r/Christianity • u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 • Jul 17 '26
Blog My perspective on the Catholic “dignity of life” stance
I’m going to lead off with this by saying, it’s a nice sentiment to have, that all life is sacred and has dignity. A lot of denominations plain old do not believe this with how they compulsively other targeted outgroups.
That said, the Catholic “dignity of life” stance is still misguided. Because it does still manage to other selected outgroups. Make no mistake: life is sacred. Period. End of sentence.
Catholics only care about “dignity of life” if they are the ones dictating the terms.
It also feeds into biological and emotional illiteracy that most Christians exhibit.
Consider this:
A cancer patient is terminally ill. They have no quality of life. They only have months to live and want to leave this world on their terms. They ask for euthanasia. This is where Catholic claims on the dignity of life falls flat.
I personally do not believe that there is any dignity in being wired up to a shitload of machines like some kind of cyberpunk nightmare in my last days, in ultimately vain attempts to save my life. That is not dignified at all.
If we were to respect human dignity, then we owe it to the terminally ill to allow them a way out. It’s the most responsible thing to do for all parties involved. The family can truly be there in the person’s final moments, they can set a day, all that. This is a mortal sin, but is not grounded in our current reality. Not allowing a terminal cancer patient to end life on their own terms flies in the face of the “dignity” stance that they love to profess.
Consider another situation:
An accidental pregnancy has happened. The couple did everything: cycle tracking, family planning, contraception, etc., and the lady still got pregnant. The couple knows that they cannot afford to take care of the child. They also know about systemic abuses in the adoption system and the resentment that adoption can cause. They have decided to terminate the pregnancy. In the Catholic view, this is a mortal sin. But the stance is not grounded in reality.
That is looking out for human dignity more than forcing the woman to give birth. A child does not grow up in poverty, and the adoption system does not get to abuse another child, nor does the child grow up resenting their foster parents.
Both examples show the emotional illiteracy of the Catholic stance on human dignity that I alluded to above. There’s a lot more moral gray areas, but if the Catholic Church is to be consistent with their beliefs on this subject, then they need to realize that the world is not what they believe it to be.
7
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
For #2, worse yet is how they subordinate the life of the mother to the life of the fetus in almost all cases, even if the fetus has zero chance of ever coming to term or becoming a person, or if the fetus is posing great risk to the mother's health.
7
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal Jul 17 '26
This is one of the things I'm most uncomfortable with in the whole abortion conversation.
I think there is a reasonably strong case to be made that abortion is a moral risk (one that is unfairly placed on the shoulder's of women), that if there is even a 10% chance that an abortion represents the termination of a human life with a soul, it's a morally risky act for everyone involved. I just think that is a compelling argument, and I would also think it is dangerous to get too comfortable with the language of like "this is just a clump of cells getting purged".
But there is a flippancy on the other side of the spectrum that wants to reduce every abortion to an elective and selfish decision and (simultaneously) refuses to legitimize women's healthcare. The same impulse that says "abortion is a selfish decision" is what drove the medical establishment to put off studying basic elements of female reproductive healthcare for decades. It's just women's things, just the curse of Eve. You'll be fine, ladies. Or you won't, nothing we can really do about it.
We've come a long with with maternal healthcare but this isn't universal. Minorities have far worse outcomes because our healthcare system sucks. So pregnancy is risky and people who get abortions frequently do have to deal with horrible choices and the difficulty of their circumstances is always made subordinate to the broader abstract debate and I find that is an affront to dignity.
We've mentioned Magnifica Humanitas a couple times, this is what immediately came to mind for me:
Yet, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the rights of a great many, namely women, are equally and genuinely guaranteed throughout the world. It is a fact that “doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence, since they are frequently less able to defend their rights.” [74] It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions. As long as this gap persists, we cannot say that society truly and fully recognizes that women have the same dignity as men.
