Abortion due to gender.

[LittleSoldier]

Superior to another group does not mean that said group is not a human person. I consider myself to be superior in worth to murderers, child molesters and any number of criminals and yet I would never classify them as anything other than living human beings. That is the difference. You (or others I do not remember who wrote the original post I was quoting from) seem to think that they have catagorized them as less than human beings in the physical scientific and biologic sense, when in reality they were not…they were simply considered less worthy of certain rights. In many countries we have that without removing someones status of human beings. In Canada for example, if you are not a citizen you do not get the right to vote or some other limited rights. This does not mean that you are not a human being, just that you are not worthy of some rights that the country have to offer, based on your citizenship, not personhood.

Then what about the “3/5 Compromise” where a slave was considered to be worth 3/5 of what a free man was worth? This shows that slaves in the US were considered to be less than human, as a human is worth a full human amount.

You may consider yourself superior but you are not superior to murderers, child molesters, or anyone else for that matter. You are a human being, just as they are human beings. There is a universal law that states that all human beings are precious and equally valuable.

Do you think that someone who has accomplished more of what you consider “good” to be superior to yourself? I don’t.

In the issue of abortion, or embryo/fetal rights, it is based on their biological function or rather than organism function.

Say what???

We classify living things and organisms byhow they function in the now. Plants function in a different way than animals, hence the different catagory, and etc with all living things. multi-cellular organisms function in a specific way. All human beings with brain function, function in the same way. They are composed of organs that work together to keep the whole singular being alive. An embryo/fetus before thiis stage of development function in a uniquely different way, on a cellular level they are very much alive and no one disclaims that. On an organism level that every stage of living human being functions from child to teen to adult to the elderly, to black, to white, to asian, to disabled, to sleeping, to comatose, to catholics to protestants to jews, they do not function in that way.

In the issue of abortion, and embryo/fetal (human) rights, it is based upon their inclusion in the category of human beings. We classify living things and organisms both by how they function and their characteristics in the now and how they have functioned and what characteristics they have had in the past and how they will function and what characteristics they will have in the future. For example, a mammal is an animal that at one point in its life has hair and at one point in its life produces milk to feed its young. A member of a species of mammal may not have hair and/or produce milk at all stages of its life, but it is still a mammal. Past, present, future - they are stages.

An embryo/fetus (your term) functions in the way she is supposed to function at that stage in her life. As time goes on, she will go through the birth process to become an infant and will again function in the way she should function at this stage in her life. As time goes on, she will become a toddler, a child, a prepubescent child, a teen, an adult, an elderly adult, and will then die. At some point in her life she will develop the ability to crawl, then walk. At some point she will develop the ability to speak, read, reproduce.

Not being able to do these things does not lessen her value as a human being. It only indicates that she is at a stage in which she has not physically developed to the point where she is able to perform certain functions, she is past the stage at which the ability to perform certain functions is present (such as reproduction), or is injured or otherwise unable to perform the functions normally performed at these stages by most members of her species.

You would be applying a different standard to human cells that are living as human cells do and developing as they do, to the same function that it does not yet have.

Say what (again)???

I’m taking a guess at what you are attempting to state and I will respond based on my guess:

No, she is being treated as a human being, no matter the stage of life she happens to be in at any particular time. An infant is treated differently than a teenager and a teenager is treated differently than a 65 year old. But they are all human beings. An embryo is treated differently than an infant. So what? They are still both human beings.

Going back to your remark about you being superior to other human beings who have committed crimes:

Why do you believe you are superior to other human beings? Because they are criminals? What difference does that make? As human beings they are able to regret and atone. You don’t know what is in their hearts and you don’t know their past histories, whether they are afflicted with any sort of mental illness, and whether there is hope for them in the future. Only God knows this. You are not omniscient. It’s not up to you to decide who is superior.

ALL human beings are precious. ALL human beings have the same worth. ALL human beings are loved by God.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t really understand why you see yourself entitled to having those questions answered, but I can answer if you like.

