Abortion due to gender.

[mark_a]

My mother thought this way as well, especially when she was trying to get pregnant with my oldest sister. To be honest I still believe that she thinks this way (at least for her personal life) about never really believing that she would know what to do with a son. Of course, by the time I came around, she already had her two girls and so the sex never really made a difference to her, since she had her girls to play with and identify with. And then she got another girl, which disappointed my father (not that he never loved or never wanted his daughters, just that he was hoping for a son at some point - he was an amazing father and still is) But the fact that my mother stopped having children after me, and my father still never got his desired dream to have another child or more specifically a son, tore on their relationship.

I also kinda think this way in my life, not to the point of abortion or not loving my male children, but for me, when I look in the future and think of those children I may have, I can never picture a son at young ages…I can only really image what they will be like when they come home from college, or tell me about their new job, or when they find a pretty girl they want to marry. I always view future sons as adults already, but future daughters I always picture during their childhood. This is mainly because I was never around young boys (kids in classrooms do not count) and only really had experience with them as already adults, but with females I had two older sisters and a host of female cousins (females outrun this family ) Since my nephew was born however this is starting to change, although I now can only see a future son of mine up to the age of two. I think that this way of thinking ha to do with our experiences around male and female children and our interactions seeing them in real life. Since you have no experience really seeing boys growing up (I am assuming here correct if wrong) you may not be able to think that you can have an interest in their upbringing. Or it could be the opposite - such as my mother. She never had any experience with female children having 4 rough and roudy brothers in an era where females were not so encouraged to go out and play sports or get a career in anything really other than female jobs (teaching, nursing, receptionist etc) so she really wanted a girl. I don’t know.

All I know is that your experiences shape how we think constantly and you are liable to change your way of thinking

With all the issues you’ve discussed here in this post, I think it’s a possibility you will change your own way of thinking about these life issues.

Best wishes to you.

 

[kimmielittle]

Neurons firing does not mean that brain function is present. Brain funtion includes the ability of the brain to send messages not only to the rest of the brain but to the body. that is not present until roughly the 20th to 22nd week when the cerebral cortex forms, indeed we can see this when the neuron tube does not close properly in the early gestastion where anencephaly develops most often, and that is a condition in which the brain does not form. In less severe cases only a brain stem will form or the brain will form outside the body (thus damaged to the point of not working by the embryonic fluid). Very rare cases do parts of the brain form where the fetus develops to the point of haiving limited brain function that can control the body for limited periods of time, but the fact is they have some brain function and those components are there to make brain function possible. I can take a single neuron out of the brain and can get it do “fire off” thus detecting “brain function” Cellular life also includes life in neurons, and that can be detected when those cells work properly (thus firing off electric signals). This does not porve organism life. An organism is a life as a whole singular being, not the collection of living cells, which corpses have.

Hiyas
Interesting theory of yours.
All subjective speculation and open to your interpretation. You fail to provide evidence to your theory…

As a fact, it would be your burden to prove first - that life does not exist at conception.

I find it interesting that you couple - decay of cell structure… to growth.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[JReducation]

All the arguments presented here supporting abortion are unsustainable.

1. No human being has been given the right to decided that another human being cannot come into the world.
2. The terms “fetus”, “embryo”, “zygote” are simple biological terms for each stage of development, none of them deny the humanity of the person.
3. The fertilized egg is alive. It is a human egg. Therefore, its destruction is the destruction of a human life.
4. A person does not become a person when the law or the mother decide. One is a person because the Creator endowed us with personhood. At what point does God endow the fertilized egg with personhood, at 22 weeks, 40 weeks, why not at age five?
5. The rights of the mother do not trump the rights of the child in her womb. Where does natural law say this? Human beings forfeit certain rights when they consciously violate the rights of the innocent. A child in his mother’s womb does not consciously violate his mother’s rights. Therefore, he has not forfeited his own.
6. Through the msytery of the Incarnation God the Father vests humanity on God the Son. Were humanity a disposable commodity, it would not been a gift from the Father to the Son through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. As Revelation points out, humanity exists in the mind of God and is treasured within the Holy Trinity. How can man dare to deny the value of what God treasures?
7. A human being does not have the right to destroy the life of another human being so that he can have what he wants. To abort because you want a specific gender is pragmatism at its worse.
8. Our nation was founded upon the principle that law is valid only when it protects the rights of the governed, not when it transgresses the inalienable rights that the Almighty has bestowed on every man, woman and child. This fundamental principle of our Founding Fathers did not exclude any stage of human development, not even the unborn.
9. The every idea that a mother can kill her unborn child releases into society a virus that may not be abled to be stopped. For if a mother has the right to kill her unborn child for whatever reason, why should a neighbor not have the same rights over others who are not his flesh and blood?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ac_claire]

Amen, JR.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

All the arguments presented here supporting abortion are unsustainable.

