Abortion due to gender.

[flyingfish]

Just wondering, why don’t you think it matters? Isn’t that what we’re discussing here? The moral aspect of abortion…?

Anyone can do anything that they choose. The question here isn’t “are abortions possible?”, or “are you capable of having an abortion?”, etc. We all know that it can be done. The question is *should *it be done.

I’m saying the argument that God designed it doesn’t work, because you can similarly argue that God designed mountains.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m saying the argument that God designed it doesn’t work, because you can similarly argue that God designed mountains.

ABSOLUTELY…Just like God designed you

 

[JReducation]

Of course I can’t prove that. But I don’t see why it matters. I can’t prove that a mountain is not in God’s design, does it mean I can’t carve a road through it if I choose?

A mountain is not alive. You are not violating its rights. A fertized human egg is alive. Therefore, he or she has rights. The fundamental right of every human being is the right to be born. If you don’t interrupt its normal development, the egg will become a viable child. Abortion interferes with this process.

If you put a road through a mountain, you are not violating its human rights. Since you cannot prove that the fertilized egg is not part of God’s plan, you better leave it alone until you can.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

A mountain is not alive. You are not violating its rights. A fertized human egg is alive. Therefore, he or she has rights. The fundamental right of every human being is the right to be born. If you don’t interrupt its normal development, the egg will become a viable child. Abortion interferes with this process.

If you put a road through a mountain, you are not violating its human rights. Since you cannot prove that the fertilized egg is not part of God’s plan, you better leave it alone until you can.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Plants are alive, animals and fish are alive and yet we eat them. I cannot prove that a mountain is not a part of God’s plant, or that the fish I had for dinner wasn’t a part of God’s plan. So what?

Something is alive and has human DNA and therefore it has rights? My skin cells are alive and have human DNA, if I get a papercut some of them die.

I think it’s the presence of a mind that makes the difference. Fetuses don’t have minds.

 

[JReducation]

I’m saying the argument that God designed it doesn’t work, because you can similarly argue that God designed mountains.

But it does work, because each part of creation has a purpose. The purpose of a human being is different from that of an egg.

Let me ask you this question. Why is it a baby when a woman wants the pregnancy and it’s only tissue when she doesn’t? Do you see the contradiction here? We convenient play with words to accomodate to what we want. This is the great lie about abortion. It’s tissue when you don’t want it, but it’s a baby when you do.

I’ll never forget the guy who was sentenced to death on a double murder when he killed his pregnant wife, but it’s not murder if it’s an abortion. Lacey or whatever the name was. It’s the play on words that our legal system uses.

You my friend have been sold a lie and you are buying into it. Have you taken a look at the website that I suggested? www.priestsforlife.org

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

But it does work, because each part of creation has a purpose. The purpose of a human being is different from that of an egg.

Let me ask you this question. Why is it a baby when a woman wants the pregnancy and it’s only tissue when she doesn’t? Do you see the contradiction here? We convenient play with words to accomodate to what we want. This is the great lie about abortion. It’s tissue when you don’t want it, but it’s a baby when you do.

I am not one to make a big deal of words. Words are just strings of letters, define them however you want and use whatever letter sequence you want so long as you’re clear what you mean when you say it.

I do think that the woman’s wishes are key however, because it is the woman’s body that the unborn human uses to grow. It is up to the woman whether she wants to make her body available for the use of another organism. If she doesn’t, tough luck. I don’t agree with forcing people to give over their bodies so that something else can live.

I’ll never forget the guy who was sentenced to death on a double murder when he killed his pregnant wife, but it’s not murder if it’s an abortion. Lacey or whatever the name was. It’s the play on words that our legal system uses.

You my friend have been sold a lie and you are buying into it. Have you taken a look at the website that I suggested? www.priestsforlife.org

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’ve seen that website before. And I would agree that the charge of double murder makes no sense.

 

[JReducation]

Plants are alive, animals and fish are alive and yet we eat them. I cannot prove that a mountain is not a part of God’s plant, or that the fish I had for dinner wasn’t a part of God’s plan. So what?

Something is alive and has human DNA and therefore it has rights? My skin cells are alive and have human DNA, if I get a papercut some of them die.

I think it’s the presence of a mind that makes the difference. Fetuses don’t have minds.

A fetus has all of the same properties as you do. You were once a fetus. That’s the big differnce. Therefore, there is a mind there that if left to its natural course, it will develop. Human beings are greater than a collection of cells, DNA and chromosomes. You have to look at the entire person.

