is presented with a situation which has potentially serious detrimental effects, she should be given the choice to continue or to not. If she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, that will count towards her own misdeeds when she's judged. The catholic church has no business condemning a woman to exposure to serious risk, incredible hardships and no right to enforce the bringing of a child into the world. This is also a problem considering the church opposes contraception, another protective factor for women who have a higher risk of dangerous pregnancy.

Abortion has been demonised to a disgusting extent in the public. Graphic pictures try to shock us into hating abortion without considering the very good reasons behind it. It's incredibly easy to think of abortion as murder, but much harder to see that it's often necessary as a way to give a woman another chance at life.

Besides, it's not as if god is entirely against slaughtering innocent children

So why is this still an issue in our country? Seems like the only reasonable solution to me

Splendour

MatthewVII wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of good reasons for abortion. Medical (something like Eisenmenger's syndrome), social, criminal or a combination mean that every woman's pregnancy is a unique experience which cannot adhere to any hard and fast rules.

Bottom line, is that when a woman is presented with a situation which has potentially serious detrimental effects, she should be given the choice to continue or to not. If she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, that will count towards her own misdeeds when she's judged. The catholic church has no business condemning a woman to exposure to serious risk, incredible hardships and no right to enforce the bringing of a child into the world. This is also a problem considering the church opposes contraception, another protective factor for women who have a higher risk of dangerous pregnancy.

Abortion has been demonised to a disgusting extent in the public. Graphic pictures try to shock us into hating abortion without considering the very good reasons behind it. It's incredibly easy to think of abortion as murder, but much harder to see that it's often necessary as a way to give a woman another chance at life.

Besides, it's not as if god is entirely against slaughtering innocent children

So why is this still an issue in our country? Seems like the only reasonable solution to me

I agree with you on the Catholic Church or anyone judging any woman on having an abortion. Yet, I don't agree on your logic as presented above.

You say murder it's incredibly easy to think of abortion as murder-well in my mind it is. I don't see the difference between allowing a woman to kill her severy handicapped baby in the womb or waiting until it's born to kill it. To me it is hyocritical for people to think one is ok but not the other.

Do you think we should show graphic pictures of children who have been and killed (by their parents) and then follow it up with reasons why this is acceptable ie. poverty/stress/drugs...

jhegarty

MatthewVII wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of good reasons for abortion. Medical (something like Eisenmenger's syndrome), social, criminal or a combination mean that every woman's pregnancy is a unique experience which cannot adhere to any hard and fast rules.

Are any those valid reason to kill a 1 hour old child ?

Fanny Cradock

MatthewVII wrote: »

I think the catholic church's stance on abortion is a prime example of what i think a definite lack of compassion on their part. The hardline uniformity of their values means that they lose out on the view of the individual, fail to realise that different people have different reasons for doing things, some valid, some not as valid. Some might call it cold.

So why is this still an issue in our country? Seems like the only reasonable solution to me

You logic is way off. To argue that the RCC stance on abortion is wrong on compassionate grounds can easily be countered by the notion that not allowing abortions is itself an act of compassion, but this time for the unborn child. So it's an unwise debating tactic, IMO. Similarly, the notion that the RCC is hard-line simply because it holds a view contrary to your own is laughable. That you consider their so called 'hard-line uniformity' unpalatable is entirely besides the point. From the RCC's perspective, or anyone who happens to disagree with abortion irrespective of faith, your view could equally be labelled that of a hard-liner.

MatthewVII wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of good reasons for abortion. Medical (something like Eisenmenger's syndrome), social, criminal or a combination mean that every woman's pregnancy is a unique experience which cannot adhere to any hard and fast rules.

As for allowing an abortion on social or criminal grounds, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But it sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me. Furthermore, your argument that birth is a 'unique experience' is a cop out, IMO, and has nothing to do with either allowing or preventing abortion. Besides, you are gunning for a hard and fast rule yourself: the legalisation of abortion.

Given that the pro and anti-abortion debate isn't strictly a religious/ secular divide (I know atheists who disagree with abortion), your mentioning of the plagues visited on Egypt by God (someone you don't believe in) is besides the point, I feel.

