Is A Fertilized Human Egg A Person?

Br. John wrote: I only asked the first part of the question I had in mind. Here's the rest.

At what point (or under what conditions), if any, should a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will?

Forced by whom?

@tzb

you're right, that was juvenile of me to mention the force shield. I apologize for that.

but it is a huge difference to me between soldier and someone that takes innocent life.

based on our Doctrine i don't know how a jedi can justify it whether we feel it is the humane thing or not.

if anyone else wants to discuss with me, feel free to PM me. I've said my piece.

Good points all, on a very challenging subject.

I did fail to attempt to understand in my hurry to be understood, and I apologize for mode of response, it was not as it might have been.

TZB, you are absolutely correct about the knock-on, that I don't at all deny.

I acknowledge that this is a matter fraught with pain on all sides, and all points of view expressed are valid and held without malice nor ill intent...

There is so much to be said on this, but I don't seek to change anyone's point of view, nor do I have the eloquence to do so.

Along the lines of what Elizabeth and Proteus are saying: What is this obsession with life for life's sake? Does Living one's life not also matter? If you were given the choice right now between dying or spending the rest of your life in torturous and horrendous pain which would you choose? I would choose to die, because life for life's sake has no value in my mind.

So what does that mean for Jedi recognising the "inherent value of all life"? Well it does not contradict this statement, because in my mind the inherent value of all life requires that one care for that life in the form of trying to provide the best and most meaningful experience one can to that being.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the most influential Catholic thinkers in the entire Church's history, he was given the title posthumously of Doctor of the Church a title in which only 35 people in history have ever been given (despite the almost 2000 years of its history and many hundreds of millions/billion of members). So please take that into consideration when I say that Thomas Aquinas would probably be pro-abortion. That is why my Anglican Priest lecturer always thought it was strange that many Catholics opposed abortion.

Why?

Well for the same reason Alex gave really, because sticking to a rule is of the utmost silliness. The reason for that, as Alex said, was because there are always exceptions to the rule.

Aquinas was a strong believer in using reason and rationality to inform moral decisions, and strict rules as he observed sometimes force one to make an immoral choice - please see my metaphysical explanation of "mental boxes" and their inability to correctly "fit" to the universe, a general rule is another mental box,

Let us use a modern example of one Aquinas used (he used a sword in his version). Thou shalt not steal. If one were to borrow a gun from a friend (for whatever reason) but during the time in which you were borrowing it you discovered your friend became incredibly mentally disturbed and you knew that upon giving the gun back he would use to t murder many people. What should you do? If you don't give the gun back you're a sinner for breaking one of the 10 commandments, if you do give the gun back then you are knowingly precipitating the deaths of many other people - not least knowingly allowing your friend to sin (which would not be caring at all - especially given his mental state).

Aquinas reasoned that general principles (Thou shalt not steal, kill, commit adultery) etc many of which God broke anyway in the Old Testament, can be overridden in some circumstances by the idea of "proportionalism". That is to say that moral rules are absolute unless there is a convincing and over-ridding reason for taking an alternative course of action.

Now Aquinas would say, if he was a pro-lifer, that the abortion was inherently/intrinsically wrong, but would most likely argue that in this action despite the fact that the abortion was wrong in itself the abortion was in fact the morally right decision to make. In catholic doctrine this is called "double effect".

This thinking also puts much of the moral decision making on the intention of the person rather than the consequences i.e tying into the beginning with whether a life is worth living, does the intention in preventing awful and terribly suffering over-ride the consequence of killing? That woman in Br. John's article thought so and in that circumstance I would agree with her.

Br. John wrote: You actually read the Mother Jones article http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/late-term-abortion-29-weeks-dana-weinstein and would have forced Dana to carry to term?

Forced? NO Her choice, a very tough choice but still her choice. I don't think she made a quick thoughtless decision, it appears she anguished over making it for some time. I feel sorry for her being in this decision.

She needs our compassion not our criticism.

I find some of the opinions here a bit extreme. There comes a point where things are no longer "an unwanted pregnancy". Funny thing is last night we had that "family guy" episode where peter advises quagmire to abort his already-born daughter.

I read:

At what point (or under what conditions), if any, should a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will?

Just like "At what point (or under what conditions), if any, should a woman be forced to continue caring about her children against her will?"


There is a point where you can officially stop caring about your children because there are means for other people to do that instead. That moment is right at birth.

People nowadays have all the means necessary to:
-prevent pregnancy through contraceptive methods that constantly get advertised
-prevent pregnancy through knowledge (don't cum in it dude)
-put an end to pregnancy the next day if previous two methods failed
-detect pregnancy in the event previous methods do not work
-put an end to pregnancy through induced abortion once all of the above methods have failed.

I find it quite ridiculous that someone 6 or 7 months pregnant can claim to require an abortion. If you were happy to live with it for 6 months, you certainly can be "forced" to live with it for another 3 months. Men do not have this luxury and usually have to [strike]live with[/strike] pay for it another 20 years.

Having read everything I think my opinion has shifted too

...I just don't know.

Every single circumstance is different, substantially effects multiple lives, and potentially ends one(or more)

Who are we to decide?

Br. John wrote: Is a fertilized human egg a person?

I'd have to answer that question with another question: When does a fertilized human egg become a person? If not at conception, then when? A week? A month? 6 months?

The only answer I can come up with is that a fertilized egg IS a person, because otherwise, when are they?

I'd have to answer that question with another question: When does a fertilized human egg become a person? If not at conception, then when? A week? A month? 6 months?

The only answer I can come up with is that a fertilized egg IS a person, because otherwise, when are they?

That's actually the next question (in this series) for it's own topic. At what stage of development does a ....

The only answer I can come up with is that a fertilized egg IS a person, because otherwise, when are they?

At least one other answer is, "A fertilized human egg."

Many people believe (for many years I did) that the egg being fertilized is the beginning of pregnancy. It's not. Not by it's medical definition or according to doctors. Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus.

The majority of fertilized eggs don't accomplish this and they're expelled.

Since a non-attached egg cannot become a baby why consider it a person?