Abortion due to gender.

[JReducation]

What about my more severe examples of threat to health and even life? That is hardly a matter of “convenience”. You would require that a woman be prepared to die for a fetus that has no mind.

I find it interesting that you think fathers should have a say in abortion. I guess you think men should have a right to require that women be prepared to die so that the fetus gets to be born?

To me this kind of thinking seems a throwback to the times when a woman was considered the property of her husband.

IMO men should get a say in abortion when they are the ones pregnant.

You forgot that we already went through this. I was married before I was a Franciscan. My wife was pregnant with our third child and she had a heart aneurism. The doctor suggested an abortion. I rejected the suggestion. This was my son and no one was going to kill him.

I will repeat what I told the doctor. “You will have to do the best you can to save both lives. But you will not kill my son.”

They both survived. Four years later the mother died in an auto accident, nothing to do with her heart.

Did I own her? No. Did I have a right? Yes. That child is my flesh and blood. I have the right to defend my child, even if I have to defend him from his mother.

In my case, I did not have to engage in a conflict with my wife. She also agreed that she would not kill our son for her sake. The doctor reminded her that she had two children at home ages 5 and 3. We simply said, “We’ll deal with whatever happens when it happens. But we will not murder a child.”

Sorry. No sale. Been there and know how hard it is to make that call. Have you been there?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Flyingfish and Persuader:

I beg you to stop. You are spreading a message that is immoral. Your message does a great deal of harm. What does it do for you to post these positions in a Catholic forum?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

Sorry. No sale. Been there and know how hard it is to make that call. Have you been there?

You didn’t make the call, your wife did. Had your wife disagreed with you, your opinion wouldn’t have counted.

I haven’t been there, but there’s no question in my mind that I would not risk my life for a fetus.

 

[ac_claire]

You didn’t make the call, your wife did. Had your wife disagreed with you, your opinion wouldn’t have counted.

I haven’t been there, but there’s no question in my mind that I would not risk my life for a fetus.

I’ve never been there exactly either, although I’m midway through my first pregnancy now. You may know for certain what you think you’d do, now, at this moment. But I really believe this is something that you can’t honestly say what you’d do until you’ve been there.

 

[flyingfish]

I’ve never been there exactly either, although I’m midway through my first pregnancy now. You may know for certain what you think you’d do, now, at this moment. But I really believe this is something that you can’t honestly say what you’d do until you’ve been there.

Maybe you’re right, I guess it’s possible that I would change my mind.

I’m curious, what would you do if your doctor told you that unless you had an abortion you would definitely die?

 

[JReducation]

You didn’t make the call, your wife did. Had your wife disagreed with you, your opinion wouldn’t have counted.

I haven’t been there, but there’s no question in my mind that I would not risk my life for a fetus.

It was not just a fetus. He was my son and his 21-years old, an artist, an athlete, a friend, a brother to his sister, a son to his father, an employee, a student, in other words, a full functioning human being. The only difference between him and the rest of us is that he cannot speak, because he had brain damage.

As to his mother making the decision, maybe you’re missing the definition of marriage here. “The two shall become one.” There is no such thing as “my body” in marriage.

What flyingfish is suggesting is a split between a wife and husband, even though vows have been made, but the split is legitimate to justify the wishes of the mother and to exclude those of the father. Even if the couple is not married, the father has no rights. But if the mother chooses to keep the baby, then his has paternal obligations. At what point does he become the father?

Not only is this policy willing to destroy a human life, it is willing to destroy the marriage bond.

No sale again. My wife and I were married. Therefore, what we decided had to be decided in common and be satisfactory to both. That is what happens in a loving marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

It was not just a fetus. He was my son and his 21-years old, an artist, an athlete, a friend, a brother to his sister, a son to his father, an employee, a student, in other words, a full functioning human being. The only difference between him and the rest of us is that he cannot speak, because he had brain damage.

You’re talking about your son as he is today, the fetus was not an artist, athlete, friend etc. I have never suggested and would never suggest that your son is somehow less than the rest of us because of his disability.

As to his mother making the decision, maybe you’re missing the definition of marriage here. “The two shall become one.” There is no such thing as “my body” in marriage.

Out of curiosity, if your wife had wanted you to donate your kidney to someone how would you have reacted? Say she wanted you to donate your kidney, and you didn’t want to, who would have made the final decision?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It was not just a fetus. He was my son and his 21-years old, an artist, an athlete, a friend, a brother to his sister, a son to his father, an employee, a student, in other words, a full functioning human being. The only difference between him and the rest of us is that he cannot speak, because he had brain damage.

