Jivin J’s Life Links 4-18-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Delaware officials continue to investigate the abortion clinic where abortionist Kermit Gosnell worked. Abortionist Alberto Dworkin’s emergency license suspension has been lifted.
- A Korean institute wants to use non-frozen embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells.
- The Washington Post has more about T.J. Atchison (pictured below), the young man who received the first injection of cells created from embryonic stem cells. This is rather sad:Raised Baptist in a small town where the main road has more churches than fast-food restaurants, Atchison nonetheless has no moral qualms about helping to launch the first U.S. government-sanctioned attempt to study a treatment using embryonic stem cells in people. The cells implanted into his spine were obtained from embryos being discarded at fertility clinics, he said.
- “It’s not life. It’s not like they’re coming from an aborted fetus or anything like that. They were going to be thrown away,” he said. “Once they explained to me where the stem cells were coming from, once I learned that, I was okay with it.”
- Here’s another case of a mother being killed for her child:Kathy Michelle Coy’s twisted plot came to light after she arrived at the Bowling Green Medical Center Wednesday with a newborn boy, authorities said.
Coy, 33, claimed the boy was hers, but hospital staff quickly deemed the case a “suspicious birth” and called police.
The next day, investigators found the body of 21-year-old Jamie Stice in a wooded area off a highway in Oakland, KY, the Bowling Green Daily News reported.
Even local Pentecostal pastor Troy Bailey who befriended Atkinson has a misguided view on what human embryos are:
“I am adamantly against abortion in any form. It did cause me some searching and researching biblically what is the proper answer,” he said. “I don’t really see a baby’s life was destroyed for this to take place.”
[Photo via Washington Post]
Apr.18, 2011 2:00 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The preacher and the others should read their Bibles. See Amos 1:13, “Thus says the LORD: For three crimes of the Ammonites, and for four, I will not revoke my word; Because they ripped open expectant mothers in Gilead, while extending their territory”.
Genesis 38:9, “Onan … wasted his seed on the ground”.
An embryo is a step of human development. Whether the embryo was started within the mother’s body or not, one of the above verses apply.
Unless the baby was born naturally it sure sounds like Jamie Stice had the baby ripped from her womb.
Re: Mrs. Stice, call me paranoid, but I was EXCEPTIONALLY careful and aware of my surroundings/who was knocking on my door/etc after I started to show. (Which admittedly was at, like, 8.5 months.)
I was SO terrified of that happening.
So tragic.
“It’s not life…They were going to be thrown away”
If it is going to be thrown away, then it is not life.
I am very sorry at the tragic condition of this young man, but this is some extremely sloppy and desperate thinking.
““I don’t really see a baby’s life was destroyed for this to take place.”
Even the pastor is now sticking to pro-choice talking points. Argue that it isn’t a baby, and then everything should be fine, right? Unfortunately, a human being was killed in order to obtain those stem cells. Does that make it any easier to swallow?
Could you please elaborate, Jill? I guess I am a little confused. I am not expert on stem cell research. I know that I should be against it because the church tells me to and honestly, I just follow that – but I’d like to know more so that I can give legit answers to people who ask me about it.
Where do they come from – I always believed it harmed a child. Those in the article said no, but you said that is misguided. Also – why was the women killed? Because they wanted the stem cells?
Thanks,
Amber Currie
Wow. The callousness of the pro murder group is astounding!
Amber,
These are all links to stories from Jivin J.
Life begins at conception. Embryonic stem cells are usually left over from IVF treatments. They can and have been adopted!
A different story is about a young mother being killed for the baby that was growing inside of her. The baby was cut out of this young mother.
Hi Amber,
I’d be happy to answer your questions. Here is, as far as I know, the current situation.
After the advent of In vitro fertilisation (IVF), there were many “leftover” or “spare” human embryos that were cryogenically frozen. As you know, a human embryo is a human being, albeit one who has not developed very much. Nevertheless, we all were once embryos, and so the human embryo, even one who is frozen, deserves protection.
