Abortion due to gender.

[JReducation]

THEY CLAPPED??? Oh my God, that is just so horrible. I can hardly believe it.

[clip]

I almost feel like you are lying because part of my mind wants to deny this. I am having problems accepting it.

When I first heard about it I thought that I had heard incorrectly or that they clapped at something else, such as the great speaker or some such thing and that my wife had misunderstood. Years passed since this happened. A few months ago I was watching a program on EWTN, can’t remember which, they were talking about a workshop for physicians where the trainer was showing slides or a film and the physicians clapped when they saw the “success” of the procedure. I will never know if this is the same event or some other group. But at that point, I realized that I had not misunderstood my wife and that she had not misunderstood the situation.

I believe that some of these medical professionals who attend these workshops shield their emotions in some way so that they can just see the precedure, if you know what I mean. Obvioiusly, not all of us can shut down that part of us and I’m glad.

I don’t even tolerate the still pictures on www.priestsforlife.org. When I see them I see a baby, not a thing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Montalo]

Flyingfish, i urge you to look through that site, and expecially at these pictures

priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

for all, i recomened caution on clicking, for the pictures are gruesome

 

[simple_soul]

*I believe that it was asked earlier on in this thread if the baby perceived pain.
I pray to God that they do not, but I know that with every abortion all of mankind perceives a pain, either consciously or subconsciously, that is so deep and so much more damaging to ourselves than just being ripped apart or having something jammed into our brain.
It is a pain that only the Divine love and mercy of God can heal.
*

 

[JReducation]

*I believe that it was asked earlier on in this thread if the baby perceived pain.
I pray to God that they do not, but I know that with every abortion all of mankind perceives a pain, either consciously or subconsciously, that is so deep and so much more damaging to ourselves than just being ripped apart or having something jammed into our brain.
It is a pain that only the Divine love and mercy of God can heal.

*

Your point about moral and pyschological pain is well made. I’m not going to touch it.

As far as physical pain there are two arguments out there and neither has merit. One argument says that a baby does not feel pain, because he has no point of reference. Just because you don’t know what it is, it does not mean that it feels pleasant. We can see in a sonagram how a infant will pull away from the tools entering the uterus.

The second argument is that pain requires cognitive functioning (intellectual functioning). This is not true either. Pain is not information that one perceives, processes, classifies and modifies his behavior accordingly. Pain is perceived through the nerve endings as a negative stimuli. After it is experienced the first time, it is recorded in the long-term memory where the cognitive functions classify it. But the only reason that human intelligence can classify pain as pain, is because it experienced it.

Therefore, since a fetus has a developing nervous system, he or she can feel pain as early as eight weeks. The last sensation that the human being develops is vision. Tactile is the first sensation. That’s why a fetus sucks its thumb. There is a tactile sensation involved and it has a sedating effect. It also prepares the child for feeding from the mother’s breast. There are many signs that a fetus has actual physical sensations and that not all are pleasant. It does experience pain, even though it has no idea what he’s feeling.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

What you’r describing is an android. No he/she would not have a soul. It would be an artificial life-form.

Actually, an android is a perfectly good example of why we cannot use self-awareness as a criteria for deciding who can be aborted and who should not be. If such an android with self-awareness were ever created, he would still be a machine, not a person. Persona, which is the Latin for per and soma, it means “through the soul” could not be applied to a machine. It does not live through a soul. It lives through a mechanical and electronical system that can be turned off and on without terminating it.

Whereas an animal is also a construct of mechanical and electronic systems, but the animal cannot be turned on and off without terminating its existence. In essence, the animal is more fragile. This has always raised the question by scholars dating back thousands of years, if an animal is so fragile that it can be brought into existence by conception, but it cannot be resurrected by any human effort, then is it correct to say that it came into existence through a purely human act, since man does not have full control over its existence?

The reason I asked you that question related to the subject of the soul we briefly discussed.

The kind of android I’m talking about would be a perfect replica of a human being insofar as its material properties go. It would eat, sleep, it could be “turned off” via anesthesia, or fainting, or deep sleep. If sufficiently damaged, it would suffer brain death just like a human being.

When I think about this question, I find it hard to imagine what purpose a soul might serve, because it would seem that if you replicate every physical aspect of a human being (including the environment of growing up and learning), you should essentially end up with a being (a machine if you like) that has similar kinds of thoughts and emotions that people do.

I mean, if we had the technology to build something like this and it still didn’t have self awareness I would think “oh wow, maybe there is a soul after all that’s needed to make our minds”.

Do you think you would be able to destroy such a machine? I personally couldn’t, I would consider it murder.

 

[simple_soul]

Your point about moral and pyschological pain is well made. I’m not going to touch it.