As to his mother making the decision, maybe you’re missing the definition of marriage here. “The two shall become one.” There is no such thing as “my body” in marriage.

What flyingfish is suggesting is a split between a wife and husband, even though vows have been made, but the split is legitimate to justify the wishes of the mother and to exclude those of the father. Even if the couple is not married, the father has no rights. But if the mother chooses to keep the baby, then his has paternal obligations. At what point does he become the father?
Not only is this policy willing to destroy a human life, it is willing to destroy the marriage bond.

No sale again. My wife and I were married. Therefore, what we decided had to be decided in common and be satisfactory to both. That is what happens in a loving marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

There is actually a man named Mel Feit who argues for father’s rights. He argues that if a woman can "choose"abortion,the man can choose to not pay maintainence for the child if the woman chooses life. Although most feminists find his ideas terrible, they do seem a logical segue. “I don’t want to be a mother…so I’ll abort.” “I don’t want to be a father, so I won’t pay.”

 

[ac_claire]

Maybe you’re right, I guess it’s possible that I would change my mind.

I’m curious, what would you do if your doctor told you that unless you had an abortion you would definitely die?

Like we were just saying…I can’t say what I’d do exactly with 100% certainty unless I was in the position. I’d go get a second opinion to start with, and a third, etc. And if all the opinions concurred, then I’d wait until the baby was viable and then have it delivered early. I know I wouldn’t **choose ** to abort, no matter what. I just don’t know exactly how we’d get around trying to save both of us, or what would happen as a result.

One reason I think I’d take the gamble is because I’ve had 2 family members in my lifetime who had high-risk pregnancies and were told in no uncertain terms by their doctors that they could die if they carried to term. Chances were, they would die. They were both told this. For totally different health reasons. Both of them refused and their babies were born healthy and at term. One of the mothers suffered no ill effects from it. The other one had some bleeding, was in critical condition and had to have an emergency hysterectomy after the baby was born. But she’s otherwise fine now. So I’ve learned to not really trust the dire warnings.

 

[JReducation]

You’re talking about your son as he is today, the fetus was not an artist, athlete, friend etc. I have never suggested and would never suggest that your son is somehow less than the rest of us because of his disability.

Out of curiosity, if your wife had wanted you to donate your kidney to someone how would you have reacted? Say she wanted you to donate your kidney, and you didn’t want to, who would have made the final decision?

It’s funny that you asked this particular question. My wife was a nephrologist. She had a patient whose life was very full, but he suddenly lost his kidneys. I think it was diabetes. But I’m not sure. Anyway, my wife came home one day and mentioned this to me. She told me about his family and so forth. Everything but his name. You were not allowed to mention names. Anyway, she did ask me, “Would you donate a kydney to one of my patients if you were a match?” I didn’t stop to think about it. I remember saying, “As long as I have another good one to keep.”

I never donated that kydney. There was a match found for this patient. I’ll never know if I was a possible match. We never did the testing. But we did have the conversation.

So the answer is yes. When you have a real marriage, you dialogue and you share the decision making. If you diagree, you keep talking until you come to an agreement. Sometimes, someone has to bend. That’s part of being married. Heck, it’s part of life. We don’t always get what we want.

I hope this answers your question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LittleSoldier]

The problems with arguing this from a legal point of view are several.

1. 
   *]State laws are created by human beings and can be flawed. History tells us this. There was a time when the law allowed slavery, husbands could physically punish their wives, parents could physically punish their children, and women had no financial rights when they entered a marriage. Today the law says that those things are unjust.
   
   *]There were no scientific discoveries to prove that the Negro was a person. The truth had always been there. It had to be recognized by the State. There was no scientific discovery that the white sex slave of the Greeks was a person. That truth was there.
   
   *]In Greek history pedophilia was legal. Boys were trained in the art of love by older males. There was no scientific discovery necessary to understand that this is immoral.
   
   *]The law uses language such as a collection of tissue with human DNA or a collection of cells with human DNA. What the European and North American governments have failed to tell their citizens is that this description of the newly fertilized egg was adopted by the courts when the Pro-Life Movement challenged the morality of the law permitting abortion. The law was in place first, and then they did the research to justify the law. They found these phrases, used by pro-abortion physicians and included it into their language.
   
   *]The European and North American governments have not told their people that they receive millions of dollars in campaign donations from the women’s movement.
   
   *]These governments have not told their citizens that they have abrogated the rights of the father. Whether you call it a baby or matter with human DNA, it would not be there if it did not have a father. It was not produced by a human’s body independent of the male sperm cell, which we know is very much alive. Suddenly, the courts ignore the rights of the father.
   