1. Well, my opinion it that it is the law, and that the law has a good foundation. I have no objections to it.
2. Because flyingfish spoke about something I recently wrote a paper about.
3. Initially I wanted to see if flyingfish could be influenced or persuaded to change her mind. Now I am responding to objections, and learning about how Catholics react to secular thinking.

Where did he say he felt he was “entitled to having those questions answered?” All I see is that he politely said he would like to have an answer to his questions.

 

[flyingfish]

Which brings me to another question - my Mom’s “doctor” told her that I should be aborted. Should I have been? I mean, he was a doctor, right? He even probably took the Hippocratic Oath. He was protecting my mother’s health and well-being, right?

So, are you OK with me being aborted? Do you honestly think I should be dead? Do you think my life should have ended before my birth?

I don’t think you existed until you became self aware, so had your mother gone through with the abortion you would not have been killed, because you didn’t exist at that time.

That’s why the question of “are you ok with me being aborted” doesn’t make sense, you didn’t exist at that time, and so you couldn’t have been aborted. The doctor only gave the best advice he could at the time based on his medical knowledge. Thankfully things worked out for you and your mom. What if things had worked out differently and your mother died? Or both you and your mother died?

 

[Persuader]

Where did he say he felt he was “entitled to having those questions answered?” All I see is that he politely said he would like to have an answer to his questions.

He said I should at least answer his questions out of respect, implying it would be disrespectful not to answer them.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t think you existed until you became self aware, so had your mother gone through with the abortion you would not have been killed, because you didn’t exist at that time.

That’s why the question of “are you ok with me being aborted” doesn’t make sense, you didn’t exist at that time, and so you couldn’t have been aborted. The doctor only gave the best advice he could at the time based on his medical knowledge. Thankfully things worked out for you and your mom. What if things had worked out differently and your mother died? Or both you and your mother died?

It does not make sense because you don’t want it to make sense. I

f Little Soldier’s mom had had an abortion, Little soldier would not be here. If it wasn’t Little Soldier, what was in her mom’s womb? An imposter?

According to you, we just morph one day from a lump of cells to a person with a mind. How long does it take? A day? A few days? Couple of weeks? Is it a process?

Does the baby need to be able to formulate the phrase, “I think, therefore I am?”

 

[flyingfish]

According to you, we just morph one day from a lump of cells to a person with a mind. How long does it take? A day? A few days? Couple of weeks? Is it a process?

Does the baby need to be able to formulate the phrase, “I think, therefore I am?”

It’s definitely a process that begins with conception. I’m not sure when it ends, it’s probably different for different humans.

I’m not saying the baby needs to be a philosopher, but it does need to think for me to consider it a person. Not complicated thoughts, just some kind of thoughts, anything to differentiate it from an organism or a device without a mind.

Even if it thinks something like “i want milk”, it’ll do. As long as it has a mind.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It is true. What is being claimed is that if x is a living organism with human DNA, x is a person. The only difference between that and what you said, is to include the line “formed at conception”. I would think it odd to give value to a process. Surely it is the living organism with human DNA that supposedly has value and is a person, not the process of conception.

It is not true. I am saying that a strand of DNA that codes for human characteristics and is present in an organism formed by the human spermatozoan piercing the human ovum and thus forming a brand new sequence of DNA is not a person. It is the organism formed by the human spermatozoan piercing the human ovum and thus forming a brand new sequence of DNA that will direct the processes of that organism for the lifetime of that organism and the ability of that organism such formed to reproduce to form another human that makes it human and a person.

And that means that it is not the process of conception that determines personhood, but the results of that process; however, the results of that process cannot exist without the process occurring. That is the importance of conception. It is the organism with human DNA that (not supposedly) has value as a human being and a person.

I am not confusing the DNA-code with a cell operating with human DNA. Of course there is a difference. Let me elaborate on the general argument. A blastocyst (early stage development) has an inner cell mass or embryoblast.The embryonic stem cells contained in the embryoblast are the ones who develop into an embryo and later a fetus. These have the potential to develop into a human person (if the DNA is human).