Have you ever seen an aborted child? I have. It’s a real child. Have you ever held one in your hands? I have. Have you ever spoken to a mother or father of an aborted baby and experienced their pain, the aftermath of an abortion? I have. It has been my experience that those who have had abortions burry the event in their subconsciousness, because they cannot deal with the pain that follows. But when that pain does surfface, it always does, even 20 years later, it surffaces with a vengance.

Plants and fish are eaten because it is the natural order. It is not unnatural to treat a person as if he were a fish or a plant.

Go look at the website the I suggested and read the fact about human development and pregnancy. You’ll find it very informative or come and spend a day with me at one of my pregnancy centers and hear the testimony of those who have gone through this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Then the girl, by having sex - is inviting that baby into her body

 

[JReducation]

I am not one to make a big deal of words. Words are just strings of letters, define them however you want and use whatever letter sequence you want so long as you’re clear what you mean when you say it.

I do think that the woman’s wishes are key however, because it is the woman’s body that the unborn human uses to grow. It is up to the woman whether she wants to make her body available for the use of another organism. If she doesn’t, tough luck. I don’t agree with forcing people to give over their bodies so that something else can live.

I’ve seen that website before. And I would agree that the charge of double murder makes no sense.

Go to it again and look at slowlly and ask yourself, “Is this justice?”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

A fetus has all of the same properties as you do. You were once a fetus. That’s the big differnce. Therefore, there is a mind there that if left to its natural course, it will develop. Human beings are greater than a collection of cells, DNA and chromosomes. You have to look at the entire person.

I just don’t agree with the “if left to its natural course… will develop” argument. You can say that about things that clearly don’t have rights, like for example the elements we’re made of were once a part of a star. You could have said that if you leave this star to its natural course, human beings will later develop. You can say that about the big bang singularity.

I’m not concerned with what will develop, I am concerned with what presently exists.

I also don’t believe that I existed in my mother’s womb, I think I came into existence when the baby developed a mind.

Have you ever seen an aborted child? I have. It’s a real child.

I actually used to be pro life once upon a time, and I have seen pictures of aborted fetuses and even showed them to others. (Something I now regret doing.) My own mother had an abortion, she doesn’t regret it.

 

[Zelie_Louis]

Two reminders:

First, please participate charitably with one another.

Secondly, please be cognizant of word choices and examples. Language should be carefully considered and modest language should be used.

 

[simple_soul]

*Dear flyingfish,

I just want to jump in here and add a few thoughts on this idea that a baby does not have a conscience at the moment of conception…

From what I have learned and am still learning just in our DNA we have memory patterns of our parents right at the moment of conception. Those memory patterns develop over the coarse of our life and help to develop our conscience and this is how we learn to express ourselves. Just look at a baby at birth and at a three year old and then at a teenager and then as an adult. The conscience develops over time and as it develops we learn to express ourselves more clearly.
I am not sure why you believe that not having as developed of a conscience as you is a concrete enough reason to terminate any kind of pregnancy but it really makes no sense to me.
It was explained to me that a baby in the womb from the moment of conception has a conscience. It is just not as developed or aware as a baby that is 6,7,8, and 9 months. The deep seeded personality traits that babies are born with start developing at the moment of conception. Something in the memory patterns that are handed to them from the parents DNA. Every week that passes the conscience develops around those memory patterns. It is something that starts developing at the moment of conception. If I follow your train of thought, what is to stop you from eventually rationalizing killing children, teenagers, and young adults because their conscience is not as developed as yours? Just because a baby at conception is not as consciously aware, as you or I are, to object to being killed, does not give us a free license to kill it.

I hope and pray this makes some sense to you if not maybe others who understand this more clearly can explain it better,

 

[flyingfish]

*Dear flyingfish,

I just want to jump in here and add a few thoughts on this idea that a baby does not have a conscience at the moment of conception…

From what I have learned and am still learning just in our DNA we have memory patterns of our parents right at the moment of conception. Those memory patterns develop over the coarse of our life and help to develop our conscience and this is how we learn to express ourselves. Just look at a baby at birth and at a three year old and then at a teenager and then as an adult. The conscience develops over time and as it develops we learn to express ourselves more clearly.
I am not sure why you believe that not having as developed of a conscience as you is a concrete enough reason to terminate any kind of pregnancy but it really makes no sense to me.
It was explained to me that a baby in the womb from the moment of conception has a conscience. It is just not as developed or aware as a baby that is 6,7,8, and 9 months. The deep seeded personality traits that babies are born with start developing at the moment of conception. Something in the memory patterns that are handed to them from the parents DNA. Every week that passes the conscience develops around those memory patterns. It is something that starts developing at the moment of conception. If I follow your train of thought, what is to stop you from eventually rationalizing killing children, teenagers, and young adults because their conscience is not as developed as yours? Just because a baby at conception is not as consciously aware, as you or I are, to object to being killed, does not give us a free license to kill it.