MatthewVII wrote: »

So why is this still an issue in our country? Seems like the only reasonable solution to me

The reason this is still an issue is because enough people don't see it as a reasonable solution. Thank God! I object to abortion with the qualifier that in extreme cases it may be permissible. For instance, where neither mother or child will live. And if I was to become an atheist tomorrow my stance would not change. That's because my position is part of my faith but also independent of it.

MrPudding

I think it boils down to the fact that, whether we agree with it or not, the RCC hold the belief that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is the killing of a child. This is why the old "...so would it be ok to kill a 1 hour old baby...?" chestnut has been rolled out. As long as a person believes life begins at conception, I doubt you will change there mind on abortion.

TBH, I love a good aul abortion debate, but no good will come of it.

As for my personal opinion. I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion or pro-baby murdering. I would be happier if abortions were not required but I strongly believe that the rights of the woman take precedence over the rights of the unborn. I object to late term abortions and my cut off time would be shortly before the foetus would be viable outside the womb.

I get round the whole "is it alive or not" arguement quite simply. I don't care. As far as I am concerned, whether it is life or not, no one, not your god, not the pope, no one, has the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a parasite for 9 months of her life. Yes, it makes me sad that a potential person id destroyed, and I really would prefer it did not happen, but I believe women should have the choice.

MrP

Biro

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You logic is way off. To argue that the RCC stance on abortion is wrong on compassionate grounds can easily be countered by the notion that not allowing abortions is itself an act of compassion, but this time for the unborn child. So it's an unwise debating tactic, IMO. Similarly, the notion that the RCC is hard-line simply because it holds a view contrary to your own is laughable. That you consider their so called 'hard-line uniformity' unpalatable is entirely besides the point. From the RCC's perspective, or anyone who happens to disagree with abortion irrespective of faith, your view could equally be labelled that of a hard-liner.



As for allowing an abortion on social or criminal grounds, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But it sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me. Furthermore, your argument that birth is a 'unique experience' is a cop out, IMO, and has nothing to do with either allowing or preventing abortion. Besides, you are gunning for a hard and fast rule yourself: the legalisation of abortion.

Given that the pro and anti-abortion debate isn't strictly a religious/ secular divide (I know atheists who disagree with abortion), your mentioning of the plagues visited on Egypt by God (someone you don't believe in) is besides the point, I feel.



The reason this is still an issue is because enough people don't see it as a reasonable solution. Thank God! I object to abortion with the qualifier that in extreme cases it may be permissible. For instance, where neither mother or child will live. And if I was to become an atheist tomorrow my stance would not change. That's because my position is part of my faith but also independent of it.

Completely agree with this, and I think most in this forum will.
On the last highlighted point I think that's the general concensus from the Catholic Church too, the mothers life comes first, but ethically there's a difference in simple abortion as we know and refer to the term and removing the baby from the womb to save the mothers life, while doing everything possible to try to save the baby's life even if your medical knowledge tells you that the possibility of survival of the baby is nil.

The Mad Hatter

MrPudding wrote: »

I get round the whole "is it alive or not" arguement quite simply. I don't care. As far as I am concerned, whether it is life or not, no one, not your god, not the pope, no one, has the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a parasite for 9 months of her life. Yes, it makes me sad that a potential person id destroyed, and I really would prefer it did not happen, but I believe women should have the choice.

MrP

The question is whether or not it is human, just because it's made by humans and looks like a human. I saw a rather disturbing blog post which showed an operation on a two-year-old who had begun in the womb as twins, but the second egg didn't develop, and the child wound up with parts of its twin in its brain. It had to be operated on, and one of the most disturbing images (which I strongly believe will be with me for years to come) was a half-developed foot flapping out from between the bloody hemispheres of this child's brain.