No. The human being, the person already exists.

Now, what makes the blastocyst human (or whatever species the DNA writes for) is written in the code. It has little to do with the cell environment. This has been proved in principle by research in synthetic biology, where they changed a species by injecting the cell with the genome of a different species (=67&cHash=d71e2ecff8).

You aren’t a scientist, are you? If you were, you would know that scientists cannot prove anything.

Ideas of vitality and similar things are historic and incorrect. What defines a species is it’s DNA. So if you are going to say that a blastocyst is a human person, it has to be based on the fact that it contains human DNA, not that the human DNA is in a certain cell environment. If you are of another opinion, I would like to see a good argument for why this rudimentary and interchangeable cell environment should have value or contribute to personhood.

Vitality? Where did I say anything about vitality? Ideas of vitality and similar things are historic and incorrect? Where did you come up with this? What defines a species is that a member of that species cannot produce viable offspring with a member of another species.

Now, the point of mentioning the skin cell, is simply to say that even a skin cell, given the right manipulation, can operate like an embryonic stem cell (sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172631.htm). So, if a blastocyst is a human person simply by having embryonic stem cells capable of generating every cell in the human body, then a similar collection of skin cells manipulated into embryonic-like stem cells should be given the same value or rights. Either that, or you need to explain why and how the interchangeable cell environment is 1) giving value or personhood to the mentioned cell collection, or 2) how the cell environment is a person in itself.

No, a blastocyst is not a human person simply “by having embryonic stem cells capable of generating every cell in the human body.” A blastocyst containing human DNA is a human person because it has been formed through the process of conception and therefore contains a unique DNA contributed by two human beings (persons). I don’t accept your premises and I don’t need to debate your “points” following your premises.

…continued in next post…

 

[LittleSoldier]

…continuation of last post…

When your only criteria for determining personhood is a human cell in a certain cell environment (minimally a zygote), you will also miss other living organisms or systems that might be able to generate personal identities.For instance, it would seem like God is not deserving of personhood since he is not made of human DNA. If we were to encounter intelligent life-forms from other planets, even much more intelligent and complex than us, they would not be persons or be deserving of personhood since they do not have human DNA. Other animals on this planet could not ever be considered persons no matter how complex their behavior and attributes. I think this line of thinking is obviously false. There are certain mental attributes that humans have, and it is those attributes that ultimately makes us a human person, not the DNA-code. Early in our development, we cannot have these attributes because there isn’t even a CNS/brain that can be attributed with those mental attributes (as is the case with a zygote or blastocyst). The required hardware has not been built yet.

OK, this is a game with you, isn’t it? I’m not here to discuss the “personhood” of God and I find it extremely insulting that you are attempting to encompass me in some sort of bizarre mind game. Even God is not deserving of personhood? GOD?? When you state what you stated about God, it becomes apparent that you are playing a game.

This all seems to be based on your perverse definition of “person” and personally (pun intended) I never enjoy discussing “personhood.” So, I will say the following and then pass on the rest of this post:

An ovum is penetrated by a spermatozoan. If the ovum is produced by a human female and the spermatozoa are produced by a male human, what is produced by the union is a new human being, with a new DNA combination that directs every process that will occur in this new human being for her entire life.

Yes, there isn’t even a CNS/brain (which is a strange term because the central nervous system contains the brain. Perhaps in the future you can drop the “brain” from “CNS/brain” and it will save you a little time and make you look less foolish). I’m sorry, but I am tired of picking apart your posts and discarding the verbiage while trying to make some sense out of what you are attempting to say.

I am quite willing to discuss this with you and even debate with you if necessary, but I am not interested in playing games.

 

[Montalo]

self awareness is the requirement of being alive you say

Then I am not fully alive, and neither are you

as the days, months, and years go by we gain self awareness

There is no clear cut time that you are aware of yourself, because as we grow we become even more aware of ourselves.

and, at the time, we deteroite and become less self aware

Am i not a personaly because i lack full self awareness?

for the case, are you not a human, because you assuredly lack full self-awareness?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t think you existed until you became self aware, so had your mother gone through with the abortion you would not have been killed, because you didn’t exist at that time.

