Abortion due to gender.

[kimmielittle]

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.

Hiyas

Actually, it has nothing to do with if I obtain Heaven.
Only the First in my list pertains to God
That would be the wrong reasons to do it, IMHO Many Terrorists - think this way ]

The rest…I’m convicted are moral standards.
Even if I was Atheist - these would not change.

I hope this helps

 

[flyingfish]

Hiyas

Actually, it has nothing to do with if I obtain Heaven.
Only the First in my list pertains to God
That would be the wrong reasons to do it, IMHO Many Terrorists - think this way ]

The rest…I’m convicted are moral standards.
Even if I was Atheist - these would not change.

I hope this helps

Interesting, so you think if your government instituted a draft and demanded you go fight in Iraq that you’d be willing to give your life for “your country”?

Say there was no afterlife, but still a God and you were captured by Muslims who demanded you convert or die, you would choose to die even if you knew for sure there was no afterlife?

 

[kimmielittle]

Interesting, so you think if your government instituted a draft and demanded you go fight in Iraq that you’d be willing to give your life for “your country”?

I’m not a soldier…But I am a veteran.
My big brother served in Iraq …was wounded in Iraq. To give them the vote.
He is now in Afghanistan.

Say there was no afterlife, but still a God and you were captured by Muslims who demanded you convert or die, you would choose to die even if you knew for sure there was no afterlife?

This is a poor analogy…but I’ll answer. Yes, I would die for my conviction of my God. It isn’t the promise of Heaven that convicted my soul. IMHO this is where Atheists have it back ask word

I hope this helps

 

[LittleSoldier]

*Oh, when will we learn? *

I understand your frustration and feeling of helplessness because I feel it, too. But I think we need to remember that every unborn child who is murdered via abortion is now in heaven and is totally at peace in God.

I try to remind myself of that when I feel so awful about what is going on in our “civilized” world.

I lost two children before they were born and I know they, too, are in heaven and are at peace. I look forward to the time when I can be with them again.

Nobody can abort a soul.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

I can say that, honestly, I would give my life to save the unborn. In a way, that is what you are doing right now, because you have devoted your life to saving these innocent children.

I am trying, but I’m still at a learning stage and gathering experience and trying to learn charity.

This is such an important cause. I will never stop fighting for the rights of the unborn.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I apologize - you have stated this over and over. I think perhaps the problem is in the definition of “person” and I’ve always had difficulty with this. To me every human being is a person; the terms “human being” and “person” are synonymous. So I find it difficult to comprehend why anyone would believe that it’s OK to kill a human being, whether born or still in her mother’s womb.

OK, I want to be absolutely sure that I understand you correctly. You are saying that even if an infant is not a person (using your definition) that killing the infant is morally wrong, although it would be worse to kill a person; in fact, to kill a person is murder, but to kill an infant (who is not a person) is a lesser crime.

Do I have it right now?

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So you seemingly agree with my definition after all then.

Actually I’m not sure what your definition is.

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.

In logic, we must agree on an assumption before any further statements can be proved. You can’t prove the basic assumption.

Your scientific knowledge is rudimentary if you don’t understand scientific method. That was branded into my brain in my first biology course in college. My knowledge of law is rudimentary, but I would like to point out that what you are studying is man’s law. My emphasis is on universal law, which is God’s law.

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.

Yes, a human is more than the cells with DNA. In fact, the cells are more than just little bits of whatever with strands of DNA. I never claimed that a species has rights or is a person. It’s the members within a species that have the rights and are persons.

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.

What this means is that you left the part out about the contribution of the parents and you are taking my “partial sentence” out of context and making it appear to others that I said only what you quoted. Then you concluded that what I stated means that it is the unique DNA that makes a blastocyst a person. And that is not true.

I’m going to respond to this once again:

It is not the DNA that makes a blastocyst a person, whether that DNA is unique or not unique. What makes a blastocyst a person is the fact that the DNA from the human parents was passed on via conception and formed new DNA whose structure is unique in that it does not match the DNA of either parent. This is why an unborn child is a human being. It makes no difference if she is at the blastocyst stage, is an embryo, or is a fetus. Her parents (those that contributed their genetic information) are both human beings and she (whose DNA is unique in that it does not match the DNA of either of her parents (who are human beings)) is also a human being.

Let me state again:

An ovum is penetrated by a spermatozoan. If the ovum is produced by a human female and the spermatozoa are produced by a human male, 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.

An identical twin shares her unique DNA with her twin - the DNA is still unique in that it is formed from parents who don’t share the same DNA as their offspring. The human female contributes genetic information and the human male contributes genetic information and the result is a new human being (or two human beings or three human beings) with DNA unique in that it does not match the DNA of either of the parents.

These offspring are indeed human beings. Killing them at any time is morally wrong. Abortion at any time during pregnancy is wrong. It is murder because the unborn is a truly innocent human being.

We’ve gotten a bit off-track here, so I would like to go back to the OP:

To pick a child’s gender by aborting a male child and then becoming pregnant again and again until a female child is formed is morally wrong. Male and female human beings have equal worth and to abort one for any reason is to spit in the face of God.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

To me, it appeared to be a game. If it isn’t a game to you I apologize. But I’m not here to discuss whether God is a person and if so, why. I’m here to discuss abortion. As I’ve stated before, I don’t enjoy discussing “personhood.” To me, all human beings are persons.

I try not to use Wiki as a reference because anyone can go in and change definitions. It is a good starting point, and sometimes the only reference I can find on a particular subject comes from Wiki but I try my best to stay away from it.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

They look like babies? They are babies! As far as shocking, please remember that what you see in movies and computer games are fake; computer simulations and fancy camera work. What you see in these photos is real. Those are real babies that were ripped apart, burned, and torn to pieces. Every one was murdered.

I’ve been exposed to graphic simulations of gore and death, but I feel nauseous when I see photos of actual little babies killed the way these have been killed.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

To everyone:

When I’ve posted here I’ve been mostly limiting myself to the science that I learned in college. But, as a scientist and a Catholic, I have to include everything I have learned. To withhold part of my beliefs would be to lie. I try very hard not to lie about anything.

All human beings have souls, and this is what I have left out of most of my posts. Every unborn child is a child of God, loved by Him, precious to Him, created by Him. It’s not our right to take a loved creation of God and murder her. It’s never OK to do this.

I just wanted to make it clear that I consider each person to be a creation of a loving God, created through love, and having an immortal soul. I am as sure of this as I am sure that a new human being is formed at the moment of conception.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[JReducation]

The issue is not whether the person is created by God, because this is not a religious issue. It’s a social justice issue. But in order to be just to the unborn, to the chronically ill and to those who brain damaged or elderly, we must get past the lies

The legal system does not tell its citizens that it changes definitions that have been held for centuries and that have a shared meaning, for other definitions that justify their legislations.

People use the term “person” without knowing what it means. As I’ve posted ad nauseam, person was a term used to describe how a human being came into existence. Therefore person and human being have always been interchangeable until pop culture started to redefine person. Unfortunately, the definition is not shared by society. Therefore, it’s useless. Unless language has shared meaning, it is not very useful.

The argument about the life of the mother being in danger during a pregnancy holds as much water as a thimble. Let’s look at how many women gift birth everyday and how many die in labor. In the rare cases where a woman dies in labor, it is a natural death. Taking the life of the unborn is not natural. There is a big difference. I can’t kill someone to protect someone else from natural death. At some point, that person is going to die anyway. We all die. But we don’t have to speed up the process by killing someone.

Abortions have been known to do more physical damage to women than pregnancy and delivery. Many women have been left sterile due to damage done to the uterus. Very few people mention this.

The women’s movement stripped fathers of their rights, to avoid being challenged in court. But the same movement prosecutes fathers who do not support their children. It seems that the women’s movement had decided when a man becomes a father. It is very convenient to give this kind of authority to one movement over half of the human population. In other words, this movement has the power to decide when I, a male, become a dad. I don’t think so.

The women’s movement has propagated another falsehood that says that a child does not have the right to occupy the mother’s womb without her concern. The only problem with this is that this is the way that nature built mammals. To say that a woman can deny her unborn child the use of her uterus is to overrule the laws of nature. When did man get the authority to do this?

The same people who say that we can overrule the laws of nature to give women the right to choose, defend same-sex unions as natural and condemn everyone who disagrees. Which is it? Do we follow the laws of nature only when it’s convenient to us? Maybe we can write our own natural laws? But then would they be natural or human? Or maybe, same-sex unions are natural, but pregnancy is not. Therefore we defend the former, because it’s natural and make the latter optional, because it’s not natural, even though every mammal reproduces the same way.

When are we going to get past the lies? When are we going to challenge the pro-choice people to prove their point and to do so using, not their own rules, but the same rules that society has used for thousands of years. If something is true, you should be able to prove it without having to change language or change the rules of logic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

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.

My friend, I don’t know if you’re male or female. It doesn’t really matter. What I find striking about this post and something that you said below about being desensitized, I think that you’re living in a world of hopelessness. I don’t envy you.

You have no future beyond this life. If it turns out to be rotten, you’re screwed. You have no sensitivity to violence; therefore, the suffering of others does not move you to act. You have only your opinion to hand on to. The moment that you have a difference of opinions, relationships are over, because you can’t budge from your opinion, even though you can’t prove it.

It is a pity that you have forgotten how to pray, how to sit and ask God to let you hear something beyond yourself and beyond your opinions. But have created a psychological tomb for yourself where you can’t really love, because you can’t give your life for another, nor can you sacrifice your opinion for that of another. You don’t have the ability to give and to receive. You don’t have it, because you have stopped believing in yourself, not in God.

Maybe you’re on the wrong thread. You should not be discussing abortion, until you discover trust.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

OK, I want to be absolutely sure that I understand you correctly. You are saying that even if an infant is not a person (using your definition) that killing the infant is morally wrong, although it would be worse to kill a person; in fact, to kill a person is murder, but to kill an infant (who is not a person) is a lesser crime.

For the most part, yes. I think infants have high inherent value, because they are on their way to growing up into one of us. It would be really hard for me to imagine a situation where killing an infant would be justified, since parents who don’t want to raise their baby can always give it up for adoption.

Maybe in some cases of scarce resources, where existing children are starving, where adoption is not an option I can see parents leaving their newborn to die simply because they don’t have the food to sustain it. But those types of situations are extreme, and don’t exist in our societies.

And while I am pro-choice, and think that the woman should always have precedence, I still think that especially in the later stages of pregnancy the woman should have good reasons to abort.

 

[flyingfish]

My friend, I don’t know if you’re male or female.

I’m a woman, if you’re interested.

You have no future beyond this life. If it turns out to be rotten, you’re screwed.

This is what I believe, I think this life is all I have. But I would say that this belief motivates me to make the best of the one life that I do have, and so I think that it is important to work for a good quality of life for human beings.

You have no sensitivity to violence; therefore, the suffering of others does not move you to act.

That’s not true, I have very little sensitivity to violent imagery because I have seen so much of it in movies and computer games. Seeing bloody body parts would not shock me for example, but that doesn’t mean I’m not sensitive to people’s suffering. I score pretty high on empathy tests, I cry in movies etc.

You have only your opinion to hand on to. The moment that you have a difference of opinions, relationships are over, because you can’t budge from your opinion, even though you can’t prove it.

I don’t know why you think this, actually I have relationships with people who have views opposite to mine. I don’t have very strong convictions in most areas, so there would be very few things I would dump a friend over. Off the top of my head, I can’t even think of one possible difference of opinion that would cause me to end a friendship.

It is a pity that you have forgotten how to pray, how to sit and ask God to let you hear something beyond yourself and beyond your opinions.

I still try to pray from time to time, but it’s always in the back of my mind that I am just talking to myself.

But have created a psychological tomb for yourself where you can’t really love, because you can’t give your life for another, nor can you sacrifice your opinion for that of another.

I’m not sure what you mean about not sacrificing my opinion? But about giving up my life you’re probably right, as I said, I might change if I have children, but I just can’t see actually giving up my life for anyone. I would risk my life for those close to me, I mean if a family member was drowning I would do what I could to try to save them, but risking life and giving up life are different scenarios. I wouldn’t go to certain death so that someone else could live, that’s true. I don’t think it means I can’t really love, I still love people.

 

[JReducation]

This is what I believe, I think this life is all I have. But I would say that this belief motivates me to make the best of the one life that I do have, and so I think that it is important to work for a good quality of life for human beings.

That’s a good goal, as long as it includes every human being, even the unborn. Otherwise, it’s an unfair system.

I have very little sensitivity to violent imagery because I have seen so much of it in movies and computer games. Seeing bloody body parts would not shock me for example, but that doesn’t mean I’m not sensitive to people’s suffering. I score pretty high on empathy tests, I cry in movies etc. \quote]

I was not going for shock. I’m was going for empathy. I want you to look at those pictures again and try to think that these are human beings that you’re looking at. They are as human as the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Mentally Retarded that died in concentration camps.

I don’t know why you think this, actually I have relationships with people who have views opposite to mine. I don’t have very strong convictions in most areas, so there would be very few things I would dump a friend over. Off the top of my head, I can’t even think of one possible difference of opinion that would cause me to end a friendship.

So your opinions are not locked in stone. That’s good.

I still try to pray from time to time, but it’s always in the back of my mind that I am just talking to myself.

Sometimes it feels that way. But that’s where practice makes perfect. One not only has to walk in with one’s list for God. One must also walk in and say to God, “Here I am. What do you want me to do?” Then we wait. The answer comes through very strange means . . . sometimes.

I’m not sure what you mean about not sacrificing my opinion?

If your opinion is the only thing that gives meaning to your live, how can you sacrifice it? On the other hand, if it’s not the only thing that gives meaning to your life and you can sacrifice it, then maybe it’s time that you laid it aside and came home.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

I was not going for shock. I’m was going for empathy. I want you to look at those pictures again and try to think that these are human beings that you’re looking at. They are as human as the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Mentally Retarded that died in concentration camps.

If I were to look at pictures of concentration camps I would feel empathy because I would imagine those people suffering, watching their family members die, being afraid for their own lives, being in pain and so on.

I don’t get those feelings when I look at pictures of the unborn because the unborn didn’t even know they were alive, they weren’t aware of their lives being taken from them, they didn’t have feelings or thoughts.

Sometimes it feels that way. But that’s where practice makes perfect. One not only has to walk in with one’s list for God. One must also walk in and say to God, “Here I am. What do you want me to do?” Then we wait. The answer comes through very strange means . . . sometimes.

Believe it or not, I have done that a lot. God has never answered.

If your opinion is the only thing that gives meaning to your live, how can you sacrifice it? On the other hand, if it’s not the only thing that gives meaning to your life and you can sacrifice it, then maybe it’s time that you laid it aside and came home.

I haven’t thought too much about it, but I really don’t think my opinions contribute that much to meaning in my life. My work, my family and friends, my hobbies are what make my life worth living.

Maybe my vague notions of basic meaning of life do. But specific beliefs like about abortion or politics etc. don’t at all.

 

[JReducation]

If I were to look at pictures of concentration camps I would feel empathy because I would imagine those people suffering, watching their family members die, being afraid for their own lives, being in pain and so on.

**I don’t get those feelings when I look at pictures of the unborn because the unborn didn’t even know they were alive, they weren’t aware of their lives being taken from them, they didn’t have feelings or thoughts. **

You’ve already admitted that this is just your opinion, that you could be wrong and that you cannot prove this opinion.

Therefore, you can take a risk and look at them again, using your imagination, if you have to, try and see them a human beings, as real babies.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

You’ve already admitted that this is just your opinion, that you could be wrong and that you cannot prove this opinion.

That the unborn don’t have thoughts is a little bit more than my opinion. It’s my opinion to define personhood on the basis of the presence of a conscious mind, but scientists pretty extensively study the minds of infants as I’m sure you know given your background.

Even if you make an argument that at some later stages of pregnancies the fetus has human brainwaves. I just don’t see how you can make that argument for the first trimester.

Is there any scientific evidence that the fetus knows it exists?

 

[JReducation]

That the unborn don’t have thoughts is a little bit more than my opinion. It’s my opinion to define personhood on the basis of the presence of a conscious mind, but scientists pretty extensively study the minds of infants as I’m sure you know given your background.

Even if you make an argument that at some later stages of pregnancies the fetus has human brainwaves. I just don’t see how you can make that argument for the first trimester.

Is there any scientific evidence that the fetus knows it exists?

How do you know that you exist? Philosophers have been trying to prove this for centuries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

How do you know that you exist? Philosophers have been trying to prove this for centuries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think therefore I am? I don’t know that anyone else exists though. But philosophy aside, you can observe the behavior of infants, like the mirror test, and later when they talk and make some conclusions.