Is abortion ever justified?

[awantz]

yes but i am talking about the people who dont want to keep the baby

Well then, they can carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption.

 

[Cinette]

When it has been suggested that pictures of aborted babies be displayed on billboards or a more appropriate place (it wouldn’t do to show these things to children) people have been horrified. “How can you display such a thing?” “How can you be so morbid?”

Children have found heads and other human remains of aborted babies and were playing with them! People have found bags full of human parts of aborted babies in dustbins! Aborted children are not buried - they are burnt or thrown in the trash!

If a woman has a stillborn child, what does she do with the remains? Are remains of a stillborn child any different from the remains of an aborted child? An aborted child has fingerprints, a beating heart, DNA - all the elements of a human being. Why is an aborted child not considered a child? Were we not once tiny developing human beings in our mother’s womb also?

Why do people consider it a terrible thing to view pictures of body parts of aborted babies but they do not think that abortion is such a bad thing?

There are people who have been born with defects and yet have led useful lives. Even if they don’t is it for us to judge whether they should live or die? Is life in OUR HANDS?

It makes no sense! Have we gone mad? How can we believe in God and not believe that the destruction of an unborn child is wrong? If we believe that then we have gone mad!

 

[Cinette]

priestsforlife.org/

Go to this website and listen to a short video by Fr Frank Pavone regarding the killing of that Doctor George Tiller and how this is not good for the pro-life effort.

 

[benedictus2]

When it has been suggested that pictures of aborted babies be displayed on billboards or a more appropriate place (it wouldn’t do to show these things to children) people have been horrified. “How can you display such a thing?” “How can you be so morbid?”

Yep, showing the pictures it seems is morbid but doing the deed is not. .

Let’s kill the babies but no photos of the casualty please. This way we don’t see how horrible it truly is. Makes commiting it again and again so much easier.

 

[awantz]

benedictus2:
Yep, showing the pictures it seems is morbid but doing the deed is not. .

Let’s kill the babies but no photos of the casualty please. This way we don’t see how horrible it truly is. Makes commiting it again and again so much easier.

What about the women who have had an abortion and have been forgiven. That would be a very painful reminder to them of something they want to forget.

 

[Abbadon]

You, do not know that. If life is so hard being motherless every single orphaned child would have committed suicide by now!

Furthermore, my question is to you. If you were in that situation, you being the mother, would you let the robber shoot your infant child so that you may live. Don’t dodge this question.

I would attempt to stop the robber. And I would hope my children would to. When in situations like that it is important to remember that there is no guarantee that they will keep their promise. Letting them shoot you is ridiculous and I would never do that.

 

[Abbadon]

You, do not know that. If life is so hard being motherless every single orphaned child would have committed suicide by now!

Furthermore, my question is to you. If you were in that situation, you being the mother, would you let the robber shoot your infant child so that you may live. Don’t dodge this question.

Orphans as a whole often live pretty **** lives. It’s not a question of do they kill themselves later, it’s whats life like for 3 children growing up without a mother?

 

[Abbadon]

Well then, they can carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption.

There was a case here in Australia a few years back, the act of carrying the baby to term was what was driving the mother to insanity and suicide.

 

[Abbadon]

If a woman has a stillborn child, what does she do with the remains? Are remains of a stillborn child any different from the remains of an aborted child? An aborted child has fingerprints, a beating heart, DNA - all the elements of a human being. Why is an aborted child not considered a child? Were we not once tiny developing human beings in our mother’s womb also?

For me personally it’s about person hood. What does it mean to be a human begin? It is not fingerprints, a beating hear or DNA, for me it is a brain and consciousness. Any point before that it is a collection of cells. Organs don’t make a human person. I just don’t see humanoid organic life forms as a person, until they have a brain or something that functions like one, whatever enables thought.

You think therefore you are.

What confuses me is how the anti-abortion side always portrays blastocysts+ as a child, I just don’t see it. But I’m sure if I thought that way I would be anti-abortion to.