In 1998, two scientists, James Thompson of the University of Madison and John Gearhart from Johns Hopkins University, were able to take one of these “leftover” embryos and extract from the embryo a cell, which we call a human embryonic stem cell. Extracting the cell from an embryo kills it. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The reason that people want to do this is because a human embryonic stem cell can in theory turn into ANY kind of cell so that it could be used to replace parts of the body that are non-regenerative. If I get cut, my skin is such that it automatically heals itself. I believe certain organs do not have the potential to heals themselves once they are damaged. They are damaged, and that’s it! However, that is the “promise” of human embryonic stem cells- that they can repair damaged organs (and maybe other parts of the body) which previously could not be repaired.
Now here is the thing about embryonic stem cells- when you extract one, they form something called an embryonic stem cell line, which can regenerate itself forever. Currently, there are about 20-30 embryonic stem cell lines (which are the result from killing 20-30 human embryos) that are “floating” around. It is important to note that if someone is working with one of these embryonic stem cell lines, they are NOT killing or creating any new EMBRYOS- they are creating new embryonic STEM CELLS. This isn’t to say that what they are doing is moral; but it is true that if they are working with embryonic stem cell lines, they are somewhat removed from the actual killing of the embryo, which was done probably 10 years ago.
In the case of this boy, I am not sure where they got the stem cells from. Did they find an embryo and extract its stem cells? Or are they using stem cells from an embryo that was killed many years ago? The article does say that “The cells implanted into his spine were obtained from embryos being discarded at fertility clinics, he said.” This seems quite problematic. A human being has been frozen and placed on a shelf. We took that human being and harvested part of his body, much like harvesting an organ from an unconscious person, and it of course results in the embryo’s death. So this is obviously very problematic.
Let me know if you have any more questions or need clarification, Amber. God love you.
Hi Amber – Bobby has some excellent information there. Further information can be found in this book:
Embryo – A Defense of Human Life
Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen
http://www.amazon.com/Embryo-Defense-Robert-P-George/dp/0385522827/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1303157903&sr=8-2
Also – when you’re reading Jivin’ J’s posts – he puts together multiple articles. So the piece about the woman being murdered is a completely different story. The only common thread is that a child (in this case a full-born baby) is involved.
BTW – At any point after a valid conception, it’s always proper and valid to call it a child – because that’s precisely what it is – the human offspring of a man and woman.
Is this boy southern baptist? I am Baptist but I am fundamentalist Baptist. certain Baptist branches are pro-abortion and I believe Southern Baptist (the largest sect or branch) is pro-abortion.
Why not do adult stem cells? That has shown far more promise with no moral issues attached to it whatsoever. Those ESCs have a dirty little secret… they tend to grow teratomas. Does this poor misguided boy know that? ASCs do not grow teratomas.
And I don’t care if he is healed tomorrow and leaps from his wheelchair. Getting to walk is not worth another human being’s life.
Adult stem cells have the same capacity as embryonic ones – but don’t kill the donor when extracted. Stem cells can be make from fat (yes! Sounds like a Henny Youngman joke – ‘take my fat, please!’), skin, tooth pulp, hair follicles, organs, blood, bone and lots of other things.
The young man could have donated his own stem cells, they could have been made to replicate and imitate the embryonic-style stem cells, and if they were injected into him, he would have no rejection of those cells, because they were from him to begin with.
And yes – Sydney is correct – they do tend to form special tumors, called teratomas. But you don’t read about that in the regular newspapers.
Sorry – no cures there – just problems – health and otherwise. Too bad he got such bad advice. Considering that the embryos would die anyway is no reason to use something, literally, to death. We could all be in that state of usury, since we are going to die anyway.
I wish they all did their homework first.
I’m Pentecostal, but I don’t agree with that particular pastor, either. Sad that some people believe THEIR life/condition is more important than someone else’s. They just don’t get it. We’re alive from CONCEPTION.
“Once they explained to me where the stem cells were coming from, once I learned that, I was okay with it.”
Obviously “they” didn’t explain very well.
Also from the Washington Post – http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2011/04/13/AFZpml1D_story.html?hpid=z3 :
“A longtime opponent of abortion, she said she rethought her position after finding herself with child again so soon after her first, complication-riddled pregnancy.
“I thought, ‘Oh, no, not again. I can’t go through this again,’ ” said the woman, who declined to give her name. “I already have a daughter. I was in and out of the hospital with her. For me and my fiance, to bring another child into the world was not the right decision.”
and that is why abortion will continue. Your exaggerations and falsehoods regarding PP will not change things.