I hope and pray this makes some sense to you if not maybe others who understand this more clearly can explain it better,

Actual memories from the lives of the parents do not get passed through DNA to the offspring.

I think the discussion gets lost sometimes in the argument, I am not trying to argue that anyone should have abortions, much less kill children. I am saying why I believe that abortion is permissible, and why in my opinion the interests of the woman trump the interests of the fetus (that, due to lacking a mind, does not have interests to begin with).

I think once an organism has brain sophisticated enough to generate a mind, it should have the right to life. I’m not saying this mind has to be particularly sophisticated, it just has to be there.

 

[simple_soul]

Dear flyingfish,
I some how knew I was probably getting in over my head to try and explain this but I will try once more.

Actual memories from the lives of the parents do not get passed through DNA to the offspring.

I do not believe I am referring to the actual lived memories of parents. I am referring to the patterns learned and developed by the parents deriving from their life’s experiences and from their ancestor’s experiences. It is my understanding that these learned patterns of behavior are passed on through the DNA from the moment of conception. I believe the conscience starts developing the moment the DNA starts to develop stemmed around what was been passed on. This whole cycle starts at conception. I know I heard or read some were that DNA, from the moment of conception, contains all that you will need to reach full maturity. It is written into it at the moment of conception. It just takes us years to reach full maturity. As the physical body develops so does the conscience. They develop together. I do not believe you can have one without the other. the conscience is just as mature as is the baby and needs to grow and develop as does the baby. as the baby develops so does the conscience.

I think the discussion gets lost sometimes in the argument, I am not trying to argue that anyone should have abortions, much less kill children. I am saying why I believe that abortion is permissible, and why in my opinion the interests of the woman trump the interests of the fetus (that, due to lacking a mind, does not have interests to begin with).

*It is my opinion that just because a woman’s conscience is more developed it does not trump a baby’s forming and developing conscience at any point in this development. If anything it is a great responsibility. Just because a baby can not express it’s interests because of not having fully developed does not give anyone the tight to trump it’s right to live because they are more developed and able to express their interests better. *

I think once an organism has brain sophisticated enough to generate a mind, it should have the right to life. I’m not saying this mind has to be particularly sophisticated, it just has to be there.

*And it is my belief and opinion that just because you believe an organism that does not have a brain that is as sophisticated as your own is not a license to kill it.

I pray you understand more clearly what I am trying to explain*

 

[flyingfish]

I know I heard or read some were that DNA, from the moment of conception, contains all that you will need to reach full maturity.

I see what you’re saying now. You’re kind of right. I’m nitpicking, but it’s not all DNA, it’s an interplay between genes and the environment (for example, environmental factors may turn certain genes on and off). If you take a child and isolate it from other human beings, it will not develop into what we generally understand human beings to be, after a certain age it will not even have the capacity to learn language (these kinds of tragic cases have been documented).

It’s the old “nature vs. nurture” debate.

And it is my belief and opinion that just because you believe an organism that does not have a brain that is as sophisticated as your own is not a license to kill it.

I don’t think this either.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is how scientists test for self awareness in animals, it’s just one test. For example, with dolphins they would place a mark on their backs away from the mirror and then they would swim toward the mirror and twist themselves to see what was placed on their backs.

I apologize - I am having some severe computer problems. I keep losing all my replies. So I will have to answer in parts, starting with what you wrote above.

First of all, I would like a link (or other reference) to the site which describes this research. Thank you. You are correct when you state that this is just one test. It appears to be extremely limited in its application but I haven’t read this research article and need to access it in order to determine what is being stated, along with any problems which tend to show up when scientists perform research.

The action of dolphins swimming to a mirror and then twisting their bodies “in order to see what was placed on their backs” may not mean that they are anything close to self-aware. They could simply be operationally conditioned and find the sight of the mark interesting, stimulating, or one of many other types of positive reinforcement.

It can’t be shown by this limited type of research that they actually recognize themselves in the mirror or even if they recognize other dolphins in the mirror or even if, by viewing what they see in a mirror, recognize themselves or other dolphins as members of the same species. It may simply be that they like to see the mark that just happens to appear when they twist their backs, this is reinforced in a positive way, and so they twist their backs when in the area of the mirror. Nothing more. It’s quite a jump to conclude this indicates self-awareness. What I see is most likely a severe case of anthropomorphism.