1. No human being has been given the right to decided that another human being cannot come into the world.

Some Scandinavian countries perfected “human wisdom” to a point of total madness. Medical experimentation on rats and mice (essential for developing new drugs against cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, etc) is greatly restricted, in order to protect the “rights” of animals. If you kill a dog or a cat, you may face legal consequences including jail. But abortion of human beings is a sacred right. That’s the kind of nonsense man comes up with after rejecting God’s moral law, revealed to us in the 10 Commandments.

1. The terms “fetus”, “embryo”, “zygote” are simple biological terms for each stage of development, none of them deny the humanity of the person.

1. The fertilized egg is alive. It is a human egg. Therefore, its destruction is the destruction of a human life.

If the Mars rover vehicle found a pond with liquid water on the surface of the Mars, and an amoeba-like single cell organism in it, showing metabolic activity and cellular division, it would become headline news in the Science and Nature journals: “We found LIFE on the Mars!” But when we look at a fertilized egg showing the same signs of life, especially if it’s human, some of us (feminists, pro-choicers) will interestingly come to a different conclusion…

1. A person does not become a person when the law or the mother decide. One is a person because the Creator endowed us with personhood. At what point does God endow the fertilized egg with personhood, at 22 weeks, 40 weeks, why not at age five?

A person should only become a person when mom decides so. That’s why I insisted and continue to insist that a 17-year old teenager who listens to loud annoying music all day long and wants to drive the car, but is not “developed” enough to put his used socks in the laundry basket, scattering them instead on the floor, is NOT a person yet. Nobody should be considered a person before he/she is developed enough to throw the dirty socks into the laundry basket, and load the dishwasher! These are “objective” and “scientific” criteria! Therefore, could we please allow mom to “put asleep” her unruly teenagers, with some “humane” and painless method (a lethal dose of morphine?), if they become too annoying? Just kidding!!

Brother JR, on a more serious note, is it correct that St Thomas Aquinas suggested that the human being may not be endowed with a soul until 40 days after conception? Does the Church have a definitive teaching on when a human being receives a soul from God? I understand that even if we wouldn’t know the answer to that question, we could not justify abortion, because abortion kills a human (being?) (person?) and that’s forbidden in the 5th commandment (Thou shalt not kill). Should we call a fertilized egg a human person, regardless of any unanswered questions regarding whether God gives us a soul at the moment of conception or only some days later, after conception? I remember God said to prophet Jeremiah something like “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”. Is it even relevant at all to speculate on when exactly does God give a soul to a human being, at the moment of conception or only later? Is it plausible to suggest that since prophet Jeremiah existed since the moment of his conception, God knew him from that moment? As I think more, it seems illogical NOT to call a human being immediately after conception (fertilized egg stage) a person. I would appreciate any comments you may have on this.

1. The every idea that a mother can kill her unborn child releases into society a virus that may not be abled to be stopped. For if a mother has the right to kill her unborn child for whatever reason, why should a neighbor not have the same rights over others who are not his flesh and blood?

Sure, if my neighbor listens to loud annoying music all day long, he is surely not a person, so why can’t I eliminate this entity, this non-person?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I just wanted to add another funny controversy arising from the logic that ties personhood to self-consciousness, and the “right to abort” to the ability of the fetus to feel pain. Those who argue that the fetus can be aborted before he/she is self-conscious and has certain kind of brain activity, would they argue that it’s OK to kill someone who is asleep in his bed? He is not self-conscious during the deep sleep phase, so why not kill him? Also, a patient on the operating table, during general anesthesia, is not conscious, and does not feel pain because the ability of sensory neurons to transmit signals to the brain is impaired. In some way, the situation under general anesthesia is similar to that of a fetus who is not self-conscious and does not feel pain because the anatomical structures necessary for that are not yet developed. So, if it’s not OK to kill the patient under general anesthesia, why should it be OK to kill the fetus? And what’s next? Kill people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, because their self-consciousness is impaired?