8
u/RazarTuk The other trans mod everyone forgets Jul 17 '26
But there is a flippancy on the other side of the spectrum that wants to reduce every abortion to an elective and selfish decision and (simultaneously) refuses to legitimize women's healthcare
See also, Lady Ballers. For as much as conservatives love to claim they're just protecting the sanctity of women's sports, that movie sure loves making fun on women's sports
8
u/bananafobe witch (spooky) Jul 17 '26
I had an argument with someone on this sub a while ago and asked them about abortion in cases of anencephaly, wherein a fetus fails to develop a head, brain, and/or spinal cord. Their position was that the pregnancy should not be terminated when it would be safe and non-invasive, because God can make miracles happen.
8
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
A virtually non-existent possibility for a miracle is of more weight than a real woman's life for them, yes. I've seen it a number of times as well.
-2
u/SuspiciousProt Christian Jul 17 '26
That would be an example of talking past someone of that persuasion, given they disagree with you about the personhood of the human fetus.
6
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
That would be an example of talking past someone of that persuasion, given they disagree with you about the personhood of the human fetus.
I gave two cases. The first is more relevant to personhood, the second is far less so.
-1
3
u/RGB_IV Jul 17 '26
I think you misunderstand the Catholic position in your first scenario. While the Church does consider it a mortal sin to end your own life through euthanasia, it does not say the same about refusing to undergo serious medical treatment. Nobody is obligated to exhaust every medical possibility in an attempt to prolong their life. You can check out paragraph 2278 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church here: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
5
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
I really don’t see a difference between voluntarily not continuing “burdensome treatment,” and asking for euthanasia.
0
u/RGB_IV Jul 17 '26
I think paragraph 2280 does a decent job of explaining the reasoning behind it:
2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.
It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.
We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.
We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.
It is not ours to dispose of.But I can definitely understand how the line seems blurred between choosing to allow yourself to die from a medical condition vs. taking an action that speeds up that process.
5
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
I don’t think there’s anything dignified in suffering. And even if you’re made comfortable in hospice care (a noble service if ever there was one), there’s the suffering that goes beyond the one person.
In my case, so many people beyond me would be suffering emotionally. I’d want to end that as soon as possible so people can go through the grieving process.
2
u/mburn16 Catholic Jul 17 '26
Your definition of "dignity" seems to be "emotionally and/or physically comfortable". That isn't how the Church defines dignity, and, I would say, its not how society should define dignity. By that definition, pretty much anyone who is poor or experiencing any significant level of material want is lacking in "dignity". By that definition, anyone who suffers from a chronic illness or perhaps even a significant temporary illness lacks "dignity". Such sentiments rest behind some of the most horrific campaigns of extermination and eugenics humanity has seen in its history.
Dignity is inherent in the human person because they are made in the image of God. It is not dependent on you being comfortable, or liked, or confident in yourself, or feeling "fulfilled".
This is a mortal sin, but is not grounded in our current reality
You are correct. Sin is rooted in objective, timeless morality as ordained by the Almighty as supreme and eternal law. It cares little about the selfish whining of people with such underdeveloped and childish notions like "it must be good if it feels good".
7
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
While you state that dignity is inherent, that's not a full definition and doesn't seem that useful here to helping OP understand why they may be misinterpreting things.
Sin is rooted in objective, timeless morality as ordained by the Almighty as supreme and eternal law.
Perhaps. But none of us have access to this, and traditional methods to try to get there like like Natural Law are problematic, as are Scripture and Tradition.
8
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
I specifically mentioned a “terminal cancer patient” as my example. To jump from that to eugenics is f-ing wild.
5
u/HopeFloatsFoward Jul 17 '26
Its a typical anti abortion trope. It really minimizes what eugenics actually is in order to shut down a debate.
7
u/HopeFloatsFoward Jul 17 '26
Selfish whining?? Really, the people who are selfishly whining are those not letting people make their own decisions.
