How do abortion supporters reconcile their support for abortion . .

[mapleoak]

But they have vocal chords and ears. They will learn. I’m sure when Jesus himself was six months old and just learning how to crawl, Mary never said, “Oh well, He’s not the Son of God because He doesn’t know any better.”

Never heard that one before, but it is excellent. Thanks!

 

[rinnie]

Aboverubies, your son reminds me of a sermon Father had one day. The people asked if God was so good why did he make this Child this way. Gods response was, what is a perfect child, a perfect child is without sin, it is not capable of sinning. it only knows truth, love, faith, it does not know hate, how to lie cheat. this is a perfect child. But as the world rejected me it will reject the perfect child. What this world sees as perfect God does not see as perfect. That is why the blind can see, the death can hear, but we can not see, nor hear but we have sight. If this world was Gods world this would be considered the perfect child. God bless you and he is beautiful. the love just pours out of him, I can only imagine what it is to get true Love from God the way you are through this wonderful gift. Love him and give him a kiss for me.

 

[aboverubies]

What a beautiful son you have very handsome.

Thank you for sharing him with us.

Thankyou! Of course I am in complete agreement!

 

[aboverubies]

Aboverubies, your son reminds me of a sermon Father had one day. The people asked if God was so good why did he make this Child this way. Gods response was, what is a perfect child, a perfect child is without sin, it is not capable of sinning. it only knows truth, love, faith, it does not know hate, how to lie cheat. this is a perfect child. But as the world rejected me it will reject the perfect child. What this world sees as perfect God does not see as perfect. That is why the blind can see, the death can hear, but we can not see, nor hear but we have sight. If this world was Gods world this would be considered the perfect child. God bless you and he is beautiful. the love just pours out of him, I can only imagine what it is to get true Love from God the way you are through this wonderful gift. Love him and give him a kiss for me.

That is a wonderful sermon - I would have been bawling my eyes out! DH and I often comment that we are living with a Saint, and wonder why we have been so favoured and blessed to be his parents. Kisses from you to William! mmmmwha

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is a wonderful sermon - I would have been bawling my eyes out! DH and I often comment that we are living with a Saint, and wonder why we have been so favoured and blessed to be his parents. Kisses from you to William! mmmmwha

I have known parents with severely disabled children – including a couple in our church who adopted a child of mixed race. I knew Arkansas Lieutenant Governor, Winthrop Rockefeller – he and his wife had a child with Down’s Syndrome, and adopted another.

I have always thanked God that such a burden was not placed on me – but I have noticed something. The parents of such children do not consider it a burden, but a blessing. You can hear the love when they speak of their children.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I’m clearly a masochist to be writing here again.

Vern, I don’t in the least consider disagreement a form of condescension. When have I indicated that I did or have? When I said I don’t expect you to agree with me? When I indicated multiple times that we disagree on this subject? I’ll say it again: I don’t expect that we’ll agree here.

I’ll state my position again, by way of comparison, and then, by God’s grace, I’ll have done with this thread.

YOUR POSITION AS I UNDERSTAND IT
-When sperm and egg unite, the resulting blastocyst is a living, real, actual and complete creature.
-It may lack human form, but it is nonetheless human by virtue of its genetic makeup.
-It is therefore a living, real, actual and complete human being.
-It has a rational human soul.
-It is therefore valuable as a human being.
-It is entirely and completely separate from the mother, though mother and blastocyst are equal beings.
-Therefore to destroy the blastocyst is to murder a human being.

MY POSITION AS I HAVE EXPRESSED IT
-When sperm and egg unite, the resulting blastocyst is a living, real, actual creature.
-It lacks human form. The genetic material composing it may be human in the most basic DNA sense, but it nonetheless lacks human form.
-It is therefore not a living, real, actual and complete human being.
-Lacking a human form, it does not have a rational human soul.
-It is not valuable as a human being because while it may be genetically or biologically human, it is not ontologically so. The fundamental quality of human beingness (human form, rational human soul), is absent. It’s teleology, however, is towards full humanity. It is developing in the direction of humanity. It is therefore valuable for this teleological reason, which reason should prompt one to foster its development (seeing the good end–humanity), not interrupt it.
-It is entirely and completely dependent on the mother until it has the capacity to be separate from the mother and survive. Mother and blastocyst are qualitatively (and ontologically) different.
-Therefore to destroy the blastocyst is to destroy a life (like killing an animal)–it is reprehensible and sad, but it is not to murder a human being.

This is my position.

Re: whether or not it’s fine to rip an animal apart, what a silly question–reread the above and tell me where you would get that I would think its fine and dandy to rip an animal apart? Because it is not murder does not mean it would not be cruelty.

