“ The point is that until a fetus is born, it does not have the breath (or spirit) of life. This appears to be a law of God, and scripture is uniform on this point. (At least, I haven’t found any contrary examples yet.) If a fetus doesn’t have the breath (or spirit) of life, it can’t be a human being. And if a fetus isn’t a human being, then abortion can’t be the murder of a human being. Res ipsa loquitor.”
So, a 9 month fetus that has been successfully delivered, but is not yet breathing air, isn’t a human being? Is this guy serious?
The guy seems woefully ignorant of what both Jews and Christians historically thought of abortion as well as the philosophical basis for biology. Can't tell the difference between reproductive cells and the new unique organism they combine to produce and then tells us that it is lifeless.
Likewise he argues that all children who die below the age of reason (not just the unborn) will go to hell along with all unrepentant sinners.
Finally why call yourself pro-life if you don't even believe the definition?
I didn't see where he said the new organism is lifeless. He said it was a new variation of life and he spent a lot of time complaining about the phrase "life begins at conception".
"Conception merely creates a new combination of DNA which never existed before. A new variation of life, if you will. But not actually a creation of life from non-life. So the statement that life begins at conception is misleading, at best."
Suppose that the pro-life people changed it to "A new variation of life begins at conception". That awkward and clunky phrase gets the same point across because everyone knows what that new life is - a new human being, aka a child. He wasted a lot of ink on a complaint that goes nowhere.
My comment disappeared. I will try to recreate it.
"Another thing I never hear from the pro-life community is a call to simply use the laws of murder already on the books to prosecute people who they say are murderers. All of which lead me to believe that if abortion truly is murder, then it would be handled in a completely different way than it actually is in the legal system. Therefore, it is more likely that abortion is not murder, than the likelihood it is. And this reinforces my prior conclusions."
Ironically, this push to rely on laws already on the books undermines his case that the unborn are not human beings but rather are "a new variation of life". Homicide and manslaughter don't apply to non-human beings that don't have the breath of life such as sperm cells, eggs or other clumps of living human cells.
It was in your first quote: “ The point is that until a fetus is born, it does not have the breath (or spirit) of life....
If something doesn't have the breath of life, then how is it alive? What state is it actually supposed to be in? Yes, that statement is inconsistent with him then saying that the new organism is already alive but that's part of the incoherency.
If a fetus doesn’t have the breath (or spirit) of life, it can’t be a human being.
If a human fetus is not a human being, then what is it? And why shouldn't the mother be allowed to get rid of some tissue in her body that isn't a human being if she wants to? Why call yourself "pro-life"?
I suppose Victor chose to post this because he saw it on some pro-abortion site that wants to "stick-it" to pro-lifers. Point out really bad, nutty or subversive authors that claim they are pro-life while arguing the pro-abortion talking points.
Since this is a philosophy blog, let's talk about why he's wrong to say the human fetus is human life but not a human being.
The philosophy as I understand it is that living human cells like sperm, eggs, tissue, etc have "human-ness" insofar as they belong to the living human being (the whole). They aren't human beings themselves. They don't have any other form of existence apart from the human being and could not naturally survive or come to naturally exist apart from the human being that they belong to. Their human-ness coincides with the human being. For this reason, a new human life (a new variation of life as he calls it) entails a new human being. It makes no logical sense to say a fetus is a human life but not a human being.
Is that generally correct, bmiller?
Victor likely disagrees so I'd like to have him explain the philosophy. Make it make sense Victor.
I think I see the point you are making that he is missing. The egg is a living human cell of the mother and the sperm is a living human cell of the father. We can tell by the DNA content of the cells which human being they are part of. The cells of the fetus contain no DNA of either the mother or the father. Since they are human cells of some human being the fetus must be that living human being. But he doesn't conclude that because ...it's science? And science has nothing to do with individual legal rights? Don't we first have to establish what it is that we are discussing before we can start to examine the ethical manner to proceed regarding its treatment?