Interestingly, I also read an article a couple of years ago in the Irish Times. The author claimed - and had many sources to support his claim - that the Catholic church's hard-line (and by hard-line I mean opposition even in cases where the mother's life is at risk - this may not be the general stance of the church but I know there are some members who support it) stance on abortion is a relatively new one, and prior to about the middle of the nineteenth century (IIRC) they accepted the need for abortions in some cases - particularly when the mother's life was in danger. They colourfully referred to the soul of a foetus as having first the value of a plant, then later an animal, but not that of a human until birth.

*I'm not sure whether this is the official RCC position - in fact I don't think it is - but there are certainly some Catholics who think this way.

Biro

MrPudding wrote: »

I think it boils down to the fact that, whether we agree with it or not, the RCC hold the belief that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is the killing of a child. This is why the old "...so would it be ok to kill a 1 hour old baby...?" chestnut has been rolled out. As long as a person believes life begins at conception, I doubt you will change there mind on abortion.

TBH, I love a good aul abortion debate, but no good will come of it.

As for my personal opinion. I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion or pro-baby murdering. I would be happier if abortions were not required but I strongly believe that the rights of the woman take precedence over the rights of the unborn. I object to late term abortions and my cut off time would be shortly before the foetus would be viable outside the womb.

I get round the whole "is it alive or not" arguement quite simply. I don't care. As far as I am concerned, whether it is life or not, no one, not your god, not the pope, no one, has the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a parasite for 9 months of her life. Yes, it makes me sad that a potential person id destroyed, and I really would prefer it did not happen, but I believe women should have the choice.

MrP

In a way that's the problem. She had the choice when she hopped in the sack.

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The question is whether or not it is human, just because it's made by humans and looks like a human.

And now we get into the territory of viewing certain people as sub-human and therefore not entitled to the protection and respect accorded to 'real' people.

Godwined so early in a thread!

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I think the other churches should acknowledge that the abortion issue is one area where Catholicism has set an example for all Christians.

MrPudding

Biro wrote: »

In a way that's the problem. She had the choice when she hopped in the sack.

I don't care. Quite simple. Besides, I think that is a pretty poor reason to force a woman to carry a parasite for 9 months.

PDN wrote: »

And now we get into the territory of viewing certain people as sub-human and therefore not entitled to the protection and respect accorded to 'real' people.

Some people would not consider it to be human until it is born, I think that is where the main contention comes from.

MrP

Boston

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't care. Quite simple. Besides, I think that is a pretty poor reason to force a woman to carry a parasite for 9 months.

Emotive. Every mistake has its price.

Some people would not consider it to be human until it is born, I think that is where the main contention comes from.

MrP

Well done.

kelly1

MrPudding wrote: »

As for my personal opinion. I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion or pro-baby murdering. I would be happier if abortions were not required but I strongly believe that the rights of the woman take precedence over the rights of the unborn.

Why do you think a mother should have the right to kill her unborn child? Do you think the mother "owns" the child?

MrPudding wrote: »

I object to late term abortions and my cut off time would be shortly before the foetus would be viable outside the womb.

I really don't see how the age of the baby is relevant. Whether it's a zygote, foetus or full term, the baby is still human. Does the extent of physical development determine the child's personhood or humanness?

MrPudding wrote: »

I get round the whole "is it alive or not" arguement quite simply. I don't care. As far as I am concerned, whether it is life or not, no one, not your god, not the pope, no one, has the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a parasite for 9 months of her life. Yes, it makes me sad that a potential person id destroyed, and I really would prefer it did not happen, but I believe women should have the choice.

Parasite??? Were you a parasite in your mother's womb?

Dades

Oh no... not another abortion thread, please.

It never ends, because the issue is greyer than RGB #888888.

MrPudding

Boston wrote: »

Emotive. Every mistake has its price.

Agreed. Some prices are too great.

Boston wrote: »

Well done.

Why thank you.:D

kelly1 wrote: »

Why do you think a mother should have the right to kill her unborn child? Do you think the mother "owns" the child?

It is her body and she has sovereignty over it.

kelly1 wrote: »

I really don't see how the age of the baby is relevant. Whether it's a zygote, foetus or full term, the baby is still human. Does the extent of physical development determine the child's personhood or humanness?

