Abortion

[carrdero]

[quote]Mamalove writes: Carrdero: What about babies that survive abortion. I'm not talking about the mother that changes her mind, but the babies that actually, physically survive an abortion. Do they just walk around without a soul?[/quote]

A nice rule of thumb is if the physical entity (human or animal or plant) breathes or lives or grows or thinks or evolves or exists it contains a soul.

[littleflower+JMJ]

i knwo this is alot but i would appreciate you to respond to these points that you may have missed in my beginning posts.....but are important to answer..

[i]you said[/i]..[i]The human form that is in a women’s womb is not inanimate, in fact it is responding quite actively (read:naturally) with the help of it’s mother.[/i]

[b]i say....[/b]

[quote] sorry but a baby that is also born also depends on the help of s/he's mother to survive (food) does it not mean its not life then?

just beacuse something is dependant doesn't mean its not life.....

what about those who are in a coma? Or those who need assistance?

Life is LIFE....a heartbeat, breathing...life within.... [/quote]

and

[i]you say[/i]..[i]The human shell, it’s casing. The model your spirit/soul is occupying presently. At a funeral, if it is an open casket, that is a shell of a human. The spirit/soul is not in it, it is just a shell. [/i]

[b]i say..[/b]

[quote] a body in a casket no longer has LIFE within and therefore cannot be compared to a unborn baby in the womb who is FULL of LIFE. [/quote]

you say...[i]With abortion I just do not believe that there is an entity occupying the human shell until birth. I guess a sort of reversed example could be likened to a chicken that is beheaded. The entity has long passed from the physical existence and all that remains is a temporary active shell. [/i]

as well as my response below....

[quote]you say you dont believe there is a person inside there?

the baby is sucking his thumb, can kick and eat, have perferances in food, can recognize she/he's mother by her voice, even be comforted by it, have a heart beat, a fully developed brain and body, can feel tension, and hear music, have unique fingerprints......even has his/her own DREAMS!!

not to mention has 2 arms, 2 eyes, a nose, 2 ears, a mouth, , 10 fingers, 10 toes.....yup! it passes the human test for me!

fact is she/he is a Baby, created by GOD from the moment of conception......

its murder which is wrong

GOD is the giver of LIFE, therefore when we draw our dying breathe it is ONLY He who takes it....and no one else..

when did you get authority to say when LIFE was life? the fact is you dont....God created human LIFE and since it is hte great thing ever go be given, should not and cannot be killed....

just because it doesnt meet you defintion of a human hardly changes the fact that it is....

i have not earthly idea where your getting your "answers"  but we do got something from him written in stone from GOD Himself.....[/quote]


i appreciate it.



pax.

[carrdero]

[quote]littleflower+JMJ, writes: yup. Holy Spirit inspired, Holy Spirit approved, by the writers who knew and lived in the time.[/quote]

Um-uh-I was hoping for something a little more tangible. I’m afraid that the only evidence you provided goes to PROOVE the existence of my book as well as the Bible and I don’t believe that this was your original intention.

[quote]littleflower+JMJ, writes: History, records, artifacts.....all proof that Holy Scripture makes and holds scared.[/quote]

OK this goes well to PROOVE that the Bible exists but I already knew that the Bible existed, I have one and I am looking at it right now. How about some hard evidence that the authors were actually in communication with GOD.

[quote]littleflower+JMJ, writes: its not just anyone ......its someone who writings have been perserved for thousands of years, miraculously still here, intact in meannig to be read by you today.....[/quote]

Still here, yes I will agree, intact in meaning? Definitely not. I do not think that there would be as many religious factions as there are now if the Bible was intact in meaning or easy to interpret.

[quote]littleflower+JMJ, writes: we know what it means because of the meaning and context has also been passed down (oral tradition)[/quote]

GOD does not really subscribe to human tradition (oral or otherwise).

[quote]littleflower+JMJ, writes: sorry im if im confusing you.......i m still with training wheels.[/quote]

Really? I didn’t even notice.

But yes I agree we should be getting back to topic

Edited September 24, 2004 by carrdero

[+joyfulnoise+]

"No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong."
-Abraham Lincoln

[Oik]

You seem to be patient Carrdero, I'll give you that.

The thread has turned is no longer a debate (which this is the debate table). This thread has become a personal experience thread...bad news brother.

[quote]Oik I apologize for not getting back sooner but I was wondering what authority did you require? The only reason I ask is just that I wasn't aware that I needed any. [/quote]

With any debate, you need sources and explainations and points. "Arguments" must be implemented then backed up with support.

