UNICEF Promotes Abortion in Latin America

[spectrm]

UNICEF and abortion

lifesitenews.com/waronfamily/unicef/index.html

Cute - another special interest group with a CLEARLY slanted agenda.

just some rhetorical excerpts:

“UNICEF is guilty as charged” - charged by whom and found guilty by whom?
“Anti-Life” - no one is truly anti-life, there is merely a discrepancy over when life begins.

Sorry - I can’t take this seriously. I’m aware of UNICEF’s programs that pay for abortions in developing nations. I’m also aware that some of these downtrodden women might be pressured into an abortion by an over-zealous counselor and the like, but that’s a flaw in the counselor, not in the program. You don’t shut down a company because there’s a person in it found guilty of sexual harassment.

In countries where UNICEF is backing programs like this, government officials as well as social and aide advisors all agree on a plan of action and a method of execution. I don’t hear you all railing against the Bolivian government!!

If the acts define the character, then UNICEF would have to be batting at least .500 in your guys’ eyes anyway. They also provide free medicines and food to every area they provide aide to. One of their first action items in any new area is a neo-natal care center to reduce the number of birth-related deaths (for mother and child). We in the West seem to forget pretty easily that pregnancy and child-birth are dangerous activities for all involved. Even with modern medicine, I personally know two women who’ve died to maintain their religious convictions.

You all seem to respond well to emotional stories, so here you are:
One of those two, a girl from my dorm-hall, got pregnant. At the first visit (~8 weeks), the doctor noted problems - the placental wall was far to thin and had slipped. About 85% of the placenta was still grafted to the uterus - the other 15% had slipped and the entire placenta fell that 15% into her vaginal cavity. Abortion was recommended as the egg obviously failed to properly embed itself. She refused citing religion. You may view her as a hero…I view her as the person who chose faith over life-long friends and death over the possibility of MORE new life. My friend died 4 minutes before her daughter was delivered - still-borne.

I have, yet, even MORE friends who’ve been raped. Four of whom conceived from the event. All but one chose abortion. The one who didn’t has since been in and out of therapy and was institutionalized at one point for attempting to kill her ill-gotten son. “Every time I look at him, I see that bastards face. I can’t bring myself to love my son - he’s not mine. I never wanted him and his existence is just the consequence of someone else’s crime that I now have to live with.” The boy was handed over to state care last year.

These events happen so much more often in developing nations than they do here in the West - rape is almost a part of life in most poorer countries and malnutrition causes a host of pregnancy and delivery complications.

So, murder or not, consider the implications a “black and white” view of the matter would bring about.

 

[Mark77]

Spectrm-

Your whole false premise is based on babies or other human beings categorized by others as “Unwanted”.

When a government official can determine who is unwanted and should be eliminated, then we have truly crossed the line.

Who chooses? What criteria?

Spectrm, i’m glad you weren’t aborted because your mother was poor or because you were "unwanted!"

An aid agency like UNICEF does much good, but when they offer abortion they are canceling out the good by cooperating in a grave evil.

By your "logic"countries like the US with high unemployment should abort the “unwanted” so that the working will not be forced to carry their burden.

There are many excellent Catholic Charities who feed, clothe and provide health care to the needy (“unwanted”) without offering abortion!

Why must you always say it’s an either/or argument? Either abort (Murder) “unwanted” innocent babies or people will starve???

We can do better than that, lets make it a both/and!!! Let’s feed all the people and celebrate all precious and beautiful life!!!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[Mark77]

I have, yet, even MORE friends who’ve been raped. Four of whom conceived from the event. All but one chose abortion. The one who didn’t has since been in and out of therapy and was institutionalized at one point for attempting to kill her ill-gotten son. “Every time I look at him, I see that bastards face. I can’t bring myself to love my son - he’s not mine. I never wanted him and his existence is just the consequence of someone else’s crime that I now have to live with.” The boy was handed over to state care last year.

Rape is a horrible crime, but aborting the innocent baby doesn’t solve the problem, it just creates a second completely avoidable, horrible crime that will haunt these poor innocent women for all their lives!

What is wrong with giving the baby up for adoption if it is too much to bear?

Again not either/or, both/and!!

Win-win, no compounding a horrific rape with a horrible abortion. Have the baby and give it to the many families that desperately want to adopt!!!

