Abortion due to gender.

[JReducation]

The Church does not call it an abortion when a fallopian tube containing a child is removed. The reason is that this is a surgical procedure, not a termination of pregnancy. The termination of the pregnancy is a by-product of the procedure, not the intent. Everyone knows that the child will die even if the procedure does not take place. In other words, the child is not viable.

An abortion is a deliberate assault on the unborn child, who is viable, with the intent to terminate his life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
Franciscans of Life

 

[rwillenborg]

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).

A 2009 in the journal Current Biology revealed that fetuses are able to memorize auditory stimuli from the external world by the last trimester of pregnancy and are sensitive to melody contour in music and language.
The study confirmed two things: first, that newborns prefer their mother’s voice over other voices; second, that the emotion by intonation is perceived.
The study also found that babies can distinguish between languages with different rhythms and pitch changes.

Maybe I’m not understanding…what exactly is it about a newborn baby that can recognize and responds to specific voices, and can recognize emotion by intonation and can distinguish between languages makes you think the child doesn’t have consciousness?
Why would they be able to recognize themselves in a mirror? They’ve never seen themselves.
You didn’t know what the moon was the first time you saw that, either.

I’d also like to point out that a child, even a newborn one, isn’t an ‘underdeveloped’ person. The baby is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to be doing at that stage of development.

 

[TheWatcher]

I’ll give you an example. Before I became a Franciscan brother, I was married. My wife and I had three children, a girl and two boys. When my wife was carrying our third child we were told by three separate doctors that she would die if she did not terminate the pregnancy (a fancy word for abortion), because she had an aneurism in her heart.

As the father of the child, I said, “I will not kill my child, not even to save my wife. The doctors will have to do the best they can with what they have to save both. If one is lost in the process, then it’s God’s design.” Let’s not forget that as a father, we do have rights regarding our unborn children.

My wife agreed that she would not kill oiur son to save her life, even though we had two more at home ages 4 and 2.

To make a very long story shorter. My wife delivered our son and both survived. Our son was born with brain damage as the result of a very complicated pregnancy. When he was four years old, my wife, my father and the three kids were in an auto accident. My wife, father and older son were killed. My daughter survived and the boy that everyone wanted to abort.

My wife died of other causes, not related to her aneurism. The son that died was the healthy one and my father who was not involved in the pregnancy. Today, my son is 21-years old. He’s a senior in college, majoring in art. He had many difficulties going thruogh school. We lost our home because we didn’t have enough money to pay the bills for all the doctors, therapies and special services that he needed over and beyond what the State and insurance covered. Our family consists of him, his sister and I. There is no one else left. I can’t imagine life without him. He is the joy of our lives. His pregnancy almost killed his mother, but the fact is that it did not. The doctors were wrong. The pregnancy did leave him with irreperable brain damage. He does not speak and he cannot do calculations. He is an excellent artist and writer. He takes care of his father when I am sick. He takes himself to school, plays sports, has friends, works in Respect Life as a volunteer, gives talks (through an interpreter) about how he is an abortion survivor and thansk his mother and father for it. He also speaks out in defense of the unborn who have brain damage and are threatened by abortion.

With all of our scientific knowledge, human life remains the greatest mystery.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Okay, maybe I’m misunderstanding something here… but… How is your son an abortion survivor?
Sounds like both his parents agreed that he would not be aborted and the doctor had clear directions as to his patient’s wishes.

I am also sorry for you and your family’s loss.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The argument of some por-choice Catholics is that Augustine did not condemn abortion and therefore, the topic is still open for discussion. There are several problems here.

Truth does not change. The commandment is very clear. “Thou shalt not kill.”

The role of theology is to explain truth, not to create it. I’ll get back to this in a minute.

Augustine believed in the infallibility of the Commandments.

Augustine did not understand that the soul and body come into existence at the moment of conception. He thought that the fetus was not a human being until it took human form, until it had arms, legs, etc. We have to remember that the only insight that they had into human development before birth was what they saw when a woman had a miscarriage. Often, what you see in the case of a miscarriage is the placenta that has been discharged, because the fetus is too small or is reabsorbed by the mother’s body.

