Congressman says abortions never necessary to save life of mother

[TEPO]

I don’t think in terms of pro-life or pro-choice when it comes to basic facts. I’m simply pro-the-unborn and their mothers. Defining life as beginning at conception is enough to make it clear that abortion ends real lives.

If we say that the fetus is legally a person from the moment of conception, that makes every unexplained fetal demise a police case. Considering that more than half (some estimate as many as 75%) of all conceptions end in miscarriage that’s simply impractical - a logistical nightmare - not only because of the sheer numbers but because in most cases miscarriages are unexplained.

Again, that’s simply trying to make science do the impossible: explain an avalanche of ‘persons’ dying unexpectedly while completely dependent for life on another person. Makes for a long list of suspected criminals if you ask me.

Well, I’ve actually researched this before and and from what I understand, there is nothing nor can there ever be anything “factual” about the status of one’s “personhood”. In other words, it’s a concept that can never become anything more than an opinion. It lacks all aspects of practicability, logic and sense. It voids the conscience, common good and betterment of humanity.

It’s a purely genuine negative because it’s purpose is only to exclude and not include.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Here’s a little refresher from post # 86 :

. . .
abortion is demonic in its nature

In order to raise the consciousness of our Christian nation over the true evil we face under the auspices of Roe v Wade, Reverend Thomas Euteneuer, of Human Life International, has published a new book which lays out in no uncertain terms the Satanic origins and nature of abortion. Demonic Abortion.

.

The devil’s strategy is to divide and conquer.

Now without intending at all to imply that any members here might belong to the devil’s henchmen , I believe we could benefit by noticing on this thread how the “terms” for debate are being drawn up : Earlier it was *pro-life *vs *pro-choice *; but now there is a more subtle division that needs to be be noticed - the division between *human life * and human personhood . . . an atmosphere of division where, according to its track record “divide and conquer” has been thriving quite nicely .

Let’s pause for a minute and ask : **Who ever said *human life *and human personhood must be two distinct things **?

It certainly didn’t come from any Catholic realm of thought. I wonder what possible materials the previous poster could’ve been researching . . . ?

How can someone say the “concept” of human personhood is

a purely genuine negative because it’s purpose is only to exclude and not include.

. . . when personhood as we understand it is inclusive for every human being from the moment of conception onwards ?

Quite surprising that the same poster claims , regarding personhood

…isn’t it true that by creating this definition it would only work in favor of the pro-choice cause…? If not, then how would/could it benefit the opposing pro-life cause?

Surprising because Justice Blackmun opined in Roe vs. Wade the** lie **that those “trained in medicine are unable to arrive at any consensus” concerning the “determination as to when life and personhood begins.”

Here it is in a slightly larger context : Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS , connects the dots for us –

These facts have been obscured on both sides by individuals who do not possess the necessary education, training and experience in science to evaluate and interpret the materials and render valid conclusions or who, influenced by their religious or chauvinistic fervor have reached erroneous or untenable suppositions and conclusions, argumentum ad hominem.
Justice Blackmun opined in Roe P. Wade that the determination as to when life and personhood begins is a difficult decision that the court is not in a position to speculate on and there in does not have the resolve since those trained in medicine are unable to arrive at any consensus. The U. S. Supreme Court Justices then carried their defective reasoning even further in Roe v. Wade when in contrast with all other civilized societies, ruled that the unborn is a non-person regardless as to whether it is a human being or not.
This decision then made the unborn ineligible for the protection that is guaranteed to all human persons under the U. S. Constitution. What Blackmun and the other U. S. Justices were really saying was that maybe human life and personhood begins at conception but since we do not know for sure, we will allow abortion until someone proves differently. This is the mentality of most of the ardent supporters of abortion which is in sharp contrast to logical reasoning when applied to possible life or death situations. . .

Entire article can be read at the following link :
E-Forensic Medicine ; The Code For Human Life

 

[NeedImprovement]

Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS , summarized more than 16 years ago, through genetics and forensics …

“The question as to when human life and personhood begins has been made a controversial issue because the proponents of abortion do not want it to begin at least before the first 24 weeks of gestation. There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible…”

The true scientific and medical experts weighed in with their expert testimonies at a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee over 30 years ago and even though Catholics are not in agreement with in vitro fertilization , in the testimonies below, it is actually Dr. Landrum Shettles - the father of in vitro fertilization, who calls out the Supreme Court Justices on their lie in the judgement rendered on Roe vs Wade.