Mark

 

[spectrm]

Spectrm-

Your whole false premise is based on babies or other human beings categorized by others as “Unwanted”.

When a government official can determine who is unwanted and should be eliminated, then we have truly crossed the line.

Who chooses? What criteria?

Usually the mother chooses. It IS her body, after all. I don’t know where you’re getting that this is compulsory.

Spectrm, i’m glad you weren’t aborted because your mother was poor or because you were "unwanted!"

As am I. Though if I had been, it wouldn’t matter to me, now, whether I had or hadn’t. But you can also read my response here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5127443&postcount=12

An aid agency like UNICEF does much good, but when they offer abortion they are canceling out the good by cooperating in a grave evil.

once again, depending on your view of abortion in various circumstances.

By your "logic"countries like the US with high unemployment should abort the “unwanted” so that the working will not be forced to carry their burden.

In no way shape or form does my logic lay ground for a government to make abortion compulsory. I may feel that way at times, but that’s not where my policies and ideas stand.

There are many excellent Catholic Charities who feed, clothe and provide health care to the needy (“unwanted”) without offering abortion!

and also put money into Bibles and rosaries instead of extra food and clothing, which I consider a greater sin. Or the ‘Salvation Army’ who’s notorious for delivering 25% or less of the actual money donated to actual aide.

Why must you always say it’s an either/or argument? Either abort (Murder) “unwanted” innocent babies or people will starve???

We can do better than that, lets make it a both/and!!! Let’s feed all the people and celebrate all precious and beautiful life!!!

I’m not the one making either/or arguments. You’re saying ‘murder or childbirth’ - My view covers everything from euthenasia to mercy-killing to life-saving abortion to childbirth are options. The span is so great and there’s so much gray area - like I often come back to the argument that people should be responsible to not get pregnant when they’re not in a situation to care for it (the most common reason cited for abortion). I followed this doctrine myself and see it in nearly every other species on the planet, as well as all throughout my family. This sort of moderation - “~marital sex with birth-control will lead to fewer abortions”. The Catholic problem is that you believe in self-fullfilling arguments: “Birth control contributes to extra-marital sex (read: looseness) and so is wrong, aborting the unwanted offspring is wrong because you shoulda thought about that before you got pregnant.” If proper birth control were taught, we’d have our ‘both/and’.

 

[spectrm]

I have, yet, even MORE friends who’ve been raped. Four of whom conceived from the event. All but one chose abortion. The one who didn’t has since been in and out of therapy and was institutionalized at one point for attempting to kill her ill-gotten son. “Every time I look at him, I see that bastards face. I can’t bring myself to love my son - he’s not mine. I never wanted him and his existence is just the consequence of someone else’s crime that I now have to live with.” The boy was handed over to state care last year.

Rape is a horrible crime, but aborting the innocent baby doesn’t solve the problem, it just creates a second completely avoidable, horrible crime that will haunt these poor innocent women for all their lives!

What is wrong with giving the baby up for adoption if it is too much to bear?

Again not either/or, both/and!!

Win-win, no compounding a horrific rape with a horrible abortion. Have the baby and give it to the many families that desperately want to adopt!!!

Mark

There are already thousands of ‘babies’ that never see adoptive parents. For some people. that’s a concern as well. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone subjected to the state’s ‘displaced youth housing program’…some things truly are worse than death. Again, your presupposition being that the death of a fetus is truly ‘murder’.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

There are already thousands of ‘babies’ that never see adoptive parents. For some people. that’s a concern as well. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone subjected to the state’s ‘displaced youth housing program’…some things truly are worse than death. Again, your presupposition being that the death of a fetus is truly ‘murder’.

well it is the premeditated killing of another human being. it is not the woman’s body, it is a seperate person with a distinct and unique genome. i’d like to see someone explain how male babies with a Y chrosome could ever be considered the mother’s body when she has no Y chrosome.

life begins at conception. that isnt a religious idea it is science. at that point there is a distinct individual that goes for days before it ever takes 1 molecule of nutrition from the mother. it lives, grows, divides, and responds to its environment all on its own. that is alive.