Well Reality, what a sad, foolish woman. My husband’s cousin got pregnant with a son 2 months after having a daughter. They are 11 months apart. Its pretty crazy at their house (and she has an older son also) but I’m sure she wouldn’t want to kill one of her kids.
And I hate that term “bringing a child into the world”. Slithering through a vagina does not mean you’re suddenly in the world! you’ve BEEN in the world, you’ve just been hidden by a womb. This woman ALREADY HAD A SECOND CHILD IN THE WORLD. But she chose to abandon that child to death. After claiming to be against abortion. Pathetic.
I also know people who have had children close together SydneyM. Some intentional, some not. It was their choice to continue with the pregnancy.
“she wouldn’t want to kill one of her kids.” – you see, you’re using language that most people don’t identify with. ‘What, kill one of my kids? Never! Have an abortion? Maybe, if I felt it was my best option.’
“you’ve BEEN in the world, you’ve just been hidden by a womb. This woman ALREADY HAD A SECOND CHILD IN THE WORLD” – emotive and subjective language seen by most in the same light as above. Has a fetus seen the world? Touched it? Smelt it? Tasted it? No. It’s not ‘in’ the world.
Actually Reality, the reality is that my unborn child does respond to light, she or he does taste all I eat through changes in flavor in the amniotic fluid. She feels when I or my pat or poke my belly and will become very active if my belly gets to close to a warm stove. My baby will know my scent at birth, having become familiar with it these past months. You didn’t mention it but of course my child hears the world and will recognize familiar sounds and voices. My child though unborn is most certainly ‘in the world’!
Sure elizabethg, and let me know what your unborn thinks of trees and squirrels, and what their favourite flower scent is. The only ‘world’ they’re in is the one of you. And that’s fine, but it’s not ‘the world’.
I don’t know what London smells like and have never seen a platypus, yet I am still very much in the world. I don’t think my one year old has seen a squirrel, yet she is in the world. Limited experience does not deny one of humanity or membership in this Earth we all share.
So you haven’t seen London or a platypus (I’ve seen both actually) and your child hasn’t seen a squirrel. So what. That doesn’t change the fact that your unborn can’t ‘interact’ with trees, animals and the world at large. It’s not just ‘limited experience’, it is zero direct experience. It is not in ‘the world’.
Reality,
If elizabethg were to make a plie of leaves and roll in them, her unborm baby would experience it? If elizabethg were to walk past a barking dog that licked her, her unborn baby would experience it. If elizabethg were to get in her car and drive to the store, her baby would experience it. In fact, everything elizabethg does, her unborn baby experiences it too. If she went to Paris, her baby would experience Paris. If she went to Lourdes and jumped in the water then her baby would experience the water in Lourdes. It is just scientific fact that a woman’s womb does exist in the same world that both she and her unborn baby exist in.
Can I get some of what you’re taking truthseeker? What a fantasy!
Ahahaha! You heard it here, from “Reality,” first, folks! Women’s wombs do not exist in the same world as women do! They’re kind of like the TARDIS. Only the door is in our dimension. The rest is in some other dimension that isn’t a part of our world. Congrats, “Reality.” You figured out the big secret.
brb, loling at you 4vr
If I drive on a bumpy road my baby will bounce around. If there is a loud barking dog near me, my baby may startle and cry. If I go to Paris and gave a crousant, my baby will taste it. My baby will hear the French accent of people around.
My baby will interact with my husband and me and whomever else I choose to allow to touch my belly. If we tap part of my belly the baby will tap back.
A newborn does not interact with trees or animals, but with his mother and those people withwhom his mother hands him to.
Someone homebound may not interact with the world at large.
I would like to know where your goal post is and where it is going as when this discussion started ‘in the world’ was based on experience, then you morphed it to interaction.
Elizabethg you are correct, as all of us with children know. Reality sounds absurd. Babies are born with “accents” and even cry differently based on the language THEY HEARD while in the womb. My husband used to “play” with our son before he was born. That child interacted with us.
