Abortion and the definition of life

[avant-garde]

HomeschoolrsRUs and I were debating the Terri Schiavo case when he said we can't go with a complicated definition of life,

IF we get into a tinkling-contest over what constitutes life, instead of going with the most obvious definiting -- breathing, heart-pumping, bowels and urinary functions, and SOME brain function -- then we will find ourselves on a very slippery slope

I think that is a good definition of life. Then I realized how it applies to the debate about abortion. On a different thread, maxparrished stated his opinion about abortion. After reading it, I couldn't help but agree with him, so it is now my opinion as well:
Abortion: It is not a 'practical' matter of the mother's desire to kill a child - it is a moral issue. My own view is that when the fetus develops brain waves (the beginning of the second trimester) then the unborn are humans with a right to life, as long as the mother's life is not endangered. Any view not based on morality is, by nature, immoral.
For those of you who think abortion is immoral/murder from the point of conception onward, why? Until the 2nd trimester, the human baby (which at is just a bunch of cells at this point in the 1st trimeter) is no different from any other mamillian baby except for its DNA. If DNA is what matters, then why does the new life begin sperm and egg are united? Billions of sperm and egg are "murdered" daily, but each and every healthy sperm and egg could be a human being. By denying an egg a sperm, you are denying a person of life!

Going back to the main argument, prior to the 2nd trimeter, the fetus exhibits no characteristics of life, as defined by HMS.

If Terri Schiavo is still alive because she is breathing, heart pumping, digesting, and has brainwaves that do all of this, how is a fetus alive when is lacks every single one of those features, and how is it murder?

[PrezLeefun]

how is a fetus alive when is lacks every single one of those features, and how is it murder?

First off fetuses do have those features except breathing. They are limited, small, and still in major development but very much at work. Furthermore fetuses are not simply clumps of cells. They have seperate DNA paterns from that of the mother, making them in turn seperate human beings. You should watch In The Womb- It is National Geographic Channel production. That will certainly change your mind with more accurate information than I can provide without any religious content. <!-- / message -->

[Peachdiane]

"When life begins" is too broad an argument. Cells, sperm, eggs, kept alive in a lab are "human life." To me, personhood begins at conception. Parts of human life have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before. Upon conception they change into a single, whole human being.

And it's not about functioning. That's another weak argument. If you're going to define a person as one who is consciously performing personal acts then people sleeping are not people after all.

"A fetus isn't a person because it's a growing thing." That's lame also. If true, then we are never fully persons, because we continue to grow after birth. Why is it ok to kill a developing fetus but not a 2 year old, who has not yet developed his reproductive system or a 2 year old who has not yet developed speech due to apraxia? The absurd conclusion follows from defining a person functionally.

"No brain!" argument is weak also. There might not be a brain at the moment of conception but following fertilization of the egg by the sperm, the genetic material combines to form a new thing. It is neither a part of the man, nor of the woman. It is uniquely itself. The cells begin to divide and they do so in an organized fashion evidencing a purpose or goal. Ok so we now know the "thing" is living and it is uniquely different from the mother or father so what is the thing? Well shucks! It has the genetic makeup of a human being. If allowed to follow the natural course of development, what does it evidence itself to be? A living, human person!

It has what WILL grow into a brain, just as my son didn't have speech at 2 but he had what grew/is still growing into speech. The PERSONHOOD is already there. One must be a human person to grow a human brain. The programming is there and no one has the right to violate that natural course of human life once it has begun.

The "father of genetics" wrote:

"...each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception...when the information carried by the sperm and by the ovum have encountered each other, then a new human being is defined because its own personal and human constitution is entirely spelled out. The information which is inside the first cell obviously tells this cell all the tricks of the trade to build himself as the individual this cell is already....to build that particular individual which we will call later Margaret or Paul or Peter, it's already there, but it's so small we cannot see it ...It’s what life is, the formula is there; ....if you allow the formula to be expanded by itself, just giving shelter and nurture, then you have the development of the full person."

If Terri Schiavo is still alive because she is breathing, heart pumping, digesting, and has brainwaves that do all of this, how is a fetus alive when is lacks every single one of those features, and how is it murder?

Back to functionalism again; you're defining a person by their functions.

[DoctorDoom]

First, just so you know, a-g, Homes is a lovely and wonderful lady who is almost infinitely more familiar with abortion than you are. And your 18½ years of life do not qualify you as an authority on anything.

Biological fact: when a human male gamete unites with a human female gamete, the resulting DNA is human. Ergo the child-to-be is human from life event one. The DNA will not create a dog or a butterfly or an oak tree.

For those of you who think abortion is immoral/murder from the point of conception onward, why?Abortion ends the life of a growing human being who is utterly innocent of any offense. It is capital punishment that is exacted without the benefit of a trial, a defense, a judge and a jury, for the "crime" of being unwanted or "inconvenient". And it is murder because it is a contemplated act that is carried out with the specific purpose of killing the human being.

Until the 2nd trimester, the human baby (which at is just a bunch of cells at this point in the 1st trimeter) is no different from any other mamillian baby except for its DNA.That's a typical pro-abortion "argument". If it's not a person, it's okay to kill it for $300 or more. Profit is the driving force behind unrestricted access to abortion. People without souls traffic in the execution of the unborn because it pays well.

If DNA is what matters, then why does the new life begin sperm and egg are united?If you were paying attention in biology class, you would know that human gametes are haploid cells, carrying only one copy of each gene rather than the two found in diploid cells. Their sole function is to create one complete genome by fusion, thus defining a unique human being. Although they are the instruments of reproduction, they cannot reproduce themselves. They are therefore not "life" in the classic sense.

Billions of sperm and egg are "murdered" daily...Hyperbole based on ignorance is unconvincing.

... but each and every healthy sperm and egg could be a human being.But until fertilization is accomplished, they are not.

By denying an egg a sperm, you are denying a person of life!From what I've seen of human beings, particularly those who concoct harebrained "arguments" to justify murdering an in-utero human being, that's not necessarily a Bad Thing.

[Wolfcounsel]

"By denying an egg a sperm, you are denying a person of life!" --avant-garde


So if you stop masturbating, you won't be a mass-murderer then.

[Nutrider99]

By denying an egg a sperm, you are denying a person of life!
A junior sperm was getting instruction from a senior sperm.
"At the moment of release," said the senior," you swim as fast as you can up the channel. You swim until you see an egg. It looks like a large round ball. Now don't forget to be a gentleman. Say to the egg, 'Hi, I'm a sperm. I need to touch you.' Then, when you touch her, you will become a baby."

The junior sperm was very excited and couldn't wait until the moment of release. When it finally happened, he raced ahead of all the other sperm. He saw the large round ball and swam up to it.

"Hi, I'm a sperm. I need to touch you," the young sperm said.

"Go ahead," was the reply. "I'm a tonsil!"

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

avante,

Thank you for starting the new thread; I do feel it makes more sense to begin a new topic elsewhere instead of mixing the two and causing confusion.

And I must say, I should have realized that once typed, my words would paint me in a corner if I chose not to get down to specifics and stick only to generally accepted definitions. Let me point out, we were discussing the life, which I don't believe we are in disagreement that Terri WAS alive prior to whatever circumstances led to her condition, that was CURRENTLY being lived and evidenced by her visible body.

If we are to switch gears to this new topic, a few things need to be addressed. First, are we talking generalizations or specifics? Are we speaking scientifically?

Your adopted position is that "when the fetus develops brain waves (the beginning of the second trimester) then the unborn are humans with a right to life, as long as the mother's life is not endangered."

Okay, let's go with your assertion here for the moment. Are you then in favor of mandatory tests prior to each abortion performed to assure that no fetus with brainwaves is killed? This would be necessary, because as I have stated previously, and I do believe the medical community will back me up on this, medicine is NOT an exact science. One can make the claim that brainwaves do not start until the beginning of the second trimester, but shouldn't it behoove us to VERIFY that brainwaves have NOT begun before we undergo a procedure which goes against the hippocratic oath "first, do no harm"? And what happens if the test/scan verifies that the child's brainwaves have indeed begun -- do we refuse to perform the abortion?

I do believe that Peachdiane and DoctorDoom has made the case quite effectively and accurately for me, so I will not attempt to comment on their wise words. I will, however, add a bit of my own.