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, on a more serious note, is it correct that St Thomas Aquinas suggested that the human being may not be endowed with a soul until 40 days after conception? Does the Church have a definitive teaching on when a human being receives a soul from God? I understand that even if we wouldn’t know the answer to that question, we could not justify abortion, because abortion kills a human (being?) (person?) and that’s forbidden in the 5th commandment (Thou shalt not kill). Should we call a fertilized egg a human person, regardless of any unanswered questions regarding whether God gives us a soul at the moment of conception or only some days later, after conception? I remember God said to prophet Jeremiah something like “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”. Is it even relevant at all to speculate on when exactly does God give a soul to a human being, at the moment of conception or only later? Is it plausible to suggest that since prophet Jeremiah existed since the moment of his conception, God knew him from that moment? As I think more, it seems illogical NOT to call a human being immediately after conception (fertilized egg stage) a person. I would appreciate any comments you may have on this.

Aquinas was a genius, but there are several things that we must keep in mind. First, he was never a pope and nothing that he wrote could be held up as Ex-Cathedra teaching. Some people make the mistake of using Thomas as if he were in posession of such authority. Thomas never claimed to have such authority. He would be horrified to be seen in that light. He was very humble.

Second, he was right about many things and the Church used his arguments and methods until now, when Benedict XVI has switched over to the Franciscan and Augustinian systems of doing theology, rather than Thomism. But Aquinas was also wrong on many things. Conception is one of them The Church holds and believes that human life is sacred from conception to natural death.

Let’s examine why she believes this. In Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II clearly explains that the soul is created and given to the person at the very moment of conception. Pope John Paul was using the arguments of the great Franciscan theologian, John Duns Scotus who opposed Aquinas on this point and on the Immaculate Conception. Aquinas argued that the Immaculate Conception was not possible, because the soul was not introduced at conception, but during gestation. Scotus argued that the Immaculate Conception was possible, because the soul was introducd at conception. Once we accepted the Franciscan theology of the Immaculate Conception, then we have to accept the rest. If Mary receives a soul at conception, so does everyone else. The argument in defense of the Immaculate Conception depends on the believe that a soul is created and united to matter at conception. Otherwise, Mary is not the Immaculate Conception. Aquinas would be right. Mary was born immaculate, not conceived immaculate. Aquinas entire argument is predicated on his belief that the human beings receive a soul durng gestation, not at conception. The Franciscan school argued that human beings receive a soul at conception and that this was the mind of the early Church and the faith of the Eastern Fathers.

Eventually, these position is declared infallible dogma. May is the Immaculate Conception, because she receives an immaculate soul at the moment of conception. From there we can extrapolate that matter and sould come into existence in as a single person at conception.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RobnBobA1]

1. No human being has been given the right to decided that another human being cannot come into the world.
2. The terms “fetus”, “embryo”, “zygote” are simple biological terms for each stage of development, none of them deny the humanity of the person.
3. The fertilized egg is alive. It is a human egg. Therefore, its destruction is the destruction of a human life.
4. A person does not become a person when the law or the mother decide.
5. The rights of the mother do not trump the rights of the child in her womb.
6. Through the msytery of the Incarnation God the Father vests humanity on God the Son.
7. A human being does not have the right to destroy the life of another human being so that he can have what he wants.
8. This fundamental principle of our Founding Fathers did not exclude any stage of human development, not even the unborn.
9. For if a mother has the right to kill her unborn child for whatever reason, why should a neighbor not have the same rights over others who are not his flesh and blood?

1. We have been given the absolute right to decide who may and may not use our body and the right to defend ourselves with force if necessary to ensure that right.
2. Never stated that they do, but they do denote specific characterists, just as a sperm, a heart cell, a cancer cell, a parasitic twin, a fetus in feti and many other characteristics that each thing has. Everthing from a late term fetus to an elderly person all have the same characterists - a working brain. All of the above examples are examples of organisms that do not have brain function nor are whole singular living human beings.
3. Human life yes, but not a whole singular human being which is what we grant rights to. It hasthe same characteristics as any other living human cell.
4. That is a theological question and one that should not be asked when deiciding the legal justification of abortion (public arguments for public policy that all US citizens must follow of different or no faith)
5. Neither does the fetus have no existent rights - such as the right to use another person’s body regardless of their legal consent. If the fetus never used the body of another person, abortion would not be an issue.

"Human beings forfeit certain rights …

No…there forfiet certain rights when their ACTIONs violate the rights of another. Or rather , the one being violated has the right to defend their rights through the use of physical force if necessary regardless of intention. Intention is necessary for the our government to violate those rights, not for individuals to “violate” those rights. That is why self-defense is a separate issue. Most often in rights violation there is also the component of intent (mens rae) in which the government can also step in to protect (or prevent through removal of certain rights such as liberty or life), because in almost all cases of violation we are talking about a person with a functioning brain that makes decisions, thus committing actions based on those decisions. This does not however give a freeforall to all individuals that would not meet the states standards of mens rae, ie mentally ill or retarded, children under the age of 7 or 12, schezophrenics ect. Their actions committed do not reach the standard of intent, and yet should they violate the rights of another, that person may use physical force to prevent or stop them, to include force that violates those rights. Actions are all that is necessary to prove, not intent.