Augustine, like many intellectuals of his time, thought that you must have human form before you were consdiered human and before a soul was implanted into the body.

Augustine had no idea that the fertilized egg has all the properties of any other human being. They are active to different degrees, depending on the stage of pregnancy, just as the same faculties are still developing after birth. That’s why we speak of an age of reason and we arbitrarilly place it at age seven. But psychology tells us that abstract thinking comes later than age seven. This was not understood before.

As time passes and more information about human life becomes available, it has become clear that the fertilized egg is human. Therefore, Augustine would say that the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” applies to the fertilized egg.

What Augustine said was based on the knowledge and information that was available at the time. No let’s go back to the role of theology. It is the role of theology to apply the faith to reason and knowledge. Now that we know that the fertilized egg is human, not a chicken, we must apply what we know by faith, “Thou shalt not kill.” This Commandment was directed at human beings about human life, not animals.

Were Augustine alive today, with all of the information that we have about conception and human development, he would say that the Commandment applies from the moment of conception, since you cannot deny the Ten Commandments.

Some people want to conveniently go back to Augustine, but put aside what he knew and did not know. They just want to take what he said at face value without taking into account where he was coming from and forgetting that Augustine preached two things: 1) obedience to the Commandments and 2) obedience to the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you again. This answered my question very well.

God bless!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m not trying to prove that dolphins are self aware though. If you don’t believe my recollections are accurate, or simply think I am making this up, I’m okay with that.

It doesn’t matter to me if others accept what I said, but it is fairly common knowledge for people who keep up with popular science. There were even recent articles in major news outlets about how some scientists are calling for dolphins to be classified as “non human persons.”

Call me lazy, but I just don’t feel like googling and linking.

I don’t think you’re lazy. I think that we are talking past each other about this. I never wanted you to do research for me. I’ve just never had a discussion with someone who doesn’t care if others accept what you say.

But I do wonder why you are here. I don’t want to intrude but could you please tell me (if you want) why you are in this thread? Do you care what other people say?

I guess it depends on how you define stream of consciousness, the person that I recognize as myself is definitely gone when I’m in deep sleep. One might wonder if the mind that the brain generates upon waking up is the same one that fell asleep.

The point however is that the complex brain that is capable of generating the mind is still there during sleep or if you should faint.

Again we are not talking about the same thing. The stream of consciousness, in psychology terminology, is a (it’s hard to describe this other than to say it’s a stream of consciousness), OK, let me try this way to explain it.

When a person is up and awake and doing things, she is aware of herself and can remember what she has done in the past twenty minutes or so and what she ate for breakfast and getting ready for work, etc. That night she will go to sleep and in the morning she will remember going to bed and falling asleep and waking up. This isn’t always true, and it is rarely true in my case because I have a sleep disorder that messes everything up.

And like I said before, if you shake a person who is asleep, she will wake up and talk to you.

When a person loses consciousness, let’s say from a head injury, she is out cold. You can shake her, hit her, it doesn’t matter, she is not going to wake up and talk to you. When she regains consciousness she will most likely not remember being hit with a rock, or falling over and smacking her head on something and she may not remember what she was doing for a period of time before she received the head injury. Her stream of consciousness has been broken.

This is not a good explanation and I am sorry for that. But I would agree that in both cases there is a brain present that is capable of either maintaining a stream of consciousness or starting up a new stream of consciousness.

Of course they can and do. Where do you think the matter that makes you comes from? Originally it all came from the Big Bang, so you might have said that the Big Bang singularity temporarily lacks human persons, but if left to its own devices these persons will eventually arise.