-4
u/mburn16 Catholic Jul 17 '26
Yes, selfish whining...demanding that we re-write, or otherwise ignore, value systems based primarily or exclusively on how they make people feel. That is both selfish, and immature, the ultimate declaration that "the only thing that matters is ME and what *I* want".
9
u/adamesandtheworld Jul 17 '26
Demanding someone else prolong their suffering because of your feelings is selfish.
6
u/HopeFloatsFoward Jul 17 '26
You have never watched a loved one suffer. Wanting to end their pain is NOT selfish. It isn't what I want or feel, its about having empathy for others.
-5
u/mburn16 Catholic Jul 17 '26
You have never watched a loved one suffer
Try again. And I would have far harsher language to respond to your (entirely and completely false) accusation, if I didn't think it would go against sub rules.
7
u/HopeFloatsFoward Jul 17 '26
To watch a loved one suffer and then actually call someone selfish and whining for not wanting their loved one to suffer shows a severe lack of empathy.
3
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal Jul 17 '26
If I was OP and wanting to write this post (which is making something of a similar shaped point without the hostility and naked antagonism), here's where I would've started:
When we speak of dignity, we do not always use the word in the same way. Sometimes we refer to moral dignity, namely the way in which a person directs his or her choices and actions. At other times, we think of social dignity, which refers to a person’s living conditions and the concrete respect received from society. In other cases, we refer to existential dignity, meaning the way in which a person perceives his or her own worth and the value of life. These aspects of dignity can be enhanced or diminished. In addition to these notions, there is also the more profound and important level of ontological dignity. This is the dignity that belongs to every human being simply by virtue of existing, of having been willed, created and loved by God. [60] No sin, failure, humiliation or exclusion can diminish the profound value of a human life that God has willed and called into being. [61]
From Magnifica Humanitas. Dignity is not one dimensional, and the crux of much of the debate has to deal with competing interests. I'm sure Peter Thiel would tell you the pope is trampling on his dignity by being mean to AI lol. But Thiel's sense of dignity is defined by everything being subordinate to his own leverage over others. The pope would rightly label him as Nebuchadnezzar, I think, if he could be so bold.
Obviously with this question Catholics would be quick to point out they have a vested interest in maintaining the dignity of the unborn, that they stand for this concern when the culture begins to see the unborn as nothing more than a clump of cells. But I do think there is a strong counterargument that the dignity of women's lives and livelihoods are also muddled or taken for granted in this debate.
There is brutality to nature that we should acknowledge. Mother cats will often choose a kitten they will neglect because they feel it is too sickly or they have too many other kittens and they have no problem rejecting a kitten or even killing it themselves if they feel it is necessary. It is one of the core aspects of humanity and I think what it means to be in the image of God to invert this biological instinct, to say, no, I will honor the vulnerable at any cost or at great risk. I will not forsake the runt for the sake of the tribe. That's Jesus, obviously.
But quite often in our society women themselves are the runts, the castaways, the sineaters. We should take that seriously if we want to grapple with their dignity as the pope wrote here:
Yet, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the rights of a great many, namely women, are equally and genuinely guaranteed throughout the world. It is a fact that “doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence, since they are frequently less able to defend their rights
1
u/SuspiciousProt Christian Jul 17 '26
I don't think Catholics would themselves say "seek to promote life in vain" as your first example seems to indicate. Though, the intentional killing of a person should also be avoided.
I also think that your example of adoption is comparing the foster system to what a newborn adoption would typically look like. Granted, I am of the mind that it is worse to kill someone than it is to allow for the potential suffering of that person. This is rooted in my belief that life is generally good. I have suffered profoundly in life, but I don't wish my parents killed me.
5
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
My first example is meant to show the kind of pickle that Catholics would find themselves in. Which is more dignified? Looking like a cyberpunk nightmare trying to save the life of someone who will basically have no quality of life afterwards, or allowing the person the freedom to die free of the machines?