As far as physical pain there are two arguments out there and neither has merit. One argument says that a baby does not feel pain, because he has no point of reference. Just because you don’t know what it is, it does not mean that it feels pleasant. We can see in a sonagram how a infant will pull away from the tools entering the uterus.

The second argument is that pain requires cognitive functioning (intellectual functioning). This is not true either. Pain is not information that one perceives, processes, classifies and modifies his behavior accordingly. Pain is perceived through the nerve endings as a negative stimuli. After it is experienced the first time, it is recorded in the long-term memory where the cognitive functions classify it. But the only reason that human intelligence can classify pain as pain, is because it experienced it.

Therefore, since a fetus has a developing nervous system, he or she can feel pain as early as eight weeks. The last sensation that the human being develops is vision. Tactile is the first sensation. That’s why a fetus sucks its thumb. There is a tactile sensation involved and it has a sedating effect. It also prepares the child for feeding from the mother’s breast. There are many signs that a fetus has actual physical sensations and that not all are pleasant. It does experience pain, even though it has no idea what he’s feeling.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

*Dear Br Jr,

I know, it just pains me to know it… so I pray that God does not let them feel the pain.

I pray that makes some sense,*

 

[JReducation]

The reason I asked you that question related to the subject of the soul we briefly discussed.

The kind of android I’m talking about would be a perfect replica of a human being insofar as its material properties go. It would eat, sleep, it could be “turned off” via anesthesia, or fainting, or deep sleep. If sufficiently damaged, it would suffer brain death just like a human being.

When I think about this question, I find it hard to imagine what purpose a soul might serve, because it would seem that if you replicate every physical aspect of a human being (including the environment of growing up and learning), you should essentially end up with a being (a machine if you like) that has similar kinds of thoughts and emotions that people do.

I mean, if we had the technology to build something like this and it still didn’t have self awareness I would think “oh wow, maybe there is a soul after all that’s needed to make our minds”.

Do you think you would be able to destroy such a machine? I personally couldn’t, I would consider it murder.

I will say that we defer that question until such time as it becomes a reality. Right now, we have to deal with the moral realities of today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

*Dear Br Jr,

I know, it just pains me to know it… so I pray that God does not let them feel the pain.

I pray that makes some sense,*

I know what you’re saying. But scripture tell us that God did allow the innocents to feel pain. Why? God creates the natural law and does not interfere with it. This is man’s Original Sin, his intent is to take control over that which God grants freedom.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

I know what you’re saying. But scripture tell us that God did allow the innocents to feel pain. Why? God creates the natural law and does not interfere with it. This is man’s Original Sin, his intent is to take control over that which God grants freedom.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

*Oh, when will we learn? *

 

[flyingfish]

So, if an infant doesn’t possess “self-awareness” she doesn’t exist, right? So, it wouldn’t be killing to uh, dispose of her uh, body because there is no person there. She doesn’t exist.

And that means that any born human being who does not possess “self-awareness” can be killed without any consequences, right? After all, they don’t exist.

Is this what you are saying?

Not at all what I’m saying, I must have said a hundred times that just because I don’t think it should be murder doesn’t mean I think it should be okay to go ahead and go on a killing spree of newborns or braindead people on life support. There are plenty of things we consider wrong even if no persons are involved. If someone went to the zoo today and started slaughtering animals, they would be convicted of a crime. It’s a crime for people to torture their pets.

I’m saying if it comes down to the wire where it’s a choice between the well being of a person and a non-person, then the person should come first. (Like the woman who wants to have an abortion because say she is sick or too stressed or whatever, her needs would come ahead of the fetus because she’s a person and the fetus is not. But I don’t think it would be okay to get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion just for the heck of it. I also don’t think it’s a good reason to have an abortion to say spite the father of the child and so on.)

I’m not saying the fetus has no value just because it’s not a person. It still has value, just not as much as its mother. So in the case of a conflict, I think the mother should always take precedence.

 

[flyingfish]

Flyingfish, i urge you to look through that site, and expecially at these pictures

priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

for all, i recomened caution on clicking, for the pictures are gruesome

I looked, and I’ve seen those types of pictures and linked them to others myself when I was pro-life.

I’ve also seen videos of fetal development as well as pictures of fetuses that are alive. I know that especially at later stages they look very much like babies. But I’m not sure how I am supposed to react?

Maybe you were hoping to shock me, but unfortunately I am so desensitized to violent imagery though movies, computer games, and others that I would have to see something incredibly graphic and horrid to be shocked.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not saying the fetus has no value just because it’s not a person. It still has value, just not as much as its mother. So in the case of a conflict, I think the mother should always take precedence.