The testimony of experts from the scientific medical community in 1981 (April 23-24) when they appeared before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to provide their testimony ,responding to the question : **When does human life begin **?

• Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

• “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”

• Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

• Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”

• Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.”

• Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”

• Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”

• Professor Eugene Diamond: “…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”

The scientific experts don’t have any problem determining the beginning of human life and personhood. They are the foremost scientific/medical authority on the subject and the Holy Catholic Church is the spiritual/moral leader on this same subject. There is no conflict on this one - only lies from those who stick their fingers in their ears because they cannot bear to hear the truth either from a medical/ethical and/or spiritual/moral perspective. . . and then make sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and in the ears of others binding legislation.

Professor Albert Einstein said that “science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.”

Considering all of the aforementioned, how can one possibly be expected to believe the several most recent posts to the contrary ?

 

[seekerz]

Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS , summarized more than 16 years ago, through genetics and forensics …

The true scientific and medical experts weighed in with their expert testimonies at a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee over 30 years ago and even though Catholics are not in agreement with in vitro fertilization , in the testimonies below, it is actually Dr. Landrum Shettles - the father of in vitro fertilization, who calls out the Supreme Court Justices on their lie in the judgement rendered on Roe vs Wade.

The testimony of experts from the scientific medical community in 1981 (April 23-24) when they appeared before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to provide their testimony ,responding to the question : **When does human life begin **?

The scientific experts don’t have any problem determining the beginning of human life and personhood. They are the foremost scientific/medical authority on the subject and the Holy Catholic Church is the spiritual/moral leader on this same subject. There is no conflict on this one - only lies from those who stick their fingers in their ears because they cannot bear to hear the truth either from a medical/ethical and/or spiritual/moral perspective. . . and then make sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and in the ears of others binding legislation.

Professor Albert Einstein said that “science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.”

Considering all of the aforementioned, how can one possibly be expected to believe the several most recent posts to the contrary ?

So is personhood in the womb is equivalent to personshood outside of it, legally? How might we apply that practically? By having police ‘patrol’ the unborns’ environment in view of their very high rate of unexpected demise?

 

[seekerz]

Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS , summarized more than 16 years ago, through genetics and forensics …

The true scientific and medical experts weighed in with their expert testimonies at a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee over 30 years ago and even though Catholics are not in agreement with in vitro fertilization , in the testimonies below, it is actually Dr. Landrum Shettles - the father of in vitro fertilization, who calls out the Supreme Court Justices on their lie in the judgement rendered on Roe vs Wade.

The testimony of experts from the scientific medical community in 1981 (April 23-24) when they appeared before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to provide their testimony ,responding to the question : **When does human life begin **?

The scientific experts don’t have any problem determining the beginning of human life and personhood. They are the foremost scientific/medical authority on the subject and the Holy Catholic Church is the spiritual/moral leader on this same subject. There is no conflict on this one - only lies from those who stick their fingers in their ears because they cannot bear to hear the truth either from a medical/ethical and/or spiritual/moral perspective. . . and then make sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and in the ears of others binding legislation.

Professor Albert Einstein said that “science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.”

Considering all of the aforementioned, how can one possibly be expected to believe the several most recent posts to the contrary ?

Also, I see most of these quotes referring to the start of human life. Where do they support the simultaneous start of legal personhood? To my mind, that is a philosophical/moral question.

 

[ProVobis]

One of the reasons I’m not a republican, but a conservative. The average congressman
seems to get it (Atkin,Murdock, and the congressman in Illinois.) But the leadership
doesn’t.( Romney and Ryan.)

FWIW, if a constitutional amendment is required to overturn Roe vs Wade, the President would have no say. Either 2/3 of both chambers of Congress or 2/3rd of the states to set up a constitutional convention could initiate the process. Then 3/4 of the states would be needed to ratify the amendment.

 

[seekerz]

I find that “estimated” percentage tends more than slightly towards the outrageous . Apart from the fact that it would suggest that human nature is more unsuccessful than it is successful in propogation of the species before any free will enters into it (try contrasting that against “Be fruitful and multiply”) , there are some considerably more sober figures presented in the article by Jane Forester ,Family Physician , Glencoe, Illinois , entitled **How Common Are Miscarriages And Why Do They Happen ? **

What in the information you have provided, makes mine “outrageous”? I gave the estimated number of losses post-conception - you have given the rate of loss of “clinically-recognized pregnancies”. Those are two distinct, though not totally unrelated, statistics.