His argument is so confused on so many levels I can only guess that he made up his mind somehow and is trying to force his conclusion into his reading of scripture and US law. Poorly.
The scriptures indicate quite unambiguously that human life requires the breath of God. In other words, the literal breathing of the air by a person.
I think this interpretation of his is the basis for all the other contortions he performs. God breathes life into us, so our "breathing of the air"="living".
That is simply a non-sequitor. 1) God breathing life into us is in no way the same as us "breathing of the air". 2) Animals also breath the air while alive and stop breathing when they die just like humans. So if "breathing the air" makes something a human being, then all animals are human beings. 3) What if I hold my breath? Am I not a human being at that time? I am the type of thing that can breath air potentially, but I'm not actually breathing just like the unborn. When I sleep, I don't demonstrate " rationality, language, creativity, personality, moral awareness" and so I am not a human being at this time either? Nonsense.
Historically both Jewish and Christians have held that all living things have souls, but humans have a different sort of soul being the image and likeness of God. Once the act of human conception was completed, a living human being was present in the womb. This is not controversial to people who are well versed in scripture and history.
It’s because there simply is no historical precedent for prosecuting abortion as murder. Historically, such laws punished procuring a miscarriage by the woman, as a felony, or manslaughter if the woman died.
He's also wrong about abortion laws in the US. https://firstthings.com/abortion-is-unconstitutional/ By the end of 1868, twenty-seven of the thirty states with antiabortion statutes criminalized attempts to terminate pregnancy before (as well as after) quickening. In most statutes, quickening had no bearing at all on penalties, and where quickening remained relevant at all the point was—not unlike at common law—to help establish that the abortion had caused a death. In a majority of statutes, proof that the abortion had caused the death of the unborn—something irrelevant to the health of the mother—increased the penalty.
Various other features of these statutes against voluntary abortion underline the concern of legislatures with the life and security of the unborn. Most of them, unlike Massachusetts, provided the same range of punishments for killing the unborn child as for causing the mother’s death. Most of them designated the killing of the unborn child as “manslaughter.”
What is also interesting is that it discusses the 14th Amendment and how the SC used Blackwell's unqualified definition of "person" to include both "natural" persons and "artificial" persons to conclude that corporations were "persons" under that Amendment. Since Blackwell also held that the unborn were "persons" the Roe judges should have likewise ruled that the 14th Amendment protected the unborn.
Maybe now that we are returning to common sense, the current SC will rule justly.
"A mountain in New Zealand considered an ancestor by Indigenous people was recognized as a legal person on Thursday after a new law granted it all the rights and responsibilities of a human being."
I. The right of personal security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.
1. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.14 But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.15
From the First Things article.
But an English statute of 1803, only a generation after Blackstone, made it a felony to attempt abortion even before the child was provably “quick.” Thus, by the dawn of the nineteenth century, English criminal law “established” the “great fundamental right” uniquely important for an unborn child, beginning when the child did: at conception.
Joseph Dellapenna wrote the most comprehensive volume on the legal history of abortion in Europe, England and the US: https://www.amazon.com/Dispelling-Abortion-History-Joseph-Dellapenna/dp/0890895090
Here is the amicus brief he submitted for the Dobbs case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185316/20210806173754092_19-1392%20Amicus%20Br%20Joseph%20Dellapenna.pdf
Here's an interesting footnote: That there was some confusion over this term historically is not surprising. The standard phrase down through the centuries was “quick with child,” which refers not to quickening as felt in the womb but to alive as opposed to dead, as in the phrase “the quick and the dead,” a phrase that has nothing to do with a stage of gestation and applies to adults as well as children, as recognized Wycherley. Mr. Philip Rafferty’s research persuaded the Oxford English Dictionary to change its definition of “quick with child” to conform to the Wycherley definition. See 23 Nov. 1990 ltr. from J.A. Simpson, coeditor of OED, to Rafferty (copy in Dellapenna’s possession). The phrase apparently became confused with the phrase “with quick child.” But see State v. Cooper, 22 N.J.L. 53, 57 (1849)
So, once we came to know that there is a new unique living human being present at conception immediately, the laws in place didn't actually change, just our better understanding of when that occurred.