And did you all catch that Reality feels more “human” and “in the world” because she (he?) has been to London and seen a platypus. Well quick! Lets all experience that too before we lose our humanity! Going to London and seeing a platypus makes you more “in the world” and thus more “human” according to pro-aborts.
Reality, I don’t know if you’re male or female or have ever been pregnant or not, but your posts lead me to believe you have not. Because if you had, you’d have felt your baby reacting to outside stimuli. Or maybe you’re married or have someone in your life who has been or is pregnant. Pay attention to what a pregnant woman says about what’s going on inside. When I was pregnant my offspring was jumping all over the place…bumping around all the time–kicking and moving legs and arms. Very active in the womb.
In-uteral babies experience the outside world through what the mother experiences. At a very early age in development they can hear, and sometimes they respond to being poked (by poking the mother’s stomach, but I don’t recommend doing that without the mother’s permission). They move around, and feed themselves through ambiotic fluid and through the umbilical cord. (That weird hand motion like they’re trying to bring something over their faces with their mouths open newborns use whenever they’re hungry is the same motion they use in the womb).
Just because a baby is in the womb doesn’t make it less of a life. If your argument is that they aren’t “in the world” that they can’t “experience” things the way you or I can, then you’ve got a huge problem on your hands regarding humanity because there are those who are outside the womb who do NOT experience things the way you or I do. Or even consciously.
WOW!! What a misnomer for a sign on. Reality? Talk about out of touch with reality. You can’t get much more out of touch that this individual.
I have worked in maternity healthcare for many years so I guess I have to respond to this one and could not let it pass.
Did you know babies in utero recognize thie mother’s voice so well that as a newborn when they have played recordings of other voices and their mother’s voice as a newborn that they recognize their mother’s voice and respond to it totally differently than any other voice. They “know” the voice they have heard in utero for the last 9 mos so well that it is unmistakeable to the researchers by the newborns change in behavior, the way they stop, listen to, calm down, their whole body tunes in, eyes wide open, recognize “that is my mommy”, and are looking for her.
Immediately after delivery if moms and babies receive skin-to-skin contact immediately after birth the baby’s heartrate and respiratory rate, will become stabilized more quickly, their stress level decreases. Soon after this they will began (if not medicated and interupted from doing this) to search for their mother’s breast, open their mouths, looking for her nipple, begin to lick and suckle the breastmilk (her milk is distinctly different than anyone elses) something this newborn has never done before. The suckle to strip milk from the breast is different than the suck on a bottle, a pacifier or a thumb. These newborns will be successfully nursing months later usually.
The imprint in this baby’s brain that is made is so strong that he/she knows his/hers moms breast milk and can distinguish his/her mom’s milk if they smell others moms’ breast milk on a breast pad. Wow, they recognize their own mom’s milk. The brain did not just develop to do this after delivery. Even tiny premies respond to their moms and even dads that is why they developed kangaroo care in NICUs because these babies respond to moms and dads skin-to-skin touch their heartrate and breathing rate stabilizes, reduces stress, begin to bond, the brain and body develop better, they gain weight faster, their immune system works better, have less infections, body temperture stabilizes and reduces infant mortality.
Whew! I am glad I got that off my chest. It won’t make a difference to so-called”reality” but for those who want to learn how fearfully and wonderfully made we are it will be a great boost to the argument for why we don’t “murder babies” in or out of the womb. Good grief what pathetic individuals pro-deathers are. May God help them. If their ever was truth in the argument “if there was even a chance that unborn babies are alive and they deserve to be protected wouldn’t it make since to lean on the side of LIFE”.
LOL!! ‘Reality’ cracks me up!! I had no idea my uterus was a vortex leading to an alternate dimension. I wonder if my lost keys are there, or maybe that one sock that always seems to disappear from the laundry. LOL!!
I just had a flash of Peppermint Patty explaining why she doesn’t have her homework:
“I’m sorry, ma’am, but it got accidently sucked into my uterus.” “Wowrowawow” “Yes, ma’am, as we all know a uterus is not of this world..”
LOL!!
Ninek, I love you!!
Prolifer, thank you for your wonderful post. I am not a medical person but just from my own experience I can say all you said was true. My son was hours old and cried as the nurses brought him over to me and as soon as I said “Poor baby!” he stopped crying and his eyes got wide. Even as a newborn at home he would search the room for me with his eyes when he heard my voice. He knew my voice from hearing it while in the womb.