As you can see here, the rate of pregnancy loss depends on how pregnancy is defined. For those of us who consider fertilization as the start of pregnancy, the loss is higher than if implantation is used to define pregnancy. That’s simply because not all fertilized eggs implant successfully.

Also, I don’t see where in Scripture “be fruitful and multiply” is translated into: every conceived child growing into a bouncing newborn. Not even close, actually. Who knows the mind of God and what His reasons are for making things the way they are?

 

[TEPO]

Here’s a little refresher from post # 86 :

.

The devil’s strategy is to divide and conquer.

Now without intending at all to imply that any members here might belong to the devil’s henchmen , I believe we could benefit by noticing on this thread how the “terms” for debate are being drawn up : Earlier it was *pro-life *vs *pro-choice *; but now there is a more subtle division that needs to be be noticed - the division between *human life * and human personhood . . . an atmosphere of division where, according to its track record “divide and conquer” has been thriving quite nicely .

Let’s pause for a minute and ask : **Who ever said *human life ***and human personhood must be two distinct things ?

It certainly didn’t come from any Catholic realm of thought. I wonder what possible materials the previous poster could’ve been researching . . . ?

How can someone say the “concept” of human personhood is
. . . when personhood as we understand it is inclusive for every human being from the moment of conception onwards ?

Quite surprising that the same poster claims , regarding personhood

Surprising because Justice Blackmun opined in Roe vs. Wade the** lie **that those “trained in medicine are unable to arrive at any consensus” concerning the “determination as to when life and personhood begins.”

Here it is in a slightly larger context : Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe

, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS , connects the dots for us –

Entire article can be read at the following link :
E-Forensic Medicine ; The Code For Human Life

I’m not exactly sure what you’re point is here… I hope you’re not claiming that Personhood is an actual condition that human beings either posess or fail to posess…

I would disagree with that because I believe there are only human beings who are created at the point of conception… There is no such thing as personhood with al its prerequired conditions.

The Holy Church does not acknowledge “personhood”, it’s the culture of death who wants us to accept it. — Don’t fall for it!

 

[TEPO]

If anyone here doubts my research -then you can prove to me right now how “personhood” is a proven factual condition… Show me your sources.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . in view of their very high rate of unexpected demise?

There is no reason given on the thread so far to believe that this unsubstantiated figure -

Considering that more than half (some estimate as many as 75%) of all conceptions end in miscarriage . . .

has anything much to do with practical reality as no source has been cited which would refute the rate cited again below - (a second time now) by a responsible doctor whose life is dedicated to work in this particular field.

I find that “estimated” percentage tends more than slightly towards the outrageous . Apart from the fact that it would suggest that human nature is more unsuccessful than it is successful in propogation of the species before any free will enters into it (try contrasting that against “Be fruitful and multiply”) , there are some considerably more sober figures presented in the article by Jane Forester ,Family Physician , Glencoe, Illinois , entitled **How Common Are Miscarriages And Why Do They Happen ? **

. . . As far as we are able to determine, it can be approximated that in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, the miscarriage rate is about 10-15 per cent of a clinically recognizable pregnancy

I see no point in discussing an argument without a premise.

 

[NeedImprovement]

If anyone here doubts my research -then you can prove to me right now how “personhood” is a proven factual condition… Show me your sources.

. . . A common defense for someone who has, thus far , had no sources/resources to show themselves. As in the previous post : I see no point in discussing an argument without a premise. Self appointed authority is not substantiation .

I’m really sorry to have to do this , but the innocent lives of the children in the womb - at whatever stage of their development, are just a little too precious for what you write. Furthermore it has come to a point where your ridiculous posts are now sorely misrepresenting the Catholic Church.

. . .
The Holy Church does not acknowledge “personhood”, it’s the culture of death who wants us to accept it. — Don’t fall for it!

You’ve been provided with testimony from the foremost scientific medical experts.

You’ve been provided with substantiation that abortion is demonic in its origin.

If you already reject those - without any authoritative proof of your own, I don’t really see how you’ll be able to understand any other truths or Catholic philosophical analysis in this particular sphere of thought.

