M
Magster
Guest
Precluding abortion adds more suffering to a world that also has too much already.
- Status
M
Magster
Guest
Tlaloc said:
If you really believe this, I suggest you check out some of the comments from women who have been harmed by abortion, either physically or psychologically or both. Check out the website:
www.priestsforlife.org
Be sure to read the personal stories of women who have come to regret their abortions - there are many and it is dishonest to deny the fact.
Also, keep in mind that many who initially were in support of abortion, including NARAL co-founder Bernard Nathan, as well as other doctors who used to perform abortions and those formerly employed in abortion clinics, are now among the most ardent opponents of abortion. They all have the same story - they finally had the courage to admit that what they were doing was killing innocent human life. When one lives a lie, eventually it kills the spirit.
I will pray that the Holy Spirit bombards your heart with whatever grace it takes for you to change your heart.
B
Brad
Guest
Your comments are far more vile than any born person, non-perfect in your eyes or otherwise. I’m amazed at the inconsideration of these comments and of the hubris that accompanies them.
B
Brad
Guest
It was you that said (paraphrasing slightly) that the “hideous head deformation stage fortunately passes”. In some cases, it may not. The shallowness implies was in your comments, not in reaction to those comments. Your definition of unfortunate may be all that someone has got and they have unequivocal dignity and talent in the eyes of their maker.
Z
Zooey
Guest
To start with : beautiful post!!
And–just to show off my HS Latin…There are two words for offspring/newborn baby. Fetus is one, & the other is neonatus.The difference is how you use them.So if an ancient Roman just had twins, & didn’t want them both, you told the slaves, “Keep that one(neonatus), & throw away that one(fetus).”
This is where we have come to in this country…
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
I didn’t know that:crying:
M
masondoggy
Guest
Tlaloc said:
Dude, you need to go take a basic biology class and really pay attention to the definition of an organism. Pay special attention to the definition of “tissue”. :nope:
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
To defend Tlaloc as regards his comments about the appearance of newborn children:
Commenting on the appearance of something indicates nothing about the value of that thing unless one considers appearance to be an important factor in determining value.
Unless we are to strike all language relating to aesthetics from our language, I think that it is entirely appropriate to consider badly burned skin, boils, and vomit ugly. I doubt that anyone would say, “Oh, look at that beautiful burned skin. . . and those boils, how marvelous they are! It is *so *cute when my child gets the stomach flu and vomits everywhere!”
While Tlaloc’s commented “they are often pretty hideous” in regards to newborn children, it seems pretty clear from the context that he is only making a comment about their appearance – not their worth.
The charitable thing to do is to give someone the benefit of the doubt, even to one’s opponents. However, that is not the habit of some in this forum.
I expect that someone will come to the conclusion that because I am defending Tlaloc on this point I must share in his views on everything else – though I have said nothing regarding those views.
It seems that a hunch is more powerful than proof – that is to say, “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
Commenting on the appearance of something indicates nothing about the value of that thing unless one considers appearance to be an important factor in determining value.
Unless we are to strike all language relating to aesthetics from our language, I think that it is entirely appropriate to consider badly burned skin, boils, and vomit ugly. I doubt that anyone would say, “Oh, look at that beautiful burned skin. . . and those boils, how marvelous they are! It is *so *cute when my child gets the stomach flu and vomits everywhere!”
While Tlaloc’s commented “they are often pretty hideous” in regards to newborn children, it seems pretty clear from the context that he is only making a comment about their appearance – not their worth.
The charitable thing to do is to give someone the benefit of the doubt, even to one’s opponents. However, that is not the habit of some in this forum.
I expect that someone will come to the conclusion that because I am defending Tlaloc on this point I must share in his views on everything else – though I have said nothing regarding those views.
It seems that a hunch is more powerful than proof – that is to say, “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
B
Brad
Guest
- Tlaloc defends abortion on these threads so we know that him implying that a baby in the womb or a newborn being hideous is fuel for a pro-abortion argument.
- The post is regarding a film of baby develpment benefitting the pro-life cause. Tlaloc is saying that this film would in fact likely include “disgusting” images of “deformations”, some of which may be hideous, but fortunatley they “will not last”. This implies that if they did last (which they do for some), then that life will continue on as a “disgusting” and “hideous” appearance to others. That boosts the case for euthanasia, which we have also seen Tlaloc defend on other threads.