Compare the harshness of Pope Francis comments regarding Biden (a Catholic) and abortion vs. Trump (not a Catholic) and illegal immigrants. Deported people continue living, but aborted people do not.
As for the defense of abortion by the U.S. president, Pope Francis stated that he leaves it to Biden’s "conscience.”
"Let (Biden) talk to his pastor about that incoherence," the pope said.
vs.
In the letter, the pope said the criminalization of migrants and the mass deportations planned by the U.S. government are dangerous and called the country's current immigration policies a “major crisis.”
I suppose he's heard more than one person discuss some of his incoherent ideas. For instance, I doubt he is unaware of Tom Homan pointing out that the Vatican law prohibits illegal immigration. I'm not sure he considers incoherency a fault.
If you mean who does he talk to regarding his own sinful behavior, I believe that would be Fr Berislav Ostojic.
To be fair though, Francis was asked about Biden's personal situation as a Catholic and not particularly about the morality of Biden's abortion policy. He has claimed both abortion and "mistreating" "migrants" are sinful. In that respect, he considers both Biden's (and Harris's) position on abortion and Trump's on immigration as evils. Before the election he only said that people must choose between the lesser of the 2 evils:
I asked Chatgpt this: Did pope Francis criticize Obama for deportations?
Yes, Pope Francis did criticize U.S. President Barack Obama’s deportation policies, particularly regarding the treatment of undocumented immigrants. In 2015, during a visit to the United States, Pope Francis made several remarks that indirectly criticized Obama’s approach to immigration, especially the mass deportations. He emphasized the importance of compassion, mercy, and protecting the dignity of all individuals, including migrants.
While he did not directly call out Obama by name, his words were seen as a clear critique of the Obama administration's policies, which had been deporting large numbers of undocumented immigrants, especially those with no criminal records. The Pope advocated for a more humane approach to immigration and emphasized the need for reform, including better pathways to citizenship and protections for vulnerable people.
Pope Francis's stance was in alignment with his broader emphasis on social justice and human rights, and it resonated with his call for more empathy and kindness towards migrants worldwide.
So, it seems it wasn't only Trump's deportations he disagreed with.
Never thought of it that way. He's essentially saying their home country can't help them achieve the same goals. Only countries with a systemic racism problem can do that. lol
He's also a socialist. So it seems he favors a nationalist, socialist country with systemic racism. There's another name for that. I can't seem to think of that name at the moment.
The kind of healthcare that results in human death 100% of the time is a failure and should not be allowed to continue. Imagine if every mammogram resulted in breast cancer 100% of the time.
30 comments:
“ The point is that until a fetus is born, it does not have the breath (or spirit) of life. This appears to be a law of God, and scripture is uniform on this point. (At least, I haven’t found any contrary examples yet.) If a fetus doesn’t have the breath (or spirit) of life, it can’t be a human being. And if a fetus isn’t a human being, then abortion can’t be the murder of a human being. Res ipsa loquitor.”
So, a 9 month fetus that has been successfully delivered, but is not yet breathing air, isn’t a human being? Is this guy serious?
Or still in the womb and 10 seconds from being delivered?
The guy seems woefully ignorant of what both Jews and Christians historically thought of abortion as well as the philosophical basis for biology. Can't tell the difference between reproductive cells and the new unique organism they combine to produce and then tells us that it is lifeless.
Likewise he argues that all children who die below the age of reason (not just the unborn) will go to hell along with all unrepentant sinners.
Finally why call yourself pro-life if you don't even believe the definition?