No, well, not for me. I would hope that by the time the foetus was at the stage where it would be viable outside the womb the woman would have had enough time to decide what to do. There has to be a cut off point, at the moment it seems fairly arbitrary, I happen to think that external viability outside the womb is a good cut off point. As medical technology advances this cut off point will move earlier and earlier. I would be hopeful that at some point we might have the technology to remove the foetus and allow it to continue to develop by other means, rather than aborting it.

kelly1 wrote: »

Parasite??? :(Were you a parasite in your mother's womb?

Well, yes. Of course I was. I was actually very lucky. My mother was young and unmarried, a prime candidate for getting an abortion. Looking at things objectively, her pregnancy ruined her life. She was a straight A student at grammar school, was going to be the first in the family to go to uni and had a great life ahead of her. The pregnancy ruined that.

MrP

kelly1

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, yes. Of course I was. I was actually very lucky. My mother was young and unmarried, a prime candidate for getting an abortion. Looking at things objectively, her pregnancy ruined her life. She was a straight A student at grammar school, was going to be the first in the family to go to uni and had a great life ahead of her. The pregnancy ruined that.

MrP

No, you were a beautiful innocent child, not a parasite. I can see how the unexpected pregnancy could possibly cause resentment on her part or feelings of guilt on your part over "ruining" her life. I hope that's not the case.

There are more important things in life than going to university and getting good grades. The measure of success in life is not based on a good job, nice house and car, good education etc. It's based on how much we love.

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

No, you were a beautiful innocent child, not a parasite.

No Noel, I was a parasite, and even if I was not, I could not have been described as a beautiful child.:D

kelly1 wrote: »

I can see how the unexpected pregnancy could possibly cause resentment on her part or feelings of guilt on your part over "ruining" her life. I hope that's not the case.

I don’t think there has ever been any resentment on her part, she is not that kind of person. I don’t feel guilty. I had no choice over being born. I did not make a conscious decision to come into the world thereby destroying her life, or at least the path which was before her. Why would I feel guilt? I am capable to looking at the situation objectively and realising what the consequences of the pregnancy were. But I feel no guilt.

kelly1 wrote: »

There are more important things in life than going to university and getting good grades.

The measure of success in life is not based on a good job, nice house and car, good education etc. It's based on how much we love.[/quote]I agree. And my mother would argue that she is happy that I was born, but, if I was never born who is to say she would not have found the same happiness down another path?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Oh no... not another abortion thread, please.

It never ends, because the issue is greyer than RGB #888888.

There hasn't been an outright debate on abortion in a while. However, there has been enough skirting around the issue over the last few weeks to suggest that some are chomping at the bit for an auld chat on the matter.

Still, I can see it now - 1000's of words later and no one will have shifted from their position!

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

No Noel, I was a parasite, and even if I was not, I could not have been described as a beautiful child.:D

I would think that the relationship was symbiotic rather than parasitic.

PDN

If I had a choice between the following two options:
a) Kill another human being and then you can go to College.
b) Refuse to kill another human being and then you can never go to College.

I hope, simply as a humanist, that I would always choose option (b).

However, I have never had to make that choice, and I don't think anyone else should be confronted with that choice, which means I'm not pro-choice!

philologos

Actually, I think the pro-choice stance reflects a lack of compassion. No matter what terms may be used to delegitimise a foetus as a human lifeform it's quite evident that it is. Growth cannot be attributed to anything but a human lifeform, and if it comprised of the human biological material which is necessary to form a zygote. It's clear that if this is a human lifeform, or a human being, the rights of the UN Declaration of Human Rights article 8 ought to be attributed to it. It's a lack of compassion to take someones life that is not your own surely?

I guess if infanticide abortion is the only reasonable thing to do we should allow it even if it is morally questionable.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess if infanticide abortion is the only reasonable thing to do we should allow it even if it is morally questionable.

Chambers wrote:

infanticide noun 1 the murder of a young child or infant. 2 someone who murders a young child or infant. 3 the practice of killing newborn children. infanticidal adj.