Regardless there is always at least 1 justification for abortion, when the conception endangers the mother or both, then the mother has to be given the choice. We cannot choose for her.

 

[Abbadon]

benedictus2:
Yep, showing the pictures it seems is morbid but doing the deed is not. .

Let’s kill the babies but no photos of the casualty please. This way we don’t see how horrible it truly is. Makes commiting it again and again so much easier.

Yep, showing the pictures it seems is morbid but doing the deed is not. .

Let’s preform an organ transplant but no photos of the casualty please. This way we don’t see how horrible it truly is. Makes committing it again and again so much easier.

 

[Cinette]

What about the women who have had an abortion and have been forgiven. That would be a very painful reminder to them of something they want to forget.

If these women are Christian then they would want other women to be made aware of the horror of the deed. I know this would be my reaction.

I do not believe of “sparing” anybody the pain and torment of having to confront their sins or the effects of their sins. It is not pleasant - it is necessary.

We need to face the truth and the consequences of truth. If we are “spared” the reality then we just might continue to sin.

 

[Cinette]

For me personally it’s about person hood. What does it mean to be a human begin? It is not fingerprints, a beating hear or DNA, for me it is a brain and consciousness. Any point before that it is a collection of cells. Organs don’t make a human person. I just don’t see humanoid organic life forms as a person, until they have a brain or something that functions like one, whatever enables thought.

You think therefore you are.

What confuses me is how the anti-abortion side always portrays blastocysts+ as a child, I just don’t see it. But I’m sure if I thought that way I would be anti-abortion to.

Regardless there is always at least 1 justification for abortion, when the conception endangers the mother or both, then the mother has to be given the choice. We cannot choose for her.

First of all there is no such word as personhood in the Oxford or the Collier dictionaries! This must be a word invented by some pro-choice advocate.

Secondly, how can you say that a child that is just born is any different from one still in the mother’s womb? So the transition from womb to birth constitutes “consciousness”? Babies in the womb suck their thumb, they respond to music, they play (my son and I used to play with each other - he would stick out his foot or elbow and I would move it to the side and he would move it back).

Have you ever seen the video “The Silent Scream”? During the procedure of certain late term abortions when the Doctor inserts a needle to puncture the brain which is then sucked out you see the child reacting - trying to escape - the child feels pain and reacts. If you were to do the same to a child outside the womb the child would also react but the difference would be that the child would cry. In the womb the cry would be silent of course. Why don’t you google “The Silent Scream” and watch the video?

Next you will probably say to me that a child is only a person when he/she takes his first step or says his first word - when the level of consciousness is more acute!!

I think you should seriously reconsider your thinking.

 

[Cinette]

Orphans as a whole often live pretty **** lives. It’s not a question of do they kill themselves later, it’s whats life like for 3 children growing up without a mother?

There are orphans who have grown up into well formed adults and have gone on to contribute to society, had children and families of their own and made a success of their lives.

Similarly, there are children with parents who have made a mess of their lives, who have been totally disfunctional.

There are parents who have killed their children!!

So what is your solution to that?:ehh::ehh:

 

[Cinette]

Yep, showing the pictures it seems is morbid but doing the deed is not. .

Let’s preform an organ transplant but no photos of the casualty please. This way we don’t see how horrible it truly is. Makes committing it again and again so much easier.

Abbadon!

I notice you do not state your profile - where you are from and to what religion you belong.

I can understand you having no religion but may I ask to what planet you belong? Are you a member of the human race?

Your thinking makes me wince!:dts:uch:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Abbadon,

Your post here caught my eye - there really is a lot to it.

For me personally it’s about person hood. What does it mean to be a human begin? It is not fingerprints, a beating hear or DNA, for me it is a brain and consciousness.

