Abortion due to gender.

[flyingfish]

Flyingfish, is this whole idea of 1 or two year olds (and unborn children) not being conscience of their existence an idea that you have developed on your own, or this a philosophy espoused by someone? Since they are not conscious of their existence they can be killed?

This is a misrepresentation of what I think. I didn’t say that 1 or 2 year olds can be killed if they’re not conscious.

I said that humans that don’t have brains capable of generating minds aren’t persons (like say people who are brain dead, and possibly newborns). I didn’t say it’s therefore okay to kill them. I said that the word murder should be reserved for the killing of a person, and the killing of an organism who isn’t a person should be a lesser crime.

I said abortion is a different situation, because there is a conflict between the interests of the woman and the interests of the fetus. In a conflict between a person and non-person, the person should always win.

And I didn’t come up with the idea of using consciousness to define what it means to be a person.

 

[JReducation]

Even the very idea that the fertilized egg is a thing of human DNA and cells is biologically incorrect. If I remember my biology correctly, it is an organism. It is human, because none of its biochemical attributes fit any other speceis except human. In other words, given the chance, as my son was given, it becomes like the rest of us. It is not a blob, it is alive and in a state of evolution. And it evolves very quickly. In 16 weeks it has a body that is identical to any other person.

According to biology for something to qualify as an organism it must have parts and they must interact; therefore, it must have life. The question is what kind of life? Well given that we won’t get anything else out of it except a human being, it must be a human life.

Then there is the question of personhood. The legal system seems to believe that it is empowered to define personhood. That’s would be fine if the legal system were fair. But it is not fair. It defines and redefines according to the interests of the highest bidder. Even legal persons, legal entities, legal corporations and so forth are redefined in law according to someon’s interest, not according to truth. It falls upon the legal system to prove that its statement on personhood is based on truth and to prove that those arguments that it uses to support its position cannot be refuted. I can find a scientist who can refute another on a dime. To say that the legal system’s definition of person as it refers to the unborn is based on truth is a falsehood. It is based on a hypothesis that cannot be proven. To follow such a law is immoral, because the law is immoral.

Then we have partial-birth abortion. That’s not a collection of cells and DNA. If you ever watch one, you will see that the body is taken out of the vaginal canal. The head is left in. The child squirms, because he can’t breathe, then he tenses up when the scissors are inserted into the back of his cranium. He then goes flacid when his brain is suctioned out. Is this not murder?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

This is a misrepresentation of what I think. I didn’t say that 1 or 2 year olds can be killed if they’re not conscious.

I said that humans that don’t have brains capable of generating minds aren’t persons (like say people who are brain dead, and possibly newborns). I didn’t say it’s therefore okay to kill them. I said that the word murder should be reserved for the killing of a person, and the killing of an organism who isn’t a person should be a lesser crime.

I said abortion is a different situation, because there is a conflict between the interests of the woman and the interests of the fetus. In a conflict between a person and non-person, the person should always win.

And I didn’t come up with the idea of using consciousness to define what it means to be a person.

You never answered my question. What are you getting out of sustaining this position?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

You never answered my question. What are you getting out of sustaining this position?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I answered it, I sustain this position to protect women’s health, lives, and well being.

 

[PaulinVA]

This is a misrepresentation of what I think. I didn’t say that 1 or 2 year olds can be killed if they’re not conscious.

I said that humans that don’t have brains capable of generating minds aren’t persons (like say people who are brain dead, and possibly newborns). I didn’t say it’s therefore okay to kill them. I said that the word murder should be reserved for the killing of a person, and the killing of an organism who isn’t a person should be a lesser crime.

Lesser crime of what? Killing a non-person human? How do you codify* that* in law?

I said abortion is a different situation, because there is a conflict between the interests of the woman and the interests of the fetus. In a conflict between a person and non-person, the person should always win.

And I didn’t come up with the idea of using consciousness to define what it means to be a person.

Well, okay, but it’s still arbitrary. What is consciousness? What is personhood? Who determines this? Can one move in and out of being a person?

I have read your ideas on other threads, and frankly, they are not persuasive.

For the record, yes, my wife and I had a son who was born with a severe brain defect and lived in a vegetative state for several years. To imply that he was not a person is insulting to him and to us. The idea that there are person humans and non-person humans is incomprehensible to me. Just like an unborn child becomes a person human at some magic moment after conception.

 

[JReducation]

I answered it, I sustain this position to protect women’s health, lives, and well being.

And we need partial birth abortion to do this?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

Lesser crime of what? Killing a non-person human? How do you codify* that* in law?

I don’t see why you think this would be difficult, lawmakers don’t need to be particularly creative to write it in.

Well, okay, but it’s still arbitrary. What is consciousness? What is personhood? Who determines this? Can one move in and out of being a person?

Ideally, neuroscientists and psychologists would find a way to measure whether the brain is capable of generating a mind.

You could move in and out of being a person if your brain got severely injured to the point where it couldn’t make a mind anymore, but then either healed or was repaired.