I believe that most pregnant mothers would disagree with you. Second, you keep saying that “it’s not a person.” But you have not proven this.

This is an entirely new concept that digresses from what societies have held for thousands of years. If you introduce a new concept you must prove that your concept has higher merit than the pre-existing concept. That is the rule of metaphysics. You can’t just change definitions arbitrarilly. You have to follow the rules of each discipline, otherwise you have chaos.

Person does is not defined by science or civil law. It was defined by philosophy. Therefore, you must take up your argument with philosophy using the tools of philosophy to prove it wrong. You have not done so.

Just as I can’t use mathematics to prove history wrong, I must use the tools of history to prove history wrong, so one must use the tools of philosophy to prove philosophy wrong. I can borrow from other disciplines, but I must accommodate what I borrow into the system in which I’m making my case. I don’t change the system to accommodate it to my tools.

I don’t turn science into philosophy so that I can dispute it. I have to show how the tools of philosophy work in science. Therefore, you have to explain your tools, where you get them from, why they’re credible, how they work and how they are useful in proving that this philsophical definition of person is wrong. You have a lot of work to do.

My suggestion, rather than re-invent the wheel here is that you put aside this attachment that you have to the word “person” and simply accept that every human being is equal in dignity, regardless of their developmental stage. At least that gives us a common starting point.

But you cannot have an intelligent conversation on this topic, if you keep introducing your definitions, which have yet to be tested by those disciplines that have proven true and useful to man for thousands of years.

You need to show some humility here and admit that you have an opinion, but that it is not proven. Anyone can respect the fact that you have an opinion, if you state it honestly. But don’t state your opinion as if it were proven and acceptable to the majority of intellectual men and women who deal in this area of study day in and day out. That’s dishonest.

Those of us who deal in science, theology and philsophy, do not accept your definition of person, because it is not demonstrable. Therefore, we have no other choice, but to go with the classic definition, because it’s rational. That definition says that every human being is a person, because when our anscestors first used the word, Per Soma, they were describing how the human being comes to life: Per = through Soma = Spirit.

Person was never a state of consciousness. It was a description of how a human being acquires life. Now you want to change the definition of person. But you have not proven that their use of PER SOMA was wrong. It sounds to me as if you and the ancient philosophers are not speaking about the same thing and what you’re calling person, should really have another name, because it does not fit the definition that person has had for thousands of years.

Please do not bring up person again in this discussion or I refuse to talk to you. If you want me to respond, use accepted classical logic; proven scientific data, not hypotheses; and not civil law, because we all know that legislators have redefined the meaning of the word law so that what they legislate can be justified. The whole legal point is a big political game.

Again, if you want to stay in this debate stick to that which is known and has worked;

Classical philosophy, classical principles of law (not modern legislation), biology, and logic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

You need to show some humility here and admit that you have an opinion, but that it is not proven. Anyone can respect the fact that you have an opinion, if you state it honestly. But don’t state your opinion as if it were proven and acceptable to the majority of intellectual men and women who deal in this area of study day in and day out. That’s dishonest.

You’re right, I’m only stating my belief. I am not claiming that it’s the only way to think, or the right way to think. It happens to make the most sense to me given what I have learned.

I don’t know what the majority of philosophers or scientists today believe, or what the majority of philosophers have believed throughout human history. I’m open to the idea that most of them would think I’m crazy.

I have to say though, it just doesn’t seem to me that there is one right definition of personhood.

 

[JReducation]

For all readers.

Person comes from two ancient words:

PER which means through

SOMA which means spirit;

Hence the ancient word PERSOMA, which translates into Spanish as Persona and into English as Person (see the connection) describes how a human being acquires life:

THROUGH THE SPIRIT (SOUL)

Every other modern definition of the term person is fabricated for the convenience of the fabricator. We can describe a person, list his rights and duties, explain his inherent dignity, we can even penalize a person, but we cannot recreate a new definition for a term that has existed for thousands of years. We either prove that the ancients were wrong; or that the word has evolved to include more attributes that we can prove; or we leave the word as it is.

Current legislation in many countries has taken advantage of the fact that civil law uses the term “legal person” and lied to its constituency by telling them that legal person and person mean the same thing. This is not true. Law also comes from philosophy and in law “Persona Iuris” or legal person meant a person with juridical rights. These were rights granted by the State. These rights were separate from those that were granted by virtue of being human, which we call human rights.

Since many people no longer speak Latin and Ancient Greek, it has become very easy for lawyers to use these terms incorrectly without being called out. Many of these younger students of law no longer study Latin or Greek. They don’t know the meanings and nuances of words used in different combinations such as the difference between a person and a legal person. If you don’t know Latin, you can’t read Roman law as it was written. Therefore, you will not know what they meant. And those who do know what was meant are keeping it quiet, because it’s politically convenient. The honest law student and lawyer is reminding us what these terms meant and that these meanings were nerver abrogated. To aborgate the meaning of a term you have to prove that it has evolved.