What a crackpot!
I didn't see where he said the new organism is lifeless. He said it was a new variation of life and he spent a lot of time complaining about the phrase "life begins at conception".
"Conception merely creates a new combination of DNA which never existed before. A new variation of life, if you will. But not actually a creation of life from non-life. So the statement that life begins at conception is misleading, at best."
Suppose that the pro-life people changed it to "A new variation of life begins at conception". That awkward and clunky phrase gets the same point across because everyone knows what that new life is - a new human being, aka a child. He wasted a lot of ink on a complaint that goes nowhere.
My comment disappeared. I will try to recreate it.
"Another thing I never hear from the pro-life community is a call to simply use the laws of murder already on the books to prosecute people who they say are murderers. All of which lead me to believe that if abortion truly is murder, then it would be handled in a completely different way than it actually is in the legal system. Therefore, it is more likely that abortion is not murder, than the likelihood it is. And this reinforces my prior conclusions."
Ironically, this push to rely on laws already on the books undermines his case that the unborn are not human beings but rather are "a new variation of life". Homicide and manslaughter don't apply to non-human beings that don't have the breath of life such as sperm cells, eggs or other clumps of living human cells.
https://nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/statehomicidelaws092302/
SteveK,
It was in your first quote:
“ The point is that until a fetus is born, it does not have the breath (or spirit) of life....
If something doesn't have the breath of life, then how is it alive? What state is it actually supposed to be in? Yes, that statement is inconsistent with him then saying that the new organism is already alive but that's part of the incoherency.
If a fetus doesn’t have the breath (or spirit) of life, it can’t be a human being.
If a human fetus is not a human being, then what is it? And why shouldn't the mother be allowed to get rid of some tissue in her body that isn't a human being if she wants to? Why call yourself "pro-life"?
And BTW, he's a horrible theologian.
Agreed.
I suppose Victor chose to post this because he saw it on some pro-abortion site that wants to "stick-it" to pro-lifers. Point out really bad, nutty or subversive authors that claim they are pro-life while arguing the pro-abortion talking points.
Since this is a philosophy blog, let's talk about why he's wrong to say the human fetus is human life but not a human being.
The philosophy as I understand it is that living human cells like sperm, eggs, tissue, etc have "human-ness" insofar as they belong to the living human being (the whole). They aren't human beings themselves. They don't have any other form of existence apart from the human being and could not naturally survive or come to naturally exist apart from the human being that they belong to. Their human-ness coincides with the human being. For this reason, a new human life (a new variation of life as he calls it) entails a new human being. It makes no logical sense to say a fetus is a human life but not a human being.
Is that generally correct, bmiller?
Victor likely disagrees so I'd like to have him explain the philosophy. Make it make sense Victor.
Is that generally correct, bmiller?
I think I see the point you are making that he is missing. The egg is a living human cell of the mother and the sperm is a living human cell of the father. We can tell by the DNA content of the cells which human being they are part of. The cells of the fetus contain no DNA of either the mother or the father. Since they are human cells of some human being the fetus must be that living human being. But he doesn't conclude that because ...it's science? And science has nothing to do with individual legal rights? Don't we first have to establish what it is that we are discussing before we can start to examine the ethical manner to proceed regarding its treatment?
His argument is so confused on so many levels I can only guess that he made up his mind somehow and is trying to force his conclusion into his reading of scripture and US law. Poorly.
The scriptures indicate quite unambiguously that human life requires the breath of God. In other words, the literal breathing of the air by a person.
I think this interpretation of his is the basis for all the other contortions he performs. God breathes life into us, so our "breathing of the air"="living".
That is simply a non-sequitor.
1) God breathing life into us is in no way the same as us "breathing of the air".
2) Animals also breath the air while alive and stop breathing when they die just like humans. So if "breathing the air" makes something a human being, then all animals are human beings.