This is what I meant by not understanding what you were saying. According to one theory (and it is only one theory) there was a Big Bang. Even if there wasn’t a Big Bang the matter that we are made up of does exist (obviously) and came from somewhere (obviously). Now I understand what you were saying. But those molecules are just that - molecules. They don’t have any sort of inclination to form human beings. They are just there. They do the things molecules do. They are building blocks but they certainly aren’t the beginnings of human beings or anything else. During the Big Bang (or whatever happened in place of the Big Bang) these building blocks were formed. It is true that we are physically formed from molecules, but I don’t understand saying that “if left to its own devices these persons will eventually arise” because that just isn’t true. A lot more things had to happen before persons arose and arise. The combination of molecules is one of these events. We aren’t just molecules jammed together - we are much more than that.

I guess I still am not clear on what you are trying to get across. But the Big Bang is just a possibility and even if it did happen it has been left to its own devices. How would we have changed it? Persons forming from the molecules that are here because of the Big Bang is one thing, but persons forming from the Big Bang itself doesn’t make sense.

My point is that I don’t agree with the idea of giving something rights and considering it a person because of what it will become, because you can make the same argument about the Big Bang, or about the stars that in the distant past cooked the heavier elements required to form us.

But the Big Bang is over, isn’t it? It happened (maybe). What I am saying is that once conception occurs, the person is formed. It doesn’t happen in the future. It has already happened. Development of a brain that allows self-awareness isn’t enough of a definition of “personhood.” How would we know when this happens? How would we be able to determine if this particular unborn child has developed self-awareness (or anything else)? Unborn children develop at different rates. And if self-awareness occurs at any time after birth, aren’t you saying that it’s OK to kill infants because they don’t have self-awareness and therefore aren’t persons? We don’t know when self-awareness occurs for the first time. There can be research conducted until the cows come home and all it will show us is there is a probability that self-awareness occurs at such and such date. We can’t know for sure.

But we do know that at conception there is a unique pattern of DNA which will remain in the person for the rest of her life. That is one reason why conception is the best definer of personhood.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t understand your point then, because it seems to me that in such a case having an abortion may well be the best and maybe even the only way to save a woman’s life and you claimed that there’s never a need to have an abortion to save the woman.

I’m curious though, if your mother had become pregnant and was told by her doctor that unless she had an abortion she would likely die, would you be able to argue with your mother that she must not abort?

I’m confused by your question. My mother was told to abort me when she was pregnant with me. Her physician told her that continuing the pregnancy would put her life at risk. But I don’t understand what you mean by being able to argue with my mother that she must not abort.

There are definitely times when, in order to save the mother’s life, the unborn child must be removed. The Church does not consider this to be an abortion because an abortion has the purpose of killing the child and killing the child in these cases is never the purpose. The best outcome would be to save both.

The Church teaches us to be prolife and that means all human life, both the mother and the unborn child.

 

[flyingfish]

I’ve just never had a discussion with someone who doesn’t care if others accept what you say.

But I do wonder why you are here. I don’t want to intrude but could you please tell me (if you want) why you are in this thread? Do you care what other people say?

This thread to me is about sharing views, not changing minds. We’re discussing what we mean when we say “person”. This question doesn’t have a right answer, some people might define person one way and others might define it another way.

Of course I’m interested in what others say, otherwise why would I be spending my time reading this thread and posting in it?

This is not a good explanation and I am sorry for that. But I would agree that in both cases there is a brain present that is capable of either maintaining a stream of consciousness or starting up a new stream of consciousness.

Right, this is the main issue for me. Even if a brain that is capable of generating a mind is not currently generating a mind either because it’s asleep or passed out, I would still call it a person. If the brain becomes severely injured to the point where it’s no longer capable of maintaining/starting up a stream of consciousness, I would say the person ceased to exist. (Though it can in some cases be brought back by repairing the brain.)

I guess I still am not clear on what you are trying to get across. But the Big Bang is just a possibility and even if it did happen it has been left to its own devices. How would we have changed it? Persons forming from the molecules that are here because of the Big Bang is one thing, but persons forming from the Big Bang itself doesn’t make sense.

My point is that I’m trying to use analogies to explain why I don’t think the argument that the embryo/fetus will develop into a thinking person if left to its own devices is a good argument.