Your logic on abortion has panned out like so:

[quote]I K(NOW) you cannot discontinue the existence of a soul through the act of abortion. The human shell may BE destroyed, but the entity that was planned to occupy it is not. Any entities that choose to incarnate into the physical realm do not incarnate into a body that is planned for termination. REMEMBER that ALL matter can BE modified, created, and destroyed, but the soul remains forever, if that is what the soul desires.[/quote]

This is a clever lead into:

[quote]I think that murder is death. People die, animals die, we all die. Is death a sin? Then we are all sinners.[/quote]

So, let's stop it right there and rethink this. You say murder = death, Death = inevitable, therefore abortion is okay because of why?

[quote] If you believe that murder is sinful what would be a proper/acceptable way to exit this physical existence, death by disease, death by nature, death by accident?[/quote]

First off, you put words into thedudes mouth, then you created a false idea of what thedude was saying, then you used that as a way to rebuttal an argument that was never made and prove a point that has no merit. This is a common debate tatic. You didn't prove anything.

[quote]If you believe that murder is sinful what would be a proper/acceptable way to exit this physical existence, death by disease, death by nature, death by accident?[/quote]

Where's the proof? Then you followed my question with this:

[quote]Actually it creates a unique shell that will eventually (read: hopefully) lead to a unique life.[/quote]

Ummm...no proof still for what a "unique shell" is or proof you have offered. I'll use your sig here.
[quote] The one thing organized religion cannot teach is PURPOSE[/quote]

Purpose as defined by oxford-english dictionary is: "The action or fact of intending or meaning to do something; intention, resolution, determination." Religion has answered all philosophical questions, especially Catholicism. In reguards to abortion, the answer is clear.
A sperm is always directed to an egg and the fetilization always results in DNA. DNA contains all of who we physically are. There is intent.

[quote]Actually it is a human BEcoming.[/quote] If human beings can be thought of as "becoming," then they are becoming that which they already are. I reject your idea that they are "becoming." I'll just skip to it and tell you human beings are already what they are.

[quote]Whether a baby is aborted or if it dies prematurely how do you justify that? In the case of the premature baby are you going to accuse the doctor of murder because he could not save the child’s life? Are you going to bring the mother to justice because she knowingly had a health condition that would bring on premature conditions?[/quote]

Actively killing and seeking out the destruction of life is different from quote, unquote complications. You have several times failed to make distinctions on matters. First, I would like to see proof that you are correct in making no distinction between this or that. I want to move on for the second point because it ties into the next quote:
[quote]The human shell, it’s casing. The model your spirit/soul is occupying presently. At a funeral, if it is an open casket, that is a shell of a human. The spirit/soul is not in it, it is just a shell.[/quote]

You make distinctions for when the soul enters and leaves the body, but you make no distinction between murdering and natural death. Again, you provide no rational for either and your double-standard here is evident.

[quote]I believe we are spiritual entities awaiting a physical existence. We choose to come to a physical existence. We choose who our parents will be, we choose which experiences we are going to experience, we choose when we will die and how. It is a grand plan and it goes a long way to show how much free will GOD actually grants us. If we choose to incarnate into a physical shell and the mother has already chosen that she is going to terminate that shell through abortion (for whatever reason that might be) that spiritual entity is not going to incarnate into a physical existence because there is no physical existence to experience. [b]That is just my belief/theory[/b].[/quote] I bolded the last part, it is essential to you posts to far. There is no basis for having the power that you speak of. Also, you run into a major dilemma. If one can choose when one physically incarnates, then why then could not one choose when to spiritually come into being, but why stop there. If one can choose when to spiritually come into being, then why not choose a time before your god existed?

[quote]Shell-as in housing. I wouldn’t think of degrading the human shell, it’s where I keep all my life-stuff so that it doesn’t fall out.[/quote] Sir, for this I have no reply...life-stuff?

[quote]GOD does not really subscribe to human tradition (oral or otherwise).[/quote]

This is why God created the Church. You are correct, God does not subscribe. Participation in Catholicism is the only True way to , in fullness, subscribe to God.

The Sacrament on the Most Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, allows us to unite with God.

[carrdero]

littleflower+JMJ Here is the information I promised. I hope this can be useful for anyone else who is interested. I have also included the website address.

[url="http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_10.asp#When%20does%20human%20life%20begin"]http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/...%20life%20begin[/url]?

THEOLOGIC OR RELIGIOUS FAITH BELIEF
This is best explained by considering three people who might state their respective beliefs as follows:
a) I believe in God. I believe He creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that human Life begins at conception.
b) I also believe in God and a soul but I don’t believe the soul is created until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life begins at birth (or some other time).
c) I don’t believe in God or a soul.