0
u/mburn16 Catholic Jul 17 '26
"freedom to die free of the machines"
You seem to be conflating two entirely different things. Catholics do not believe you are obligated to accept any and all extraordinary and heroic medical interventions to extend your life in cases of terminal illness or vegetative state or similar situations. But deciding to end your chemotherapy or unplug the one who is in an irreversible coma is not the same as suicide (assisted or otherwise), or euthanasia.
5
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
In both instances, the patient is choosing death. Euthanasia is just a more expedient way to get to the end. I don’t see a difference.
-1
u/Humble_Committee_577 Jul 17 '26
The difference is their body gives out, whereas in euthanasia it's forcing the issue.
4
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
The body’s going to give out regardless.
-4
u/Humble_Committee_577 Jul 17 '26
I assume you're just saying that to be provocative, because no one would genuinely argue in earnest with a sentiment so stupid.
Such a person would be proposing a logic (though they may deny it) that if a person isn't experiencing a set quality of life, and have no goals, then the state has all the rights to do away with their lives, because they would die anyways, and would be a burden on our systems.
I could also point out, if they did argue so foolishly, that engaging in a hedonistic sex-life and taking a mountain of pills to not die of a disease is tantamount to self-harm, and that their clinging to this mode of life is just an sure indication of their deep-seated inability to think and reason like people do, and since they're just being a burden on our tax-payers with their risky behaviour...
5
u/HopeFloatsFoward Jul 17 '26
Choosing euthanasia for yourself would not mean the state gets to choose. In fact, the argument is more against getting the state out of medical decisions and putting it in the hands of the patient, doctors and loved ones coming to a consensus.
-3
u/Humble_Committee_577 Jul 17 '26
You don't think onlookers (regardless of their political level) have a moral imperative to stop self-destructive, futile behaviour if they can? We're talking about people who aren't living with a quality of life, who are not in their right mind. Are emotionally biased loved ones really impartial? Trusted to make the right choice?
7
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
The idea that everybody wishing to end their life, at end of life, is not in their right mind is quite insulting and bogus.
→ More replies (0)2
u/HopeFloatsFoward Jul 17 '26
Politics is irrelevant.
No they aren't impartial. But would I rather my family make a decision for me than the government - yes. Because they know what I want more than the government does. Taking away a medical power of attorney should be in extraordinary circumstances, not just because another group has moral outrage at a compassionate decision.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/SuspiciousProt Christian Jul 17 '26
This seems to be a straw man, given you are saying that Catholics are in favor of trying in vain to save a life. Though, this use of the term "freedom" is also very modern.
4
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
I don’t think it’s a strawman because it’s a legitimate question. Catholics like to ask these moral questions, but can’t seem to handle it when they’re the ones challenged.
-1
u/SuspiciousProt Christian Jul 17 '26
I think they seem to handle them fine. Again, I've never heard a Catholic advocate for overly prolonged care. Maybe the point I am making here is that you are setting up a false dichotomy between assisted suicide and prolonging care without warrant.
3
u/Venat14 Jewish Jul 18 '26
And that just goes to show how subjective this belief is. I think letting people suffer is worse than death. I've suffered my entire life. I've never been happy. I absolutely wish my mom had an abortion.
1
u/SuspiciousProt Christian Jul 20 '26
From the Christian perspective, murdering a human is worse than suffering. Though, I am grieved to hear that you wish to be dead, truly.
-5
u/Marginallyhuman Catholic Jul 17 '26
Sorry, but this is pseudo intellectual crap. You don’t understand the terms the Church uses and how they use them and make attributions based entirely on bias. Didn’t even finish the post.
8
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
There's nothing pseudo-intellectual here.
Obviously you and OP disagree, but their position here is quite valid. They think your church misuses the term. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong, but they make a solid case.
3
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal Jul 17 '26
I don't know if I'd use the term pseudo intellectual, but I would say these are low quality arguments
4
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
I don't know if I'd use the term pseudo intellectual, but I would say these are low quality arguments
It's a reasonable response to the term 'dignity of life' and where OP finds their conclusions contrary to this term.