Chambers wrote:

child noun (children) 1 a boy or girl between birth and physical maturity.

MrP

studiorat

Some structure to the debate might be in order...
Since it's already going down the road of child murdering and killing babies to go to college.

1. Maybe people should state at what stage does a blastocyst (cluster of cells) become a life, or an opinion at least.

2. Is for example taking "morning after pill" an Abortion? Certain ECPs used can be post implantation
(Mifepristone (one type of ECP) can be used in the UK up to the Ninth Week...)

3. If there is an issue like PND had brought up, is a it "sub human"? Well, does it have a soul? Is any living thing sub-human for that matter?

In the UK a pregnancy may be terminated under the following conditions...

-To save the woman's life

-To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health

-To avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman or existing child(ren)

- If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped

The Mad Hatter

Boston wrote: »

Emotive. Every mistake has its price.

See, this kind of thing really annoys me. Surely viewing the child (or whatever) as a foetus isn't as bad as viewing it as a deserved punishment.

philologos

MrP you claim that the infanticide is the killing of a young child.

Look to the definition of foetus:
A fetus (or foetus or fœtus) is a developing human, after the embryonic stage and before childbirth.

Irrespective a foetus is a developing human right?

And denying a human being the right to life is a denial of human rights? Right?

The development is pretty much the same from a child to an adolescent, or an adolescent to an adult. Yet we still define children and teenagers as human. What's the difference in this case?

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

MrP you claim that the infanticide is the killing of a young child.

I don’t claim that, that is what the dictionary says. I am pretty sure you know abortion is not infanticide, you simply used the term in case anyone was not clear on how much you disapprove. Point taken, you are trying to be emotive.

Jakkass wrote: »

Look to the definition of foetus:
A fetus (or foetus or fœtus) is a developing human, after the embryonic stage and before childbirth.I prefer Chambers myself:

Chambers wrote:

fetus or (non-technical) foetus noun (fetuses or foetuses) 1 the embryo of a viviparous mammal during the later stages of development in the uterus, when it has started to resemble the fully-formed animal. 2 the human embryo from the end of the eighth week after conception until birth.

I read this as the embryo of humans. I don’t think it necessarily means it is to be considered human. I think there is more to being human that conception/

Jakkass wrote: »

Irrespective a foetus is a developing human right?

I think a foetus have the potential to develop into a human.

Jakkass wrote: »

And denying a human being the right to life is a denial of human rights? Right?

Oh, is that why abortion is outlawed under human rights laws?

MrP

philologos

They must be developing if we can attribute growth to the foetus. It's developing no more than any other human lifeform is developing in other stages of life, which would lead me to discern that this being must be given the right to life like all other human lifeforms. Infact what else could that Article in the UN Declaration of Human Rights mean anyway, apart from maybe discussing war situations? Mind you in that case it could be argued that their right to life was afforded, just it wasn't ensured to be terribly long. So it would seem that it would be more applicable to abortions than to war situations. I guess we could just strike it out from the Declaration of Human Rights, or deem most of the Western world to be engaging in a barbaric practice which deprives the most basic of human rights?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

1000's of words later and no one will have shifted from their position!

In other words, just like any other debate here!

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

In other words, just like any other debate here!

Yep!

getz

PDN wrote: »

And now we get into the territory of viewing certain people as sub-human and therefore not entitled to the protection and respect accorded to 'real' people.

Godwined so early in a thread!

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I think the other churches should acknowledge that the abortion issue is one area where Catholicism has set an example for all Christians.

the catholic church needs to get its act together dose not want contraception in turn helps the spread of aids in catholic countrys and when thing go wrong dosent except abortion -in ireland only 5 cases out of 50,000 preg get aborted [abortion allowed only in cases that the mother may be in danger] yet it is estimated that over 1500,000 irish femails have travelled to the uk to get a abortion

MrPudding

If they are getting the abortions in another country then that is not an irish problem, they can wash their hands of it.

MrP

drunk_monk

Biro wrote: »

In a way that's the problem. She had the choice when she hopped in the sack.