First, you make the statement, "Until the 2nd trimester, the human baby (which at is just a bunch of cells at this point in the 1st trimeter) is no different from any other mamillian baby except for its DNA." How casually you throw out the concept of DNA! As far as I am aware, you cannot take an egg from any other species and combine it with a human sperm, nor can you take a human egg and combine it with an animal sperm and create life. DNA IS what makes us human, by denying its continued growth, you are in effect denying life which has effectively ALREADY been created when the HUMAN egg and HUMAN sperm united. As Doc pointed out, a gamete does not fulfill ANY of the requirements of life as we know it, therefore egg or sperm alone are not life.

So then we are left with the decision, when is life worth living? Or possibly a better question, is there an intrinsic value/worth to life in general, or is the value/worth based upon developmental stage, want, or some other criteria?

I noticed you are comfortable with switching gears in mid-track (as evidenced by your choice to take my words and apply them elsewhere), so you won't mind this rabbit trail for a moment, I'm sure. If life has little value based upon developmental stage, then why is it illegal to have any contact whatsoever with sea turtle eggs? Are they not developmentally in the same boat as a fetus? I mean, by your reasoning, we should be able to do anything at all to them IF the brainwaves of the baby turtle inside has not begun. But as far as I know the restrictions cover the ENTIRE egg stage, and continuing even after the baby sea turtle has hatched. Now if you want to throw out "it's because the sea turtle is endangered," then we get into the arena of "life" having value/worth due to want/other criteria -- but even still, the important aspect is that THOSE eggs will develop into a sea turtle, and HUMAN fertilized eggs will develop into human beings. So, are sea turtles intrinsically more valuable than humans, because they are wanted (as a species to continue)?

And going back to your initial argument -- which one of the definitions I gave would negate the right to life, or which combination would be adequate enough to prevent an abortion?

breathing = The nose develops between 11 and 15 weeks. Many chemical compounds can cross the placenta to join the amniotic fluid, providing the fetus with tastes and odors. The amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus bathes the oral, nasal, and pharyngeal cavities, and babies breathe it and swallow it ...
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html (http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html)
heart-pumping = Heart, By the end of the third week there is now a heart beginning to beat.
http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm (http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm)
bowels and urinary functions, they serve to feed the fetus and facilitate waste evacuation
http://info.med.yale.edu/obgyn/kliman/placenta/articles/EOR_UC/Umbilical_Cord.html (http://info.med.yale.edu/obgyn/kliman/placenta/articles/EOR_UC/Umbilical_Cord.html)
SOME brain function = Brain wave detected- 6 weeks
http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm (http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm)

Are we going to begin testing to assure these functions are NOT happening PRIOR to abortion? If not, aren't we then risking the taking of a life?

Or are we going to argue viability? Is life's worth simply connected to viability? So how would we measure it, without trying it? Should we replace abortions with premature deliveries to assure that the fetus is, in fact, inviable? Do do otherwise, aren't we risking the taking of a life?

You see this is a much more complex issue than mere moral implications.

Aren't we then safer taking the avenue that does the LEAST amount of harm if followed? Remember, death is irreparable, therefore the GREATEST harm.

The safest answer is "life begins at conception." The moral answer is "life begins at conception." By allowing for both of those to stand, we are most definitely following the path of least harm.

BTW, we are speaking of CONVENIENCE abortions, NOT medically necessary abortions as in the case of ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, etc.

[Peachdiane]

Well damn! :thankyou: I want to know why the womb is more dangerous than sea turtle eggs or bald eagle eggs!

[Human_Error]

My heart always goes out to anyone that doesn't get it. When God is molding us inside the womb, what would you call it to destroy that process?
If you were creating a clay pot and at the very beginning as your hands were starting to mold the wet clay....and suddenly some premeditated force stopped it....just knocked it off your potter's wheel......what would you think about that? The interruption destroyed your process right? Destroyed what was meant to be.

When you ask about it morally and spiritually, you must first admit there is a human life involved. For those that refuse to see that....and accept it as tissue and nothing else....then they do not see spiritual things. They are blind to real creation. So there is no common ground to explain what one cannot see. Some only see the clay pot and never see what is (full)filled inside it.

[avant-garde]

First, just so you know, a-g, Homes is a lovely and wonderful lady who is almost infinitely more familiar with abortion than you are. And your 18½ years of life do not qualify you as an authority on anything.

DoctorDoom, Homes and I get alone very well-- we have a mutual respect for eachother.

I have a problem with you, however. Every post you have directed towards me has had a hostile and condescending tone to it. I come to these forums to debate, learn, and get a better understanding of things. If you have read the threads I am active in, you will notice I've changed my opinion on several things based upon people's explanation of them. This shows that I am not here to hastily dismiss people's arguments or to insult you.
I do not claim to be an authority.

If you continue to carry on an opinionated and insulting tone, I'll begin to just ignore your posts. I want to get along, I hope we can.


"By denying an egg a sperm, you are denying a person of life!" --avant-garde


:grin: I hope someone quotes me on that in the future.

You see this is a much more complex issue than mere moral implications.

Undoubtly. You all make good arguments. I'm a little divided on this issue, myself. From a moral standpoint, I think that brainwaves are what makes the difference. Obviously, a body is needed, too... but what makes us unique from anything-- what gives us IDENTITY-- is our brains, and concious thought.

The entire argument is rather moot, really. Some argue: What human has the right to decide on this issue? Only God does. But since he hasn't given us any guidance on this issue, don't bother trying to speak in his name. My question is: how would you enforce no abortion? Doctors could be disallowed from performing them, but some women could still give themselves a miscarriage intentionally in order to do the deed. How would this be enforce? What would the penalty be? Should women who give themselves miscarriages be sentenced jail time, and how can you tell if it was intentional or an accident?

While morally, to me, abortions before the fetus develops brainwaves are accepable, Homes is right, medical science is not perfect. And again, if one was done in the 2nd trimeter how would it be enforced? It really can't be enforced accurately and properly.

Last but not least, I'll just be the devil's advocate by asking (of religion): If "personhood" starts at conception, in a miscarriage early on, why isn't there a funeral for the unbourn child, if it is still a unique human being? Will the fetus go to hell for not being babtized?

Wow, I just realized all I did was ask rhetorical questions. Yowzer.

[Rink]

Life starts at Conception, and that saying any otherwise yer just foolin yerself.

[Peachdiane]

Doctors could be disallowed from performing them, but some women could still give themselves a miscarriage intentionally in order to do the deed.

Believe me, that is very rare. When the pro-choice crowd was pushing for legalization, they trotted out all the individual cases of deaths by back-alley abortions. However, it was a tiny number-- fewer than 2%!!

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

DoctorDoom, Homes and I get alone very well-- we have a mutual respect for eachother.

Thank you for the respect avant, but please if you will allow, I have a GREAT deal of respect for Doc. He is how he is -- he is not me, nor any other. His "persona" is unique unto him, and you must also understand, he has been on this forum for a LOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG time (check the post count) and has found himself in defense of this position, I'm sure, more than umpteen times. Considering this and his nature, a little gruffness cannot be considered hostile. I admire Doc TREMENDOUSLY, and as you have alluded to being pursuaded by opinions and explanations presented, please know the same has happened to me after reading NUMEROUS posts by Doc. Read his words, don't pay attention to the vehicle -- he is wise beyond what you and I can imagine.

Undoubtly. You all make good arguments. I'm a little divided on this issue, myself.

Continue your pursuit -- truth is absolute, so you will find it. Keep in mind, do your best to avoid the "emotion" of an issue, and look with an objective eye. More often than not, an issue is relatively simple, it is TOO much analysis that causes confusion and misunderstanding.

From a moral standpoint, I think that brainwaves are what makes the difference. Obviously, a body is needed, too... but what makes us unique from anything-- what gives us IDENTITY-- is our brains, and concious thought.

I must disagree. What makes us unique, what gives us identity is our DNA. It is infinitely unique beyond all other. Until the day that man can take LITERALLY nothing, combine it with NOTHING, and create a human, will be the day our uniqueness ends. NO other animal can reason as a human does (there is evidence for LIMITED reasoning, but not to the extent or expanse of human reason and understanding). That ALONE should show that life has an intrinsic right to be, exist, grow, age. Brainwaves merely INDICATE consciousness -- it does not PROVE it. I'll wager many, many, many things have happened to you in your lifetime up to now, but can you recall each and every one of them with specific clarity and accuracy? We do not KNOW what a fetus "knows" if anything -- we can merely speculate. We cannot KNOW what a dog "feels" because we are not a dog, nor do we have anyway of determining such . . . we can only look at EVIDENCE and use OBSERVATION to make a determination. But our determination, in no way, means certain knowledge. BECAUSE life is so unique, it ALWAYS should deserve and demand the benefit of the doubt -- BECAUSE one must weigh the alternative if they are WRONG.