Could this be like the philosophical debate of existence preceeding essence … or vice versa? From Descartes to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, to Heidegger and Sartre, and Camus… all pondering this issue you have raised - and even these great minds had trouble with this…! For me, I really prefer a more simple approach that provides morally defensible outcomes (and, there’s the rub!) A person can only have consciousness (awareness of self) if they have a functioning brain. So, a brain is a given - and of course, it would not be functioning for long if it did not have a beating heart - and DNA is the building block that makes it all come together! The real issue is consciousness.

The sad part of life is that any of us can be born without consciousness as in a serious birth defect or simply lose consciousness sometime in our lives thourgh accident or disease. Such a loss - while truly profound - does not strip one of their HUMANITY. Such INDIVIDUALS, such PERSONS must be recognized as such because they are HUMAN BEINGS - they are not vegetables (even though medical science may use the term persistive vegatitive state) or rocks or inanimate objects. Nor are they inferior to you or I. What they are and how they differ from you and I can probably be summarized by saying that they will always be totally dependent.

As Catholics our Faith tells us that each person is made in the Image of God. How that image looks is something we can neither see, or recognize or know - but, we can appreciate it. This image was brought into existence through the act of conception - and he Act of God (in giving this new life His Image).

To focus only on consciousness - as you appear to be doing - is to remove from consideration all who do not have consciousness - BUT obviously have life. Those who advocate unlimited and unquestioned abortion seem to take this path, more then any other, to justify their actions. Later on, this same logic will be used to dispatch those of us already born but may have apparently lost our consciousness. This is truly serious matter.

Any point before that it is a collection of cells. Organs don’t make a human person. I just don’t see humanoid organic life forms as a person, until they have a brain or something that functions like one, whatever enables thought.

Before we go around looking a ‘collection of cells’ we need to see what it is that these cells are doing. I have always found it amazing that all cancers act in a very particular way - no matter what type of cancer or where it is located - it is always an uncontrolled growth of the body’s own cells - totally devoid of limits that will ultimately result in the killing of the body. Hang onto that thought for a moment…

One second before conception, you have two different and indpendent cells: egg and sperm. Totally different in size, shape and appearance - but sharing a tremendously unique characteristic - they were made for one another. Upon union, there is no longer an ‘egg’ or a ‘sperm’ cell - but, the very beginning of a unique human being. There is no consciousness here - and, it certainly does not look much different on the outside then it did before conception - but, all the working parts have been established. The only real issue is simply to give them time and the necessary nutrition to develop. Not many folks folks see the oak tree in the acorn - but, if you give it time and nutrition… it will develop. Abortionists ensure that these tiny HUMAN BEINGS do not get that time.

You think therefore you are.

**Is this an update on Rene Descartes famous quote…? **

What confuses me is how the anti-abortion side always portrays blastocysts+ as a child, I just don’t see it. But I’m sure if I thought that way I would be anti-abortion to.

Regardless there is always at least 1 justification for abortion, when the conception endangers the mother or both, then the mother has to be given the choice. We cannot choose for her.

The blastocyst that you are questioning is like the seed the farmer buys to plant. Do you think the farmer would spend time and money - plust a lot of work - to put stones where seeds should be placed? In each seed, this farmer sees his harvest in the future months. Would anyone call him delusional or a dreamer or insane? Actually, those who would question how the farmer is viewing this seed and its future - are not really to stable themselves.

Please understand that the “…life of the mother…” argument has been sooooooooo overused as to be virtually meaningless because it is usually joined with “…the health…” phrase. But, let is be accurate: medicine can honestly and very consistently determine if a particular pregnancy will result in death. Sometimes, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the only known remedy in saving the Mother (the primary intention) results in the death of the Child (the secondary intention). Other times, the crisis is averted by an emergency C-Section. The death of the child (whatever biologic stage you wish to give it is fine with me…) is always a tragic event.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

Tom!

Your response is beautiful and you display such patience. Maybe that is why you are from Mars and I am from Venus!

For me it was hard not to show outrage but you have patience my friend.

May God bless all on this thread

Cinette

 

[PastGrandKnight]

I can show you where it is not justified!

