O
OraLabora
Guest
She can place the child for adoption. It doesn’t cost a penny.
That will take a grand total of 9 months out of her life time.
And will give the child a lifetime.
- Status
That will take a grand total of 9 months out of her life time.
And will give the child a lifetime.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I don’t know how much consciousness they have, chimps have been compared to 3 year olds. Recently scientists have said dolphins are more complex than that.
But a fetus definitely can’t consciously come to know God or choose between good and evil.
W
whm
Guest
According to the US constitution they were worth 3/5ths of a person.
W
whm
Guest
You think not having a chance to know God before you are killed is a good thing?
So it’s ok to kill them to save money? If a one year old is expensive and can’t know God can we kill them too. How about grandma, she has a lot of dementia now and costs $4,000/mth for nursing home, should we snuff her out? We could save lots and lots of money. You know mom’s breast cancer is pretty advanced their isn’t much hope and it is so expensive, lets just make sure she is comfortable (we already saved some money making her wait to age 50 for a mammogram). Dad hasn’t eaten right his whole life, he doesn’t deserve another heart surgery.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I don’t think I existed until I became self aware for the first time, so if my mother had had an abortion, I would have never come into existence to begin with.
I don’t see where you’re getting this from. I don’t think this at all. I think that every person should have access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay. (Most conservatives in the US disagree with this by the way.)
F
flyingfish
Guest
If you read my earlier posts, I linked to the story of a woman who went nearly blind because of pregnancy. It’s not always as simple as adoption, sometimes the pregnancy itself takes a significant toll on a woman’s life.
9 months is a long time.
W
whm
Guest
You don’t exist until you are self aware??? Huh? Whoever changed your diapers thought you existed im sure
Its called a slippery slope. It is already happening.
M
Magdalena09
Guest
Existence is not based on whether or not one acknowledges said existence. Whether or not I have been to Wisconsin or not or believe that it exists has no bearing on the actuality of it. Unless of course you are going to bring in the ridiculous philosophical school of thought of solipsism… 
Just because you “think” you didn’t exist until you had your first “self aware” thought doesn’t make it truth.
Most people can’t remember things in their life that happened before age 2 or 3. But most babies are self aware to the extent that they can recognize themselves in mirrors or pictures before age 2. We have no way of knowing the age when babies become self aware because they are unable to communicate exactly what they know to us.
Just because you “think” you didn’t exist until you had your first “self aware” thought doesn’t make it truth.
Most people can’t remember things in their life that happened before age 2 or 3. But most babies are self aware to the extent that they can recognize themselves in mirrors or pictures before age 2. We have no way of knowing the age when babies become self aware because they are unable to communicate exactly what they know to us.
F
flyingfish
Guest
You don’t exist until you are self aware??? Huh? Whoever changed your diapers thought you existed im sure
This is a matter of how you choose to define what it means to be an “I”. If my mother had chosen to have an abortion, there wouldn’t have been an “I” there to know that I exist and that my existence is ending.
health.howstuffworks.com/life-stages/parenting/child-development/understanding-how-children-mature-ga6.htm
This might be a good test for self awareness.
M
Magdalena09
Guest
9 months is only 3/4 of ONE year of a lifetime… which in America average about 75-85 years.
You have to be really young to think 9 months is a long time in the span of life.
M
Magdalena09
Guest
That is utter nonsense. Self awareness does not have any bearing on existence. Some people are mentally retarded and may never comprehend life to the extent of self-awareness. This doesn’t meant hey don’t exist.
F
flyingfish
Guest
Honestly, defining what a person is, what a self is is something philosophers spend entire lifetimes on.That is utter nonsense. Self awareness does not have any bearing on existence. Some people are mentally retarded and may never comprehend life to the extent of self-awareness. This doesn’t meant hey don’t exist.
I’m not saying there’s nothing there, I’m saying there is no conscious mind there. I personally would not lose any sleep if “someone” without a conscious mind died. It would bother me only in so far as that death might make someone capable of experiencing sadness sad.
Also mentally retarded people still have consciousness, they just don’t reach the level of most others. I never suggested that people with developmental disabilities aren’t persons.
A
Abu
Guest
flyingfish has proved that he (she) is unable to face reality from scientific evidence with which he has been presented as to the origin of personhood from conception.
Such a person cannot reason logically and there is really no point in conducting logical discussion – I’m surprised that the admin has not pulled the plug.
Such a person cannot reason logically and there is really no point in conducting logical discussion – I’m surprised that the admin has not pulled the plug.
O
OraLabora
Guest
The nature of the human species is self-awareness, consciousness, ability to chose right from wrong, find and love God, reason, etc.
That some humans suffer defects that impair these, neither takes away from the nature of humans, nor from the inherent dignity and humanity of the sufferer, just as a bird who can’t fly, remains a bird. Moreover the fact that the manifestation of these attributes doesn’t occur until some point after gestation and birth, in no way takes away the fact that these attributes are as inherent to the species as flight is to a bird or swimming to a fish.