Maybe she was raped, had you thought of that?

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

If they are getting the abortions in another country then that is not an irish problem, they can wash their hands of it.

MrP

No, I don't think they can. Whether or not the Government directly or indirectly encourage abortions it's just as morally reprehensible surely if it is deemed immoral?

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I don't think they can. Whether or not the Government directly or indirectly encourage abortions it's just as morally reprehensible surely if it is deemed immoral?

what is deemed immoral -what was deemed immoral 50 years ago is not immoral now ,and i am sure in the future people will be shaking there heads at our way of thinking

philologos

That only works if you buy into a relative morality system. However, there are issues to that. You cannot deem things absolutely wrong if you end up with a "whatever is right for you, mightn't be right for me" type category.

Fanny Cradock

drunk_monk wrote: »

Maybe she was raped, had you thought of that?

I know a girl who was raped, fell pregnant because of this and later gave birth to a beautiful baby boy. I don't think that a nations decision about abortion should be determined on the sins of a few sick individuals.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

That only works if you buy into a relative morality system.

Christianity implements a "relative morality system". With the christian idea of the primacy of one's conscience, you're allowed (morally) to do whatever you think is in line with your own personal interpretation of the bible (or church, or preacher or whatever else is your morality-source).

Under non-religious systems such as humanism, you are allowed morally to do what you agree with others is ok to do. As such, it's far less likely that anti-social behavior will arise under humanism -- which is why we see the sociological studies consistently showing that societies based upon humanist-type principles are far more peaceful places than those based upon self-approving religious morality.

Biro

drunk_monk wrote: »

Maybe she was raped, had you thought of that?

Oh... I forgot... there's 150,000 rape cases in Ireland every year that result in pregnancies!

CathyMoran

Maybe I am speaking with my hormones here but I find it very hard to imagine how anyone could get rid of a baby unless their own health was at serious risk. I used to be pro choice but since becoming pregnant I have felt nothing but love for my baby even though it is currently making me feel sick, making me have mood swings, food cravings, gain weight to mention just a few things. I do have sympathy with those who have abortions, they must be in a very dark place but I can only personally justify it now in extreme medical circumstances (obviously including if the child would die/be in severe pain all its life).

Fanny Cradock

Congrats and all that!

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, I think the pro-choice stance reflects a lack of compassion. No matter what terms may be used to delegitimise a foetus as a human lifeform it's quite evident that it is.

That is some what of a straw man argument Jakkass as you would have to go far and wide to find a pro-choice supporter dumb enough to not know that a foetus (or the sperm, or the egg) is biologically human (homo sapien DNA)

But that of course (as I think you should be aware of by now) has never been what the pro-choice argument is about.

There are two main pro-choice arguments

a) the foetus is not a human being (ie a human with rights), because it lacks, at that moment, the fundamental valuable quality of human existence, in the same way a brain dead patient does. The difficulty with debating this argument is that often people haven't considered what is actually the reason we hold human life to be valuable in the first place. While I think the idea of a soul is nonsense, I do at least have a grudging respect for those who hold to the position that the spirit is what is valuable in human existence and it enters at the point of conception because at least that is an attempt to nail down why exactly we recognise humans with a whole set of rights in the first place.

b) Some what independently of (a), a person has the right to perform, or have performed, any medical operation on their own body, irrespective of if that medical operation results in harm or death of another life form (human being or not). That is the foundation of the legalisation of abortion currently in America. Fundamentally it has little directly to do with abortion or the foetus, it is basically the idea that your body is your own and you can do what ever the heck you like to it without legal punishment.

Jakkass wrote: »

Growth cannot be attributed to anything but a human lifeform, and if it comprised of the human biological material which is necessary to form a zygote.

As has been mentioned many times, so does a sperm/egg pairing. So again it comes down to identifying what exactly the zygote has that the sperm/egg pair don't have and why this is the valuable and important quality of human life.

philologos

But Wicknight if we have established that the foetus is indeed a human, surely the human rights laws should be upholded and the right to life afforded to it?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

But Wicknight if we have established that the foetus is indeed a human, surely the human rights laws should be upholded and the right to life afforded to it?