According to researchers baby’s in the womb can hear better than we can on the outside because there are no ear bubbles next to their eardrums to muffle the sound (like we have when we dive into water). Since sound waves conduct better through liquid than air the babies hear EVERYTHING. And they can hear music, TV, cars honking, siblings laughing or crying, mother talking, mother eating, mother digesting, mother breathing, mother’s heart, daddy talking etc… Later in pregnancy they will even turn to a bright light on mother’s belly because gasp! They can SEE too! Ever wonder why newborns can sleep through the loudest noise? Because they’ve been conditioned to sleep through noise for months before birth!
We are fearfully and wonderfully made. Thank you for pointing that out! So sad there are some who refuse to see it.
Ninek,
I loved your comment about the uterus being a vortex :-)
My my, what a beautifully rich vein of delusional attempts at evoking unreal attributions. Strongly redolent of the sorts of claims made by those who wear funny jackets in certain institutions.
If elizabethg were to make a plie of leaves and roll in them, her unborn baby would experience it? – no. Which leaf touched her unborn?
If elizabethg were to walk past a barking dog that licked her, her unborn baby would experience it. – no. Was any part of her unborn touched by canine saliva?
If she went to Paris, her baby would experience Paris. – no. What an odd claim.
If she went to Lourdes and jumped in the water then her baby would experience the water in Lourdes. – only if her womb leaks.
Stay focussed Alice! I wasn’t talking about the womb itself. And would it experience the ‘world’ any more than a kidney or a lung? What is its favorite flower?
Ah SydneyM, yet another screamingly facile distorted misrepresentation of what was said. You do it so well! Lets compare what you said with what was said.
“And did you all catch that Reality feels more “human” and “in the world” because she (he?) has been to London and seen a platypus. Well quick! Lets all experience that too before we lose our humanity! Going to London and seeing a platypus makes you more “in the world” and thus more “human” according to pro-aborts.”
“So you haven’t seen London or a platypus (I’ve seen both actually) and your child hasn’t seen a squirrel. So what.” – see those two words “So what” at the end? Followed by “That doesn’t change the fact that your unborn can’t ‘interact’ with trees, animals and the world at large.”
The saying ‘hoist with your own petard’ comes to mind.
“you’d have felt your baby reacting to outside stimuli” – really MIT? Would it react to the beauty of a tree? Feel fear if it saw a lion in a cage? Lick it’s lips at the sight of a pecan pie? You know, all the stuff that’s in ‘the world’.
“Very active in the womb” – yes, in the womb and in a very limited range of activities.
“In-uteral babies experience the outside world through what the mother experiences” – well a small percentage anyway.
I didn’t talk about how we experience things, I talked about how they can’t experience most things. Because they aren’t in ‘the world’ that you and I are.
That’s a lovely little dissertation on the parental/fetal/newborn instinctive interactions Prolifer, but it doesn’t address the fact that the unborn are not in our ‘world’.
ninek – refer SydneyM. Hm, not one and the same are you?
A lovely layman’s version of Prolifers waffle SydneyM. Same outcome though.
Hi Reaiity,
I was hoping to see your response to my reply. I saw your response to the other commenters. Perhaps it got lost in the activity from today, I’ll repost it to make it easy to find:
If I drive on a bumpy road my baby will bounce around. If there is a loud barking dog near me, my baby may startle and cry. If I go to Paris and gave a crousant, my baby will taste it. My baby will hear the French accent of people around.
My baby will interact with my husband and me and whomever else I choose to allow to touch my belly. If we tap part of my belly the baby will tap back.
A newborn does not interact with trees or animals, but with his mother and those people withwhom his mother hands him to.
Someone homebound may not interact with the world at large.
I would like to know where your goal post is and where it is going as when this discussion started ‘in the world’ was based on experience, then you morphed it to interaction.
I didn’t directly address what you wrote ElizabethG because I covered the relevant points in my responses to what others said. But if you insist:
Yes the unborn can be subject to basic movement and sounds.
Your unborn will not ‘taste’ a croissant in the same way that you and I do.