Comment
- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.
- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.
- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.
PHILOSOPHIC THEORIES
Human life can be defined by using a wide variety of philosophic beliefs and theories. These use social or psychological rationale which can involve biologic mileposts. Examples of philosophic definitions of when human life begins include the following: When there is consciousness; when there is movement; when there is brain function, or a heartbeat; when viable; at birth; when wanted; when there has been an exchange of love; when "humanized"; when this is a person (how-ever "person" is defined); if mentally or physically normal, etc.

Comment
While admittedly arrived at through a certain reasoning process, all of the above remain theories. None can be proven factually by science.
Each individual has a right to hold his own philosophic beliefs.
People of good will can and do differ completely on the correctness of any or all of the philosophic beliefs and theories mentioned.

Now if I am not mistaken GOD has taken the b) position in the THEOLOGIC OR RELIGIOUS FAITH BELIEF. I kind of agree with that one myself though I respect anyone else’s position on the matter. You will also have to figure in on how GOD understands death to get His whole perspective on the matter. I have included it here for review. Thanks for the conversation.

GOD: As a matter of fact, there are three TRUTHS ONE can REMEMBER when it comes to death.
1.REMEMBER, everyONE has to die; everyONE has to go out of this world in some way.
2.REMEMBER, there is no judgment in death, no right or wrong in death.
3.REMEMBER, the physical existence you are living now is not your home.

[Oik]

Carrdero, my friend, read your links more carfeully:

[quote]BIOLOGIC FACTS

Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

Comment

- The above is not a religious faith belief.

- The above is not a philosophic theory.

- The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact.

What intellectual discipline, what method of measurement can we (should we) use in making this fateful definition?

The question of when human life begins is a scientific question. Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or religious beliefs for the answer. [b]We must conclude then that each individual human life begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that time until death[/b].[/quote]

Brother, you own link proves you wrong.

[carrdero]

So now we K(NOW) how human shells are concieved and developed. Unfortunately your post does not tell us how the soul is developed and when it arrives in the human. As stated in my last post there is no factual evidence to PROVE when this event happens.

[Oik]

Carrdero, some definitions for you, oxford english dictionary style:

[b]ALIVE:[/b] "In life; in the living state; living. In the sentient or susceptible condition which distinguishes life from death; fully susceptible (to any sensation or idea); sensitive, awake, fully conscious."

[b]Human:[/b] "Of, belonging to, or characteristic of mankind, distinguished from animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright posture. Of the nature of humans; that is human or consists of human beings."

[b]Sexed:[/b] "Having sex; not neuter or asexual."

[b]Complete:[/b] "Having all its parts or members; comprising the full number or amount; embracing all the requisite items, details, topics, etc.; entire, full. Of an action, state, or quality: Realized in its full extent; entire, thorough."

[b]Growing:[/b] "To advance in age."

[Oik]

Also, this "soul" agruement is weak, first, define what you consider a soul to be, then we'll all talk about it.

[Socrates]

Back to Dairygirl's initial question (ignoring the other debates on this topic).

It is a scientific fact that the embryo/fetus is alive and it is a human being from the moment of conception. From conception, it is clear that the embyo is a living being, performing all the basic life functions. Furthermore, it is clear that it is human in species (it is not a dog, a frog, or a fish, etc.). It is not a "part of the woman's body" as "pro-choicers" claim, because it has its own unique genetic identity, distinct from the mother's, that it will possess it's entire life.

These things are simple, scientific facts that cannot seriously be denied (though many do deny them because of their own agenda.) They are not matters of religious faith.

Some argue, that while the fetus is human, it is not a person, because it lacks certain higher functions or levels of development. But by this logic, a young baby or a retarded person is not a person (The violently anti-Christian philospopher Peter Singer actually argues this.)

However, if you agree that all human beings are persons and are worthy of a right to life, one is forced logically to take a pro-life position.

To be pro-choice is either to blindly deny the basic scientific facts of the humanity of the preborn, or to argue that it is okay to kill certain human beings (a very dangerous position!)

Edited September 25, 2004 by Socrates

[jasJis]

cardero,
Your lack of reason is stunning.

Re-read your silly post, and re-read my earlier post. You don't even follow your own logic, even when you seeming "attempt" to apply reason in your post.

You stated you believe in God.
You stated you believe in souls.
You stated you believe there are different philosophical measures of being "human". [ie: "when"humanized""]
You stated you believe there are different biological measures of being human. [ie: "when there is brain function"]
These things are clear and distinct measures, though conclusions are subjective, they do have relatively objective measures that can be observed and measured.