 

[spectrm]

well it is the premeditated killing of another human being. it is not the woman’s body, it is a seperate person with a distinct and unique genome. i’d like to see someone explain how male babies with a Y chrosome could ever be considered the mother’s body when she has no Y chrosome.

life begins at conception. that isn’t a religious idea it is science. at that point there is a distinct individual that goes for days before it ever takes 1 molecule of nutrition from the mother. it lives, grows, divides, and responds to its environment all on its own. that is alive.

At that rate, why neglect that two other lives need to be lost to create this one? Two gametes (genetically human) die simultaneously to create something ‘new’. And the idea that ‘life’ begins at conception is not just science - it’s scientific-ideology. “Life” is defined in so many ways, it’s not as easy as ‘actively-reproducing genetics == life’ - in that case, DNA strands developed in labs as part of gene therapy efforts would individually be considered life. As another jab at your reasoning, how can a daughter be considered offspring of the father as all of HIS cells are XY and the daughters are clearly XX.

Life (and relation, for that matter) cannot just be determined by chemistry/biology/what-have-you. If you take an embryo out of a body, it cannot survive. Until it is born (and I would argue much longer) the true scientific classification of a child is more akin to ‘parasitic’.

So let me pose a question, aggie. If it is known that childbirth will kill the mother and that there’s little to no promise that the child will be born alive, are you still against an abortion?

 

[aggiecatholic05]

At that rate, why neglect that two other lives need to be lost to create this one? Two gametes (genetically human) die simultaneously to create something ‘new’. And the idea that ‘life’ begins at conception is not just science - it’s scientific-ideology. “Life” is defined in so many ways, it’s not as easy as ‘actively-reproducing genetics == life’ - in that case, DNA strands developed in labs as part of gene therapy efforts would individually be considered life. As another jab at your reasoning, how can a daughter be considered offspring of the father as all of HIS cells are XY and the daughters are clearly XX.

life also needs to be self replicating and made of cells, by every accepted definition. genes may meet some of these recquirments, but not all. the unborn do meet every recquirment.

i dont care if you consider a daughter to be a fathers offspring, that is irrevelant. the point was you cliamed the baby was the mothers body so it was her choice. i simply proved that about half the time that was impossible to be the case, since it was clearly an individual. logic says that all babies have a father, so just because the other half happen to be the same gender as the mother they are still clearly not her and therfore she has no right to decide.

Life (and relation, for that matter) cannot just be determined by chemistry/biology/what-have-you. If you take an embryo out of a body, it cannot survive. Until it is born (and I would argue much longer) the true scientific classification of a child is more akin to ‘parasitic’.

if you take it out of its natural environmet it dies? so that proves nothing. throw a fish on the beach, a tiger into lava, or an adult into the vaccum of space. doing something unnatural and getting a result doesnt prove it.

a parasite because it depends on its parents. hmm? well then is a 1 month old a parasite because without direct parental intervention it will die? how about a 1 yearold? if so why does the law say we can’t kill them? do you think that is an unfair law recquiring people to not kill already born children? if you had the choice would you make murder of kids say under 2 legal? where do you draw the line? if you wont protect all life then there will always be someone trying to bump up the cutoff until we live in a world where you can legally kill anyone of any age because they are an inconvience.

So let me pose a question, aggie. If it is known that childbirth will kill the mother and that there’s little to no promise that the child will be born alive, are you still against an abortion?

yes i would be against the abortion. the ends justifying the means is a poor argument. there is NEVER any just reason for an abortion. NEVER.

 

[spectrm]

life also needs to be self replicating and made of cells, by every accepted definition. genes may meet some of these recquirments, but not all. the unborn do meet every recquirment.

i dont care if you consider a daughter to be a fathers offspring, that is irrevelant. the point was you cliamed the baby was the mothers body so it was her choice. i simply proved that about half the time that was impossible to be the case, since it was clearly an individual. logic says that all babies have a father, so just because the other half happen to be the same gender as the mother they are still clearly not her and therfore she has no right to decide.

and the child has no capacity to decide. So either the state can assume the right for that child, or sovereignty of the child goes to who would legally receive such decision making power - the mother.