The entire argument is rather moot, really. Some argue: What human has the right to decide on this issue? Only God does. But since he hasn't given us any guidance on this issue, don't bother trying to speak in his name.

God has given GREAT guidance on this issue -- he just didn't use the word "abortion." You must realize, the English language changes throughout the ages, but the INTRINSIC nature of a thing does not. I would HIGHLY recommend you read the Bible, searching scripture, as He is VERY clear about this issue. If you desire further guidance, please just PM, I will be glad to direct you to passages, versus, online lectures, etc.

My question is: how would you enforce no abortion?Doctors could be disallowed from performing them, . . .

As it should be, EXCEPT for cases of EXTREME emergency and danger to life, such as ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, etc. NO convenience abortions should EVER be performed by the medical profession whatsoever.

. . . but some women could still give themselves a miscarriage intentionally in order to do the deed. How would this be enforce? What would the penalty be? Should women who give themselves miscarriages be sentenced jail time, and how can you tell if it was intentional or an accident?

Very good questions indeed. If the case is clear-cut, in my opinion, the woman should be held accountable; any other children in the home should be removed and placed with family, or up for adoption, she should suffer time in a restitution center (NOT necessarily a jail) like a Halfway House, and should be given work within the community as penalty for her crime. But the one thing you might be missing, IF abortion is illegal, there WILL be a larger amount of women NOT having abortions, because they obey the law. Right now it is legal, ergo, it is NOT unlawful to seek or have an abortion. When it IS illegal, do you seriously think all those women will all of a sudden desire to break the law? I would submit, the cases of abortion would drop dramatically, and those left who DO, 1) would break the law anyway, and/or 2) are mentally unstable and should be under psychiatric care anyway.

While morally, to me, abortions before the fetus develops brainwaves are accepable, Homes is right, medical science is not perfect. And again, if one was done in the 2nd trimeter how would it be enforced? It really can't be enforced accurately and properly.

Now you're thinking, yes (with the exception of the brainwaves thing, LOL). By the way, sorry for the bold, large font -- just never saw that in print before, LOL, wanted to make sure I could read it properly, :smirky: (forgive me, I just COULDN'T resist, http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biggrin.gif)

Last but not least, I'll just be the devil's advocate by asking (of religion): If "personhood" starts at conception, in a miscarriage early on, why isn't there a funeral for the unbourn child, if it is still a unique human being?

You seem to be basing this question on a lack of personal anecdotal evidence to the contrary . . . let me help with that. One of my dearest and closest friends suffered TWO miscarriages prior to the birth of her last child. There was a funeral service for BOTH Aaron, who was miscarried at four months, AND Abigail, who was miscarried at three months. I attended both services. MANY families who have miscarriages DO have funerals, or memorials, for their lost unborn children. And just as an aside, I TOO had a memorial for my own daughter, Grace, whom I aborted. It wasn't until several years AFTER her death, but it did happen (after I was saved, and was touched by the Lord's grace and mercy.)

Along the same lines, if an aborted fetus has no "personhood," why do thousands of women suffer from Post Abortion Syndrome?
Post Abortion Syndrome (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/postabortionsynd/)

And lest you think this is a "made up" condition -- I myself suffered from this condition. I tried to commit suicide three times. I became a drug abuser and an alcohol abuser in my efforts to "run away" and forget the person I killed. I have since been redeemed, saved, and forgiven, but as I have shared MANY, many times, I am also human, I will never be able to forget. You never forget something like that.

Will the fetus go to hell for not being babtized?

You are delving into areas of religious differentiation. I, as a Protestant, do not believe babies receive salvation, from baptism or otherwise. I think it would be best to steer clear of this particular question, lest the topic begin MAJOR thread-drift.

Wow, I just realized all I did was ask rhetorical questions. Yowzer.

Just 'cause they're rhetorical doesn't mean I can't CHOOSE to answer them, LOL :smirky: .

[Nutrider99]

Will the fetus go to hell for not being baptized?
Baptism by water is not the key to forgiveness of sin. Baptism of the Holy Spirit; salvation purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ is. Babies do not go to Hell because they are not accountable. They are innocent. Remember that Christ said of whomever hurts a child, "better that a millstone be hung around their neck and that they be dropped into the sea." Yes, there will be pedophile priests in Hell.

Regarding life, I think it best that one assume human life begins when a fertilized egg is bonded to the uterine wall and the process of gestation begins. A fertilized egg that fails to bond is useless. The menstral process is designed to eliminate them.

Thus, I have no problem with agents that prevent the bonding of the embryo with the uterine wall provided such a treatment is used to prevent pregnancy from occuring in rape victims. However, when used as birth control, it IS morally wrong because you are destroying POTENTIAL life simply for convenience.

There is no Constitutional provision that would protect hired killers (abortion doctors) from the crime of infanticide. Even if it IS the mother's right to "choose," it is NOT her right to hire a killer! Abortion is the taking of human life for a fee. We put people in prison for that in America.

I don't have Home's insight on abortion. I DO have some insight on rape. 28 years ago, my wife was raped at gunpoint. The police didn't do too much about it because she didn't resist and wasn't beaten up. 14 years later, that same man repeated the crime (though we don't know how many times in between). This time the woman DID resist. He killed her. They just recently identified the man through DNA analysis. When they posted the man's picture, my wife recognized him immediately. My wife WILL testify against the man, showing a pattern of behavior and we WILL do everything in our power to make sure the man gets the death penalty.

When you say that a rape victim must further by violated by carrying the child of the rapist, I will never agree. Either RU486 or some safer equivalent should be used in every rape case where the possibility of pregnancy exists. Preventing uterine bonding prevents pregnancy.

[Rink]

uterine bonding comes from the sperm merging with the egg, that is Life, preventing that is murder in MY book.

Rape is a crime yes, but that does NOT mean one has the right to murder the unborn just because a crime was committed.

one crime doesnt give license to commit another crime.

Sorry about what your wife went through, but the RU486 prevents conceived life from growing, once conceived its LIFE as life starts at conception.

God has a reason for life to happen, it isnt our right to snuff it out.

I dont care how you rationalize it.

[Nutrider99]

One of my dearest and closest friends suffered TWO miscarriages prior to the birth of her last child. There was a funeral service for BOTH Aaron, who was miscarried at four months, AND Abigail, who was miscarried at three months. I attended both services. MANY families who have miscarriages DO have funerals, or memorials, for their lost unborn children.
Actually a miscarraige occurs naturally about in about 50% of all pregnancies. My nephew's wife just had one. I pointed out to him that until recent medical developments they would have never known (The baby spontaneously aborted at one month). More women will face miscarraiges in contemporary society simply because they are finding out sooner that they are pregnant. A spontaneous abortion is nature's way of rejecting a fetus that is not viable. It's as much a part of life as full term pregnancy is.

[Nutrider99]

uterine bonding comes from the sperm merging with the egg, that is Life, preventing that is murder in MY book.
I'm quite sorry, but you are plainly wrong.

When a sperm fertilizes an egg it makes an emryo. Sometimes embryos are creted in petri dishes, but unless they are bonded with a uterus they cannot become a child. Sometimes embryos settle in the fallopian tubs and have to be removed because neither mother nor child would survive. Sometimes emryos simply do not bond and are flushed out of the system. Sometimes they DO bond. If that is the case, the embryos bond with the uterus and gestation begins. At that point, the survival rate is about 50%.

Sperm live in the body for 24 hours. If they are destroyed by a spermacide at any time PRIOR to bonding with an egg, by your standards that isn't detroying life, is it?

If your daughter was raped, and had the sperm of a rapist inside her body, would you want to wait and see if she ovulated or would you want to prevent the process?

Sorry. That's too personal a situation to allow the opinions of others to interfere. If you choose to raise the sire of a rapist, go for it. However, I would never force anyone I loved to go through such a circumstance.

[Peachdiane]

uterine bonding comes from the sperm merging with the egg, that is Life, preventing that is murder in MY book.

