Saturday, January 22, 2011
Mike
...but I won't support killing a unique human being. So if you can prove to me that what is inside you is not a unique human life I'd be happy to pay for the abortion. You must prove that it is:
- Not alive. That is, it doesn't require nourishment, grow (perform cellular reproduction) or exhibit other behavior of a living organism.
- Not human. That is, it belongs to another species.
- Not unique. That is, it is merely another part of your body. Its organs work for you. In other words, its heart is pumping your blood through your body, its brain is controlling your voluntary actions, its stomach is digesting your food.
Posts
9 comments:
Excellent. I would also add that its DNA must 100% match yours, or at least as close to 100% as is scientifically possible. Not the 50% or so that DNA tests can use to determine parentage.
Wonderful thoughts
Freaking perfect!
Interestingly thought the argument is changing from not human to not a person - JPII was way ahead of that game though and is one of the reasons he wrote so much about person-hood. To the sane it is absurd to try to separate being human and being a true person but pro-aborts have largely lost the battle on 'it' not being human so, admit defeat? No. Say, yes, it is human, of this species but not a person.
Is an acorn an oak tree? Yes, it has complete potentiality according to its nature.
Thank you all for some wonderful comments. I would like to "rebut" some of them.
Fr. Cory Sticha we are close to technology that would enable reproductive human cloning, in which case the fetus *would* be genetically identical to the mother, so while genetic difference is sufficient to prove uniqueness, it isn't necessary.
Owen, you need to be careful of the acorn analogy, since one of the pro-abortion arguments is that the fetus is a "potential" human rather than a human.
That said, amen, brothers!
Also I'd like to thank Christie for her kind reference to this post in her blog post at Garden of Holiness.
and just so she doesn't escape my rebuttals I'd like to note that as a man I don't find abortion liberating for men. To think that I could have lost one of my precious children to abortion is a nightmare of mine.
That said, amen sister!
Yep, I hear you there, Mike. Sometimes those nightmares take awhile to catch up to people though. Meanwhile, they have the illusion of being liberated from the consequences of such a devastating decision.
Depends how the acorn argument is used. The potentiality means that all things that make up the oak tree are, according to its nature, its form (philosophically speaking) are fully present in the acorn, no part of it missing. It is, as an acorn, an oak tree in its essence, which is to say, yes, it is an oak tree now. If it were not, then by its nature, it would not ever be an oak tree but something else.
A zygote is fully a person, fully human, it has full person-hood now according to its nature.
Owen. I didn't mean to imply that you were incorrect. Just that most people don't have the background in philosophy to understand the point the way it is intended.
When someone says "and acorn is not an oak tree" I respond "yes, and a fetus is not an adult."
Mike, I didn't mean to imply that you were implying anything just had to flesh it out more since 'cause it's my nature ;-)
I just don't understand how anyone can argue against the personhood of a fetus. Obviously a woman has an abortion because a little hungry naked human will otherwise result.
But yes, you make excellent points!
Post a Comment