There’s a reason why the legal system doesn’t work as you describe the thing - because the logic doesn’t work.

if you take it out of its natural environmet it dies? so that proves nothing. throw a fish on the beach, a tiger into lava, or an adult into the vaccum of space. doing something unnatural and getting a result doesnt prove it.

so a human being’s natural environment is a placenta? When was the last time you lived in one?

a parasite because it depends on its parents. hmm? well then is a 1 month old a parasite because without direct parental intervention it will die? how about a 1 yearold? if so why does the law say we can’t kill them? do you think that is an unfair law recquiring people to not kill already born children? if you had the choice would you make murder of kids say under 2 legal? where do you draw the line? if you wont protect all life then there will always be someone trying to bump up the cutoff until we live in a world where you can legally kill anyone of any age because they are an inconvience.

SEE NOW you’re thinking like a social engineer. You definition doesn’t align with some other peoples, so they need to be reconciled with each other and also the opinion that a child is under it’s parent’s sovereignty til a certain age. The number on the age is largely arbitrary, as it will even vary by individual. Some 16yo are capable of driving safely, some 30yo fail to do so. Life is not cut and dry…it can’t be…too many innocent people will get hurt and the state will be blamed either way. A Conn. judge in the 1800’s once said “I know I’ve made the right decision when neither party walks away happy.” This is the world we live in.

yes i would be against the abortion. the ends justifying the means is a poor argument. there is NEVER any just reason for an abortion. NEVER.

Then you have assisted in the death of my friend. Good luck continuing communications with me. Fanatacism is not something I enjoy being around.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

so a human being’s natural environment is a placenta? When was the last time you lived in one?

Then you have assisted in the death of my friend. Good luck continuing communications with me. Fanatacism is not something I enjoy being around.

at that stage of development yes it is a humans natural environment. like many species what we need changes through our life cycle. tadpoles need water to live, frogs dont, it is similar.

as to your friend, i am not sure if she actually died, or you just think i would have ‘let’ her die if it were up to me. but sorry there is absolute Truth in this world. i am sorry you havent been exposed to this before. rejoice that you have found this site, it is a wealth of information. hopefully you will be able to come home to us and abandon your belief in a right to murder.

There is NEVER ANY justification for an abortion.

 

[spectrm]

at that stage of development yes it is a humans natural environment. like many species what we need changes through our life cycle. tadpoles need water to live, frogs dont, it is similar.

as to your friend, i am not sure if she actually died, or you just think i would have ‘let’ her die if it were up to me. but sorry there is absolute Truth in this world. i am sorry you havent been exposed to this before. rejoice that you have found this site, it is a wealth of information. hopefully you will be able to come home to us and abandon your belief in a right to murder.

There is NEVER ANY justification for an abortion.

I was raised catholic, brought up in the same nonsense you spew and have reach my conclusions after experiencing the world in a multitude of ways. Be happy that you’ve been so sheltered and/or had your life so well in a frame of reference that you can make judgments such as you do. Ignorance truly is bliss. It was people like you that my friend listened to and it led to her demise. If not for the fanaticism of people like you, she would still be alive, possibly even with a healthy baby (and healthy mom). Absolute truth is a fairytale they tell you when you’re young so you can begin to grasp a concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ - real ethics is much larger than the tiny little world you’ve etched out for yourself.

God/whoever/whatever, be with you…you’re going to need it/him/her.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Then you have assisted in the death of my friend. Good luck continuing communications with me. Fanatacism is not something I enjoy being around.

For further discussion on concrete IRL examples of choosing between two human lives, there is more discussion here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=327477&page=3

(and following posts)

as well as here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=321612

Posts 1, 7, and the last post supply some examples.

From a biological and practical perspective, “life” is not simple and reducible, regardless of how theoretically it may be pronounced that way in religious ideology. It amazes me how the public gets so worked-up about “life” on Mars, and then you discover that it’s bacteria that’s being talked about, not a new creature-species.

 

[spectrm]

From a biological and practical perspective, “life” is not simple and reducible, regardless of how theoretically it may be pronounced that way in religious ideology. It amazes me how the public gets so worked-up about “life” on Mars, and then you discover that it’s bacteria that’s being talked about, not a new creature-species.