A newborn can be licked by a dog or have pollen fall upon it, as can the housebound, the deaf, the blind and the intellectually challenged. Your unborn cannot.
The discussion has not morphed. It still applies that the unborn cannot experience the world in the same way as the born, whatever their capacity.
Reality said: It still applies that the unborn cannot experience the world in the same way as the born, whatever their capacity.
Neither can the leper, the deaf, the blind, those suffering from neurological disorders etc. A failure to experience what you experience doesn’t make any human being (including the unborn) any less human.
You’re playing a game of justification – that you yourself would hate being subjected to. The unborn are sheltered from their environment precisely because they aren’t fully developed for an external environment. Demanding they meet your criteria is an absurdity.
Actually it’s more than absurd – it’s irrationally hostile – about the same as throwing someone into the middle of the ocean with the expectation they should survive on their own or die.
Chris, the leper, the deaf, the blind, those suffering from neurological disorders etc. can experience things which the unborn cannot. It is as simple as that. Like I said: A newborn can be licked by a dog or have pollen fall upon it, as can the housebound, the deaf, the blind and the intellectually challenged. Your unborn cannot.
The debate is about ‘world’ not ‘human’.
“because they aren’t fully developed for an external environment” – boom tish! So they’re not in our world.
It’s not ‘my criteria’, it’s physical facts.
Your last sentence lacks any correlation whatsoever.
The healthy unborn child can hear the world and therefore experience it through that sense more than a person that is deaf. The unborn can experience things which the deaf can not. It’s as simple as that.
That is simply pathetic elizabethg! A deaf person can experience vastly more of the world than the unborn. Its a simple fact.
The unborn child can hear choirs sing, dogs bark, the nightly news, cars honk, birds chirp, alarms sound, people talking, children laughing, symphonies play, and on and on, none of which the deaf person can.
There are simply many many experiences in this world that a unborn child has that a deaf person can not.
Reality,
Nobody in this world experiences the “whole” world.
Different people experience different parts of the world.
Yes, if mom jumps in a leaf pile then the baby would feel the leaves through her mother’s belly and yes she would hear them crackling. And when mother buries herself in the pile the baby feels the warmth of the sunshine subside. And if mother were to roll through the pile of leaves and accidentally roll into a tree I dare say that the tree she experienced would be in the same world as the tree that the baby would experience.
I’ll ask again Reality, is it just the baby that is in a different world then everything else or is the tree that the baby experiences also in a different world then the tree that the mother experiences? Is this one of those time space interdimensional worlds that Doug likes to refer to?
Yes, the deaf hear nothing while the unborn can hear some things. The deaf can also touch a tree, smell a flower and get licked by a dog. The unborn cannot. The fact still remains that the unborn cannot experience anywhere near as much as the born, even those with what some refer to as disabilities.
“Nobody in this world experiences the “whole” world. Different people experience different parts of the world.” – correct, to varying degrees. Yet the unborn experience significantly less of any of it than the born.
“would feel the leaves through her mother’s belly” – only if it was an extremely violent application likely to cause harm.
I’m guessing you mean ‘than everything else’ and ‘than the tree’ rather than then Doug, but to answer your question; it is the unborn which is not ‘into the world’, as the original quote went. Therefore it cannot ‘experience’ the tree in the same way as you and I.
Reality,
I gave examples of how a baby experiences the world while in the womb. OBVIOUSLY it’s not going to be the exact same as you or I do.
But then again, I don’t experience the world the same way YOU do, so does that mean I’m less “in the world” than you? Obviously not, it just means I have a different experience of the world and of being “in the world”. SAME WITH THE HUMAN INSIDE THE MOTHER’S WOMB. You’re arguing a person’s existence based SOLELY on their bodily location, which is, a weak attempt at supporting your stance that abortion is a perfectly fine thing.
However, since I’m already started, I might as well explain further:
My mother-in-law has alzheimer’s. One could argue that while her body is “in the world” her mind mind not be….that does NOT make her less in the world or less human anymore than a person’s bodily location makes them less or more in the world.