The embryo might grow into a thinking person, but itself it is not a thinking person. Just like if you take molecules that are here, who will eventually form a thinking person, but are themselves not a thinking person.

I think the argument of “will grow into… if left to its own devices” can be applied to inanimate matter as well as an embryo, and unless you’re prepared to say that inanimate matter should have rights on the basis of what it may one day become “if left to its own devices”, you shouldn’t say that about embryos.

And if self-awareness occurs at any time after birth, aren’t you saying that it’s OK to kill infants because they don’t have self-awareness and therefore aren’t persons?

I’m not saying it’s okay to kill infants, but if infants don’t have self awareness I don’t think killing them should be called murder. It should still be a crime, but it should be a lesser crime than killing a person.

But we do know that at conception there is a unique pattern of DNA which will remain in the person for the rest of her life. That is one reason why conception is the best definer of personhood.

And if/when we have better science, we might be able to identify the onset of a mind equally as well as we can DNA. I don’t think having a unique pattern of DNA is a good way to define a person, because whatever anyone may say, a single cell right after fertilization does not think, feel, dream, understand it exists and so on. I just can’t for the life of me agree that it’s a person.

 

[JReducation]

Okay, maybe I’m misunderstanding something here… but… How is your son an abortion survivor?
Sounds like both his parents agreed that he would not be aborted and the doctor had clear directions as to his patient’s wishes.

I am also sorry for you and your family’s loss.

An abortion survivor is anyone who was threatened by abortion. This can be a child who survies a failed abortion or a person who was protected from abortion, as was my son’s case. Most abortion survivors are people whom others, usually doctors, but not always, believed that the person should be aborted.

Sorry, didn’t mean to confuse anyone. It’s a term that I use often and I forget that others don’t use it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[90Domer]

I don’t understand your point then, because it seems to me that in such a case having an abortion may well be the best and maybe even the only way to save a woman’s life and you claimed that there’s never a need to have an abortion to save the woman.

I’m curious though, if your mother had become pregnant and was told by her doctor that unless she had an abortion she would likely die, would you be able to argue with your mother that she must not abort?

Since I know something about the situation, I think some clarification is in order. After my MIL’s 4th pregnancy, she was told that another pregnancy would likely kill her (to my knowledge, there was no talk of ending a pregnancy; however, each of her children were taken early due to her medical problems). As a result, her OB insisted that she have a tubal ligation to ensure that any future pregnancies did not put her at risk–advice which she took. The unspoken here was that at no time was she and my FIL given the choice to abstain from sexual intercourse in order to avoid future pregnancies (or learn/try NFP).

Aside from this aside, manygift was right on with his assessment of the situation. However, I have to admit, I am a little biased

 

[LittleSoldier]

This thread to me is about sharing views, not changing minds. We’re discussing what we mean when we say “person”. This question doesn’t have a right answer, some people might define person one way and others might define it another way.

Of course I’m interested in what others say, otherwise why would I be spending my time reading this thread and posting in it?

That’s why I asked. I was confused. This is new to me. Thank you for explaining.

My point is that I’m trying to use analogies to explain why I don’t think the argument that the embryo/fetus will develop into a thinking person if left to its own devices is a good argument.

OK. It would help if you told me you were using an analogy. I thought you were speaking literally.

The embryo might grow into a thinking person, but itself it is not a thinking person. Just like if you take molecules that are here, who will eventually form a thinking person, but are themselves not a thinking person.

I think the argument of “will grow into… if left to its own devices” can be applied to inanimate matter as well as an embryo, and unless you’re prepared to say that inanimate matter should have rights on the basis of what it may one day become “if left to its own devices”, you shouldn’t say that about embryos.

An embryo will never grow into a thinking person. The embryo will develop the capacity for thinking. She is *already *a person. I thought you said your definition of “personhood” was self-awareness. Are you now saying it’s “thinking?” There is a difference.

I’m not saying that rights should be granted to what may one day become a person. I’m saying that rights should be granted to persons. If an inanimate object is a person, then it should have the rights granted to all other persons.