Preventing a personhood is murder in your book? You're saying contraception that prevents conception is murder? We disagree strongly then. To me it isn't murder until the personhood has actually been created at conception. I take contraception for hormones. Don't think that makes me a murderer just because the merging of sperm and egg is being prevented.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Actually a miscarraige occurs naturally about in about 50% of all pregnancies. My nephew's wife just had one. I pointed out to him that until recent medical developments they would have never known (The baby spontaneously aborted at one month). More women will face miscarraiges in contemporary society simply because they are finding out sooner that they are pregnant. A spontaneous abortion is nature's way of rejecting a fetus that is not viable. It's as much a part of life as full term pregnancy is.

Facts of which do not negate that SOME people DO have funerals/memorials for their unborn children. Viability, or lack thereof, does not nullify a mother's and/or father's grief over the loss of their child. I would not count myself a very good friend if I had merely pointed out to my girlfriend that her "spontaneous abortion" was "nature's way" (BTW, there's no such entity as "Mother Nature") and her two fetuses were not viable. Her two unborn children lost to miscarriage were both every much a "person" to her, as my daughter lost through abortion is to me. I do not purport that "personhood" is a result of a condition of want (wanted child). A new person is created when egg and sperm unite.

[Rink]

Life begins at conception, when the eg and sperm meets its 'conception then it bonds to the uterine wall, this before bonding in the uterine wall it is still conceived life hence at CONCEPTION life begins hence my logic states at Conception there is life, after that we have no right to prevent it from growing.

As for Contraceptives per-se My faith states it a sin to even use contraceptives as that is preventing life from starting as per what God wanted with the Marriage act.

as Sex outside of marriage in itself is a sin as it is not withint he designs that God had meant for us.

and within the marriage God had planned that life be conceived, and nurtured.

to prevent that is a sin.

just stating the obvious teachings of my faith, if you differ than that is your choice as i dont think you are a catholic so I dont expect you to adhere to my faith's rules on such things.

np on it.

[DoctorDoom]

DoctorDoom, Homes and I get alone very well-- we have a mutual respect for eachother.Not enough to determine that "he" is a "she", evidently.

HomeschoolrsRUs and I were debating the Terri Schiavo case when he said we can't go with a complicated definition of life...

I have a problem with you, however.Many people do, because I have at best only a modicum of tolerance. I've been at FC for just about three years. During those years I have seen the same "arguments" proffered over and over and over by liberals, leftists, and uninformed kids, each of them convinced that their arguments are unique and that we have never before seen them. That became tedious 2½ years ago.

When the topic turns to rationalizations for "terminating" babies in the womb, it breaches my zero tolerance zone. When I see terms like "a bunch of cells", it conveys to me that the person is using the standard pro-death buzzwords rather than thinking and studying and researching.

• Fact: from conception, the lifeform is human because it is the result of human DNA and contains human DNA.
• Fact: from conception, the lifeform is living, because it is growing and developing.
• Fact: the lack of brainwaves means only that the brain has not yet been formed during the process of growth. It is not a definer of "personhood".
• Fact: the efforts to invent criteria to define when a developing human being becomes a "person" are the direct result of people who make their living murdering unborn children trying to justify their blood money and to assuage their consciences.

Until the 2nd trimester, the human baby (which at is just a bunch of cells at this point in the 1st trimeter)...The casual dismissal of a first-trimester baby as "a bunch of cells" demonstrates a lack of basic research.

7 weeks:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/krakow/krak07a2.jpg

8 weeks:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/krakow/krak08a2.jpg

11 weeks:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/krakow/krak11a2.jpg

12 weeks:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/krakow/krak12b2.jpg

Source: Fetal Development Photos: The "Life Issues" Collection (http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/krakow/)

[OurDubya]

• Fact: from conception, the lifeform is human because it is the result of human DNA and contains human DNA.
• Fact: from conception, the lifeform is living, because it is growing and developing.
• Fact: the lack of brainwaves means only that the brain has not yet been formed during the process of growth. It is not a definer of "personhood".


Hey Doomster,

Given the above, how do you feel about in vitro fertilization where potentially many embryos are created and destroyed in the process of selecting an optimal 2 or 3? I asked this on another thread a while back and one person gave a thoughtful response, but I'm wondering what your take is on it.

Thanks!

[Wolfcounsel]

"


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Wolfcounsel


"By denying an egg a sperm, you are denying a person of life!" --avant-garde


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


:grin: I hope someone quotes me on that in the future." --avant-garde


I quoted you, and then I suggested the cessation of masturbation would stop you from being a mass murderer!http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/spank.gif

[Rink]

Hey Doomster,

Given the above, how do you feel about in vitro fertilization where potentially many embryos are created and destroyed in the process of selecting an optimal 2 or 3? I asked this on another thread a while back and one person gave a thoughtful response, but I'm wondering what your take is on it.

Thanks!

I'll give you my point of view on In-vitro, using in-vitro with many eggs fertilized then most destroyed except a few is murder in my eyes, its against the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Plain simply its taught by the RCC as a sin to do so.

[OurDubya]

I'll give you my point of view on In-vitro, using in-vitro with many eggs fertilized then most destroyed except a few is murder in my eyes, its against the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Plain simply its taught by the RCC as a sin to do so.

Thanks for the reply Rink. I'm interested in the topic since my wife and I have been going through IVF to get pregnant. Here's a follow-up, if you don't mind. Many pregnancies are naturally terminated by the body because of chromosomal abnormalities. What about IVF embryos that are not viable due to these same abnormalities -- would termination of these embryos amount to murder as well?

[Rink]

You CAN if requested to ask for Only a few to be fertilized and those few be placed within the womb, THAT I have no problem with, just do not destroy the eggs fertilized from such a procedure.

If you are specific in this and ask that your religious wishes be addressed I think they can be addressed.

If not, ask (if you can afford to) have the fertilized eggs frozen and stored for future use in order to avoid destruction of concieved life.

It CAn be done, but ya need to ask that these specific ways be done according to your religious wishes.

In-Vitro is a gift for those who have problems concieving, but not when it entails destruction of the concieved eggs as a result.

If you can get them to do a few or two or three and then place all three within your wifes uterus then I see no sin in In-Vitro.

As long as concieved eggs are not detroyed.

[Rink]

Thanks for the reply Rink. I'm interested in the topic since my wife and I have been going through IVF to get pregnant. Here's a follow-up, if you don't mind. Many pregnancies are naturally terminated by the body because of chromosomal abnormalities. What about IVF embryos that are not viable due to these same abnormalities -- would termination of these embryos amount to murder as well?

If Concieved eggs placed in the womb doesnt complete gestation due to problems of abnormalities, then there is no sin in that, its just happens.

the body does things cuz it does, why is a mystery, sometimes it can be explained, sometimes it cant.

it would not be murder if an unborn embryo is terminated due to abnormalities as long as the termination is done naturally without human intervention.

if you've done all that you can possibly do to start life and it gets terminated in the womb for some abnormality then there is no sin in my opinion.

As long as there is no Active termination of concieved eggs I have absolutely no problem and I do not hear of any RCC teachings that call natural termination of a pregnancy due to abnormalities a sin whatsoever.

Just only active human intervention to terminate a pregnancy either from the womb (abortion) or active termination of concieved eggs would be a sin.

[PrezLeefun]

This is a conversation i just had with my cousin about abortion. She like many other young people is very confused about her feelings on the subject look at what she says...
note i cracked few jokes to ease her up and lessen the tension without arguing with her. Please forgive me if i didn't catch all the curses.
I am in black; she is purple.

hey
hi
whatcha doin
trying to find pants that dont make me look like an oversized marshmellow
awww
i am discussing abortion rights
oh boy
y do you say oh boy?
... i dont know actualy
i havnt really been thinking straight today
you been smokin some reefer? lol
haha
nah
what do u think about it?
abortion that is...
hmm... well...
i think that.. if u really dont want the baby dont have sex but this is america no one listens.. soo like if u know.. like say your poor your parents hate you your on your own and you know a baby will only end bad then yes get an abortion even though it sounds ****ed up, but like if your just an evil bitch **** you keep the baby your only getting rid of it because your a slut who needs to shut her legs
like... im not saying if ur young or anything because like..
i dont know it really depends on the situation
now that i think of it theres no reason really
i dunno
i have mixed thoughts on this subject
wow slow down
lol
do you think it is murder?
no
i mean think of it this way...
if ur anti abortion dont suck dick because your killing thousands of little tiny could be babies
but they have their own DNA patterns doesnt that alone make them actual babies?
btw i love that coffe cup he is so freaked out....just wanted to put that in...
lol thanks
but back to the question
i dont think its murder , but that doesnt mean i think its right
ok ....sounds thoughtful
id never get an abortion
if i got pregant id be like.... uhm.. happy birthday mom i got u a baby
: jk
ur mom wouldnt be too happy if your still high school
im not talking abou right now
im talking about like when im 40 or somthing
i dunno
i know
40??? damn talk about waiting....
lol
yikes
i think it is murder in a sense...it depends on intention
well yeah
i mean your sitting there... planning out month by month killing your unborn child
thats ****ed up
if the mom is too sick to give birth then it ok. it is taking one life the save the other
if a women is raped ..i feel sympathetic; but then its like what did the baby do?
tru but then again think about in the future what kind of future is this baby going to have.... depending on he circunmstances this baby could even die because your too poor to even feed yourself
what happens if the baby gets sick u dont have insurance
your job barely pays the bills
those are usually unlikely circumstances...also there is adoption. i mean there are like millions of good people wanting babies who cant have them. And now you can choose the families so its not you are giving the kid away to complete strangers.
There are open adoptions where the birth mom can stay involved in the baby's life!
i think those are good options
thats also very tru