But before misrepresenting the Holy Catholic Church so dismally again, might I suggest that you at least um . . ." research" what the Church actually teaches , because when one misrepresents the Catholic Church (this applies to each of us) , one misrepresents God ?

Perhaps, you also have your own “definitions” to go along with your erroneous opinion of the Catholic Church.

Here is a nice simple definition of personhood from one of our foremost theologians’ - Father John Hardon, S.J.'s Modern Catholic Dictionary :

Personhood
The distinctive qualities of each human being as a unique individual .

Not that it means anything to you, but your posts on this subject don’t really merit any further response as they appear to be based on/substantiated by , everything the reader sees between the following square brackets : ]

So I’m afraid I won’t be responding to any more of your posts.

For our other members, the following post will illustrate just how mistaken this poster is in their misrepresentation of the Holy Catholic Church’s teaching, but more importantly will help us recognize some of the false arguments that are so subtle they sometimes slip by us .

 

[NeedImprovement]

The subtle lies of abortion, are traced out for us by the mind of Professor Peter Kreeft. His paper provided by the *Catholic Education Resource Center * entitled **HUMAN PERSONHOOD BEGINS AT CONCEPTION ** cuts through all the bull , examining the subtle sophistry of thre abortionists and revealing how the lies get plied into the fabric of their arguments.

The foreword :

Philosopher Peter Kreeft presents the arguments commonly used to explain why the unborn child is not a human person and then shows clearly and simply why each of these arguments cannot possibly be true.

The entire paper HUMAN PERSONHOOD BEGIN S AT CONCEPTION is very enlightening reading for Catholics. Professor Kreeft points out the errors of Functionalism .

His primer explanation of the general structure of moral reasoning and subsequent treatment of the summary of 7 “soft pro-choicer” arguments - each of which attacks a basic pro-life syllogism, is an eye-opener.

Here are several excerpts:

His paper begins with the following words **blue bolds **emphasis mine]:

Non-Christians and even Christians can take opposite positions on abortion even when they think rationally, honestly, and with good will. The continuing controversy over abortion shows that it is a truly controversial issue. It is not simple and clear-cut, but complex. Just as the choices for action are often difficult for a woman contemplating abortion, the choices for thought are often difficult for open-minded philosophers.
Everything I have said so far is a lie, in fact a dangerous lie.

There is one and only one reason why people argue about the topic of this paper, whether human personhood begins at conception: because some people want to justify abortion. Therefore I begin with some remarks about abortion.

Abortion is a clear-cut evil. Anyone who honestly seeks “peace on earth, good will toward men” will see this if only he extends it to include women and children. Especially Christians should see this very clearly, for their faith reinforces their natural reason and conscience, a faith that declares that every human being is sacred because he or she is made in the image of God. The fact that some people controvert a position does not in itself make that position intrinsically controversial. People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton — for someone without principles.

The issue I have been asked to argue, the personhood of the fetus, is triply crucial. It is crucial for abortion, abortion is crucial for medical ethics, and medical ethics is crucial for the future of our civilization.

First, the personhood of the fetus is clearly the crucial issue for abortion, for if the fetus is not a person, abortion is not the deliberate killing of an innocent person: if it is, it is. All other aspects of the abortion controversy are relative to this one; e.g., women have rights — over their own bodies but not over other persons’ bodies. The law must respect a “right to privacy” but killing other persons is not a private but a public deed. Persons have a “right to life” but non-persons (e.g., cells, tissues, organs, and animals) do not. . .

Read up guys - each of us is sure to discover at least one area where we might’ve been duped, or at least been led to doubt by an argument which might have had an innocent surface appearance.

God Bless (. . . time to go and pray for those contemplating abortion. . . )

 

[TEPO]

. . . A common defense for someone who has, thus far , had no sources/resources to show themselves. As in the previous post : I see no point in discussing an argument without a premise. Self appointed authority is not substantiation .

I’m really sorry to have to do this , but the innocent lives of the children in the womb - at whatever stage of their development, are just a little too precious for what you write. Furthermore it has come to a point where your ridiculous posts are now sorely misrepresenting the Catholic Church.

You’ve been provided with testimony from the foremost scientific medical experts.

You’ve been provided with substantiation that abortion is demonic in its origin.

If you already reject those - without any authoritative proof of your own, I don’t really see how you’ll be able to understand any other truths or Catholic philosophical analysis in this particular sphere of thought.