Let's follow the reasonable train of thought.

Since you believe in God and souls, then you believe in a theological measure of being human. [ie: "when a soul is present"]
What are the objective measures? A soul has no outward characteristics such as the degree the person interacts with other humans or the amount of electrical activity generated by the brain or heart cells. One must measure the existence of a soul based on the standards (beliefs) one has that led to the conclusion that God and souls even exist. What are the conclusions, no matter where one finds the reasoning?
God exists.
Souls exists.
Souls are not generated by the will of humans. (We don't do it, don't know how, and can't)
Souls must be generated by something else. We can assume God does this since we believe in Him as the Creating Entity.
So we can now conclude God generates and assigns a soul to "something" that is physical when He chooses to.
How do we know the mind of God and know when He chooses?
With most Christians, Jews, and Muslims, we look to Writings of Revalation and our shared communal understanding that has been worked out and concluded by sharing our personal relationships with God as a community and discerning common understanding and identifying constants. In other words, we share our evidence and logically come to conclusions establishing some "facts" about God. Concerning God, these are:
God does it in accordance to His will, not ours.
We can't force God to do anything.
God knows who we are and loves us before we are physically manifested.
Let's us some scientific facts"
Souls do not possess any known, measureable, theoretical, or assumed physical characteristics such as mass, volume, color, scent, etc.
Souls do not interact with or have effect on any matter or physically measureable energies such as creating magnetic fields, bending light waves, creating gravity, creating magnetic fields, etc.
We can know conclude we do not and can not know when a soul is 'assigned' to physical matter, other than it's done when God wants to.
We know that God knows us before we are created in the womb from Scripture and the logical consensus of our human community.

We logically have to conclude we don't know when, other then it can be very early.
We have concluded that a soul makes matter human with theological though (which we have accepted).
The safe conclusion is that we have to accept a soul exists at conception because:
1.) a physical thing has concluded so there is matter that can be assigned a soul.
2.) [u]only[/u] God knows when He grants a soul and he does it before we are born.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here is the science of the situation with no spins or forced deductions. A sperm and an egg combine. It is growing. It has its own unique DNA. It is not part of the mother, it is its own person.

Now that's some facts of science. Philosophically speaking anyone can argue that the baby does not have a soul. You can't logically force this onto a person without some assumptions that can only be held on faith.

So you might want to look at the science some more. As a few cells, it is generally no different than a few cells inside of a person. The difference is that they are their own entity of DNA material. So with this information we'd also have to add that it is indeed developing. (These criteria often destroy the criteria that others often use as analogies to justify their stances. "I kill a few of my cells, I didn't kill somebody".. "I kill a few cells in a body that just died, I didn't kill somebody" Well the first didn't have its own DNA that was growing individually, and the second didn't have the progression, it was regression though possibly a few cells were growing.)

Philosophy. But that still doesn't necessarily prove that because there is unique DNA you have a soul. Some people would argue that less developed have less divinity to them. It doesn't have to be this way and you'd argue that the handicap aren't less human. But these cells are still the equivalent of regular cells. Aquinas and Augustine (I realize they didn't know science that's why I add --->) and others then and today argue that killing these cells would be sin, but not necessarily murder. Some use an analogy: you have ten test tube babies and a girl in a burning building. Most would probably save the girl. A few would save the test tubes. What people do doesn't determine truth, but it does give something to think about. Perhaps the baby is not a full baby again at least philosophically speaking. You can never really say definitively if someone wants to argue that it is not. It still seems that we all should be admitting that we don't know.

I guess the biggest reason we should be pro-life is that scientifically speaking, they are humans in low development. The only way to dispute this is to employ philosophical arguments. If this is the case, it seems pro-choice people are being the religious fanatics, without refering to science. But this is my prolife bias.

Perhaps the science isn't necessarily full proof to say ipso facto that it is a human in every sense of the word. Perhaps the science of the situation can only be interpreted with philophical meanings. Like art and interpretations. Or more practically, the way scientists have to interpret what certain "facts" mean. But I don't know....

Edited September 25, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Theoketos]

Ask God whether the Shell belongs to Him or not, and if it does, do humans have the right to "destroy" it.

I think that the Body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and thus every part of us belongs to Him.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Those other arguments being that some would say no soul at all. And some would say a smaller sin, but not murder. These then possibly allowing in order to allow the moral to legally accept other's morals even that conflict with ours.

Edited September 25, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c