1. Read number 4.
2. For that specific reason no, but the reason is always valid and justified when another person is using their body. That is the only justification that is needed. A female embryo/fetus using the body of the mother, it matters not her outside reason for denial of her body, but the fact that she denies the use of her body to said female fetus but would allow a male fetus (a different “person”) to use her body.
3. Actually when the Supreme Court looks at what the meaning of specific rights in the constitution meant, they look at three things. The words of the constitution, the words of the founding fathers in their papers about the constitution, and the laws passed in the time that the founding fathers were still alive and part of government. Both the papers and the laws of that time stated that the woman has the right to abortion up until quickening, or roughly the middle/end of the 2nd trimester because said fetus’s were not endowned with those constitutional rights. , but you will rebuttle that they also said that slavery was right thereefor they were wrong about abortion.
4. That rationale is ridiculus. First and foremost the neghbor has the right to kill someone not of his flesh and blood or even his kin if they violate his physical body in the same way that a woman has the right to prevent and/or stop the physical violation of her body by the fetus. If fetus is not using the body of the woman, she has no right to harm it, same as the neighbor. It is the same rationale that they used when blacks wanted to marry whites…“what’s next - should we allow man to marry beast and have sex with it - should we allow a man to marry a 8 year old girl…where do we stop…” Countries that have the least restrictions on abortions actually have the least violence and murder rates, while those countries that have the harshest restrictions also have a much higher crime rate all across the board. That is also influenced by other factors, but it obviously shows that simply the legalization of abortion does not merit the concern that it will lead to a free-for-all of murder everywhere.

 

[kimmielittle]

1. We have been given the absolute right to decide who may and may not use our body and the right to defend ourselves with force if necessary to ensure that right.
2. Never stated that they do, but they do denote specific characterists, just as a sperm, a heart cell, a cancer cell, a parasitic twin, a fetus in feti and many other characteristics that each thing has. Everthing from a late term fetus to an elderly person all have the same characterists - a working brain. All of the above examples are examples of organisms that do not have brain function nor are whole singular living human beings.
3. Human life yes, but not a whole singular human being which is what we grant rights to. It hasthe same characteristics as any other living human cell.
4. That is a theological question and one that should not be asked when deiciding the legal justification of abortion (public arguments for public policy that all US citizens must follow of different or no faith)
5. Neither does the fetus have no existent rights - such as the right to use another person’s body regardless of their legal consent. If the fetus never used the body of another person, abortion would not be an issue.

"Human beings forfeit certain rights …

No…there forfiet certain rights when their ACTIONs violate the rights of another. Or rather , the one being violated has the right to defend their rights through the use of physical force if necessary regardless of intention. Intention is necessary for the our government to violate those rights, not for individuals to “violate” those rights. That is why self-defense is a separate issue. Most often in rights violation there is also the component of intent (mens rae) in which the government can also step in to protect (or prevent through removal of certain rights such as liberty or life), because in almost all cases of violation we are talking about a person with a functioning brain that makes decisions, thus committing actions based on those decisions. This does not however give a freeforall to all individuals that would not meet the states standards of mens rae, ie mentally ill or retarded, children under the age of 7 or 12, schezophrenics ect. Their actions committed do not reach the standard of intent, and yet should they violate the rights of another, that person may use physical force to prevent or stop them, to include force that violates those rights. Actions are all that is necessary to prove, not intent.

1. Read number 4.
2. For that specific reason no, but the reason is always valid and justified when another person is using their body. That is the only justification that is needed. A female embryo/fetus using the body of the mother, it matters not her outside reason for denial of her body, but the fact that she denies the use of her body to said female fetus but would allow a male fetus (a different “person”) to use her body.
3. Actually when the Supreme Court looks at what the meaning of specific rights in the constitution meant, they look at three things. The words of the constitution, the words of the founding fathers in their papers about the constitution, and the laws passed in the time that the founding fathers were still alive and part of government. Both the papers and the laws of that time stated that the woman has the right to abortion up until quickening, or roughly the middle/end of the 2nd trimester because said fetus’s were not endowned with those constitutional rights. , but you will rebuttle that they also said that slavery was right thereefor they were wrong about abortion.
4. That rationale is ridiculus. First and foremost the neghbor has the right to kill someone not of his flesh and blood or even his kin if they violate his physical body in the same way that a woman has the right to prevent and/or stop the physical violation of her body by the fetus. If fetus is not using the body of the woman, she has no right to harm it, same as the neighbor. It is the same rationale that they used when blacks wanted to marry whites…“what’s next - should we allow man to marry beast and have sex with it - should we allow a man to marry a 8 year old girl…where do we stop…” Countries that have the least restrictions on abortions actually have the least violence and murder rates, while those countries that have the harshest restrictions also have a much higher crime rate all across the board. That is also influenced by other factors, but it obviously shows that simply the legalization of abortion does not merit the concern that it will lead to a free-for-all of murder everywhere.