I said something a bit different, I talked about a brain that is capable of generating a conscious mind if you temporarily pass out or fall asleep your brain doesn’t cease to be able to generate consciousness.

I agree with you about sleep, but disagree about “temporarily passing out.” If one passes out, they lose consciousness. The stream of consciousness is broken. The brain actually is not able to generate consciousness. That is why it’s called “losing consciousness.” It certainly may be temporary, but that is true also of the unborn.

I don’t think anyone would believe that unborn children at the embryo stage have any kind of consciousness. But this lack of consciousness is temporary. If the embryo is allowed to continue development (as we were all allowed to do), eventually consciousness will develop. This is a normal part of development and doesn’t indicate life or personhood. It’s an arbitrary point.

I’ll have to respond to the others parts of your post later. I don’t want to lose this again.

 

[flyingfish]

First of all, I would like a link (or other reference) to the site which describes this research. Thank you.

I’m not going to do research for you, if you’re interested look into getting a book on the subject, searching scholar.google.com, or accessing a database of academic journals (which should be available to you for free if you’re a college student).

My goal here is not to convert you to my way of thinking, I’m just describing my views, so I am not going to spend time trying to prove to you that I’m right.

I agree with you about sleep, but disagree about “temporarily passing out.” If one passes out, they lose consciousness. The stream of consciousness is broken. The brain actually is not able to generate consciousness. That is why it’s called “losing consciousness.” It certainly may be temporary, but that is true also of the unborn.

Why do you agree about sleep but not passing out? The stream of consciousness is broken during sleep as well.

Also note I am not talking about consciousness alone, but a brain capable of generating consciousness. I identify the mind with the brain.

This is entirely different with a fetus, who doesn’t have a brain capable of generating consciousness, and has never had such a brain.

It doesn’t matter to me that it might eventually develop a brain capable of producing consciousness, it hasn’t yet, and so there is no person there yet. You can say the “will eventually become conscious” about the molecules in air, water, plants, animals and so on who will eventually form a new baby.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Abort now, for convenience
Euthanize now, for convenience
Eugenics now, for convenience

The Marie Stoples International, Peter Singer, IPPF, UNPPF, 's of the world all seem to have one “common” between them - “convenience at any cost”

As always, just my thoughts

I don’t know if this has been covered yet, but in my state (Oregon), physician-assisted suicide is now legal.

I don’t know how this happened but it shows utter disregard for the sanctity of all human life. I’m ashamed of my state.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Wow…so you would go through 15-16-17 weeks of pregnancy, and not feel anything for your unborn offspring, it’s little kicks, the first time you hear it’s heartbeat.

And when you go in for the sonogram to see if it’s a boy or a girl, and you see the little face and legs, and feet, you would not feel anything for your own child? And after they tell you it’s a boy, you already know that his life means nothing to you, after 15, 16, 17 weeks. You can really say that?

One of the most heartbreaking things I’ve ever witnessed was a classmate of mine. She had had an abortion. A few months or weeks after the procedure, she had her head down on the desk, and she was shaking. I first thought that she was laughing…but she was crying… she sounded as if she were in pain. Then I heard her say, “He had arms, he had legs.” Over and over and over again. She was refering to her aborted child. I guess 23-24 years have past since then, and I still remember it.

And you are not even pregnant, or married or in a relationship. But you have already made your “choice.”

I hope the Lord softens your heart.

Oh wow, that is just so sad. I’m referring to your classmate. It reminds me of something I read on another forum (which is now closed). A woman wrote a post describing how she felt after having had an abortion. She said that she cried all the time because she saw her child and realized what she had done and it was too late. She said that all she wanted to do was to die so that she could beg forgiveness from her little baby. She said that this is all she thought about, all day long. She didn’t think God would ever forgive her and she would absolutely never forgive herself. I saw such pain in that post. It broke my heart.

Abortion does so much harm. It not only causes the death of the baby, but maims the mother, too. And it can cause more damage than that - what of the mother’s family and friends and other loved ones? What about the people close to her that may have begged her to carry the child so they could adopt him?

And especially, why do people think that killing a baby inside their body because of its gender is OK? I just can’t comprehend this.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t know if this has been covered yet, but in my state (Oregon), physician-assisted suicide is now legal.

I don’t know how this happened but it shows utter disregard for the sanctity of all human life.

Hiyas

The good news…is many kids like me ] are starting to see through their philosophies of convenience.

But we need Grwnups to help guide us, because we get inundated with their rubbish messages from all quarters. The messages / agendas are carefully hidden.

As always, just my thoughts