From the moment of conception, the human embryo contains all the genetic composition of a unique human individual who, left undisturbed to its natural fate, will eventually manifest them to the extent that they are not impaired by disease or genetic defects.
Just because you elect to terminate that life before these attributes are manifested, does not implicitly make the act moral. For while the embryo does not yet manifest those attributes, it most certainly possesses them. It in fact possessed them the instant the mother and father’s genetic material came together to create a unique individual.
Therefore when an embryo dies from willful homicide, which is what abortion is, a human individual that possesses consciousness, intelligence, the ability to distinguish right from wrong, the ability to chose and love God, etc, is killed.
As for your comments about the risk of pregnancy, they are laughable in modern Western society. My wife is a small-town family physician and in her 30 year career has delivered thousands babies and assisted at numerous C-sections.
None, not one, not a single mother, died or suffered from a debilitating post-partum infirmity, although she has had the odd stillbirth.
Your continued arguing in favor of abortion in a Catholic forum strikes me as patently absurd. There are many issues within the Church where our consciences can clash with official Church teaching but abortion isn’t one of them. The Church’s position is crystal clear, and is in complete harmony with the science, when it comes to defining the starting point of the human journey.
Anybody who argues that human rights only begin at birth, or when a fetus us viable, or when it looks like a pretty little baby on an ultrasound, or when it develops self-awareness, is merely drawing an arbitrary line fueled by one’s own emotions without a shred of objective evidence.
So either you’re engaging in some sort of mental masturbation just to yank our chains, or you really haven’t thought your ideas through.
Certainly, however, no Catholic will ever accuse you of intelligent discourse on this topic whatever your reasons for engaging us.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I don’t think this distinction between “manifests” and “possesses” is a worthwhile one. In what way exactly does a newly fertilized ovum possess consciousness, intelligence, and the ability to distinguish right from wrong?
In so far as it has the DNA that will, given a long period of time, result in their development?This makes no sense to me whatsoever. An embryo doesn’t “possess” consciousness, intelligence, or the ability to know right from wrong.
Frankly speaking, if you use this definition you might say some random clump of matter “possesses” but doesn’t yet “manifest” intelligence provided you know that it will eventually be the stuff that makes up a conscious human being.
Well my conscience clashes with this particular teaching, I think it’s pretty arbitrary to say that it’s understandable to disagree with the Church on some issues but not others.
Out of curiosity, what are the “many issues” where our consciences can clash with official Church teaching?
You are at least the third person on this thread to call me stupid. Gee, thanks, I guess you probably think I should have kept my thoughts to myself and not answered the OP at all.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Of course it does. It is encoded in its DNA just like flight is encoded into the DNA of birds. And just like birds need to be taught to fly, humans need to be taught as well.
However, if it wasn’t encoded in the DNA, it wouldn’t be possible to teach an infant to recognize right from wrong, about God, etc.
It seems very basic to me. I can’t understand why you think consciousness and all the other human attributes just suddenly magically appear. They don’t. They’re there from the beginning.
Compare it to the ability to procreate. A man or woman starts out as a male or female embryo. The female in particular is born with all the ova that her ovaries will expel each month during her fertile years.
Before the age of puberty children cannot procreate. But it is clear that they are male or female, and left to nature, will be able to procreate. Then they will go through their fertile years, then hit menopause, then die. Whether in the pre or post-fertile years, a female is a female and by her nature is the female half of the procreative equation whether she’s actively capable of doing so or not.
By your logic, it would be OK to castrate pre-pubescent children, because since they didn’t know or understand sex and procreation, no harm in killing that faculty before it matures and manifests itself, they won’t even miss it. That is more or less what you are proposing for a fetus, that it’s OK to kill it before it can express a faculty it inherently, by its nature, possesses, it won’t even miss it because it isn’t self-aware yet.
Honestly, you should quit while you’re ahead. If you don’t like posters calling you a fool, then stop, and think your ideas through to their logical end.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I think I will, it’s no use repeating myself. Even after explaining my point of view, your post above is so far off the mark with respect to what I think that there’s nothing more I can say. But, hopefully someone understood my point of view
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Your argument does not hold water.We are pro-life because we are commanded to be pro-life by Almighty God, not by some personal whim or opinion. We are COMMANDED to not murder the innocent. Please tell me, WHEN do embryos become persons? Is it at three months? Four? Six? At birth? Don’t know? Then we must assume that they are persons at the instant of conception. Does the absence of thought or “plans for the future” make one “not a person”? What about people who are comatose? They don’t have thoughts or plans for the future, but they are still persons. Our personal “wishes” do not trump the commandment that we should not murder the innocent, no matter what. We are not allowed to commit murder simply to solve a personal problem.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
- Status