[Nutrider99]

Facts of which do not negate that SOME people DO have funerals/memorials for their unborn children. Viability, or lack thereof, does not nullify a mother's and/or father's grief over the loss of their child. I would not count myself a very good friend if I had merely pointed out to my girlfriend that her "spontaneous abortion" was "nature's way" (BTW, there's no such entity as "Mother Nature") and her two fetuses were not viable. Her two unborn children lost to miscarriage were both every much a "person" to her, as my daughter lost through abortion is to me. I do not purport that "personhood" is a result of a condition of want (wanted child). A new person is created when egg and sperm unite.
I never said that parents wouldn't grieve. They were heartbroken. They did not know, however, that half of all babies are spontaneously aborted. It seems nobody had elected to prepare them for the possibility. When it happened, they thought that they had done something wrong. They had not, of course.

There is a difference between a natural spontaneous abortion and abortion as we commonly discuss it, which is the contract killing of a growing child. In some cultures babies are not named until a week after they are born due to the frequency of miscarriage and infant mortality. We have become accustomed to childbirth being free of hazards. Nothing is further from the truth.

What do you mean there is no "Mother Nature?" You mean that bitch whacking the car with a stick in that commercial isn't REAL????

[Peachdiane]

As for Contraceptives per-se My faith states it a sin to even use contraceptives as that is preventing life from starting as per what God wanted with the Marriage act.

Oh! Yes I can see why we differ. :) I don't believe God designed martial sex purely for reproduction. I see it as also one of God's gracious gifts, for the pleasure of married couples, and to enable them to express love and intimacy. The Bible doesn't address this issue directly so therefore, nothing wrong with preventing a pregnancy when the decision lies between husband, wife, and God. With me, having the third child endangered my life. My family was 'complete' and any additional pregnancies would have killed me. Hence, a tubal. I owe it to my living children to stay alive and be a mom to them.

Thank you for enlightening me. I didn't realize Catholics were set against contraception. :)

[Rink]

Indeed Catholics believe the use of Contraceptives is a sin.

[avant-garde]

First, humor:


I quoted you, and then I suggested the cessation of masturbation would stop you from being a mass murderer!http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/spank.gif

Why does being a mass murderer feel so good? :smirky:

Second, apology:

HomeschoolrsRUs and I were debating the Terri Schiavo case when he said we can't go with a complicated definition of life...
Erm. :blush: Terribly sorry about that, Homes. Forgive me?

Third, business:

DoctorDoom,

I think you are a bunch of cells. :tongue:

You are right, DoctorDoom. I haven't done enough research. I definitely don't have any new or original ideas. Feti are not just a bunch of cells, they are potential human beings.

So, I guess I'm going to retreat from my previous, stupid stance of "when the fetus develops brainwaves". It was half-assed and it would be indeterminant, anyway. Yep. I'm pro-choice now (or pro-death if you'd like to call it that). I do think there should be a government tax on abortions, though. A tax on murder. That is right. Just like there is a heavy tax on cigarettes (death-sticks), and alcohol. Just as contraception is murder to the Catholic church, yet everyone does it anyway.

Why? Good question. I don't know. I guess it stems from my utter lack of appreciation for life.

It starts with rape victims not having to carry the child. But then it is still a human life, it doesn't matter who is the father. The child still has a full, unique set of DNA. It doesn't matter if it was from a rapist or from a loving father. So then why allow it abortions for rape victims, I ask myself? For the benefit of the woman. I sure wouldn't want to carry the child of a rapist if I was a woman.

If a woman doesn't care enough for her unborn child to carry it, then why should she have to? She shouldn't. Finally, I came to the conclusion that a woman can carry perhaps 30-40 children in her lifetime, or even more. By not having as many children as possible, she is denying those eggs-- children-- life. She has the capability of creating life, but isn't doing so. How far should it go? How far can it go? Contraception, under Catholicism, is murder. Why is not concieving children when you have the capability to not murder too? Heck, not having sex is the ultimate form of contraception. The capability of creating life, but not creating life, is still one less child in the world. It's the same thing as creating and than killing that life. Isn't it? Not exactly. It's mostly a thing of "seeing is belieiving". Until a baby is born, the world never sees it, except through cameras and machines. It directly effects no-one except the mother. What about the father? He participated in the creation of this child too. He doesn't carry it, though. If he cared enough about the child, he would convince the mother to keep it. If she cared enough about it, she'd keep it. In the end, its the mother who is affected the most by the child, whether she keeps it or not it'll affect her physically and psychologically.

Hypothetical:
A girl, early in her life, decides she wants to have two kids. Two kids. She graduates high school, and goes to college. In college, she falls in love with a guy. A year later they are married. They decided to begin having kids after college-- two of them, they agree. She gets pregnant in college; an accident. She has an abortion. The girl feels awful about it afterwards, but is consoled by her loving husband. They finish college and get a house with a tire swing and a white picket fence. They have two kids.

Two kids. But she had three kids. One was murdered in her womb. But wait... what about the third child? If the first was not murdered, it would never have been born. What a fascinating situation. Another life given for one life taken.

[end hypothetical]

Okay. Hypothetical situations are nearly useless.
My heartless and emotionless approach is: a human life is not unique. Whether you are saving one or killing another by never allowing it to happen, its all the same. Given the opportunity, cells, whether human, animal, plant, or even non-cells, like viruses, will always multiple, reproduce, spread, until they are killed. It is the nature of life. It is why life survives. It is why life is not unique. God is not compelling life into action, it happens on its own. If he really wanted an abortioned child to life, he could have made it live.


If I have offended anyone with my explanation, especially you, Homes, I appologize. This is my final stance on the issue. This was my stance before I came to these forums, but I was too hastily drawn to maxparrish's idea, and I didn't put enough thought into it.

As far as I am aware, you cannot take an egg from any other species and combine it with a human sperm, nor can you take a human egg and combine it with an animal sperm and create life.

Correct.
If life has little value based upon developmental stage, then why is it illegal to have any contact whatsoever with sea turtle eggs?

People value unique things. Its the same reason that people value antiques more than normal furniture. It may be equal to, or worse than, normal furniture, but because it is rare, it is worth more. People value this even more in life, because we can never replace a lost species. Not to mention that people feel guilty that WE are the one who kill off the specieses to begin with.

uterine bonding comes from the sperm merging with the egg, that is Life, preventing that is murder in MY book.


I can't disagree with you more, Rink. The Catholic church is dead-wrong by condemning condoms as well as other birth-control measures.

[Rink]

if you denigrate one aspect of the sanctity of life you'll end up denigrated all aspects of the sanctity of life as you've seen with the Schiavo fiasco.

Life begins at Conception, it should not be taken for granted or thought of in denigrating terms, the sexual act was meant for a reason, and marriage also was meant for a reason, to bring forth children into the world as well as the further bonding of the two who married in love and mutual understanding.

And from this love comes procreation as well as enjoyment of the gift that God gave to us through sex, to actively prevent life is a sin, to murder life that already began from Conception is a grave mortal sin.

Sorry byt thats My belief I stick to it I adhere to it and its my choice to do so.

Just as it will be my choice if I marry in the catholic Church it will be a marriage that will last, if it doesnt then I stay celibate because my teachings say it is the moral thing to do.

Prevention of life is a sin, period.

I cant expect you to adhere to the teachings of my faith anymore than I would think you would expect me to adhere to the teachings of your faith if it says otherwise.