I’m not saying it’s okay to kill infants, but if infants don’t have self awareness I don’t think killing them should be called murder. It should still be a crime, but it should be a lesser crime than killing a person.

Why should it be a crime at all? If she is not a person who cares?

And if/when we have better science, we might be able to identify the onset of a mind equally as well as we can DNA. I don’t think having a unique pattern of DNA is a good way to define a person, because whatever anyone may say, a single cell right after fertilization does not think, feel, dream, understand it exists and so on. I just can’t for the life of me agree that it’s a person.

It is dictionaries that contain agreed-upon definitions. However, your definition of “personhood” does not exist in any dictionary I have found. Nowhere do they mention consciousness, feeling, dreaming, understanding, etc. as a requirement for personhood. Therefore, your definition of person is arbitrary.

So, in all fairness, since you are allowed to have an arbitrary definition of personhood, aren’t I allowed the same? What if I eliminate from my definition of “personhood” all humans who use your argument? By that definition you are not a person. Is that OK with you? After all, if you’re allowed to have an arbitrary definition of personhood, so is everybody else.

So it wouldn’t be murder to kill you, would it?

 

[LittleSoldier]

An abortion survivor is anyone who was threatened by abortion. This can be a child who survies a failed abortion or a person who was protected from abortion, as was my son’s case. Most abortion survivors are people whom others, usually doctors, but not always, believed that the person should be aborted.

Sorry, didn’t mean to confuse anyone. It’s a term that I use often and I forget that others don’t use it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And that makes me an abortion survivor, because my Mom’s physician wanted to have me aborted. I never thought of myself that way. Wow.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A 2009 in the journal Current Biology revealed that fetuses are able to memorize auditory stimuli from the external world by the last trimester of pregnancy and are sensitive to melody contour in music and language.
The study confirmed two things: first, that newborns prefer their mother’s voice over other voices; second, that the emotion by intonation is perceived.
The study also found that babies can distinguish between languages with different rhythms and pitch changes.

Maybe I’m not understanding…what exactly is it about a newborn baby that can recognize and responds to specific voices, and can recognize emotion by intonation and can distinguish between languages makes you think the child doesn’t have consciousness?
Why would they be able to recognize themselves in a mirror? They’ve never seen themselves.
You didn’t know what the moon was the first time you saw that, either.

I’d also like to point out that a child, even a newborn one, isn’t an ‘underdeveloped’ person. The baby is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to be doing at that stage of development.

 

[LittleSoldier]

regret of abortion .

Thank you for providing this link. I’ve been looking for something like this for a long time. I’m re posting the link in a way that might be a bit easier to remember:

silentnomoreawareness.org/

I have had pro-abortion activists tell me that there has not been one case of a woman undergoing any type of emotional pain after having had an abortion. It will help to have this link as part of my response to that statement.

Thanks again!!

 

[flyingfish]

I thought you said your definition of “personhood” was self-awareness. Are you now saying it’s “thinking?” There is a difference.

Is there? Wouldn’t you need to think in order to realize you’re self aware, and wouldn’t you need to be self aware in order to think?

Why should it be a crime at all? If she is not a person who cares?

Why is animal cruelty a crime? Why are theft and destruction of property crimes?

It is dictionaries that contain agreed-upon definitions. However, your definition of “personhood” does not exist in any dictionary I have found. Nowhere do they mention consciousness, feeling, dreaming, understanding, etc. as a requirement for personhood. Therefore, your definition of person is arbitrary.

So, in all fairness, since you are allowed to have an arbitrary definition of personhood, aren’t I allowed the same? What if I eliminate from my definition of “personhood” all humans who use your argument? By that definition you are not a person. Is that OK with you? After all, if you’re allowed to have an arbitrary definition of personhood, so is everybody else.

So it wouldn’t be murder to kill you, would it?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

5 : the personality of a human being : self

I wouldn’t say my definition is entirely arbitrary, because I am basing it on an intrinsic trait of organisms (namely the mind). To be arbitrary would imply that it’s somehow random.