IMHO and with all due respect and I’m pushing it here ] you are speaking is nonsense.

 

[kimmielittle]

1. We have been given the absolute right to decide who may and may not use our body and the right to defend ourselves with force if necessary to ensure that right.

You do know that a baby is formed from the girls egg and boys sperm?

It’s not an alien.

She does have the right to defend herself - like not having sex. I think this is how babies are made.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A forum that I visit posted a link to another forum where people want a specific gender. Maybe they desire a girl instead of a boy or a boy instead of a girl. That’s what the entire website is about.

So, I was curious and I went to that website. The first thread that really caught my attention is of a woman who has all boys, but is thinking of getting a cvs done with the next pregnancy (she is currently 37 weeks pregnant but plans another pregnancy) to see if the next one is a boy, if so, abort. I tried to reply but my reply wasn’t welcomed and I can’t post anymore there. I am a bit upset so I guess that’s why I am coming to you guys.

I am going to copy and paste her post, and even so that this person obviously has some mental issues, some of the replies really made me shake my head in disgust.

I don’t know what I am asking but I needed someone to vent to because it’s so disgusting, I am beside myself.

Hi to everyone. I haven’t read all the posts in this thread but I do want to jump in here after reading the OP. I realize that many times parents are disappointed with the gender of their children, even though many won’t admit that. After two miscarriages I mananged to carry a child to term. I wanted a girl. Badly. The day before my son was born I was told the gender and for some reason suddenly it didn’t matter. I was surprised because I just assumed it would be a girl (I don’t know why I assumed such a thing), but not disappointed. I was much more concerned with the health problems going on during the pregnancy and the supposed small size of the baby (which turned out to be a miscalculation - they told me he would weigh a few pounds when he actually weighed well over six).

When my Mom was pregnant with me, the doctor told her to have an abortion as he did not think she was healthy enough to carry me to term. That is what he said. The truth is that she was anemic. Anemic.

Obviously she did not listen to what her doctor said and it surprises me that she even continued to see him after that conversation, but what really bothers me is what happened when I was born.

My parents wanted to have two children. My Dad didn’t make a lot of money and my Mom was what was called a “housewife” back then. They had two children; I was the third. Both of their children were girls.

When I was born and the doctor (and everyone else who was there) realized I was a girl (again!) he told my parents he could sell me. One of my parents believed it was a joke; the other believed he was dead serious. After finding out how this doctor acted, both in the pregnancy involving me and in my Mom’s next pregnancy, I have no doubt he was dead serious.

Why anyone would want to abort a baby because he/she is not the gender one desired absolutely stuns me. I know this happens and I suppose it was inevitable that it would happen given our level of technology and our levels of moral development. It seems that technology is fast out-pacing moral development.

Children, unborn or born, are gifts from God. They do not belong to us, no more than our own bodies belong to us. Our own personal lives belong to us, but not our bodies. This is covered in the CCC and I’ll try to find it but I do have problems finding subjects there. I know I’m not explaining this very well and I’m sorry for that.

To turn down a gift from God because one doesn’t like the gender is absolutely bizarre. It takes the ol’ slippery slope of abortion down another slide. The woman referred to in the OP is obviously confused and most likely very depressed, but I can’t get beyond the fact that people are actually thumbing their noses at God this way. Actually I think they are using another gesture but I don’t want to type that and “God” in the same sentence.

My Mom’s doctor wanted to kill me. After thinking about this for many years (and knowing some other things about him), I believe he wanted to kill me because he thought two babies were enough and he didn’t like this “Catholic” idea of accepting all children, even if the pregnancies weren’t planned (my Mom’s pregnancy with me was not planned).