   *]What the laws in Europe and North America have not explained to their people is that a infant that is extracted from the uterus, legs first, the head left inside, punctured and the brain is suctions. This infant is as intact as the infant in the nursery and as viable.
   
   *]The law does not tell its citizens that it has legalized the selling of body parts from the corpses of aborted fetuses. If these were not human, what use would they have? If they are not human, why do they look like hands, feet, heart, brain, fingers and so forth?
   
   *]The law insists that a partial-birth abortion is still a collection of human tissue. It looks like a real baby’s body to me. Babies do feel pain, cold, hunger, loneliness and comfort. Look at a newborn who is just a few hours old.
   
   *]Finally, those who work in law: lawyers, barristers, judges, parliamentarians, and congress persons, have forgotten to explain to their conscience how they justify the above lies behind which this particular law is built.
   
   As moral citizens, we should be more interested in what does the conscience of the lawyer, the judge and the politician say, rather than what the law says. The laws regarding the rights of persons have been changed over and over again to accommodate the citizens. We know that law has been wrong and unjust in the past. We know that it is wrong today. But what do the people who post of this thread believe, based on their conscience.
   
   If your conscience is determined by civil law, God help you. Civil law is probably the second most fluid thing after water. We cannot allow civil law to shape conscience. Our Forefathers fought for the rights of conscience and founded this country on thos rights. They acknowledge the immorality of a system and proved it, then challenged it. Finally they legislated a Constitution that guarrantees the right to life.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

1. 
   :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

You’re talking about your son as he is today, the fetus was not an artist, athlete, friend etc. I have never suggested and would never suggest that your son is somehow less than the rest of us because of his disability.

Out of curiosity, if your wife had wanted you to donate your kidney to someone how would you have reacted? Say she wanted you to donate your kidney, and you didn’t want to, who would have made the final decision?

That isn’t the same analogy. Brother JR was a father trying to protect his son, and probably also protect his wife. I am married, and my job is to get my spouse to heaven. If he wanted to commit a mortal sin, I would try my best to dissuade him.

As for the kidney, just one of my children has my blood type. If he needed my kidney, he would have it, and my husband wouldn’t need to “force” me. Although I don’t know them, I’m pretty sure Brother JR’s wife wasn’t “forced.”

 

[flyingfish]

I never donated that kydney. There was a match found for this patient. I’ll never know if I was a possible match. We never did the testing. But we did have the conversation.

I definitely admire you for being willing to donate your kidney to a stranger.

That isn’t the same analogy.

I used this analogy because JR said that married people become one body and decisions should be made together. He argued that because of this the man should have a say in whether his wife has an abortion. So I said then similarly the wife should have a say in whether he donates an organ, since they are now one body.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I agree that it is a living organism, and that it has human DNA. It is also a collection of cells with human DNA. They are not alive in the same way I am alive. For instance, they are not able to sustain their own life, that is the womans job. They are lacking a lot of my attributes (both mental and physical). It is meaningless to say they are alive the same way I am alive simply by being alive. If being alive was all it took to be a legal person, everything living would be a legal person.

Excuse me, but the fetus is alive in the same way you are alive. You are not able to sustain your own life. You must go out and buy food, you must have water, you must have air to breathe, you must be able to see a physician when you are so ill that you will die without medical care, and so on. You are not an island - you exist by taking resources from the earth. And there is nothing wrong with that.

What physical attributes are you referring to? Limbs? I’ve seen veterans who are missing their bodies from way above where their legs used to be. Arms? I’ve seen people without arms at all. You might have a more developed brain. So what? The fetus may develop a brain with an IQ of 200. Infants, toddlers, and young children are different from you physically, too, but are considered persons.

What mental attributes are you referring to? Intelligence? I used to work with profoundly retarded adults. I cleaned up after they soiled themselves, I fed them, I bathed them. Were they persons? Yes, absolutely, and just as valuable as you or me. Do you mean self-awareness? Well, when does that even occur? Did these adults I worked with have self-awareness? I worked with them for a long time and I can honestly say that maybe a few of them did, but most didn’t. So does this make them not persons? No. Infants, toddlers, and young children are different from you mentally, too, but are considered persons.

“If being alive was all it took to be a legal person, everything living would be a legal person.”

No. It’s not being alive that makes it a person; it’s being a human being that makes it a person.