I am a Catholic and I believe ANY prevention of life is a sin.

Thats MY teachings.

I live and adhere to them because I am a Catholic.

If you wanna stand outside the church and condemn it for its particular teachings, then thats YOUR right, but if you are to call yourself a Catholic then you MUST adhere to Catholic Teachings when concerning the sanctity of Life.

From conception to end-of-life issues.

[Peachdiane]

If a woman doesn't care enough for her unborn child to carry it, then why should she have to? She shouldn't.

I'm tired so forgive me in advance for not making much sense. It comes down to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What about the unborn (or pre-born) baby's rights to not be killed?

How far should it go? How far can it go? Contraception, under Catholicism, is murder. Why is not concieving children when you have the capability to not murder too? Heck, not having sex is the ultimate form of contraception.

See my post above, this is where I disagree with RCC views. Interestingly I brought this up at my kid's soccer practice tonite. A mom told me she'd contracted HIV through a blood transfusion. She and her husband decided not to have any more children at the risk of transmitting it to the unborn. They left the Catholic Church not too long ago 'cause she was told she was a killer. Wow!

[Rink]

um if she had sex that in itself is a risk whether or not they used condoms, contraceptives et al.

if she understood the RCC's teachings she would understand that if she was HIV positive, having sex with her partner no matter how 'careful' they may be, the partner is at risk of contracting HIV as well.

BUT that does NOT mean they cannot have children via in-vitro as long as it means they do not destroy any other fertilized eggs as its been well documented that children can be concieved, carried and born without their contracting HIV to couples who HAD HIV.

The premise that just because the RCC forbids Contraceptives they left because they couldnt have kids because she had HIV.

HIV positive people HAVE had children who did not contract HIV from either parent.

Dats abit of a stretch to go blamin the RCC over their wont to have sex without concieving using the lame excuse that she was HIV positive.

sorry just dont compute in my book.

[PrezLeefun]

umm Rink what about sex for pleasure??? they would definately need to use protection for his sake.

[DoctorDoom]

I think you are a bunch of cells.And your opinion is relevant because?

You are right, DoctorDoom. I haven't done enough research. I definitely don't have any new or original ideas. Feti are not just a bunch of cells, they are potential human beings... blahblahblah ad absurdum.Don't give up your day job, kid. :rolleyes:

[Rink]

Sex for pleasure is WITHIN the bounds of marriage, but that does not mean sex for pleasure precludes that of the unborn's right to life, and also doesnt mean you have a right to prevent life from happening.

Pleasure in marriage is a must through mutual love of the partners married and from that love and pleasure life starts.

It doesnt mean sex for sex's sake, the pleasure goes with the territory because God made it pleasant, but that does not mean sexual pleasure for its sake only at the detriment of what the marriage act was meant for.

Life.

Prevention of life is what the RCC is saying is a serious no-no.

and Contraceptives are preventing life from happening, and evben people who are HIV positive STILl can concieve and carry and bring forth non-HIV positive kids in this world.

So whining the RCC made us leave because of the difference of contraception is to me a cop-out.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I never said that parents wouldn't grieve. They were heartbroken.

And I never said, that you said, they wouldn't grieve.

Please note, MY response you quoted:
One of my dearest and closest friends suffered TWO miscarriages prior to the birth of her last child. There was a funeral service for BOTH Aaron, who was miscarried at four months, AND Abigail, who was miscarried at three months. I attended both services. MANY families who have miscarriages DO have funerals, or memorials, for their lost unborn children.

Was in reply to this question:
Last but not least, I'll just be the devil's advocate by asking (of religion): If "personhood" starts at conception, in a miscarriage early on, why isn't there a funeral for the unbourn child, if it is still a unique human being?

Was your point that there are not (many) funerals for miscarried children because many women didn't even know they were pregnant? Or was your point that because spontaneous abortion is a natural occurance the product(s) of such an event do not warrant a funeral because no physical evidence of existence exists? Perhaps I just didn't understand what you were trying to say with your reply to my quoted response to avant.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Second, apology:
Erm. :blush: Terribly sorry about that, Homes. Forgive me?

Not necessary, but thank you.

If I have offended anyone with my explanation, especially you, Homes, I appologize. This is my final stance on the issue. This was my stance before I came to these forums, but I was too hastily drawn to maxparrish's idea, and I didn't put enough thought into it.

So avant, are you saying you are no longer open to discussion on this issue? I thought we were having a very lively, interesting discourse. Should you ever wish to revisit the issue, please let me know.

[avant-garde]

And your opinion is relevant because?

Don't give up your day job, kid. :rolleyes:

I'm beginning to love you already, DoctorDoom. :thumb:

Was your point that there are not (many) funerals for miscarried children because many women didn't even know they were pregnant? Or was your point that because spontaneous abortion is a natural occurance the product(s) of such an event do not warrant a funeral because no physical evidence of existence exists?

The prior.


So avant, are you saying you are no longer open to discussion on this issue? I thought we were having a very lively, interesting discourse. Should you ever wish to revisit the issue, please let me know.


Of course its always open to debate, but I don't wish to keep bringing back old ideas. Here's a quick summary. If you have anything new, feel free to express it :tongue:

Pro-Life:

Life begins at conception.
Killing this life is murder.
Pro-Choice:

The mother's body is her's alone, it's her choice.
Life is not special until the baby is born.
Good summary?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The prior.

Sorry avant, those questions were directed at Nutrider, questioning his reasoning for quoting MY response to YOU and then posting THAT response.



Of course its always open to debate, but I don't wish to keep bringing back old ideas.

I'm sorry, I guess I have completely misunderstood. I thought we WERE establishing new ground with our discussion. If you have heard all that I have said before, some where else, forgive me, I thought my position was of significant value to the topic.

Here's a quick summary. If you have anything new, feel free to express it :tongue:

Pro-Life:

Life begins at conception.
Killing this life is murder.
Pro-Choice:

The mother's body is her's alone, it's her choice.
Life is not special until the baby is born.
Good summary?

Acceptable summary with modification:

The Pro-Life argument is based on the intrinsic value of life itself.

The Pro-Choice argument is based on either the viability of life, the want of life (a wanted or unwanted pregnancy), or other circumstance (rape, incest, etc.) and NOT on the intrinsic value of life itself.

[avant-garde]

I'm sorry, I guess I have completely misunderstood. I thought we WERE establishing new ground with our discussion. If you have heard all that I have said before, some where else, forgive me, I thought my position was of significant value to the topic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to de-value the discussion. I'm just trying to stay focused... I've given this topic significant thought, so I say 'final' meaning I won't be changing my opinion very easily at all, though it is always possible. I guess final was a poor word to use. 'Firm' would be a better word perhaps?

I've got to get some shuteye now. Talk to you tomarrow.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to de-value the discussion. I'm just trying to stay focused... I've given this topic significant thought, so I say 'final' meaning I won't be changing my opinion very easily at all, though it is always possible. I guess final was a poor word to use. 'Firm' would be a better word perhaps?

Firm is fine, but I would ask, was there something wrong with my logic or argument that has caused you to swing so viruletly to the pro-choice stance? I didn't notice a rebuttal of my points, unless I missed it, so I guess I am having a hard time following our line of thought from our discussion to your "firm" stance.

I've got to get some shuteye now. Talk to you tomarrow.

Understood . . . rest well, and we'll speak again.

[Nutrider99]

Was your point that there are not (many) funerals for miscarried children because many women didn't even know they were pregnant? Or was your point that because spontaneous abortion is a natural occurance the product(s) of such an event do not warrant a funeral because no physical evidence of existence exists? Perhaps I just didn't understand what you were trying to say with your reply to my quoted response to avant.
The point, my lady, is that many young mothers do not understand their own biology. If more of them knew that only 50% of pregnancies are carried to term, they might treat life more precious, or they might not be so devastated when it it ends. Funerals are not for the dead, but for the living, to help them grieve. What helps them grieve warrants a funeral, be that of a miscarried child or a beloved pet.

Jesus said, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." He also knows which embryo will become a fetus, and which fetus will become a baby. Additionally, He knows which baby will not survive to take its first breath.

Human beings are more than flesh and blood. Unlike other animals, we have an eternal soul. It is an interesting thought at which point the soul enters in to life. I do not believe embryos have souls. I'm not sure that aborted babies do, either. After all, why invest immortality in a being that will die having never lived?

Maybe a baby's soul becomes living when it is clear that it will live to be born. God knows this before conception. Man can only guess.