Topic for another thread, but bacteria on Mars is highly significant.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

I was raised catholic, brought up in the same nonsense you spew and have reach my conclusions after experiencing the world in a multitude of ways. Be happy that you’ve been so sheltered and/or had your life so well in a frame of reference that you can make judgments such as you do. Ignorance truly is bliss. It was people like you that my friend listened to and it led to her demise. If not for the fanaticism of people like you, she would still be alive, possibly even with a healthy baby (and healthy mom). Absolute truth is a fairytale they tell you when you’re young so you can begin to grasp a concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ - real ethics is much larger than the tiny little world you’ve etched out for yourself.

God/whoever/whatever, be with you…you’re going to need it/him/her.

i am sorry that you are so jaded, and i am sorry that you can’t accept the reality that there is real undeniable Truth in this world.

God be with you too. like it or not expcet to be in my prayers.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Topic for another thread, but bacteria on Mars is highly significant.

Correct. O/T and significant. However, my point was that “life” is a an overbroad term from even a scientific viewpoint. To have a focused and intelligent discussion about science, precise definition of terms is needs, including context. Too often on this forum, theological definitions compete with, and are confused with, scientific ones.

Since even modern science is imprecise and evolving, and since theology – while I love it – is, to nonbelievers, speculative and subjective – it remains true that wherever there is nonagreement about terms, there will be no resolution to arguments about “life.”

 

[Holly3278]

from The Catholic Thing:

So I ask once more – why is there still a UN? And why do we still belong to it?

As long as we have a liberal in the presidential office, we’re going to be a part of the UN. I think that is just a given. It disgusts me that the UN has to stick its nose in places where it doesn’t belong, especially when it comes to abortion. Let us pray for the conversion of the UN staff and delegates and pray also for those nations that are bothered by the UN. But most of all, let us pray for an end to abortion!

 

[aggiecatholic05]

As long as we have a liberal in the presidential office, we’re going to be a part of the UN. I think that is just a given. It disgusts me that the UN has to stick its nose in places where it doesn’t belong, especially when it comes to abortion. Let us pray for the conversion of the UN staff and delegates and pray also for those nations that are bothered by the UN. But most of all, let us pray for an end to abortion!

Amen to all of that.

 

[JimG]

Until it is born (and I would argue much longer) the true scientific classification of a child is more akin to ‘parasitic’.

So would you support the legalization of abortion up to, say, age 18, or perhaps until the kids are out of the house and on their own?

 

[Canto]

Cute - another special interest group with a CLEARLY slanted agenda.

What’s wrong with special intrest groups?
Is their agenda slanted or is others?

just some rhetorical excerpts:

“UNICEF is guilty as charged” - charged by whom and found guilty by whom?
“Anti-Life” - no one is truly anti-life, there is merely a discrepancy over when life begins.

There is no discrepancy. Life begins at conception. Its pure science. It seems that when science ‘may not’ support the Chuch people jump up and down, but when science supports the Chuch…

Sorry - I can’t take this seriously. I’m aware of UNICEF’s programs that pay for abortions in developing nations. I’m also aware that some of these downtrodden women might be pressured into an abortion by an over-zealous counselor and the like, but that’s a flaw in the counselor, not in the program. You don’t shut down a company because there’s a person in it found guilty of sexual harassment.

If you are running a company you get rid of the bad eggs, you don’t keep them.

In countries where UNICEF is backing programs like this, government officials as well as social and aide advisors all agree on a plan of action and a method of execution. I don’t hear you all railing against the Bolivian government!!

I’ve never supported the Bolivian govt whereas I have supported UNICEF. UNICEF has a far greater reach and are the focus of this thread. If you’d like to start a thread on the Bolivian govt by all means, they are not pro-life.

If the acts define the character, then UNICEF would have to be batting at least .500 in your guys’ eyes anyway. They also provide free medicines and food to every area they provide aide to. One of their first action items in any new area is a neo-natal care center to reduce the number of birth-related deaths (for mother and child). We in the West seem to forget pretty easily that pregnancy and child-birth are dangerous activities for all involved. Even with modern medicine, I personally know two women who’ve died to maintain their religious convictions.

If you aide in the killing of human life, it doesn’t matter how much good you have done.
Is there anything wrong with dying to maintain your religious beliefs.
How many people died in the Frech revoloution, or the war of independance etc.