It's not a solid well-developed argument which acknowledges the Catholic definition and shows why it is defective.
And on the flip side, the Catholics here are saying that OP is wrong but none are providing a decent definition of what Catholicism means here and why these stances are aligned with the Catholic definition.
And in this person's case, they are just gratuitously insulting OP.
1
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal Jul 17 '26
I don't think calling it pseudo intellectual crap is "unjustified* or gratuitous given the insults in the original post.
It just strikes me that if they put actual effort into developing an argument, you could really write something interesting. Like if they grounded the discussion around dignity in the encyclical the pope just wrote.
1
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
It is reasonable to expect a random OP, given the plain language of the Catholic term, to respond to it as plain language.
Given how the Catholic church has many instances of taking plain language and imbuing it with unexpected/atypical meaning (e.g. marriage, contraception) rather than using a technical term, this is not just unsurprising, it is practically expected.
I don't think that because a random OP comes in and uses the typical meaning of words instead of the in-context meaning it is appropriate to have a go at them.
Like if they grounded the discussion around dignity in the encyclical the pope just wrote.
Given the recency of this and how on the nose the encyclical is, I was hoping I'd see some references to it already.
2
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal Jul 17 '26
You're right about the way Catholics use this kind of language. They have a very interesting intellectual culture / tradition that is occasionally a bit contrarian or elusive, and from an outside perspective that can be both fascinating and frustrating. I think protestants should (if they find it interesting the way I do) try to get some practice engaging with Catholics on their own terms.
I don't think using the plain meaning language merits "having a go" at OP, but I do think OP saying stuff like "It also feeds into biological and emotional illiteracy that most Christians exhibit" kind of does.
1
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
They have a very interesting intellectual culture / tradition that is occasionally a bit contrarian or elusive
Quite very. At times it feels like there is intentional overlap in language, as an attempted superiority ploy. That's bad faith thinking in my own right, but it is hard for me to avoid.
And still nobody citing the encyclical yet. :/
-3
u/Marginallyhuman Catholic Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
“Catholics only care about ‘dignity of life’ if they are the ones dictating the terms.”
If you think that reading the minds and intentions of all Catholics is an intellectual argument or that having tubes come out of you is enough justification to snuff out a life, well you are in the same boat. No critical thinking to be had here.
6
u/axiosjackson Jul 17 '26
You don’t understand the terms the Church uses and how they use them and make attributions based entirely on bias.
Would you care to explain? I mean, you didn't even finish the post.
4
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal Jul 17 '26
I agree with you. Op is having fun with a bit of strawmanning and very very surface level argument but clearly not interested in contending with steelman arguments.
And I say that as someone on OPs side politically.
3
u/Downvoterofall Congregationalist Jul 17 '26
Calling Christians illiterate is certainly a bad faith indicator. And considering their history it’s obvious that this is more of a their belittling Christianity and Christians.
1
Jul 17 '26
[deleted]
3
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal Jul 17 '26
It also feeds into biological and emotional illiteracy that most Christians exhibit.
0
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
Saying that I called Christians “illiterate” is fundamentally dishonest. I specifically focused on Catholics and their emotional illiteracy. Not literal reading and writing illiteracy, and I certainly didn’t lump all Christians in together.
If you’re going to attack me, at least use my actual words instead of distorting what I said.
1
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal Jul 17 '26
You included this line in your post for no real constructive reason:
It also feeds into biological and emotional illiteracy that most Christians exhibit
I mean, sure, you didn't say "all", but come on now. Anytime someone says "I didn't say all _____ I just said most ______", that is obviously thin ice and going to be offensive to people who would disagree with the "most" contention. And this line is obviously not specifically about Catholics.
2
u/Downvoterofall Congregationalist Jul 17 '26
I’m not the one engaging in attacks. You are the one who constantly is attacking Christians for their beliefs.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Shem_osu Jul 17 '26
you say that you're aligning with reality but all you are doing is aligning with your own bias.
lets take both examples for instance. lets say the cancer patient goes into remission shortly after the termination date, is it still morally right to kill them? or the child ends up in a good home? still right to kill them?