What then, of the souls of those whose bodies never form? Are they simply not created? Man can create life. Only God can create an eternal soul. The soul can never die, though the body does.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The point, my lady, is that many young mothers do not understand their own biology. If more of them knew that only 50% of pregnancies are carried to term, they might treat life more precious, or they might not be so devastated when it it ends. Funerals are not for the dead, but for the living, to help them grieve. What helps them grieve warrants a funeral, be that of a miscarried child or a beloved pet.

I would certainly agree that many do not know that miscarriage has a high rate of occurence within pregnancy, however, I strongly disagree that knowing this would have great impact on the devastation of the loss. I'm not usually one to rely on the maxim, unless you walk a mile in another's shoes yada-yada, but I'm afraid in this area I must insist.

You are not a female, you have never been pregnant, you do not know what it "feels" like to have life growing inside, or to BELIEVE you have life growing inside. It didn't matter a hoot-nor-a-whittle to my friend that both of her children might have spontaneously aborted because of a defect, abnormality etc. What mattered to her was that two of her children died.

I take umbrage at that statement.

In any case, I guess I just wasn't clear in asking. I did not understand the relevance of your response, to my response, to avant's question.

Jesus said, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." He also knows which embryo will become a fetus, and which fetus will become a baby. Additionally, He knows which baby will not survive to take its first breath.

I'll (tentatively) agree with this -- yes, Jesus knows who we are even before we are formed in the womb. If that is the case, every child formed in the womb, regardless of development, is a human life.

Human beings are more than flesh and blood. Unlike other animals, we have an eternal soul.

Agreed.

It is an interesting thought at which point the soul enters in to life. I do not believe embryos have souls. I'm not sure that aborted babies do, either. After all, why invest immortality in a being that will die having never lived?

Why allow conception when He knows a fetus (form) will be aborted? I disagree with your logic. He knew us BEFORE He formed us in the womb, what purpose would a form serve without a soul? To truly possess free-will, the Creator must remain outside of His creation's decision-making -- influence yes, but to arrange the circumstance to assure an outcome, no. That would be what He would have to be doing if he allowed conception of a fetus -- a form -- without a soul. For every form, there is a soul; I cannot read "He knew me before I was yet formed in the womb" to mean anything else. First comes the soul, then comes the form. If we are discussing form without soul, that seems to me we are then discussing an animal.

Maybe a baby's soul becomes living when it is clear that it will live to be born. God knows this before conception. Man can only guess.

I don't agree with the first sentence, but whole-heartedly agree with the next two.

What then, of the souls of those whose bodies never form? Are they simply not created? Man can create life. Only God can create an eternal soul. The soul can never die, though the body does.

I don't believe there ARE any souls whose bodies never form. I believe when a sperm and egg unite, life is formed and its soul imprinted. You and I seem to have radically different views on these interconnected issues.

[Nutrider99]

I strongly disagree that knowing this would have great impact on the devastation of the loss.
There were two miscarriages in our extrended family in a three month period. In both cases the mother blamed herself, thinking that perhaps she could have prevented them. In neither case could she have. It's a loss to suffer a miscarriage, especially one that occurs late term. However, if one had a better understanding of the fact that for every child born she will lose one, perhaps she will be better prepared for the possibility of a spontaneous abortion. If not, she should be.

What mattered to her was that two of her children died.
More specifically, two of her children were never born. Families used to have ten children, knowing that only three or four would live to adulthood. That was simply the way things were. Some would miscarry. Some would be stillborn. Some would die of disease. Some would die of other causes. That was the simple reality of life. Yes, mothers would still grieve. However, they knew ahead of time what to expect, because that was the world they grew up in.

Today infant mortality is incredibly low, but it happens. It is according to design, and it is as perfect as the rest of creation. We have to accept what we can accept, and understand that God's ways are His own.

Why allow conception when He knows a fetus (form) will be aborted? I disagree with your logic.
Why allow evil when God is good? Why allow free will when man can coose poorly? Why allow conception when the baby will not survive the first trimester?

What is a soul, a construct of man or a creation of God, eternal and everlasting? Man can create life. He cannot create anything eternal. Only God can do that. If God wishes for an eggplant to have a soul it will be done. if God wishes that an eterrnal soul not exist within a life that will never be born, then it will not be done.

God created man in His image. He still forms every life that ever exists. I am not convinced that God would create an eternal soul and take it home to be with Him without being exposed to the blessings/ responsibilities of free will.

We will, perhaps, never agree on this. One day I will ask Him which of us were correct.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

However, if one had a better understanding of the fact that for every child born she will lose one, perhaps she will be better prepared for the possibility of a spontaneous abortion. If not, she should be.

Maybe that makes sense to you, but a woman's heart and mind are not governmed in such a manner*. It seems rational, logical, and reasonable to assume if one knows the risks, the loss is eased or impact lessoned. That makes little difference to a mother who views each of her children as gifts from God -- even the ones who didn't take a breath outside of the womb.

*There are exceptions to every rule, but there again, they are the exception, not the rule.

The MOMENT we found out we were pregnant, we began seeking names for our children. When we found out the gender through ultrasound, we KNEW our children. We began speaking of and referring to them by their NAME. They were persons, without having taken one breath of oxygen outside of my womb.

You can argue all you want that a woman SHOULD understand the risk and therefore not be so devastated, but that just doesn't make it so in ALL cases, and I would submit not in MOST cases either. One can prepare for the extreme, but until the "worst case scenario" happens, you simply cannot impose a pre-determined reaction based on fact, logic, and reason -- emotion simply does not work that way.


More specifically, two of her children were never born.

No. Her children existed regardless of a trip through a birth canal -- it matter's not to me whether YOU view it that way.

Families used to have ten children, knowing that only three or four would live to adulthood. That was simply the way things were. Some would miscarry. Some would be stillborn. Some would die of disease. Some would die of other causes. That was the simple reality of life. Yes, mothers would still grieve. However, they knew ahead of time what to expect, because that was the world they grew up in.

Today infant mortality is incredibly low, but it happens. It is according to design, and it is as perfect as the rest of creation.

So what? This has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make when I answered avant's question. I do not know why you have "called me out" in this manner, when it has nothing to do with the point at hand -- or if it DOES have relevance to what was being addressed, you simply did a poor job in relating it (at least in my opinion -- I did not understand why you posted what you posted).

We have to accept what we can accept, and understand that God's ways are His own.

Agreed, but acceptance does NOT negate grief, nor does it nullify the existence of the "person" who was lost. On that point, I guess we will disagree.


What is a soul, a construct of man or a creation of God, eternal and everlasting? Man can create life. He cannot create anything eternal. Only God can do that. If God wishes for an eggplant to have a soul it will be done.

I'm not arguing this point.


If God wishes that an eterrnal soul not exist within a life that will never be born, then it will not be done.

True, but it doesn't make any sense to do so, and based upon my study of scripture and knowledge of Him (which, admittedly is only as far as my human understanding can reach, and that I have been allowed by Him), seems to indicate otherwise. To allow a soul-les form to be created knowing the form will not be allowed to live, usurps the truth of the fact the Lord did indeed allow us freewill. Freewill requires us to be responsible and held accountable for our actions -- how then can one stand accountable for, say like my abortion, if what I actually aborted was only a soul-less form? What harm did I actually do if what was within my womb was actually a blob of tissues without life-force?

Sorry, your argument simply makes no sense to me. Life begins at conception, when egg and sperm unite a soul is imprinted upon the being which the Lord ordained; I will hold firm to this position. You have presented nothing to sway me from it.


God created man in His image. He still forms every life that ever exists. I am not convinced that God would create an eternal soul and take it home to be with Him without being exposed to the blessings/ responsibilities of free will.

With this statement you have just made my argument for me.


We will, perhaps, never agree on this.

No, we won't. As I said, you and I hold radically different views on these interconnected issues. I thought that was pretty clear from our last entanglement. Now, I would say, there is no doubt.

One day I will ask Him which of us were correct.

Suit yourself, however I won't care. I'll be too busy praising and worshiping the Lord, and basking in His glory.

[avant-garde]

Suit yourself, however I won't care. I'll be too busy praising and worshiping the Lord, and basking in His glory.

In case you haven't put it together by now, I'm an atheist. If God ever comes down and tells me to believe in him, I will. There's too many things that don't make sense in religion in general for me to put my faith in it.