You all seem to respond well to emotional stories, so here you are:
One of those two, a girl from my dorm-hall, got pregnant. At the first visit (~8 weeks), the doctor noted problems - the placental wall was far to thin and had slipped. About 85% of the placenta was still grafted to the uterus - the other 15% had slipped and the entire placenta fell that 15% into her vaginal cavity. Abortion was recommended as the egg obviously failed to properly embed itself. She refused citing religion. You may view her as a hero…I view her as the person who chose faith over life-long friends and death over the possibility of MORE new life. My friend died 4 minutes before her daughter was delivered - still-borne.

I have, yet, even MORE friends who’ve been raped. Four of whom conceived from the event. All but one chose abortion. The one who didn’t has since been in and out of therapy and was institutionalized at one point for attempting to kill her ill-gotten son. “Every time I look at him, I see that bastards face. I can’t bring myself to love my son - he’s not mine. I never wanted him and his existence is just the consequence of someone else’s crime that I now have to live with.” The boy was handed over to state care last year.

My prayers with all invovled.
There are cases though with the opposite outcome.

These events happen so much more often in developing nations than they do here in the West - rape is almost a part of life in most poorer countries and malnutrition causes a host of pregnancy and delivery complications.

Lets tackle these problems and not abort human lives.

So, murder or not, consider the implications a “black and white” view of the matter would bring about.

murder is murder.

The Church believes in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to the grave. Even then she prays for the souls of the dead. She won’t budge and nor should she.

 

[spectrm]

What’s wrong with special intrest groups?
Is their agenda slanted or is others?

what does the term ‘special interest’ mean to you, exactly. I’ll even let you do the denotative meaning. Look it up and tell me why your questions here are ridiculous.

There is no discrepancy. Life begins at conception. Its pure science. It seems that when science ‘may not’ support the Chuch people jump up and down, but when science supports the Chuch…

There is nothing pure about that science. If what you’re saying is true - that it’s ‘pure science’, then we wouldn’t even be having this debate. And you’re right…science supports a lot of crazy ideas…it’s just that the church goes apesh*t whenever it’s on their side.

If you are running a company you get rid of the bad eggs, you don’t keep them.

true enough…that assumes you’ve properly convinced me that what they’re doing is truly wrong.

I’ve never supported the Bolivian govt whereas I have supported UNICEF. UNICEF has a far greater reach and are the focus of this thread. If you’d like to start a thread on the Bolivian govt by all means, they are not pro-life.

what exactly does ‘pro-life’ mean anyways? I can’t be ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ at the same time? I’ve already stated numerous cases in which even the church hesitates to say for sure one way or the other.

If you aide in the killing of human life, it doesn’t matter how much good you have done.

I disagree - at least in principal.

Is there anything wrong with dying to maintain your religious beliefs.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree

How many people died in the Frech revoloution, or the war of independance etc.

They were fighting for sovereignty over their own lives. You’re fighting for sovereignty over someone elses.

My prayers with all invovled.

Alligator tears

There are cases though with the opposite outcome.

What would the ‘opposite outcome’ be? And even so, what does it matter? If there’s a woman who had an abortion and then was institutionalized because it drove her insane, it’s only because of the ideology you spew eating her humanity. In either case, it’s fanatics like some of those found on these forums that caused the destruction of this person.

Lets tackle these problems and not abort human lives.

Right - because one has nothing to do with the other

murder is murder.

if it’s really murder

The Church believes in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to the grave. Even then she prays for the souls of the dead. She won’t budge and nor should she.

This simply isn’t true. If you had read any Aquinas or Thessalonius, you’d know the beginning of life isn’t so cut and dry, even in the Catholic faith. A dig into Rousseau (though Mills is about as good, here) and Kant would give you a view of matters of ‘life’ from a more academic point of view. But (to show I’m not ‘sectsist’), dig up some Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus, and Anathasius - numerous statements are made declaring either no knowledge of when a life is a life or declaring it to be well after conception. But I also encourage you to read the gospels of Mary, Judas, Thomas, and Joseph. There is also the Book of Seth which has a very early creation myth which puts a lot into the ‘beginning of life’ discussion. Even your own church doctrine declares that, whether right or wrong, a person shouldn’t do anything that is in objection with their conscience. If you believe in a personal god, you must also believe it’s possible for him to tell you something that isn’t in the rest of the doctrine - happens all over the Old Testament.