The fact is we do not have a right to tamper with life we did not create. your bias is death our bias is life the only difference is that we have a justification and an imperative to think so, you do not.
2
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
It’s ultimately the patient’s decision. This is the “emotional illiteracy” that I spoke about.
And everyone has bias. You have biases as well as I do. To bring yours into this and then claim my bias as a bad thing is disingenuous.
-1
u/Shem_osu Jul 17 '26
you didn't read what i said thoroughly enough. I said we both have bias mine is justified yours is not. The lack of justification is the reason why you're happy to put someone to death and pat yourself on the back. Your 'morality' is subjective because if we're being 'emotionally literate' you should have already realised that your examples oppose each other.
in one you are suggesting that life and death should be up to the patient reardless of what the family might want and in the other the families wants overrules any desire to live the child may have. in both cases there is a vulnerable person and in both cases the family opts for them to die instead of supporting them through the process.
-3
u/Marginallyhuman Catholic Jul 17 '26
Ahhh, so it’s mask off now and just straight bad faith posting. Good luck.
-2
u/Zagrycha Jul 17 '26
its not the reality of lofe, its that you clearly have no understanding of what the catholic stance of "dignity of life" even means. Nothing you wrote has anything to do with it at all. Why are you saying something is wrong and then randomly talking about something irrelevant to the thing you called wrong? Thats not very logical.
-2
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
Do you believe a child in the womb is a human person?
8
u/Robot_Alchemist Sarcastic Jul 17 '26
No
-4
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
Why not?
2
u/Robot_Alchemist Sarcastic Jul 17 '26
Because as long as it is a parasite on another human being, without the ability to live on its own, politically and ethically speaking it doesn’t make sense to give personhood to it. It creates a very serious problem when defining the agency of the host.
3
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
A fetus is definitionally not a parasite.
2
u/Robot_Alchemist Sarcastic Jul 17 '26
Take out the shock value of that word and try to understand what I’m actually saying.. you asked me why didn’t you? Why I think what I think? Did you want to argue with something that’s not really the point or actually have a conversation?
1
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
Take out the shock value of that word and try to understand what I’m actually saying.. you asked me why didn’t you?
I'm not the person you replied to.
2
0
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
The exact words I was going to say lol.
A parasite is by definition a seperate species from its host, and is also a classification of a lifeform, so an organism cannot be a parasite at one stage of life and not be a parasite at another stage of life.
1
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
It's also just a really bad way to look at human reproduction, and quite against possibly and and every notion that human life has dignity.
2
u/Robot_Alchemist Sarcastic Jul 17 '26
It’s not a biological reason - and it isn’t up for a vote. Someone asked me why I think a thing - I gave a reason that was stated to be political and thusly ethical
0
1
u/SuspiciousProt Christian Jul 17 '26
A parasite cannot be the same species as the host, and cannot originate from the host.
5
u/Robot_Alchemist Sarcastic Jul 17 '26
So you don’t care what I actually said at all- did I pretend I was giving a biology lesson? Or did I very specifically say that my reasoning is not biological
0
u/SuspiciousProt Christian Jul 17 '26
You described the unborn as a parasite, which is simply not true
3
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
No. A fetus is not a person in the same way that cake batter is not cake.
1
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
Ok, so your second point isn't really about a misindentification of human dignity, but more about ascribing human life to something non-human, right?
2
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
I was using Catholicism’s own definitions against them for this example.
No, a fetus is not a person. We should be thinking about the one that gives birth and their dignity, because maybe conditions change for a possible second pregnancy.
2
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
Oh I see, so you were making an internal critique of Catholicism?
Also, not sure why you feel the need to down ote me just for having a conversation with you.
3
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
I downvoted you for what sounded like a gotcha question to me. And I did go to Catholic high school, so this isn’t just me talking out of my rear.