Thou shalt not kill!

Blessings
Cinette

For the record, there is no such Commandment as “Thou shalt not kill”.

Correctly translated from Hebrew into English, it’s “Thou shalt not murder”.

There is a substantial difference. Can you figure it out? Take a shot at it!

 

[Cinette]

For the record, there is no such Commandment as “Thou shalt not kill”.

Correctly translated from Hebrew into English, it’s “Thou shalt not murder”.

There is a substantial difference. Can you figure it out? Take a shot at it!

I would say that killing is when you kill someone unintentionally say, you knock someone with your motor car and kill him - an accident.

Murder is when you plan to kill.

When you kill in self-defence it is killing. When you decide to take someone’s life that is murder.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

I would say that killing is when you kill someone unintentionally say, you knock someone with your motor car and kill him - an accident.

Murder is when you plan to kill.

When you kill in self-defence it is killing. When you decide to take someone’s life that is murder.

Essentially, that’s correct. The difference between the two is that one is “with malice aforethought”. One exception is in the event of warfare, where soldiers are under orders to fight, shoot, and win by whatever means are necessary.

The question is “Is abortion ever justified”, and under the laws of ancient Judaism, the answer is yes, but only if the mother would be expected to die if she did not abort. We’ve already had this discussion within this thread, so there is no need to repeat it. However, I’ll keep it short and simple for you: One particular woman who was severely overweight…among other medical problems… There are those who suggest that there are no medical problems that cannot be resolved, and in this case they would be sadly wrong. The woman weighed well over 300 pounds at the time. Her BP was sky high and her arteries were clogged with cholesterol, so the strain on her heart was already severe. The added strain would have killed her probably before her 2nd trimester. Every doctor told her the same thing, so it’s not as if she was looking for an excuse to end a life because that was not the case.
She subsequently changed her habits, started eating a sensible diet, and also started exercising regularly. She is now a runner who enters road races on a regular basis, and her weight is down in the 120s… a remarkable accomplishment all by itself.

Oh, and she has since had twins.

So there are some legitimate cases where it is justified, although I believe them to be very few and very far between. I would not deny the procedure in cases such as those. However, I would deny it to those who are looking to abort for convenience’s sake,

 

[Abbadon]

First of all there is no such word as personhood in the Oxford or the Collier dictionaries! This must be a word invented by some pro-choice advocate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/issues/personhood.asp

Secondly, how can you say that a child that is just born is any different from one still in the mother’s womb? So the transition from womb to birth constitutes “consciousness”? Babies in the womb suck their thumb, they respond to music, they play (my son and I used to play with each other - he would stick out his foot or elbow and I would move it to the side and he would move it back).

I didn’t use the word consciousness I’m sure I stated device required for thought, perhaps to be more specific I should say higher functional thought as no doubt cows also think. Animals, plants and cells in your body also respond to stimuli whats your point?

Have you ever seen the video “The Silent Scream”? During the procedure of certain late term abortions when the Doctor inserts a needle to puncture the brain which is then sucked out you see the child reacting - trying to escape - the child feels pain and reacts.

Late term abortions no doubt, spinal cord and nervous system. I would personally have issues against such a procedure seeing as the baby has a brain. However if the mothers life was in danger the decision would be up to her

If you were to do the same to a child outside the womb the child would also react but the difference would be that the child would cry. In the womb the cry would be silent of course. Why don’t you google “The Silent Scream” and watch the video?

I’'ve already done it on a mouse, I know exactly what it looks like x6 or was it x4.

Next you will probably say to me that a child is only a person when he/she takes his first step or says his first word - when the level of consciousness is more acute!!

I think you should seriously reconsider your thinking.

Initially conciousness was my cut off point, then I was pointed out that babies don’t really have conciousness till age 3 or some such. I decided to also include them and other species in my considerations hence the importance of the development of a component that may have the ability to process higher level thought. So i say when they begin to form a brain and neurons start activating would be my cut off point.