I wish I could sit down and talk to someone who has studied and memorized the entire ORIGINAL Latin scriptures. I'd love to ask questions and recieve answer not based on opinion and a book which has been translated and retranslated 100 times over, but on quotes from the original text of the bible.

Why would God want us to worship him? He is already omnipotent. Does worshiping him increase is glory? It can't possibly; he already has infinite glory. If anything, God would be lonely. He would want equals to be with-- friends, not worshipers.

Ooo, not to derail this thread: my atheism ties in with my pro-choice judgement. I don't believe in souls. Life is not special, only effort invested in that life and the involvement of that life with other life makes it important.

[Rink]

Um hate to tell ya avant but much of early scriptures were written in Greek, not Latin.

[avant-garde]

Um hate to tell ya avant but much of early scriptures were written in Greek, not Latin.

Right you are. I should've done my research. I just assumed it was originally in Latin, since the church's official language is Latin. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek. If they were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, why the hell is the church's language Latin?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

avant,
That remark was not in response to any of your posts. I'm sure you only used it to springboard into your point about being a self-professed athiest, but I just wanted to clarify, incase you didn't notice that I wasn't addressing you as a fellow believer.



In case you haven't put it together by now, I'm an atheist. If God ever comes down and tells me to believe in him, I will. There's too many things that don't make sense in religion in general for me to put my faith in it.

I wish I could sit down and talk to someone who has studied and memorized the entire ORIGINAL Latin scriptures. I'd love to ask questions and recieve answer not based on opinion and a book which has been translated and retranslated 100 times over, but on quotes from the original text of the bible.

Why would God want us to worship him? He is already omnipotent. Does worshiping him increase is glory? It can't possibly; he already has infinite glory. If anything, God would be lonely. He would want equals to be with-- friends, not worshipers.

Ooo, not to derail this thread: my atheism ties in with my pro-choice judgement. I don't believe in souls. Life is not special, only effort invested in that life and the involvement of that life with other life makes it important.

I read this with great sadness for the soul you don't believe in. There's not much more to say, because we are standing on different foundations -- no way to build a house between the two, the best that I can hope for is a bridge to cross the gap . . . in other words, I will be praying for you.

[Peachdiane]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to de-value the discussion. I'm just trying to stay focused... I've given this topic significant thought, so I say 'final' meaning I won't be changing my opinion very easily at all, though it is always possible.

Understood. I am the same way. My best friend and I were focused and blinkered and stayed firm with our convictions but we always listened to one another. As far as I can tell, you've been one of the nicest atheists here and thank you for that. :)

[Rink]

Right you are. I should've done my research. I just assumed it was originally in Latin, since the church's official language is Latin. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek. If they were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, why the hell is the church's language Latin?

Because at the time of the Apostles Greek was the main language of the world at that time, it wasnt till later that Latin replaced Greek as the main language of the times.

Just as Old Hebrew was once a main language used by the common people which fell in disuse and Aramaic replaced it as a major language; by the time Jesus arrived Aramaic was the main language used by the peoples.

The same goes with greek at the time of the Apostles for the 'known world' that Greek was the main language inthe 'known world' at the time of the Apostles.

later on Latin replaced greek as a major language of the masses, till it fell in disuse.

[avant-garde]

There's not much more to say, because we are standing on different foundations -- no way to build a house between the two, the best that I can hope for is a bridge to cross the gap . . . [/QUOTE]

Thats why I said I was "final" on my stance. I couldn't think of a way to put it as eloquently as you. You have a way with words, Homes. :tongue:

[QUOTE=HomeschoolrsRUs]
in other words, I will be praying for you.

Surely you understand that that is meaningless to me. I appreciate the sentiment, though.

Rink,

You are saying that the church changed its language to fit the times, correct? If so, it using a language that is used nowhere else. Why don't they change again?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Thats why I said I was "final" on my stance. I couldn't think of a way to put it as eloquently as you. You have a way with words, Homes. :tongue:

I would gladly give up the skill, if that would bring you into the Family of God.


Surely you understand that that is meaningless to me. I appreciate the sentiment, though.

And surely you understand that that is not meaningless to me, nor is it meaningless to Christ. Consider it one a form of compliment, I think enough of you to believe the body of believers would benefit from your addition http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif, besides, my Father loves you, that's good enough for me :smirky: .

[avant-garde]

And surely you understand that that is not meaningless to me, nor is it meaningless to Christ. Consider it one a form of compliment, I think enough of you to believe the body of believers would benefit from your addition http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif, besides, my Father loves you, that's good enough for me :smirky: .


Thats why I said "I appreciate the sentiment" :tongue:

Your father loves me, but I'd go to hell anyway, since I don't accept Jesus as my savior? That's the one unforgivable sin, after all.
I'd love to get into a religious debateright now, but it wouldn't do anything except maybe offend people and waste some of the time with which I could be sleeping. :tongue: Good night, Homes. Tomarrow is another day.

[DoctorDoom]

In case you haven't put it together by now, I'm an atheist.Yes, that's a common delusion amongst self-important young "intellectuals". And BTW, we had you pegged from post #1. The overwhelming majority of the barely post-pubescent libeRATs who reg here think they're too intelligent or educated to need God. They might not announce their atheism, but they're as transparent as glass to those of us who have seen them come and go.

I was an atheist at your age, because I was every bit as clueless as you are. Fortunately, I eventually outgrew it. I pray that you will as well, before it's forever too late.

[Rink]

Rink,

You are saying that the church changed its language to fit the times, correct? If so, it using a language that is used nowhere else. Why don't they change again?

no the Church never changed any language, the language changed with the times, Greek fell in disuse, Latin replaced greek as a major language in those days as a vernacular language.

In todays world latin is considered a dead language, with the exception to the fact that latin is now considered a Catholic sacred language, just as much as Old hebrew is also considered a Sacred Language in Judaism.

Same thing.

You have to date Modern Hebrew, Old Hebrew and the vernacular Aramaic which was the common tongue in jesus' time.

Same thing with greek & latin, greek was a common tongue in the days of the Apostles, then when Rome became Christian and Rome had literally conquered the 'known world' latin started to become the dominant language of those times, then it finally fell in disuse with the exception to religion and other literary works.

but as a vernacular language it is no longer in use widely today anymore.

The Greek of today is not the same as the greek language of the days of the Apostles either.

Languages change with time.

The Church had nothing to do with the language changes.

its just the way things happen

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Thats why I said "I appreciate the sentiment" :tongue:

And that's why I responded as I did.


Your father loves me, but I'd go to hell anyway, since I don't accept Jesus as my savior? That's the one unforgivable sin, after all.

Doesn't stop either of us, God or me, from trying. When He stops trying to reach you, you will be forever lost.

I'd love to get into a religious debateright now, but it wouldn't do anything except maybe offend people

I wasn't seeking a religious debate, nor was I trying to bait you into one. Merely sharing my feelings. If they disgust you so, I apologize for your offense, but I do not apologize for the actions. I am commanded by Him, thus I obey.

and waste some of the time with which I could be sleeping. :tongue: Good night, Homes. Tomarrow is another day.

Yes, tomorrow is another day, thus saith Scarlett O'Hara. Pleasant dreams and sleep well.

[avant-garde]

I was an atheist at your age, because I was every bit as clueless as you are. Fortunately, I eventually outgrew it.

What made you outgrow it?

[Wyatt_Junker]

What made you outgrow it?

Just my guess, but he probably got tired of his Mattel Hot Wheel set at a certain point too.

The only adults I see still playing with wooden blocks inscribed with the abc's are the ones who ride the short bus.

[avant-garde]

Just my guess, but he probably got tired of his Mattel Hot Wheel set at a certain point too.

The only adults I see still playing with wooden blocks inscribed with the abc's are the ones who ride the short bus.

Don't be an ass.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Don't be an ass.

Don't be a dick.

Any more anatomy you'd like to toss around? Please, do it at home. This is not a gay bar.

[avant-garde]

Ack. Sorry for my harsh language. I'm very sick right now. I feel miserable. I'm just waiting to throw up again.

On to the argument:

Just my guess, but he probably got tired of his Mattel Hot Wheel set at a certain point too.

The only adults I see still playing with wooden blocks inscribed with the abc's are the ones who ride the short bus.
I wonder when you and he will grow out of believing in magic, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny?

[PrezLeefun]

He should not be a uterus...he'd damage it by ripping apart any precious life growing in it.

[avant-garde]

He should not be a uterus...he'd damage it by ripping apart any precious life growing in it.

I'd commit suicide? Only if nobody loves me.