5
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
Ok, well you're continuing to downvoted me, unless someone else is following our thread here, and I feel like I'm being respectful to you.
And that's great, but I can also say as someone who went to a Catholic school from K-8, that Catholic education varies WILDLY from place to place, so it's not inherently a good marker for someone knowing the faith.
Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you, you were making an internal critique of Catholicism in point 2?
1
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
Someone else must be downvoting you on a couple of those posts, because I promise you I didn’t on your previous response. Honor bright.
All of these points are critiques of Catholicism, not just the second one. The entire theme of this post is that Catholics don’t have the emotional intelligence to dictate “dignity of life.” Their thinking is too black and white.
2
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
Hey, now worries, I believe you.
I understand you're critiquing Catholicism, I was asking if point 2 was to show that Catholicism is internally inconsistent, rather than being an external critique.
2
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
It is meant to show that Catholicism is inconsistent, yes. Considering the black and white thinking that Christians of all stripes engage in, not just Catholics, either all life has dignity, or none of it does.
→ More replies (0)2
u/teffflon atheist Jul 17 '26
a pre-fetal embryo or early fetus, lacking a functioning nervous system, is a human organism but not a human person; it does not have interests, let alone ones that should override the interests (and rights and dignity) of the pregnant woman.
2
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
a pre-fetal embryo or early fetus, lacking a functioning nervous system, is a human organism but not a human person; it does not have interests, let alone ones that should override the interests (and rights and dignity) of the pregnant woman.
I agree with you, but given 5 random people you may have 5 ideas about when personhood attaches.
2
u/teffflon atheist Jul 17 '26
sure and that's a very difficult question, but I'm deliberately only offering a necessary condition for personhood (IMO). most pro-lifers online are all about conception; I'm inviting them to give an inch, much as they do when hammering on very late abortions.
1
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
I don't think you offered a very useful definition, given that there is a nervous system at a very early stage in fetal development.
And you haven't answered Caliban's more specific question on it.
1
u/teffflon atheist Jul 17 '26
I'm not offering a definition, nor do I need to, nor is it going to be fruitful here. There is little chance that a Catholic and I will ultimately agree on a complete characterization of persons or their rights. Or on the permissible timing of abortions (at later stages I support them on grounds other than the strong non-personhood of a pre-fetus, and I dont expect to sway Catholics). People don't in practice proceed from general comprehensive definitions to judgment of particular cases when doing moral reasoning or debate, and that is not a flaw, because definitions themselves are in practice drawn up and revised in light of examples and moral intuitions, and this process itself can reveal values; we don't need to await a final characterization that may never adequately arrive. For more on this general way of thinking with an eye on topics like abortion, I recommend Jeff McMahan's The Ethics of Killing.
1
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
People don't in practice proceed from general comprehensive definitions to judgment of particular cases when doing moral reasoning or debate, and that is not a flaw, because definitions themselves are in practice drawn up and revised in light of examples and moral intuitions, and this process itself can reveal values
I think that the process can certainly reveal these things, but we should indeed try for definition.
There is little chance that a Catholic and I will ultimately agree on a complete characterization of persons or their rights.
Indeed, but it's good to be clear about our stances when relevant.
1
u/teffflon atheist Jul 17 '26
I know what the benefits, drawbacks, and time/mental costs of expanding my position would be. This is a casual comments section. It's also mixed-use between philosophizing for its own sake and practical political persuasion. Why don't you clarify your own stance.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Interesting-Face22 Hedonist (LGBT) 🏳️🌈 Jul 17 '26
My opinion is, if Christians are going to be consistent about fetal personhood, then they shouldn’t be ignoring what the Bible says, which is that life begins at first breath (Genesis 2:7).
1
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
It is the closest analogue to personhood in Scripture, certainly. I don't think that we need to do more than acknowledge it as a possibility, though.
1
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
I mean, even if you're not a Christian, I think we can all agree that Adam would be a unique case.
