In the “Legislative Alert” thread (found here), Louis and I engage in a discussion about assigning different moral values to human life along the life spectrum. Louis asserts that, once born, a human being becomes a person and not before and therefore, at birth, that person deserves the protections and rights that we all enjoy. In Louis’ words: “Until the life is not part of another’s life it must not be treated as having distinct rights.That is justice.” I countered that because he and others are willing to diminish the moral value of “embryos, zygotes, blastulas and morulas” (words Louis used constantly to refer to life in the womb – and I actually know what they mean, Louis, thanks to several biology and A&P courses), society already does, or will use a similar argument against those living outside of the womb (e.g. in euthanasia, assisted suicide, sanctioned infanticide). He disagreed noting again that, “I believe that the problem comes precisely from pretending being born does not raise you far far above the level of an embryo.I do not accept any alternative before natural death at the end of life.Physical attachment is of the HIGHEST importance even if you think it doesn’t matter.What makes this person different?,,,HAVING BEEN BORN!”
In our discussion, Louis hit on all the common pro-choice talking points. First he attempts to dehumanize the preborn child by referring to the various stages of development with their scientific labels. Then he asserts that the preborn child is nothing but a parasite since it is completely dependent on the mother for it’s life (he wouldn’t address the impact of having children born prematurely at 21 or 22 weeks on his argument or comment on abortion restrictions based on gestational age). Next he says the embryo has the potential, but is not fully human! Finally he says that preborn human life is of lesser value. Which brings me to this post found on the First Things blog, “Secondhand Smoke.” This post describes exactly my concern about Louis’ take on the situation. We are living in a crazy world.
6/25 at 7:17PM:
I received an e-mail from a concerned reader over what he called “an unnecessary pot shot” regarding my post’s closing sentence. This reader felt I was insulting Louis by calling him crazy. I was not. I don’t know Louis at all so I can’t possibly make that claim. What I can call crazy is the theme of the blog post I linked to which, in essence (for those who did not read it) discussed how some are trying to justify suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia by arguing that human life is not inherently valuable. I stand by my statement – we ARE living in a crazy world. And unfortunately, it’s getting worse.
Tags: Culture of Death, Pro-life
|
“Until the life is not part of another’s life it must not be treated as having distinct rights.”
Really? Most children are dependent on their parents for food, water, clothing, shelter and education. (This also assumes emotional and spiritual needs as well.)
I don’t know of any newborn child or any child from 1 to 2 years old that can take care of themselves. It is unusual for 2-4 year olds to prepare food (of any kind) for themselves and some still need diapers changed. Most children, 1-7 years olds, do not prepare meals. I remember my son being proud of being able to “make” toast when he was in kindergarten. None of them actually make food (such as bread) or grow food (crops such as wheat, chickens, etc.).
Most adults do not do grow or make their own food, they must work and earn money to buy these items or raw materials to make food. Are these people, who are not self sufficient, who survive by the work of others, any less people? Are these children, blind people, handicapped people, the elderly, prisoners, and those who are sick, all who are completely dependent on others all lesser people or not “really” people? At what point do old healthy people who slowly become sick, suddenly not people with rights? Who decides? The Government?
The cluster of cells inside the womb can only become a human form. They are human cells, not broccoli or zebra cells. To insist on the notion that these cells are not, in fact, a human being, is rather naive. The day a woman gives birth to a stalk of cauliflower is the day I’ll be pro-choice.
John,
I believe Louis would say that even though babies and young children and the handicapped are dependent on *someone* they are not specifically dependent on the mother who doesn’t want it. He actually said if the State forces women to bear children they don’t want, then it is the same as being a conscripted rapist!
Gen,
As someone who has given birth five times, I’m trying to imagine the scene you describe…”Mrs. Bellinger I hope you’ll enjoy your cauliflower with cheese sauce.”
I am totally against “right to die”,a wish to die is insane and those with them need to be protected from themselves.
Gen,what is in the process of becoming a human being,hasn’t become one already.
John,the line into being a human being with rights is crossed once,AT BIRTH,and only in the positive direction.
Nerina,
Maybe that would make giving birth easier…? That’s still a really weird scene. Definitely something an improv troupe would invent during a game of Non Sequitur.
Louis;
Are you Christian? Catholic? Do you understand the Bible? When Mary visited her kinswomen Elizabeth, what did she carry in her womb? Nothing? Cells?
Luke 1, 35 & 36
“And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived.”
Notice it says ALSO CONCEIVED, not born.
Luke 1, 41 – 44
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”
If you say there was no child / infant in Mary’s womb, then you are denying several things.
You deny that God was present. Since Jesus is fully Man and fully God, God wasn’t there.
You deny there there was an “infant” in Elizabeth’s womb.
You deny the reactions of the “infant” in Elizabeth’s womb who would later be named John.
You deny the expression of faith and joy by Elizabeth. She couldn’t have had the expressions.
You deny the work of the Holy Spirit.
You deny the words of the angel Gabriel.
You deny the accuracy of the Gospel of Luke.
You deny basic biology.
You deny the ability of the Church to define this Mystery.
That’s an awful lot to deny.
The real injustice is when a woman makes a decision on a pregnancy of more than 10 weeks old, after listening to Planned Parenthood telling her, “It’s only a blob of cells”. When she has another pregnancy, she will invariably have an ultrasound and to her horror, will discover that what was portrayed as a blob of cells is really a developing, human appearing baby that may even move during the examination. This will trigger all sorts of terrible thoughts of guilt and remorse for her abortion that can lead to serious emotional, drug and alcohol problems
Richard,
A woman, and the man, makes a decision about pregnancy every time they have sex.
Brilliant rebuttal, John.
A woman, and the man, makes a decision about pregnancy every time they have sex.
Aye, and this is why the life-of-the-mother self-defense argument doesn’t work. It isn’t self-defense when the parent’s actions are the genesis of the conflict.
With its stance on contraception and permitted kinds of sex act,the Church hardly allows the faithful to make decisions on pregnancy in regard to when they have sex.
JFK…
As I stated in the other thread,I am not religious,though not atheist…and the Church reads its preconceptions into biology rather than admitting that the hypothesis that there is a psrticular moment at which an individual human life begins full-blown has been clearly falsified.I regard the Luke story as a legend of no consequence to the wisdom of the words attributed to Jesus.