If sensory experience is the only way a person can be in the world by your definition, then people who have issues with sensitivity will have a real problem on their hands proving to you that they experience the world and therefore, “in the world” (regardless of what you told Chris, you’re still arguing that becauase fo bodily location the pre-born human being isn’t “in the world” even though you agreed with Chris that a deaf and person with neurological disabilities wasn’t going to experience the world the exact same way a person outside the womb would). Which also brings up the quesiton of Helen Keller–she was deaf and blind, so was SHE in the world–based on your arguments about bodily location, perhaps she was, despite the fact that she could neither see nor hear a tree. Yes, she could feel, which it’s been proven that there are times the human being inside the womb CAN feel/hear things.
Based on your comments, the only way for a person to be “in the world” is to have their body outside the womb so they can feel/see/smell/hear/taste a tree or pecan pie on their own (assuming of course they don’t have any problems with sensory development, mental issues, alzheimers or learning disabilities, since that severely curttails so-called “normal” experiences of being “in the world”).
Just because the pre-born doesn’t experience life the same way a so-called normal person would doesn’t make them less human or less alive or even not “in the world”.
All it takes to be “in the world” is to exist. The moment of conception a new person, unique and with their own DNA EXISTS. This person may or may not end up experiencing the world the way a so-called normal human being will, but somehow, this new life will be in the world since this new human just plain exists.
Now, if you want to argue on whether or not life exists from the moment of conception, that’s a whole different can of worms and, in a lot of ways one of the main points of the abortion argument.
I find your response to be a rambling monologue which fails to bring any new points to the issue MIT. The unborn are not in the same ‘world’ as you and I. They cannot experience more than a small amount of what the born can experience. The unborn float in a sack of amniotic fluid, inside a woman’s body.
Your mother-in-law can still see trees, smell flowers and be licked by a dog. She is in the same world as you and I even if she is sadly not fully aware of it. Even Helen Keller had more sensory experience than the unborn can ever have.
The only way for a person to be “in the world” is to have their body outside the womb so they can feel/see/smell/hear/taste what you and I can.
OK Reality, it seems you now concur that the unborn are “in this world”. Well done. Now as to your making the distinction and instead asserting that the unborn is not “into the world”. Well, if by this you mean that the unborn child has not yet been born then we have come to agreement. The unborn are in fact ‘in the world’; but have not yet been born ‘into the world’. Well done again.
“it seems you now concur that the unborn are “in this world” – perhaps you need to put a little more focus on ‘seems’.
Reality seems to think that some of the 5 senses make you more “in the world” than others. So touching supersedes hearing. Because fetuses can hear while the deaf cannot but the deaf can touch trees while fetuses can’t.
The pro-abort mentality is absurd.
Reality my womb exists on this earth. Therefore, any child in my womb ALSO EXISTS on this earth. If my womb is “in the world”, then the child of my womb is “in the world”. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Basically Reality still wants to draw deep distinctions between the unborn and born – where that (born-ness) is really the only major distinction. Both are human, both have capacity to grow in all kinds of ways, both have capacity to know, learn, move and experience according to their development and ability. The only distinction is being born or not, which entails age, development and location. So they have much more in common than not.
But then, if we recognize the unborn as human and having similarities to all other humans (especially at the new-born stage), then we would have to recognize their humanity and their worth – not because of what they can do but because of what (who) they are.
And that is troublesome for those who support abortion.
Well, Reality, thanks to your incoherent and smug and completely illogical posts, you are only making stauch pro-lifers even MORE pro-life, if that’s possible. What color is the sky in your universe? Good grief. What an ugly universe too—babies are enemies or tumors, people like you determine who is worth living and who is not….YIKES. *SHUDDER*
I’m sure once those annoying babies are out of the way Reality will begin to argue how deaf people aren’t “in the world” because they can’t hear bad pop music like everyone else can. Anyone who hasn’t traveled to London and seen a platypus will probably be on the list of extermination too. What a slippery slope…
I would say ninek had Reality’s position pegged closer than anybody else. Reality’s theory is that the uterus is a vortex into a different world. Until the baby passes through that vortex at birth any sensations the baby experiences are from this world but those same sensations pass into a different world once they enter the mother’s womb. That has got to be one of the most severe cases of denial I have come across. Reality’s world goes beyond denying personhood to the unborn and claims they do not even yet exist in this world. The word “cukoo” comes to mind.