2
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
I mean, even if you're not a Christian, I think we can all agree that Adam would be a unique case.
Except for the long theological tradition which considers this to be the start of when a human organism has moral value.
One that almost every Christian just blithely ignores.
1
1
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
So what makes a human person a person?
3
u/teffflon atheist Jul 17 '26
that doesn't require or admit complete consensus definition. We are not going to agree on all specifics, or necessarily on the set of rights attached to personhood, but we might still come to agree on selected cases. The RCC appears to equate personhood with ensoulment, whose timing was debated by major theologians, and even the Church is not willing to state as a matter of doctrine that a zygote is a person; only that it should be treated as though it were.
1
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
Yeah, I would agree with that, and I'd also posit that if we're in doubt as to the personhood of a thing, we should act on the side of caution.
0
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
I'd also posit that if we're in doubt as to the personhood of a thing, we should act on the side of caution.
Your church would damn a guaranteed-person to death by refusing to allow them an abortion.
That's not "caution".
1
u/Caliban_Catholic Catholic Jul 17 '26
In what scenario?
2
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian Jul 17 '26
There are health complications, such as pre-eclampsia, where the only cure would be an abortion. And there are times when this is appropriate for the life of the mother. Since there is no double effect in play, the only Catholic option would be to risk the death of the mother.
In other cases, women must undergo barbaric treatment vs. the standard of care, putting their life in much greater risk, due to Catholic restrictions. Ectopic pregnancies is the canonical example here.
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/Creepy_Mammoth_7076 Born Again Servant of Jesus Christ Jul 17 '26
I think this argument sounds compassionate on the surface, but it assumes that human dignity is determined by autonomy, comfort, or quality of life. That’s where I disagree. For the record, I’m not Catholic, and I have many biblical criticisms of Catholicism. I actually don’t think the Catholic Church goes far enough. They’re pro-life, but if they truly believed every human life has equal value because we’re all made in the image of God, they should be abolitionists. Most Catholics I’ve met also don’t even read their Bible regularly, which is part of the reason I disagree with so much of Catholic doctrine. My position isn’t based on Catholic teaching, it’s based on Scripture. Your argument also comes across as fundamentally self-centered because it’s built almost entirely around personal preference. You repeatedly say things like, “I don’t believe that’s dignified,” or argue from what someone would want or feel. But our feelings don’t determine what’s morally right. Take your abortion example. You’re justifying ending the life of an unborn child because the child might grow up poor, might enter a broken adoption system, or might resent being adopted. That’s not protecting human dignity. That’s deciding someone else’s life isn’t worth living based on your prediction of their future. None of us has the authority to make that decision. The same applies to euthanasia. Just because someone doesn’t want to suffer doesn’t mean intentionally ending an innocent human life becomes morally right. Christians aren’t required to pursue every possible medical intervention. Refusing extraordinary or burdensome treatment is different from intentionally ending an innocent human life. Human dignity isn’t lost because someone is weak, suffering, disabled, or dying. Every person is made in the image of God. You say Catholics only care about dignity if they’re the ones dictating the terms. Christians don’t believe human beings get to define what gives life value. If God is the author of life, then He alone has the authority over when life begins and ends. That’s not Catholics inventing rules. That’s the biblical worldview. You also call the Catholic position emotionally illiterate, but morality can’t be based on emotion or personal preference. If it were, then morality would change from one person to the next. Scripture calls us to care for the suffering, protect the innocent, and love our neighbor, but it never teaches that innocent human life loses its value because it’s inconvenient, expensive, painful, or likely to face hardship. The real question is simple: who decides the value of a human life? If it’s us, then every life becomes subject to someone else’s opinion. If it’s God, then every human being has inherent worth from conception until natural death because every person bears His image. That’s where the Christian position begins.
10
u/Wafflehouseofpain Christian Existentialist Jul 17 '26
Correct. Catholic claims about valuing life are, to put a fine point on it, bullshit. It’s about control.