Well not really, because the sperm is also human (under the biological definition), so is the egg, so is a brain dead person, so is a hair cell.

I appreciate that many people argue that the sperm/egg pair* is fundamentally different to the zygote, but they are both biologically human.

So the question then moves on to why are the sperm/egg pair fundamentally different to the zygote and what characteristics does the zygote have that makes it valuable that the sperm/egg pair (or a hair cell) don't have.

So I think both sides move very quickly one from simply saying it is human therefore it has rights. I certainly don't think I have rights simply because I have human DNA in me. I don't think human DNA is any more valuable than any other DNA on Earth. DNA is simply a chain of biological molecules.

In fact without doing this we can't actually identify why humans deserve to have these rights in the first place. Never mind what is different between the sperm/egg pair and the zygote, what is different between a human zygote and a dog zygote that we recognise a whole set of rights for one and not for the other?


*if anyone is wondering what I mean by the sperm/egg pair imagine the sperm and egg half a second before conception

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Well not really, because the sperm is also human (under the biological definition), so is the egg, so is a brain dead person, so is a hair cell.

No the sperm is not a human, it may be an essential human biological material which is a prerequisite for the formation of life, as is the ova. However once this is formed into a zygote, this is a human. And as such it should be afforded the right to life.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

No the sperm is not a human

Care to say what species the sperm cell is if it isn't homo sapien?

Architeuthis japonica perhaps? :P

Jakkass wrote: »

it may be an essential human biological material which is a prerequisite for the formation of life, as is the ova.

It is all "essential human biological material" Jakkass. That is what "life" is, a self sustaining chemical reaction.

Jakkass wrote: »

However once this is formed into a zygote, this is a human. And as such it should be afforded the right to life.

Well you are going to have to explain all that in greater detail. You can start by defining "human" given that you apparently are not using the species.

So what is it that makes something (a ball of carbon oxygen and hydrogen molecules) a "human". And why is that valuable?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Care to say what species the sperm cell is if it isn't homo sapien?

Architeuthis japonica perhaps? :P

You're evidently twisting what I wrote now.

I said that it was not a human. (i.e a human being)

I said it was human biological material that was a prerequisite to forming a human being as is the ova.

Theres a clear difference.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

No the sperm is not a human, it may be an essential human biological material which is a prerequisite for the formation of life, as is the ova. However once this is formed into a zygote, this is a human. And as such it should be afforded the right to life.

Have you read The selfish gene? It has some interesting to say with regards eggs and sperm.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what of a straw man argument Jakkass as you would have to go far and wide to find a pro-choice supporter dumb enough to not know that a foetus (or the sperm, or the egg) is biologically human (homo sapien DNA)

Not that far and wide apparently.

The Mad Hatter wrote:

The question is whether or not it is human, just because it's made by humans and looks like a human. (post #7)

studiorat

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The question is whether or not it is human, just because it's made by humans and looks like a human. I saw a rather disturbing blog post which showed an operation on a two-year-old who had begun in the womb as twins, but the second egg didn't develop, and the child wound up with parts of its twin in its brain. It had to be operated on, and one of the most disturbing images (which I strongly believe will be with me for years to come) was a half-developed foot flapping out from between the bloody hemispheres of this child's brain.

[

I think Hatter really means person.

I think the question is not whether we are talking about a human or but rather whether we are discussing a person or not. I believe what hatter means is "is the undeveloped twin a person"?

seanybiker

Any woman who murders her child should be forced to have a hysterectomy. Selfish feckers.Im not catholic but I do know that killing a child, born or unborn is murder.

studiorat

seanybiker wrote: »

Any woman who murders her child should be forced to have a hysterectomy. Selfish feckers.Im not catholic but I do know that killing a child, born or unborn is murder.

Have a read of this sean and tell me what you think...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

PDN

And, seanybiker, while you're reading that it might be a good idea to read the Charter as well.