Having no luck finding the difference between "evil" and "intrinsic evil" other than a confused definition by Aquinas which really says nothing---'we seek what is good.' Oh?
In the abortion argument we have two unreasonable extremes. One extreme says a women can do anything she wants with her body, including killing a fetus seconds before it is born. Reasonable people, I believe, regard this as nonsense. The other extreme is saying that one cell caused by sexual intercourse is a "person," "child," "infant," "human being," etc. That some religious people would argue the latter, is not convincing for most. Both sides like to fudge a bit. The totally pro-abortion person , to start with, needs to contend that a fetus my be killed at any time. The total anti=abortion defender needs to argue that the one cell is just as fully a person as a 5 year old. Both are equally absurd positions and are rejected by all common sense. A fetus is not just "my body." One cell is not a person etc.
Now, some religious bodies state that one cell is a person. The catholic church so teaches, but its members like members of other religions do not accept this extreme. Our vocabulary which is descriptive not proscriptive never refers to a cell as a person. As I will post later the church is forced to this position because of its belief in the demeaning nature of sex as such, which it clearly teaches, but tries to cover with 'sugary' words.
I accept neither of the extremes written about above. I have no personal stake in this argument. No relative of mine, no family member I know of has ever evn thought of abortion as a way to prevent the birth of a child. My saying this, of course, carries no probitive weight. I say it totry and draw the discussion back to what I wrote above---both sides must defend their position starting with the extremes above.
Both sides play the "slippery slope" game. If I admit anything except the argument in it's purest form it will become a slippery slope to conceeding my point. Logical nonsense, but used by both groups.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jack
ReplyDeleteIt has been decades since I took Biology so I have a a question.
A sperm cell and an ovum unite and create a new living one-cell organism that has human DNA.
As time goes on it develops 2 4 6 8 and so on cells which become differentiated in to organs and many years later the functioning of this organism breaks down and it dies.
The whole time it’s cells respond to the programming of Human DNA.
At what point is there a break in continuity large enough that we can say nonperson -> person.? Especially one that that is not manipulateable some one with ulterior motives.
It would seem to me that from a practicable point of view without a clear physical marker the organism must always be a person with rights to be honored and protected or always a non-person with no right beyond the whim of the powers that be.
Grace
Hank
Hank, I'm not sure I follow you. Cells of course have dna but that does not make them a person. My hair has DNA but we don't call it a person. Are you contending that because something has DNA it must be a person? I can find no example where a single cell is called a person accept in Catholic teaching which is based on the "POTENTIAL" to be a person. But something cannot be potential and actual at the same time if the words are to have any meaning. Good luck. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteRead St. Paul, I know it may have been a while. But he underlines a few problems with your argument.
c.s Like what? Be more direct if you can. Jack
ReplyDeleteOne cell is a human!
ReplyDeleteNow ... it's time to wax my Lexus.
- Parishioner, St. Satisfied Church