Re: the whole unfinished painting metaphor…come on, people. Let’s look at context. In the context in which we’ve been talking, a four year old is a “finished painting” because it is completely human. In a maturity context, there’s a lot of work to be done. But the child is human–made in human form, endowed with a rational human soul. A disabled child or adult regardless of the disability is likewise made in human form and has a rational human soul. They are “finished paintings” in the context in which we’ve been discussing. They are human beings. Someone remind me never again to use a metaphor on these forums, or underestimate the capacity of people to misrepresent or misunderstand a point through sentimental attachment to something entirely separate from the conversation at hand.

And let it be said, when I speak of human form, I am not speaking of human shape, nor the completeness of that shape, nor the relative beauty of that shape, but in the classical sense of the word “form” which connotes, among other things, the presence of the fullness of humanity including human nature and human person, human body and human soul.

I’m not hung up on abilities–this isn’t about whether or not a person can think, read, operate heavy machinery, articulate a need or a want or a desire or a political platform, go to church, write a letter, crawl on all fours, cry, laugh, seduce, insinuate, appreciate art, compose a sonnet or a symphony, tend a garden, or anything like that. Many of you say a blastocyst is a human being by nature of the biological process and genetics. I say it is not a human being by nature of the evident lack of human form (see previous paragraph), not because a blastocyst can’t sing “Danny Boy” and build a birdhouse. That’s the basic gist of the argument, here.

Many of you may say I’m philosophizing too much (someone insinuated it). My response is that I don’t think many of you are thinking about this enough.

I’ll restate–I do not support abortion. But neither do I see it as murder (though perhaps late term or partial birth abortions are–that’s something I’ll have to think on more, and certainly away from these forums). Notwithstanding, abortion is not a lovely and wonderful thing. Even thinking that abortion is not murder, it is the destruction of a* potential* human being, and destruction of that potential is not a particularly fantastic thing.

There. I happily remove myself from this discussion. Thanks, all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ask yourself this – if form determines one’s humanity, then are deformed people, people with Down’s Syndrome and so on not human?

If consciousness determines one’s humanity, then are unconscious people, people – perhaps under anesthetic – not human?

If helplesness determines one’s humanity then are disabled people not human?

And then ask yourself this – why do some people have this compulsion to argue the some human beings are not “persons” and can be killed at whim?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Ask yourself this – if form determines one’s humanity, then are deformed people, people with Down’s Syndrome and so on not human?

If consciousness one’s humanity, then are unconscious people, people – perhaps under anesthetic not human?

If helplesness one’s humanity, then are disabled people, not human?

And then ask yourself this – why do some people have this compulsion to argue the some human beings are not “persons” and can be killed at whim?

Vern, see previous post above. Your first three questions are answered there, invalidating the need to ask the fourth. I could point you to the salient paragraphs if you like. Would you like?

Thanks. Have a great weekend.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[mapleoak]

Ask yourself this – if form determines one’s humanity, then are deformed people, people with Down’s Syndrome and so on not human?

If consciousness determines one’s humanity, then are unconscious people, people – perhaps under anesthetic – not human?

If helplesness determines one’s humanity then are disabled people not human?

And then ask yourself this – why do some people have this compulsion to argue the some human beings are not “persons” and can be killed at whim?

And if dependence determines one’s humanity are children not human until they move out on there own?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Grace & Peace!

Vern, see previous post above. Your first three questions are answered there, invalidating the need to ask the fourth. I could point you to the salient paragraphs if you like. Would you like?

Thanks. Have a great weekend.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

You haven’t answered any of them.

What you have done is demonstrated a compulsion to deny the humanity of living human beings and justify their mass murder.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

And if dependence determines one’s humanity are children not human until they move out on there own?

Sometimes, I can come to no other conclusion than incomprehension is chosen, willed, and somehow enjoyed or pleasureable.

Have a lovely weekend!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

And if dependence determines one’s humanity are children not human until they move out on there own?

Of course they aren’t – and neither are passengers on an airliner.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Ask yourself this – if form determines one’s humanity, then are deformed people, people with Down’s Syndrome and so on not human?

I refer you to this:
"Deo Volente:

A disabled child or adult regardless of the disability is likewise made in human form and has a rational human soul. They are “finished paintings” in the context in which we’ve been discussing. They are human beings. Someone remind me never again to use a metaphor on these forums, or underestimate the capacity of people to misrepresent or misunderstand a point through sentimental attachment to something entirely separate from the conversation at hand.

If consciousness determines one’s humanity, then are unconscious people, people – perhaps under anesthetic – not human?