Now, so many years later, I’m seeing abortion used as a cure-all for so many “problems” - GD is just one of them. When my sister was pregnant with my niece the obstetrician told her to have an amniocentesis performed. When my sister found out that the risk of miscarriage was high because of the amniocentesis itself, she asked her obstetrician why it was necessary. The obstetrician told her that in case the baby had Down Syndrome, it could be aborted. My sister then refused to undergo the test and had to sign papers promising not to sue the hospital or doctor if her child had Down Syndrome. In her next pregnancy the same thing happened, although by this time my sister knew to refuse any procedures that would pose any risk to her unborn child. (BTW, both children were born healthy and extremely intelligent and any parent would be proud to call them his or her daughters).

What I’m seeing is such a lack of respect for the sanctity of human life and it sickens me; maybe more than some people because of what my Mom’s doctor wanted to do to me for the sin of being conceived and for being a girl. I want to believe that people are better than this. I want to believe that in all the time we’ve been on this planet, we have somehow evolved into more moral people. What I’m seeing is that morals haven’t changed. Human beings are as cruel now as they have ever been. And that makes me ill.

I am going to try to read this thread but I may not be able to as it bothers me so much. But I wanted to vent a little (as the OP did) and to throw my two cents in.

God bless everyone here!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

By our medical definitions of a whole living human being, an embryo would not be considered alive. Regardless of whether one wants to admit it we do not consider tumors living human beings, parasitic twins living human beings, corpse’s living human beings or any number of conditions in which brain function is not present. Think of the siamese twins that share only one body but have two heads. We consider them two different persons sharing a body for the specifc reason that there are two separately working and functioning brains, while a person that has a parasitic twin ( basically a growth with organs and body parts from their twin that attached to their body inutero but never developed a brain) only one person since their twin has no working brain.

While a fetus may develop a working brain at some point in gestation at the point in which most abortions are performed it does not have a working brain, therefor cannot be classified as a living human being by all of our standards. It has more potential to gain that working brain than other conditions but that is not actual and we only classfy things by their actual characteristics.

So your definition of “whole living human being” does not include anyone who does not have brain function. Right? So what about this guy:

Oklahoma City, Okla., Mar 27, 2008 - A young man who was injured in an all-terrain-vehicle accident woke from his coma and showed signs of life just minutes before he was to be disconnected from life support, Dateline NBC reports.
Zack Dunlap suffered a broken collarbone, multiple skull fractures, and “absolutely catastrophic” brain injuries when his four-wheeled off-road vehicle flipped over.
After tests revealed no blood flow to Dunlap’s brain, doctors determined he met the legal and medical requirements for declaring someone brain-dead.
Dunlap’s family decided to remove him from life support, and a medical team prepared to harvest Dunlap’s organs for donation. Oklahoma authorities were informed of his death, while friends and family were told to gather at the hospital to say their goodbyes.
Another cousin who is also a nurse, Dan Coffin, thought the monitor recording Dunlap’s vital signs showed signs of improvement. On a hunch he pulled out his pocketknife and scraped Dunlap’s foot from his heel to his toes.
Dunlap jerked his foot, but the attending hospital nurse believed it was only a reflex. Dan Coffin then stuck his fingernail beneath Dunlap’s fingernail, which provoked a purposeful movement, a sign of brain activity.
Doctors immediately resumed medical treatment. Dunlap opened his eyes after five days, and was taken off a ventilator two days later.
The following week Dunlap began responding to his neurosurgeon and spoke his first words to his parents. Dunlap’s mother, Pam, said, “He looked around, and he said, ‘I love you’.”
He began taking steps later that day.
Dunlap’s trauma surgeon said he had no medical explanation for his recovery, and said all procedures were followed.
Doctors insisted the tests administered to Dunlap were accurate, and said the hospital would have detected his renewed vital signs before any organs were harvested.
Forty-eight days after being declared dead, Dunlap returned home, where Dan Coffin presented him with the pocketknife that proved he was still alive.
Dunlap said he did not remember the accident, but he does remember the doctor declaring him dead. “I heard it and it just made me mad inside,” he said.
Amal Moorad, medical director of the Jim Thorpe Rehabilitation Hospital in Oklahoma City where Dunlap recuperated, explained the patient’s prognosis. “Anytime you have severe brain injury, you’ll never be the same again from a mental, emotional standpoint,” he said.
“Zack will be very close to normal, but not 100 percent, and only time will tell us.”
Dunlap has resolved to pursue fishing. “No more 4-wheeling,” he told Dateline NBC.

www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12164

I suppose this means he was a “whole living human being” and then ceased to be a “whole living human being” by becoming a corpse and then became a “whole living human being” once again. That does not make sense, so your definition of “whole living human being” must be incorrect.