3) What if I hold my breath? Am I not a human being at that time? I am the type of thing that can breath air potentially, but I'm not actually breathing just like the unborn. When I sleep, I don't demonstrate " rationality, language, creativity, personality, moral awareness" and so I am not a human being at this time either? Nonsense.
Historically both Jewish and Christians have held that all living things have souls, but humans have a different sort of soul being the image and likeness of God. Once the act of human conception was completed, a living human being was present in the womb. This is not controversial to people who are well versed in scripture and history.
It’s because there simply is no historical precedent for prosecuting abortion as murder. Historically, such laws punished procuring a miscarriage by the woman, as a felony, or manslaughter if the woman died.
He's also wrong about abortion laws in the US.
https://firstthings.com/abortion-is-unconstitutional/
By the end of 1868, twenty-seven of the thirty states with antiabortion statutes criminalized attempts to terminate pregnancy before (as well as after) quickening. In most statutes, quickening had no bearing at all on penalties, and where quickening remained relevant at all the point was—not unlike at common law—to help establish that the abortion had caused a death. In a majority of statutes, proof that the abortion had caused the death of the unborn—something irrelevant to the health of the mother—increased the penalty.
Various other features of these statutes against voluntary abortion underline the concern of legislatures with the life and security of the unborn. Most of them, unlike Massachusetts, provided the same range of punishments for killing the unborn child as for causing the mother’s death. Most of them designated the killing of the unborn child as “manslaughter.”
What is also interesting is that it discusses the 14th Amendment and how the SC used Blackwell's unqualified definition of "person" to include both "natural" persons and "artificial" persons to conclude that corporations were "persons" under that Amendment. Since Blackwell also held that the unborn were "persons" the Roe judges should have likewise ruled that the 14th Amendment protected the unborn.
Maybe now that we are returning to common sense, the current SC will rule justly.
"A mountain in New Zealand considered an ancestor by Indigenous people was recognized as a legal person on Thursday after a new law granted it all the rights and responsibilities of a human being."
https://apnews.com/article/mountain-zealand-personhood-maori-taranak-590fca0f3d648cc0bf86d970782e954c
Well if it has the responsibilities of a human being, it better pay it's taxes or it will be evicted :-)
Thompson even has Blackstone's Commentaries posted on his website. Why post it if he is going to ignore it?
https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-101/
I. The right of personal security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.
1. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.14 But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.15
From the First Things article.
But an English statute of 1803, only a generation after Blackstone, made it a felony to attempt abortion even before the child was provably “quick.” Thus, by the dawn of the nineteenth century, English criminal law “established” the “great fundamental right” uniquely important for an unborn child, beginning when the child did: at conception.
Thompson isn't very smart
Joseph Dellapenna wrote the most comprehensive volume on the legal history of abortion in Europe, England and the US:
https://www.amazon.com/Dispelling-Abortion-History-Joseph-Dellapenna/dp/0890895090
Here is the amicus brief he submitted for the Dobbs case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185316/20210806173754092_19-1392%20Amicus%20Br%20Joseph%20Dellapenna.pdf
Here's an interesting footnote:
That there was some confusion over this term historically is not surprising. The standard phrase down through the centuries was “quick with child,” which refers not to quickening as felt in the womb but to alive as opposed to dead, as in the phrase “the quick and the dead,” a phrase that has nothing to do with
a stage of gestation and applies to adults as well as children, as recognized Wycherley. Mr. Philip Rafferty’s research persuaded the Oxford English Dictionary to change its definition of “quick with child” to conform to
the Wycherley definition. See 23 Nov. 1990 ltr. from J.A. Simpson, coeditor of OED, to Rafferty (copy in Dellapenna’s possession). The phrase apparently became confused with the phrase “with quick child.” But see State v. Cooper, 22 N.J.L. 53, 57 (1849)
So, once we came to know that there is a new unique living human being present at conception immediately, the laws in place didn't actually change, just our better understanding of when that occurred.