Now there is a problem here. In linguistics, the evolution of words only happens when the shared meaning changes. If a society does not share the same meaning for the term person, then there is no evolution of the term.

The pro-abortion people want us to believe that we can redefine person. But the rules of philosophy, linguistics and anthropology sayt hat the meaning has not changed, because we don’t all share the same meaning. Therefore, the original meaning prevails. A person is a human being who is alive through a spirit or soul.

The question at hand is not about whether a fetus is a person, but is it justice to execute the human fetus when he has committed no crime?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

You’re right, I’m only stating my belief. I am not claiming that it’s the only way to think, or the right way to think. It happens to make the most sense to me given what I have learned.

I don’t know what the majority of philosophers or scientists today believe, or what the majority of philosophers have believed throughout human history. I’m open to the idea that most of them would think I’m crazy.

I have to say though, it just doesn’t seem to me that there is one right definition of personhood.

OK, this I can work with. You’re being honest. I respect honesty, even if I disagree with what you’re saying.

And if you are willing, I can walk you through this, in tiny steps, right in this forum. It may be helpful to you and to others. I’m sure that others, who know more than I do, will also help you walk through this in tiny steps.

I do understand that it is difficult to give up what we understand, because it feels comfortable for us. None of us wants to step out of his comfort zone. That’s a truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

OK, this I can work with. You’re being honest. I respect honesty, even if I disagree with what you’re saying.

And if you are willing, I can walk you through this, in tiny steps, right in this forum. It may be helpful to you and to others. I’m sure that others, who know more than I do, will also help you walk through this in tiny steps.

I do understand that it is difficult to give up what we understand, because it feels comfortable for us. None of us wants to step out of his comfort zone. That’s a truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, I’m willing to listen but at the same time there is some personal involvement here, I don’t want to make you feel like you’re responsible for pulling me back from the edge of darkness, invest a lot of time, only to find out that I didn’t change my mind. I honestly have thought a lot about this, and I don’t think I will change my mind because I naturally do believe that my current belief system makes the most sense.

 

[JReducation]

Well, I’m willing to listen but at the same time there is some personal involvement here, I don’t want to make you feel like you’re responsible for pulling me back from the edge of darkness, invest a lot of time, only to find out that I didn’t change my mind. I honestly have thought a lot about this, and I don’t think I will change my mind because I naturally do believe that my current belief system makes the most sense.

I would give my life, if that’s what it takes, to protect the unborn. That is how convinced I am that the unborn child is my brother or sister.

Would you give your life for what you believe?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

Would you give your life for what you believe?

In all honestly, I don’t think I have any beliefs strong enough that I would sacrifice my life for them. I think in a fight between my life and my beliefs, my life would win. I actually have thought about this, and maybe I’m just not made of tough stuff, or maybe it’s because I’m still young (twenties). But I honestly can’t imagine ever willingly giving up my life for anything.

 

[kimmielittle]

In all honestly, I don’t think I have any beliefs strong enough that I would sacrifice my life for them. I think in a fight between my life and my beliefs, my life would win. I actually have thought about this, and maybe I’m just not made of tough stuff, or maybe it’s because I’m still young (twenties). But I honestly can’t imagine ever willingly giving up my life for anything.

Hiyas

I’m a lot younger than you.
There are a number of things I would give my life for.
My God
My convictions of the Reverence of Life of the Innocents
My Family
My Country

You see, I feel …If I don’t stand for these things - I stand for nothing.

These are convictions of my soul. The lifeblood of my soul.

I hope this helps

 

[flyingfish]

Hiyas

I’m a lot younger than you.
There are a number of things I would give my life for.
My God
My convictions of the Reverence of Life of the Innocents
My Family
My Country

You see, I feel …If I don’t stand for these things - I don’t stand for anything.

These are convictions of my soul

I hope this helps

In all honestly I never understood people when they’ve said this, and I don’t think I ever will.

Maybe it’s because I don’t believe in an afterlife that I would be reluctant to give up my life. For me this life is all there is, I guess if you believe you will go to heaven if you give up your life your view is quite different.

Maybe one day if I have children I would be willing to die for them. Might the instinct to protect my children be powerful enough to overcome desire to live? I don’t know. I guess unless I have children I won’t find it.

I’d fight for a number of things, I mean if the Saudi King took over Canada and decided all women should wear a bag and sit at home I’d be willing to take up arms to fight the regime, but I definitely wouldn’t do so stupidly and wouldn’t needlessly risk getting killed.