But sure, you can define personhood however you please (as long as you explain what you mean in discussions to avoid confusion). All definitions are this way, people assign some sequence of letters to some concept.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. You’re free to think I’m not a person and that it wouldn’t be murder to kill me, I’d be curious to see how you would justify it though.

 

[JReducation]

And that makes me an abortion survivor, because my Mom’s physician wanted to have me aborted. I never thought of myself that way. Wow.

You survived his intent, probably because your mother loved you regardless of what the doctor said.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Is there? Wouldn’t you need to think in order to realize you’re self aware, and wouldn’t you need to be self aware in order to think?

Why is animal cruelty a crime? Why are theft and destruction of property crimes?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

I wouldn’t say my definition is entirely arbitrary, because I am basing it on an intrinsic trait of organisms (namely the mind). To be arbitrary would imply that it’s somehow random.

But sure, you can define personhood however you please (as long as you explain what you mean in discussions to avoid confusion). All definitions are this way, people assign some sequence of letters to some concept.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. You’re free to think I’m not a person and that it wouldn’t be murder to kill me, I’d be curious to see how you would justify it though.

Let’s cut past all the above. I spent years saving the lives of unborn children who were diagnosed with disabilities. Most of them were born with severe disabilities and we have no idea if they have self awareness or not. They cannot communicate and many can’t move. They simply make sounds. But they breathe, eat, sleep, wake, generate waste and most important, they occupy a very special place in the hearts of their families and the Brothers of Life who have served them.

Would you tell us that they are not human persons?

We don’t know if they think.
We don’t know if they are self aware.
We don’t know if they are conscious of themselves as people.
Their brains are severely damaged and irreperable.
Their lifespans are very short, usually 50 years at most.
Their brains are no more functional after they are born than they were at 16 weeks of pregnancy.

Do they have human rights? Are they persons? Do they have human dignity?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

The **sole reason ** for Government to exist: Is to protect the weak and innocent. It exists for no other reason.
The unborn… is the weakest and most innocent when it comes to abortion.

They are clearly, unprotected.
To be true to it’s charge, the Government owes the unborn protection.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[flyingfish]

Would you tell us that they are not human persons?

We don’t know if they think.
We don’t know if they are self aware.
We don’t know if they are conscious of themselves as people.

Then I would say we don’t know if they are human persons.

Their brains are severely damaged and irreperable.
Their lifespans are very short, usually 50 years at most.
Their brains are no more functional after they are born than they were at 16 weeks of pregnancy.

Do they have human rights? Are they persons? Do they have human dignity?

50 years? Did you mean 50 days or weeks or months?

Since you said it’s not known whether they they think etc. I would say we don’t know if they are persons.

I would say unless there is a conflict with someone who we know is a person they should be treated like a person. However, if there is a conflict with someone we definitely know is a person (like say if a hospital has a limited amount of resources, and can only save one), then we should side with who we know is definitely a person.

 

[JReducation]

Then I would say we don’t know if they are human persons.

50 years? Did you mean 50 days or weeks or months?

Since you said it’s not known whether they they think etc. I would say we don’t know if they are persons.

I would say unless there is a conflict with someone who we know is a person they should be treated like a person. However, if there is a conflict with someone we definitely know is a person (like say if a hospital has a limited amount of resources, and can only save one), then we should side with who we know is definitely a person.

So you are saying that the personhood of someone with severe brain damage, who is born alive, is questionable.

What’s the criteria?

Why not declare that people with Alzheimer’s are not persons. They are not self-aware. We know that for a fact. They don’t remember their rights or how to fight for them.

Would you tell the mother of a person with severe brain damage that you have to take another patient, because it is questionalbe whether her child is a person and you only have one bed?

How can you say that with a moral conscience?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Then I would say we don’t know if they are human persons.

With all do respect, life or personhood, isn’t yours to define, thank goodness.
Using your your assessments of life…IMHO I’d have a hard time defining you as a human person.

As always, just my thoughts