Comment: 1. Logic is the philosophy of

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: 1. I can agree with (see in situ)

1. Logic is the philosophy of

1. Logic is the philosophy of the analysis of the structure of argument, one cannot "derive from logic" anything. Regardless, the existence of the immortal element of the human person, commonly called the soul, is evident from the ability of the human person to comprehend concepts that transcend the material world, such as mathematics. You cannot weigh the number three. The ability of the human person to participate in activity that transcends space, time, and matter, such as mathematics, shows that the human person must contain a factor that is itself transcendent and not bound by space, time, and matter. Action follows being, therefore, the human must have a transcendent quality. The existence of the soul matters because if there is no distinction between the brute animal and the rational animal, there is no basis for morality and therefore all things are permissible. The soul is not one with the body, the soul is the factor that makes the human body a human body. The presence of amino acids, bones, muscles, and organs do not make the human body a human body. All animals have these. You go on to equate to life with brain function, yet the brain is not necessary to sustain life under all circumstances. There exist animals that can live without a brain, such as the chicken. In the case of human brain death, there exist multiple cases documented in medical literature wherein a patient has entered into a state of brain death and later recovered. Therefore, we cannot define human life as the presence of brain function, or any life, due to the possibility of survival without a brain, as can be observed in multiple non-human animals. This argument relies on a materialistic world view. You go on to make a red herring argument about the contingency of the future, which conveniently brings the debate back to its centerpiece: How can we know the future is contingent of we do not have a quality that transcends time?

2. The argument of fetal pain is another red herring. The popular obsession with pain distracts from the main point of the argument; it implies that if one does not feel pain, it is morally acceptable to kill them. One would not claim that it is morally acceptable to inject morphine directly into a person's heart because it would kill them painlessly; yet we can still show that the killing of the human person is murder. The argument from pain is a distraction.

3. No, none of the DNA comes from the mother. Half of the fetus's chromosomes come from the mother. You again are showing an ignorance of basic biology. You continue to deny the evidence for neonatal perception, but it is irrelevant to the argument because it hinges on a utilitarian world view where avoidance of pain is the highest good.

4. That is interesting, because the non-specialized Concise Columbia Encylcopedia defines parasite as "organism that obtains nourishment from another living organism (the host). The hose, which may or may not be harmed, never benefits from the parasite. Many parasites have more than one host and most cannot survive apart from their host. Parasites include bacteria (e.g., those causing tuberculosis), invertebrates such as worms (e.g., tapeworm), and vertebrates (e.g., the cuckoo, which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds.)" A parasitic symbiotic relationship requires the parasite to depend on the host, a fetus can survive outside of the mother after a certain span of time. The key point is that a parasitic symbiotic relationship is between two radically different species. If I eat uncooked ham and get a tapeworm, the tapeworm is a parasite, because I am not a tapeworm.

5. You are falsely assuming that the brain is the center of consciousness while ignoring the well-documented evidence for near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences. Yet, this does not justify the direct killing of an anencephalic baby. It is against the natural law to directly kill any creature that is not posing a direct and actively aggressive threat to your life. The argument that we should kill the anencephalic is a denial of the virtue of compassion and implies a self-centered utilitarian world view. The fact that the anencephalic child will live a short and inconvenient (to others) life does not justify the killing. To respond to the second part of the argument, you are again arguing from a utilitarian world view that equates convenience and pleasure with value. The very fact that a person dislikes their life is not justification to end it, and the argument can be used to support an anti-abortion position because, as you said, the child cannot decide whether it wants to live or not, therefore, it might decide that it wants to live. I am going to be slammed by the libertarian element on this website, but we are not owners of our body, our bodies are part of ourselves, our self belongs to God. Therefore, we have a natural responsibility towards our own body, as property of God. The very fact that we refuse this responsibility does not alter or negate the existence of it; it only shows that we are refusing our natural responsibilities. If a person is genuinely suffering, they deserve compassion and therapy, not enabling. I would venture to argue that anyone involved in a "wrongful life" lawsuit is not genuinely interested in relief of their suffering, but merely money and attention, but I am getting offtrack from the original point of the argument, that abortion is immoral.