But before misrepresenting the Holy Catholic Church so dismally again, might I suggest that you at least um . . ." research" what the Church actually teaches , because when one misrepresents the Catholic Church (this applies to each of us) , one misrepresents God ?

Perhaps, you also have your own “definitions” to go along with your erroneous opinion of the Catholic Church.

Here is a nice simple definition of personhood from one of our foremost theologians’ - Father John Hardon, S.J.'s Modern Catholic Dictionary :

Not that it means anything to you, but your posts on this subject don’t really merit any further response as they appear to be based on/substantiated by , everything the reader sees between the following square brackets : ]

So I’m afraid I won’t be responding to any more of your posts.

For our other members, the following post will illustrate just how mistaken this poster is in their misrepresentation of the Holy Catholic Church’s teaching, but more importantly will help us recognize some of the false arguments that are so subtle they sometimes slip by us .

I’m not sure if you’re simply unable to comprehend what I’ve said, or if there is some sort of blinding ignorance standing in the way, but in either case I will pray that you do stop sympothizing with the pro-abortionists and that you come to accept the Truths of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as I have.

God will have mercy on those who seek His forgiveness through confession. I do hope that you come to understand this Truth some day.

Again, I’ll be praying for you at Mass this Sunday…

Peace,
TEPO

 

[TEPO]

Let’s pause for a minute and ask : **Who ever said *human life ***and human personhood must be two distinct things ?

The person who wrote this seems to believe that the term “human” is synonymous with the term “personhood” when they are clearly two completely different terms within the English language. Not that I wouldn’t want to redefine the term “Personhood” but I have no right to doing that.

There is no Church teaching on “Personhood” that I know of… I didn’t see it in the CCC, or on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (a most trustworthy source) nor have I seen it within the Canon Laws or the Bible.

Therefore, “Personhood” is not a Catholic term at all, but a secular one. Though it may be used by some of our more liberal catholic friends or Protestants on occasion.

 

[TEPO]

Now, as an honest question – couldn’t Row vs. Wade be legally overturned on account of the FACT that personhood does not exist, and that all human life must be protected whether citizen or non-citizen? Therefore the bill was originally passed on faulty grounds?

…Why would or wouldn’t this work?

 

[TEPO]

FWIW, if a constitutional amendment is required to overturn Roe vs Wade, the President would have no say. Either 2/3 of both chambers of Congress or 2/3rd of the states to set up a constitutional convention could initiate the process. Then 3/4 of the states would be needed to ratify the amendment.

Exactly what language would need to be amended if it were required?

 

[seekerz]

There is no reason given on the thread so far to believe that this unsubstantiated figure - has anything much to do with practical reality as no source has been cited which would refute the rate cited again below - (a second time now) by a responsible doctor whose life is dedicated to work in this particular field.

I see no point in discussing an argument without a premise.

I have given “no source”? I’m pretty sure there was a link given in my last post.

 

[seekerz]

The person who wrote this seems to believe that the term “human” is synonymous with the term “personhood” when they are clearly two completely different terms within the English language. Not that I wouldn’t want to redefine the term “Personhood” but I have no right to doing that.

There is no Church teaching on “Personhood” that I know of… I didn’t see it in the CCC, or on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (a most trustworthy source) nor have I seen it within the Canon Laws or the Bible.

Therefore, “Personhood” is not a Catholic term at all, but a secular one. Though it may be used by some of our more liberal catholic friends or Protestants on occasion.

I have to agree with you. Unlike human life (which very obviously exists as a distinct entity the moment you have cellular activity involving unique DNA), personhood is a man-made construct.

 

[TEPO]

I have to agree with you. Unlike human life (which very obviously exists as a distinct entity the moment you have cellular activity involving unique DNA), personhood is a man-made construct.

I do appreciate you’re feedback, I was beginning to wonder if I was not making myself clear enough… There were a few posts back there that were just a little bit frustrating for me. :coolinoff:

(normally I don’t treat other posters like that, maybe it’s just an extremely emotional topic for some people… In this case though, I felt like I had the right to defend myself.)

 

[Mar044]

anyone who says abortion is right should be told what I say to others

A baby inside you can be killed by you because it’s unborn…this is normal to you, yet when you go into labor and the baby is born say a hour later its murder, so in your view if a doctor throws baby, a newborn onto the floor killing it its murder yet, if a doctor takes a tube and kills your baby in you a hour before its not…sick