That’s why the question of “are you ok with me being aborted” doesn’t make sense, you didn’t exist at that time, and so you couldn’t have been aborted. The doctor only gave the best advice he could at the time based on his medical knowledge. Thankfully things worked out for you and your mom. What if things had worked out differently and your mother died? Or both you and your mother died?

OK, let me try to understand what you are saying here. You are saying “had my mother gone through with the abortion” and then you are saying I “couldn’t have been aborted.”

Do you believe that abortion exists? Why the different responses?

 

[flyingfish]

self awareness is the requirement of being alive you say

Then I am not fully alive, and neither are you

as the days, months, and years go by we gain self awareness

There is no clear cut time that you are aware of yourself, because as we grow we become even more aware of ourselves.

and, at the time, we deteroite and become less self aware

Am i not a personaly because i lack full self awareness?

for the case, are you not a human, because you assuredly lack full self-awareness?

I never said you have to have “full self awareness” whatever that is, I said you have to reach the point when you have self awareness, the very minimum at which point you can say it’s there.

 

[flyingfish]

OK, let me try to understand what you are saying here. You are saying “had my mother gone through with the abortion” and then you are saying I “couldn’t have been aborted.”

Do you believe that abortion exists? Why the different responses?

I’m saying I don’t think you existed until your brain developed to the point where it could create your mind. I don’t think the fetus in your mother’s womb was you. The way I see it, you are the person who is talking to me, who is thinking about life and so on. That person began when your mind began, not when your dad’s sperm met your mom’s egg.

If your mother had an abortion, you wouldn’t have come into existence. It’s akin to saying, in your view, had your dad’s sperm never met your mom’s egg.

 

[Persuader]

And that means that it is not the process of conception that determines personhood, but the results of that process; however, the results of that process cannot exist without the process occurring. That is the importance of conception. It is the organism with human DNA that (not supposedly) has value as a human being and a person.

So you seemingly agree with my definition after all then.

You aren’t a scientist, are you? If you were, you would know that scientists cannot prove anything.

It is true that you do not technically prove things in natural science. This is only done in logic and mathematics. The term I used is a colloquial term. Doesn’t change the observations showing some interesting facts about life. I am not a scientist. My primary field of study is law. That doesn’t change the fact that I have scientific knowledge.

Vitality? Where did I say anything about vitality? Ideas of vitality and similar things are historic and incorrect? Where did you come up with this? What defines a species is that a member of that species cannot produce viable offspring with a member of another species.

You didn’t say anything about vitality, but you seemed to assume that a human is more than the cells with DNA. The ideas about vitality are historic and incorrect. I agree that a species is defined the way you state. That is not the same as saying that this species has rights or is a person simply by species-membership.

No, a blastocyst is not a human person simply “by having embryonic stem cells capable of generating every cell in the human body.” A blastocyst containing human DNA is a human person because it has been formed through the process of conception and therefore contains a unique DNA contributed by two human beings (persons). I don’t accept your premises and I don’t need to debate your “points” following your premises

Your claim is that a blastocyst is a human person because “it has been formed through the process of conception, and therefore contains unique DNA”. That means that it is the unique DNA that makes a blastocyst a person. I would assume you would have no issues with killing an identical twin then, since we already have a sample of that DNA.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m saying I don’t think you existed until your brain developed to the point where it could create your mind. I don’t think the fetus in your mother’s womb was you. The way I see it, you are the person who is talking to me, who is thinking about life and so on. That person began when your mind began, not when your dad’s sperm met your mom’s egg.

If your mother had an abortion, you wouldn’t have come into existence. It’s akin to saying, in your view, had your dad’s sperm never met your mom’s egg.

But they did meet, and because of that years later you get to debate with Little Soldier.

 

[flyingfish]

But they did meet, and because of that years later you get to debate with Little Soldier.