Also, I take issue with your statement “we classify things by their actual characteristics.” Where did you come up with such a thing? The truth is that you classify things by their actual characteristics. That doesn’t mean everyone, or even everyone in the medical community, does. “Our” medical definitions? Who is “our?” “All of our standards?” Again, who is “our?”

 

[kimmielittle]

So your definition of “whole living human being” does not include anyone who does not have brain function. Right? So what about this guy:

Oklahoma City, Okla., Mar 27, 2008 - A young man who was injured in an all-terrain-vehicle accident woke from his coma and showed signs of life just minutes before he was to be disconnected from life support, Dateline NBC reports.
Zack Dunlap suffered a broken collarbone, multiple skull fractures, and “absolutely catastrophic” brain injuries when his four-wheeled off-road vehicle flipped over.
After tests revealed no blood flow to Dunlap’s brain, doctors determined he met the legal and medical requirements for declaring someone brain-dead.
Dunlap’s family decided to remove him from life support, and a medical team prepared to harvest Dunlap’s organs for donation. Oklahoma authorities were informed of his death, while friends and family were told to gather at the hospital to say their goodbyes.
Another cousin who is also a nurse, Dan Coffin, thought the monitor recording Dunlap’s vital signs showed signs of improvement. On a hunch he pulled out his pocketknife and scraped Dunlap’s foot from his heel to his toes.
Dunlap jerked his foot, but the attending hospital nurse believed it was only a reflex. Dan Coffin then stuck his fingernail beneath Dunlap’s fingernail, which provoked a purposeful movement, a sign of brain activity.
Doctors immediately resumed medical treatment. Dunlap opened his eyes after five days, and was taken off a ventilator two days later.
The following week Dunlap began responding to his neurosurgeon and spoke his first words to his parents. Dunlap’s mother, Pam, said, “He looked around, and he said, ‘I love you’.”
He began taking steps later that day.
Dunlap’s trauma surgeon said he had no medical explanation for his recovery, and said all procedures were followed.
Doctors insisted the tests administered to Dunlap were accurate, and said the hospital would have detected his renewed vital signs before any organs were harvested.
Forty-eight days after being declared dead, Dunlap returned home, where Dan Coffin presented him with the pocketknife that proved he was still alive.
Dunlap said he did not remember the accident, but he does remember the doctor declaring him dead. “I heard it and it just made me mad inside,” he said.
Amal Moorad, medical director of the Jim Thorpe Rehabilitation Hospital in Oklahoma City where Dunlap recuperated, explained the patient’s prognosis. “Anytime you have severe brain injury, you’ll never be the same again from a mental, emotional standpoint,” he said.
“Zack will be very close to normal, but not 100 percent, and only time will tell us.”
Dunlap has resolved to pursue fishing. “No more 4-wheeling,” he told Dateline NBC.

www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12164

I suppose this means he was a “whole living human being” and then ceased to be a “whole living human being” by becoming a corpse and then became a “whole living human being” once again. That does not make sense, so your definition of “whole living human being” must be incorrect.

Also, I take issue with your statement “we classify things by their actual characteristics.” Where did you come up with such a thing? The truth is that you classify things by their actual characteristics. That doesn’t mean everyone, or even everyone in the medical community, does. “Our” medical definitions? Who is “our?” “All of our standards?” Again, who is “our?”

:clapping::clapping:

 

[BrokenFortress]

You do know that a baby is formed from the girls egg and boys sperm?

It’s not an alien.

She does have the right to defend herself - like not having sex. I think this is how babies are made.

Agreed. It’s not like the baby is choosing to use the mother’s resources. The baby has no choice. It’s not like an unborn child jumps into the woman’s womb and takes over. It was conceived by the actions of the parents. Therefore it is their responsibility for the baby.

Even in the case of a rape victim, if a baby is conceived, that baby did not choose to be there. You can’t choose your parents. A baby is not acting maliciously against the mother. It has no choice!

If people can not come to terms with supporting a baby inside the woman’s womb, then they should not be having sex.

I mean really, RobnBob, you make it sound like the baby is consciously trying to attack the mother or something. And a baby is not a parasite. What do you think the uterus is for?

 

[kimmielittle]

Agreed. It’s not like the baby is choosing to use the mother’s resources. The baby has no choice. It’s not like an unborn child jumps into the woman’s womb and takes over. It was conceived by the actions of the parents. Therefore it is their responsibility for the baby.

Even in the case of a rape victim, if a baby is conceived, that baby did not choose to be there. You can’t choose your parents. A baby is not acting maliciously against the mother. It has no choice!