For the record, yes, my wife and I had a son who was born with a severe brain defect and lived in a vegetative state for several years. To imply that he was not a person is insulting to him and to us. The idea that there are person humans and non-person humans is incomprehensible to me. Just like an unborn child becomes a person human at some magic moment after conception.

I did not intend to insult you.

 

[JReducation]

Lesser crime of what? Killing a non-person human? How do you codify* that* in law?

Well, okay, but it’s still arbitrary. What is consciousness? What is personhood? Who determines this? Can one move in and out of being a person?

I have read your ideas on other threads, and frankly, they are not persuasive.

For the record, yes, my wife and I had a son who was born with a severe brain defect and lived in a vegetative state for several years. To imply that he was not a person is insulting to him and to us. The idea that there are person humans and non-person humans is incomprehensible to me. Just like an unborn child becomes a person human at some magic moment after conception.

In my ministry I serve seniors with Alzheimers. They have no more self-awareness than a fish. But they are loving. They laugh. They get excited when I visit, even though they have no idea who I am. We’re introduced every day. Some are more advanced and no longer communicate. But there are the memories and their contribution to life. They are alive, with spouses and children who love them. I don’t think that they have ever ceased to be persons or people. Nor have they forfeited their dignity.

Your son never forfeited his dignity. Because human dignity is not given to us by another person. It comes with the fact that we are human.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

And we need partial birth abortion to do this?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I don’t know if we need partial birth abortion for this. But a woman in the later stages of pregnancies could develop a health complication that would require an abortion to give her the best chance of survival/recovery.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know if we need partial birth abortion for this. But a woman in the later stages of pregnancies could develop a health complication that would require an abortion to give her the best chance of survival/recovery.

Your entire argument is based on “a woman can develop this” or “a woman can find herself in this position” and so forth. That you can’t build a case for something like partial birth abortion on the possibility that some woman, somewhere may have a crisis. In the meantime, the other severan thousand women who go for a partial birth abortion, how do you justify that?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

Your entire argument is based on “a woman can develop this” or “a woman can find herself in this position” and so forth. That you can’t build a case for something like partial birth abortion on the possibility that some woman, somewhere may have a crisis. In the meantime, the other severan thousand women who go for a partial birth abortion, how do you justify that?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I highly doubt that women who go in for late term abortions are doing it for the heck of it. Women who were using abortions as a birth control backup would likely have had their abortions early on.

Women who waited that long to have an abortion probably either developed health issues, whose financial circumstances changed, maybe the father of the child left them etc. Even if there are some freak women out there who deliberately wait until late into the pregnancy to have an abortion, I think it’s better to let them have their wish than deny women who really need the abortion the opportunity to get one.

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t see why you think this would be difficult, lawmakers don’t need to be particularly creative to write it in. .

You need to think that through.

If I smack you upside the head with a baseball bat and render you unconscious (or in a coma), and then shoot you dead, you seem to be arguing that I am guilty of assault and battery of a person, and the killing of a non-person human.

I don’t see why you want to make the distinction, especially since self-awareness changes throughout your life, or, for some people, from hour to hour. It seems you are embracing this idea so that you can treat some people with no respect and put yourself before them.

 

[JReducation]

I highly doubt that women who go in for late term abortions are doing it for the heck of it. Women who were using abortions as a birth control backup would likely have had their abortions early on.

Women who waited that long to have an abortion probably either developed health issues, whose financial circumstances changed, maybe the father of the child left them etc. Even if there are some freak women out there who deliberately wait until late into the pregnancy to have an abortion, I think it’s better to let them have their wish than deny women who really need the abortion the opportunity to get one.

But you said that we do not need partial birth abortion to protect women’s rights and health.

And you were right. There are services out there for women in crisis. I know because I run five pregnancy centers. My order has over 200 in the USA. We provide FREE medical care, food, clothing, baby cribs, and employment education. We coordinate with other community agencies for other services. We even train the fathers to step up to the plate and have a very good rate of success.

We’re not alone. There are many such services.

So why do we need partial birth abortion?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

I highly doubt that women who go in for late term abortions are doing it for the heck of it. Women who were using abortions as a birth control backup would likely have had their abortions early on.

Women who waited that long to have an abortion probably either developed health issues, whose financial circumstances changed, maybe the father of the child left them etc. Even if there are some freak women out there who deliberately wait until late into the pregnancy to have an abortion, I think it’s better to let them have their wish than deny women who really need the abortion the opportunity to get one.

There are no health issues that would require an abortion at that stage. None. A late-term abortion is basically having the child anyway. As I said- a C-section would cause less stress on the body and leave a healthy child.

You know what a partial-birth abortion is. Just giving the poor child’s feet a tug would have them born. It’s a disgusting procedure.

Financial circumstances? Really? And I’m not even going to touch on “the father left.” Those are pitiful reasons for murdering a child. If any woman did this to their week old infant and gave the reason “the father left me” she would be charged with murder and possibly receive medical treatment for PPD and a few other mental health issues.