- It is not the objectors that are judging things solely upon appearance. They are looking beyond appearance to see the beauty within, whether 2 months in utero or 90 years old. Tlaloc is looking solely at appearance by labeling the newborn process as disgusting.
C
caroljm36
Guest
Prometheum_x said:
Logically you’re correct of course, but there is more to life than your logic addresses. How can you equate seeing a new baby, the whole miracle of life, with all she promises for the future, with vomit, boils and burnt skin? Tlaloc should have tempered his own reaction with hope and appreciation for the potential and the mere existence of the newborn. Yes it’s kind of funny to say "she’s BEAUTIFUL!"right after birth but we all know what we mean, don’t we?
Tlaloc betrayed his own callowness and emotional aloofness with that remark and did more to explain his failed marriage than all his excuse-making. He doesn’t have a heart…what woman would be happy with that? The young can be heartless when they perceive themselves as strong and in control of the situation. Someday he’ll learn he is not.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
Prometheum_X:
As much as I appreciate the wisdom and thoughtfulness of your posts-I think the last one was an overly gymnastic exercise in parsing words.
The use of the term “hideous,” originally by columnist Virginia Heffernan of the NY Times and later by Tlaloc was consistent with its definition “revolting to the senses or the mind.” This to me goes deeper than mere appearances and touches on the essence of the thing being described. How anyone could apply that term to the miracle of birth–the subject at hand–is inconveivable to me and others who posted here. The entire process being depicted in the NG special–from the incredible event of conception, to the mind-boggling complexity involved in the development of a fetus and the culminating event–the birth of a healthy child–is irreconcileable with any notion or definition of “hideous.”
As much as I appreciate the wisdom and thoughtfulness of your posts-I think the last one was an overly gymnastic exercise in parsing words.
The use of the term “hideous,” originally by columnist Virginia Heffernan of the NY Times and later by Tlaloc was consistent with its definition “revolting to the senses or the mind.” This to me goes deeper than mere appearances and touches on the essence of the thing being described. How anyone could apply that term to the miracle of birth–the subject at hand–is inconveivable to me and others who posted here. The entire process being depicted in the NG special–from the incredible event of conception, to the mind-boggling complexity involved in the development of a fetus and the culminating event–the birth of a healthy child–is irreconcileable with any notion or definition of “hideous.”
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Island Oak:
). So, I take your comment seriously.
I was certainly not trying to parse words. I would agree that on its face the use of the word “hideous” is incompatible with a positive regard for the birth of a healthy child. I didn’t intend to defend the use of the word so much as I intended to defend what I thought Tlaloc meant by it.
And of course there is the matter of opinion: You stated, “This [hideous] to me goes deeper than mere appearances. . .” While that may be the ordinary sense of the word, from reading Tlaloc’s posts my impression was that he was using it to refer solely to mere appearances.
Respectfully,
To be honest, I have recognized in myself a tendency towards indulging in verbal gymnastics too much. (The complexity of that sentence illustrates that. . .
). So, I take your comment seriously.I was certainly not trying to parse words. I would agree that on its face the use of the word “hideous” is incompatible with a positive regard for the birth of a healthy child. I didn’t intend to defend the use of the word so much as I intended to defend what I thought Tlaloc meant by it.
And of course there is the matter of opinion: You stated, “This [hideous] to me goes deeper than mere appearances. . .” While that may be the ordinary sense of the word, from reading Tlaloc’s posts my impression was that he was using it to refer solely to mere appearances.
Respectfully,
C
Chrissay
Guest
Tialoc,
you wrote:
My definition of human has nothing to do with appearance, it rests on biological function.>>
I certainly agree with you that humans are not defined by appearance, but
what biologic function do you perceive in ALL humans that you see in NO other animals?
This is not meant to be argumentative so I hope you will answer it grin.
I have just had my mother pass away recently and I’m a little scattered so I hope that the answer to my question is not painfully obvious.
you wrote:
My definition of human has nothing to do with appearance, it rests on biological function.>>
I certainly agree with you that humans are not defined by appearance, but
what biologic function do you perceive in ALL humans that you see in NO other animals?
This is not meant to be argumentative so I hope you will answer it grin.
I have just had my mother pass away recently and I’m a little scattered so I hope that the answer to my question is not painfully obvious.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
I guess it depends on what you mean, if you mean homo sapiens sapiens then we can differentiate that species from others by DNA.
- Status