If people can not come to terms with supporting a baby inside the woman’s womb, then they should not be having sex.

I mean really, RobnBob, you make it sound like the baby is consciously trying to attack the mother or something. And a baby is not a parasite. What do you think the uterus is for?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I guess a lot of people are sociopaths then, since it’s not an uncommon view to identify personhood with consciousness.

This is why over half of Americans supposed Terry Shiavo’s husband’s decision to stop life support, why most people support abortion in at least some cases (even if they are only health and rape/incest).

For that matter, it even used to be a Catholic view that ensoulment happened when the fetus first moved.



The most weird thing to me in all this thread, is the objection to IVF because fertilized eggs are persons. Really? A single cell without a mind is a person?

Would you please provide statistics to back up your statements? Why should I believe what you say??

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think killing conscious beings (human or not) is murder. If a baby is conscious, then I think killing it is murder. The reason I said what I did, is that from what I read newborns aren’t conscious (they don’t even recognize themselves in mirrors as far as I know).

The reason I brought animals into it is for consistency, I don’t think I can justify distinguishing between human and non human life. It’s an arbitrary distinction to me. If an animal has a mind, it’s a person. If we happen to invent artificial intelligence, it also would be a person.

They don’t recognize themselves in mirrors?? So that means they aren’t conscious?? I am amazed by this sort of reasoning. Where did you come up with the definition that:

"recognizing oneself in a mirror = “consciousness”

Because that definition is bizarre. Of course the brain is still developing in a newborn. And I’m not sure how old a human being has to be before she recognizes herself in a mirror!! And how would you test this “recognition” anyway?? If a child reacts to her reflection she may only be reacting to the parts of a human face and doesn’t even know it is her own human face.

And what of those who are conscious, then become unconscious due to a head injury or are undergoing surgery? Is it OK to kill them? It must be, according to your reasoning, because they aren’t conscious.

Why do you believe it is murder to kill a calf who is conscious but not murder to kill a nine-year old human being who is having her appendix removed?

I honestly don’t think you have thought this through and I hope that you think about this more.

Please provide a link so that we can all access the site where you “read” this. I am very interested in finding out more about this, as I’m sure are many others in this thread.

 

[JReducation]

I strongly suggest this site for those who do not understand the lies that have been perpetuated about the “rightness of abortion.”

www.priestsforlife.org

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

They don’t recognize themselves in mirrors?? So that means they aren’t conscious?? I am amazed by this sort of reasoning. Where did you come up with the definition that:

"recognizing oneself in a mirror = “consciousness”

This is how scientists test for self awareness in animals, it’s just one test. For example, with dolphins they would place a mark on their backs away from the mirror and then they would swim toward the mirror and twist themselves to see what was placed on their backs.

And what of those who are conscious, then become unconscious due to a head injury or are undergoing surgery? Is it OK to kill them? It must be, according to your reasoning, because they aren’t conscious.

I said something a bit different, I talked about a brain that is capable of generating a conscious mind if you temporarily pass out or fall asleep your brain doesn’t cease to be able to generate consciousness.

However, you can definitely conceive of a severe injury that would destroy the brain’s ability to generate a mind. I would say at that point the organism would cease being a person.

That doesn’t mean at that point the organism loses all its value, and if the repairs are easily made we’d generally just go ahead and make the repairs and that’ll be that. But if the “brain death” is permanent, and we’re unable to repair it then that’s it, the person died at the point when they went brain dead.

It’s different in the case of abortion. Before the baby grows up sufficiently it doesn’t develop a consciousness, so whereas with a repairable brain injury the doctors would be saving a person that existed but became damaged, with a fetus there wasn’t a person there yet.

Why do you believe it is murder to kill a calf who is conscious but not murder to kill a nine-year old human being who is having her appendix removed?

This is not what I said.

Please provide a link so that we can all access the site where you “read” this. I am very interested in finding out more about this, as I’m sure are many others in this thread.

Read what? This is my personal opinion. While I’m sure there must be others who share it, I don’t know of any sites. If you’re interested in which organisms have consciousness, go to google scholar or some academic journal database and do a search. I’m sure plenty of scientists have worked on this.

 

[choy]

If people can not come to terms with supporting a baby inside the woman’s womb, then they should not be having sex.

just quoting this because this is what i tell people all the time

we should all be pro-choice. but the choice should happen BEFORE having sex, not after. if someone doesn’t want to get pregnant, then choose not to have sex. yes, there is a choice, and it happens before pulling down your pants, not after