Denying women the right to kill their children, whether they really really need it or not, is a good thing. There is always another way.

 

[flyingfish]

You need to think that through.

If I smack you upside the head with a baseball bat and render you unconscious (or in a coma), and then shoot you dead, you seem to be arguing that I am guilty of assault and battery of a person, and the killing of a non-person human.

I don’t see why you want to make the distinction, especially since self-awareness changes throughout your life, or, for some people, from hour to hour. It seems you are embracing this idea so that you can treat some people with no respect and put yourself before them.

If you hit me on the head so hard that I go brain dead (but physically alive), then you’ve murdered me.

If you destroy the brain’s capacity to generate a mind, you should be guilty of murder. (Also, I’m not talking about fainting, because someone who faints still has a brain capable of generating a mind. I’m talking about something so severe that the person goes brain dead.)

I would want to make the distinction to more accurately reflect reality. The idea of equating embryos with adult human beings doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[PaulinVA]

If you hit me on the head so hard that I go brain dead (but physically alive), then you’ve murdered me.

If you destroy the brain’s capacity to generate a mind, you should be guilty of murder. (Also, I’m not talking about fainting, because someone who faints still has a brain capable of generating a mind. I’m talking about something so severe that the person goes brain dead.)

I would want to make the distinction to more accurately reflect reality. The idea of equating embryos with adult human beings doesn’t make any sense to me.

Now you’re changing your definition. You said previously that a one year old is not a person, therefore they can not be murdered, only killed. Now you are saying that “robbing someone of their personhood” is murder. Isn’t that what partial birth abortion is? But for your action, this would be a person.

 

[flyingfish]

Now you’re changing your definition. You said previously that a one year old is not a person, therefore they can not be murdered, only killed. Now you are saying that “robbing someone of their personhood” is murder. Isn’t that what partial birth abortion is? But for your action, this would be a person.

My definition has always been tied to the mind, and whether the brain is capable of producing a mind.

My comments about 1 year olds are an “if”, if the brains of 1 year olds cannot generate minds then they are not persons.

Destroying a person is murder, a person is someone with a mind/a brain capable of generating a mind. Destroying the brain’s ability to do that destroys the mind and so murderers the person.

Partial birth abortion, as far as I know, does not destroy a brain capable of generating a mind. Hence it is not murder because there is no person there.

 

[Montalo]

Even the very idea that the fertilized egg is a thing of human DNA and cells is biologically incorrect. If I remember my biology correctly, it is an organism. It is human, because none of its biochemical attributes fit any other speceis except human. In other words, given the chance, as my son was given, it becomes like the rest of us. It is not a blob, it is alive and in a state of evolution. And it evolves very quickly. In 16 weeks it has a body that is identical to any other person.

According to biology for something to qualify as an organism it must have parts and they must interact; therefore, it must have life. The question is what kind of life? Well given that we won’t get anything else out of it except a human being, it must be a human life.

Then there is the question of personhood. The legal system seems to believe that it is empowered to define personhood. That’s would be fine if the legal system were fair. But it is not fair. It defines and redefines according to the interests of the highest bidder. Even legal persons, legal entities, legal corporations and so forth are redefined in law according to someon’s interest, not according to truth. It falls upon the legal system to prove that its statement on personhood is based on truth and to prove that those arguments that it uses to support its position cannot be refuted. I can find a scientist who can refute another on a dime. To say that the legal system’s definition of person as it refers to the unborn is based on truth is a falsehood. It is based on a hypothesis that cannot be proven. To follow such a law is immoral, because the law is immoral.

Then we have partial-birth abortion. That’s not a collection of cells and DNA. If you ever watch one, you will see that the body is taken out of the vaginal canal. The head is left in. The child squirms, because he can’t breathe, then he tenses up when the scissors are inserted into the back of his cranium. He then goes flacid when his brain is suctioned out. Is this not murder?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, in all the times i have read your posts and emails, this if the first time what you have said has made me disgusted and angry

Not at you, but the idea that someone would willingly do this and have the ability to end the life ofa baby who is merely a few inches from being born disgusts me.

My prayers and my support to your community, and i pray that your community will have success in your noble ministry

 

[JReducation]

Partial birth abortion, as far as I know, does not destroy a brain capable of generating a mind. Hence it is not murder because there is no person there.

So why not let it be born and then kill it. It’s only several seconds away from being fully born. It wouldn’t be murder would it?

You didn/'t show how it solves a problem either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

So why not let it be born and then kill it. It’s only several seconds away from being fully born. It wouldn’t be murder would it?

You didn/'t show how it solves a problem either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If its brain is not capable of generating a mind, no it would not be murder. But as I said before, just because it isn’t murder doesn’t mean you can’t make the killing of a born child a crime even if it’s not a person.

It’s clear why it should be a crime in the case where the parents don’t want it killed, as for when the parents both agree to have it killed we consider whether society wants the child, and whether the child has intrinsic value.

I’m not sure what problem you want it to solve?