 

[JReducation]

Like we were just saying…I can’t say what I’d do exactly with 100% certainty unless I was in the position. I’d go get a second opinion to start with, and a third, etc. And if all the opinions concurred, then I’d wait until the baby was viable and then have it delivered early. I know I wouldn’t **choose ** to abort, no matter what. I just don’t know exactly how we’d get around trying to save both of us, or what would happen as a result.

One reason I think I’d take the gamble is because I’ve had 2 family members in my lifetime who had high-risk pregnancies and were told in no uncertain terms by their doctors that they could die if they carried to term. Chances were, they would die. They were both told this. For totally different health reasons. Both of them refused and their babies were born healthy and at term. One of the mothers suffered no ill effects from it. The other one had some bleeding, was in critical condition and had to have an emergency hysterectomy after the baby was born. But she’s otherwise fine now. So I’ve learned to not really trust the dire warnings.

This is was the same case in our family. My wife had a horrible pregnancy with my last child. But she made it and so did he, contrary to the forcast. She and my older son, who was an intact and “normal” child, were killed in an accident four years later. Her heart aneurism never had a chance to kill her, as they thought it would.

These are predictions that you consider, but you don’t make decisions that compromise the life of your children based on possibilities. Possibilities and probabilities are not the same. Even probabilities are not 100%.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[scottj]

This is was the same case in our family. My wife had a horrible pregnancy with my last child. But she made it and so did he, contrary to the forcast. She and my older son, who was an intact and “normal” child, were killed in an accident four years later. Her heart aneurism never had a chance to kill her, as they thought it would.

These are predictions that you consider, but you don’t make decisions that compromise the life of your children based on possibilities. Possibilities and probabilities are not the same. Even probabilities are not 100%.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I read the first part of this thread and started to cry.

I read your above story and cried again… .

God Bless you and your other child for the loss of your wife and son.

 

[PaulinVA]

Flyingfish, is this whole idea of 1 or two year olds not being conscience of their existence an idea that you have developed on your own, or this a philosophy espoused by someone? Since they are not conscience of their existence they can be killed?

The reason I ask is it’s really not based in reality, and can’t be a philosophy to use to run ones life, since it is arbitrary and relativistic. Of course, to take the idea to it’s logical conclusion is to say that I think you do not reach a threshold of acceptable common sense, intelligence and compassion, and therefore can be put away somewhere.

Not to be insulting, but you get the idea? Your idea on this subject doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

 

[JReducation]

I read the first part of this thread and started to cry.

I read your above story and cried again… .

God Bless you and your other child for the loss of your wife and son.

Thank you for your comment.

I know that she is home and that my son is right there with her. I know that she came into this world for a purpose. Had she been aborted, that purpose would have been obstructed. My wife had a very interesting medical practice. She loved the elderly. Many of her patients could not afford her services and insurance and Medicare were not enough. Many of these people needed dialysis. They could not pay their portioin of it.

One day my wife came to me with a scheme. I always called them schemes. She wanted to outfit a van with a dialysis machine and other equipment so that she could send a tech to the home of these elderly people. They would get their treatment for free. The scheme was that this would cost thousands of dollars that we did not have.

I thought about it and came up with an idea. We had purchased our house for very little and it had acquired a lot of equity. Remembering what St. Francis had taught about detachment from our things for the love of God, I offered to sign for an equity loan for her scheme. She went with it. She did this for six years.

This is very interesting. She acquired a partner. He learned the ropes. Four months later she was killed.

Everyone is conceived with a plan.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

I’m curious, what would you do if your doctor told you that unless you had an abortion you would definitely die?

I would die.

Though as pointed out before by many others- that’s a highly improbable scenario. By the point a child would be a threat to the mother’s health, it would be viable and can be taken out via C-section. Which is less stressful on the body than an abortion.

Abortion is anti-nature. A mother’s body wants to protect and nurture her child. To cause the opposite has severe physical (for an apparently very ill woman- you statement pregnancy has her at death’s door) and mental side-effects.

 

[PaulinVA]

Flyingfish, is this whole idea of 1 or two year olds (and unborn children) not being conscience of their existence an idea that you have developed on your own, or this a philosophy espoused by someone? Since they are not conscious of their existence they can be killed?

The reason I ask is it’s really not based in reality, and can’t be a philosophy to use to run ones life, since it is arbitrary and relativistic, and I doubt you have actually thought out all of the rules you need to apply to various cases. Of course, to take the idea to it’s logical conclusion is to say that I think you do not reach a threshold of acceptable common sense, intelligence and compassion, and therefore can be put away somewhere.

I don’t intend to be insulting or mean, but do you get the idea?