Okay, but say Little Soldier’s mind never began. The body grew, but the mind never arose. Then I wouldn’t get to debate with Little Soldier, and I would say Little Soldier doesn’t exist.

 

[Persuader]

OK, this is a game with you, isn’t it? I’m not here to discuss the “personhood” of God and I find it extremely insulting that you are attempting to encompass me in some sort of bizarre mind game. Even God is not deserving of personhood? GOD?? When you state what you stated about God, it becomes apparent that you are playing a game.

This all seems to be based on your perverse definition of “person” and personally (pun intended) I never enjoy discussing “personhood.” So, I will say the following and then pass on the rest of this post:

An ovum is penetrated by a spermatozoan. If the ovum is produced by a human female and the spermatozoa are produced by a male human, what is produced by the union is a new human being, with a new DNA combination that directs every process that will occur in this new human being for her entire life.

Yes, there isn’t even a CNS/brain (which is a strange term because the central nervous system contains the brain. Perhaps in the future you can drop the “brain” from “CNS/brain” and it will save you a little time and make you look less foolish). I’m sorry, but I am tired of picking apart your posts and discarding the verbiage while trying to make some sense out of what you are attempting to say.

I am quite willing to discuss this with you and even debate with you if necessary, but I am not interested in playing games.

It is not a game, it is reasoning or thinking. Theories of personhood are not perverse, they are what is being used in science and philosophy. You could simply look up the word “person” in wikipedia to know this.

The reason I used both therms (CNS and brain) is because you could be tempted to call the early development a CNS and not really a brain. This is not important, though.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t really understand why you see yourself entitled to having those questions answered, but I can answer if you like.

1. Well, my opinion it that it is the law, and that the law has a good foundation. I have no objections to it.
2. Because flyingfish spoke about something I recently wrote a paper about.
3. Initially I wanted to see if flyingfish could be influenced or persuaded to change her mind. Now I am responding to objections, and learning about how Catholics react to secular thinking.

What does your conscience tell you when you see the corpse of an aborted fetus? I already know what the law says. But laws have been wrong before.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Persuader]

What does your conscience tell you when you see the corpse of an aborted fetus? I already know what the law says. But laws have been wrong before.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The pictures tell me that if I am making legal or moral decisions solely based on emotional reactions to pictures, I am not fitted to become a lawyer or an intellectual person.

 

[JReducation]

I highly recommend that anyone who has doubts as to whether this is a child or not look at this.

priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The pictures tell me that if I am making legal or moral decisions solely based on emotional reactions to pictures, I am not fitted to become a lawyer or an intellectual person.

An intelligent person uses his entire self to make decisions: emotions, information, and moral law. We don’t make up morality. Morality has been revealed to us. It is the duty of the intelligent human being to discover the moral law. Yes, there are emotions involved and any good mental health professional will tell us that to ignore our feelings is dangerous to our well-being and that of others. Granted, we can’t always give way to our feelings, but they must be examined. If we have an emotional reaction to something, we must ask ourselves why. It may be the way that our conscience communicates with us at that moment or on that issue.

A lawyer who ignores feelings is as dangerous as one who becomes a slave to them. There is a healthy balance that one must achieve.

I asked you about your conscience and you questioned why I was entitled to ask. I should have explained wny and I apologize for not doing so. I thought it was self-evident. Here it goes.

You’re on a Catholic forum promoting or defending something that is antagonistic to everything that Catholics believe about the dignity and rights of human beings from conception to natural death. Being a Catholic, you’re on my turf. That gives me the right to ask why are you here? If you do not believe what we believe, are you here to learn from us or to convince us to your way of thinking. We Catholics have a right to ask that question of anyone who enters our space. The same can be said if a Catholic enters the space of Jews. They have a right to know what you’re doing there. No offense intended.

But too many non-Catholics come on to these forums to proselytize Catholics. I make it a point not to talk to people like that because they are not interested in learning what we think or value. They have their minds made up and are just wasting my time and their own. I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF