I don’t know what God would be okay with or not. But in the context of Christianity, God made chimps and dolphins as well. What about related species that don’t exists now? Homo erectus for example had fire and tools, the Neaderthals were more advanced still. Yet they were not human, do you think they wouldn’t have been persons either?
When we say the Creed, at Mass, we say the Holy Spirit is The Lord the Giver of Life. The Holy Spirit is God, part of the Trinity. He does not give us the gift of a baby boy, so we can choose to kill him. God is not okay with killing little babies.
Unless of course you identify consciousness with a soul.
This was what I was trying to get at in my last paragraph, you did exist. You had matter (a body, your mother did push a fiction of her imagination out of herself) and you had everything that you needed to become an adult, when you were conceived, Human DNA. At ten weeks gestation a baby’s heart beat is visable, sometime around 20(ish) weeks, a baby has every organ that it will have in adulthood. The brain has everything it needs to develop into a self aware adult.
which doesn’t make sense, as animals exits, plants, exist and even non living things exist. It is true before conception (when the sperm fertilizes the egg, and DNA is formed) you did not exist, but after that science would contradict your theory, that you did not exist.Actually, he embraces infanticide…beastly…abortion…,.genocide…euthanasia…eugenics…
It comes down to the question of what is a person. I don’t think simply being genetically human is enough. I think you need to have a brain capable of generating consciousness. When “I” was born, “I” didn’t have that. Had my mother decided to kill “me”, she would have destroyed a human, but she wouldn’t have destroyed a person that at some point realized it existed. I’ve seen baby pictures of myself, and I just don’t identify them as pictures of me. I realize obviously it’s the early stages of the human that later developed into me, but at that point it wasn’t me. I just don’t feel the connection.
I do believe this to an extent. Or alternatively if a couple spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to conceive a child that someone later killed, it’s a greater offense than killing the child of parents who are fertile and who had an easy time conceiving.
After being called a homicidal sociopath earlier in the thread, it’s a relief to hear this.
I am on the fence about this, because when the baby is in the womb the mother is essentially allowing it to use its body for life. Suppose the fetus is a person in my view, I am still not sure about abortion. It doesn’t sit well with me that it should be okay to force someone to allow another person to use their body to live. The woman should be able to decide whether the fetus gets the use of her body.
The natural state of being for a woman is not pregnant, but a state of nonpregnancy. It may be a natural act that happens a few times in a womans life but it is not the natural state of being.
I agree with most of your statements. We do in fact hold “conscienceness” or brain function as a requirement for a human beings lives, not simply biological life. A person that has died, their organs may be kept alive months and years after actual organism death by the simple fact that the organs in the body work off of electrical pulses, that normally the brain sends, but now machines can duplicate. A person who has been capacitated, no one would consider still alive even though their bodies are kept scientifically and biologically alive through the use of machines. So I feel that the brain function, not necessarily the philosophical “personhood” definition, should be the standard in which one is calssified as a living human organism as a whole in utero since that is the standard given once born and no one questions that.
I don’t know about pregnancy being an “affliction”…
Thats ok…sometimes I get fuzzy too
Pregnancy is one natural state of being for a woman. That is the thing that’s awesome and unique to womanhood. It’s part of our very nature down to the core. It’s not an affliction.
Condition is certainlly a better word…my brain is not working properly right now so thank you for supplying me with better vocabulary. In many cases the fetus does “attack” the womans body or rather assaults it. With conversations with my own mother about her pregnancies and my sister’s pregnancy, they have both stated that indeed their children assaulted them while in the womb. Assault in the legal sense implies intent to cause harm (criminal) but in the actual definition of the word it simply means cause harm to the body. Since the embryo is a foreign body, the womans immune system attacks it. The embryo/fetus has its own protection against this by lowering the mother’s immune system during gestation and shielding itself. This is something that the embryo does - not the mother. The mothers natural body instinct is to attack and expell the foreign body that can and does damage the “host” body. This is not to say that there cannot be healthy pregnancies or that the mothers body does not heal itself after the fetus is expelled (either miscarraige or birth) Even the most healthy pregnancies come with health issues, the most common one being tearing and ripping of muscles and skin upon exiting (or in c-section a knife cutting through skin, blood vessels, muscles, tissue etc) Gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, hypertension and many more all all examples of harm that occurs to the woman’s body during the condition of pregnancy.
And in an abortion, the mother’s intent may not may not be to cause harm to her offspring, but she most certainly does. She inflicts not only bodily harm, but inflicts a grave injustice on her child. It is only through blindness, certainly often brought on by distress but other times a preferred blindness, that she ignores the mortal harm she is causing. You are not in distress, but I think you are also choosing to be blind to this harm and injustice. It seems to me that this is all very clinical to you. And while you have been intellectualizing it all today, the lives of 4,000 babies, guilty in your mind of some kind of harm, have been snuffed out.
The only way that I can look at this is through unemotional eyes to remain as objective as possible.
One can hardly avoid the topic of abortion itself when discussing abortion for the reason of gender selection. But to stick entirely with the abortion subtopic of gender-selection abortion, it is particularly heinous because rather than hiring someone to end a child’s life when the mother is under duress, it is abortion with premeditation - “murder one”, making it a particularly cold-hearted act. That a person would plan to end the life of the child of undesired gender out of some misguided sense of “kindness” to the unwanted offspring only shows how cold the parent’s heart already is. But it will become even colder if she ever actually carries out the abortion, because a mother can’t end her child’s life without detriment to her own heart and soul. But I will say again that a mother who intends to kill any male (or female, as the case may be) child that might be conceived in the future, is already guilty of murder in her heart.
Yes God made everything. But he did not make everythin in His image. That is what sets humans apart.