I refer you to this (feel free to add consciousness to the list–I think it’s implied):
"Deo Volente:

I’m not hung up on abilities–this isn’t about whether or not a person can think, read, operate heavy machinery, articulate a need or a want or a desire or a political platform, go to church, write a letter, crawl on all fours, cry, laugh, seduce, insinuate, appreciate art, compose a sonnet or a symphony, tend a garden, or anything like that. Many of you say a blastocyst is a human being by nature of the biological process and genetics. I say it is not a human being by nature of the evident lack of human form (see previous paragraph), not because a blastocyst can’t sing “Danny Boy” and build a birdhouse. That’s the basic gist of the argument, here.

If helplesness determines one’s humanity then are disabled people not human?

I refer you to this (feel free to add helplessness to the list–I think it’s implied):
Deo Volente:

I’m not hung up on abilities–this isn’t about whether or not a person can think, read, operate heavy machinery, articulate a need or a want or a desire or a political platform, go to church, write a letter, crawl on all fours, cry, laugh, seduce, insinuate, appreciate art, compose a sonnet or a symphony, tend a garden, or anything like that. Many of you say a blastocyst is a human being by nature of the biological process and genetics. I say it is not a human being by nature of the evident lack of human form (see previous paragraph), not because a blastocyst can’t sing “Danny Boy” and build a birdhouse. That’s the basic gist of the argument, here.

vern humphrey:

You haven’t answered any of them.

What you have done is demonstrated a compulsion to deny the humanity of living human beings and justify their mass murder.

See above. Thanks, Vern.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Grace & Peace!

I refer you to this:

I refer you to this (feel free to add consciousness to the list–I think it’s implied):

I refer you to this (feel free to add helplessness to the list–I think it’s implied):

See above. Thanks, Vern.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

My former remarks stand: What you have done is demonstrated a compulsion to deny the humanity of living human beings and justify their mass murder.

 

[mapleoak]

MY POSITION AS I HAVE EXPRESSED IT
-When sperm and egg unite, the resulting blastocyst is a living, real, actual creature.

Correct.

-It lacks human form. The genetic material composing it may be human in the most basic DNA sense, but it nonetheless lacks human form.

You have not adequately defined what this is even supposed to mean. This ‘human form’ you are talking some kind of new philosophical concept?

-It is therefore not a living, real, actual and complete human being.

If it is alive (which it is), real (which it is), and human (which it is), it must be a complete human being. This is extremely basic logic. It does not require the depth you are trying to make of it.

-Lacking a human form, it does not have a rational human soul.

Do you mean shaped like an adult? a child? having all features including all arms and legs? A full head of hair?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Face it. This is nothing but a tapdance. He starts with a determination – “the unborn child is not huma.” He then gathers whatever arguments he can find to support this pre-concieved fiat.

When he sees flaws in his arguments, he tapdances around and tries to shore up his flawed arguments.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

My former remarks stand: What you have done is demonstrated a compulsion to deny the humanity of living human beings and justify their mass murder.

This is a testiment to the tenacity with which you hold your beliefs (a good thing!), as well as your persistence in willfully misconstruing mine (an iffy thing, but I know my beliefs are worthless to you, so this is not unexpected).

How nice!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Face it. This is nothing but a tapdance. He starts with a determination – “the unborn child is not huma.” He then gathers whatever arguments he can find to support this pre-concieved fiat.

When he sees flaws in his arguments, he tapdances around and tries to shore up his flawed arguments.

Vern, if you really wanted to convince of me of something, leave aside the sentiment and the polemic (and the comparisons between pregnant women and airplanes) and seriously try to convince me. I don’t want an argument from feeling, and it’s clear I don’t respond to the argument from biology, mostly because I don’t think the issue is, at bottom, in the realm of biology but in the realm of what we believe in terms of spiritual anthropology. You haven’t once addressed that–if you have, point it out to me.

Generally, I’m trying to interrogate what I believe and discover why I believe it, not justify my belief in something. If the belief does not stand up to my interrogation, then I need to question why I believe it. It’s nice that you think you have a handle on my motivations and my thought process, but I don’t think you really do. If it gives you comfort to believe you do, then great. There’s nothing I can do to stop you or suggest an alternative. You know me inside and out already…what could I possibly add to the conversation?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Grace & Peace!

This is a testiment to the tenacity with which you hold your beliefs (a good thing!), as well as your persistence in willfully misconstruing mine (an iffy thing, but I know my beliefs are worthless to you, so this is not unexpected).

How nice!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

This is a testiment to the tenacity with which you hold your beliefs, as well as your persistence in willfully denying the humanity of the most helpless amongst us.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, if you really wanted to convince of me of something, leave aside the sentiment and the polemic (and the comparisons between pregnant women and airplanes) and seriously try to convince me.

If you are prepared to make an honest effort and will accept valid arguments, and not tap dance around them:

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.