Compare the harshness of Pope Francis comments regarding Biden (a Catholic) and abortion vs. Trump (not a Catholic) and illegal immigrants. Deported people continue living, but aborted people do not.
As for the defense of abortion by the U.S. president, Pope Francis stated that he leaves it to Biden’s "conscience.”
"Let (Biden) talk to his pastor about that incoherence," the pope said.
vs.
In the letter, the pope said the criminalization of migrants and the mass deportations planned by the U.S. government are dangerous and called the country's current immigration policies a “major crisis.”
Sources:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251772/pope-francis-incoherence-biden-supports-abortion-rights
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pope-francis-again-criticizes-president-donald-trumps-immigration-policies-in-open-letter/ar-AA1yQoyI
True. The pope seems incoherent at times. Good thing the country he runs is so small.
Who does the Pope talk to about his incoherence - another pastor?
I suppose he's heard more than one person discuss some of his incoherent ideas. For instance, I doubt he is unaware of Tom Homan pointing out that the Vatican law prohibits illegal immigration. I'm not sure he considers incoherency a fault.
If you mean who does he talk to regarding his own sinful behavior, I believe that would be Fr Berislav Ostojic.
To be fair though, Francis was asked about Biden's personal situation as a Catholic and not particularly about the morality of Biden's abortion policy. He has claimed both abortion and "mistreating" "migrants" are sinful. In that respect, he considers both Biden's (and Harris's) position on abortion and Trump's on immigration as evils. Before the election he only said that people must choose between the lesser of the 2 evils:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/13/pope-trump-kamala-harris-immigration-abortion
I asked Chatgpt this:
Did pope Francis criticize Obama for deportations?
Yes, Pope Francis did criticize U.S. President Barack Obama’s deportation policies, particularly regarding the treatment of undocumented immigrants. In 2015, during a visit to the United States, Pope Francis made several remarks that indirectly criticized Obama’s approach to immigration, especially the mass deportations. He emphasized the importance of compassion, mercy, and protecting the dignity of all individuals, including migrants.
While he did not directly call out Obama by name, his words were seen as a clear critique of the Obama administration's policies, which had been deporting large numbers of undocumented immigrants, especially those with no criminal records. The Pope advocated for a more humane approach to immigration and emphasized the need for reform, including better pathways to citizenship and protections for vulnerable people.
Pope Francis's stance was in alignment with his broader emphasis on social justice and human rights, and it resonated with his call for more empathy and kindness towards migrants worldwide.
So, it seems it wasn't only Trump's deportations he disagreed with.
Human garbage:
https://www.lifenews.com/2025/02/18/ohio-judge-blocks-law-stopping-planned-parenthood-from-dumping-aborted-babies-in-landfills/
“If S.B. 27 were allowed to go into effect, it would severely impede access to abortion resulting in delayed or denied health care,” Hatheway wrote.
Garbage logic
Some potential lives are more valuable than others.
https://x.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1895162118540079579
Yes, it's more certain dead people won't cure cancer than people living in other countries. But that raises another issue.
Moore sounds like some sort of Nationalist, as if people in other countries cannot accomplish anything. Only people living the US can help mankind.
But the left wear the label of Hypocrisy with great pride, so don't expect pointing out their practice of it to change their behavior.
Never thought of it that way. He's essentially saying their home country can't help them achieve the same goals. Only countries with a systemic racism problem can do that. lol
He's also a socialist. So it seems he favors a nationalist, socialist country with systemic racism. There's another name for that. I can't seem to think of that name at the moment.
https://www.lifenews.com/2025/03/11/pope-francis-condemns-abortion-the-unborn-child-represents-everyone-who-has-no-voice/
“Abortion is healthcare”
The kind of healthcare that results in human death 100% of the time is a failure and should not be allowed to continue. Imagine if every mammogram resulted in breast cancer 100% of the time.
Post a Comment