“Reality seems to think that some of the 5 senses make you more “in the world” than others”, “deaf people aren’t “in the world” because they can’t hear bad pop music like everyone else can. Anyone who hasn’t traveled to London and seen a platypus will probably be on the list of extermination too.” – as I said, the deaf can experience the same world as you and I except for sound. And that’s a lot more than the unborn can do.
Your warped misrepresentations just get tiresome SydneyM. Can you justify these statements of yours based on what I said? Go ahead and do so.
The unborn in your womb cannot interact with trees, flowers, dogs or most other things that the born can. They are in a different ‘world’. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
“babies are enemies or tumors” – its quotes like that which weaken your campaign. Falls into the same realm as ‘birthers’.
No truthseeker, SydneyM and ninek both seem to be expert exponents of ‘six year olds in the playground’ distorted acclamations. If I said ‘some cats can sometimes appear to be blue in color’ they would undoubtedly run around yelling “Ha ha, you said all cats are blue”. -http://www.cats.com.au/articles/426/russianbluecat.shtml – while you go off on your own little fantasy trail. The word juvenile comes to mind.
“any sensations the baby experiences are from this world but those same sensations pass into a different world once they enter the mother’s womb.” – their sensations and experiences are, as I have said umpteen times now, severely limited compared to anyone who is born. They cannot experience the world that you and I do. Your denial is naive.
Whats a ‘cukoo’?
Reality, the world is the earth. Right? My uterus is on this planet. I could prove that to you right now. When my son was in my uterus (and I could prove that he was) he was in the earth. He was in the world. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO GRASP “Reality”? You are arguing the most mundane points. If you can’t even get basics… well, I give up on you. I can’t teach you algebra when you can’t even grasp 2+2=4.
their sensations and experiences are, as I have said umpteen times now, severely limited compared to anyone who is born
proabort’s sensations are severely limited compared to prolifer’s but we don’t advocate aborting you.
“My uterus is on this planet. I could prove that to you right now.” – logistically difficult but I’ll believe you anyway.
“When my son was in my uterus (and I could prove that he was)” – not necessary thanks, I’ll take your word for it.
“he was in the earth.” – I really try not to make assumptions but in this instance I’ll go out on a limb and assume you mean ‘on the earth’.
“He was in the world.” – he was ‘on earth’, he was not ‘in the world’ that you and I are.
“You are arguing the most mundane points.” – that’s funny coming from you!
“I can’t teach you algebra when you can’t even grasp 2+2=4.” – algebra’s a little more complex than 2+2=4 sweetie. And that’s the point, you’re sticking with basic maths when its algebraic. And that’s how people approach abortion, it’s more complex and variable than ‘its got dna so its human so its murder’. Do you get it now?
Really Praxedes, is that the best you can do? How droll.
Reality – I guess you need to be on all of our prayer lists along with Caitlin. No problem. We are happy to oblige. God loves you, and so do we.
On my journey through life Bryan, I have always taken the approach that whoever I meet for the first time is ‘good’ and ‘nice’. It is up to them to prove otherwise. In this vein I have confidence that you are a nice person. I doubt we will ever meet. I certainly won’t be meeting any ‘god/s’.
I genuinely wish the best for yourself and those who matter to you. Thats all we can do. You really are wasting your time praying.
Let’s see how prayer works
person gets untreatable cancer, no one prays and sometimes they recover, usually not. That’s life.
person gets untreatable cancer, people pray and sometimes they recover “thanks to god”, usually not “it was gods will”.
person loses an arm, no one prays, the arm never grows back
person loses an arm, people pray, um….
Reality,
You just said: “They cannot experience the world that you and I do.”
Like I said, you have a severe case of denial. It likely stens from a need to deny that a baby you aborted ever even existed. Are you post-abortive?
Get real truthseeker! Let me know when a fetus can touch a tree, smell a flower or get licked by a dog. They can’t. So they cannot experience the world that you and I do.
I’m not denying anything. Dream on.
For those who are interested in answering this extremely inaccurate caricature of what prayer is, I offer the following.
One of the main misunderstandings (or at least one of the main ways that people think incorrectly about prayer) about prayer is that it bends the will of God; God was going to do something some way or he wasn’t planning to “get involved”, but he heard enough prayers which “changed his mind” and he finally decided to do something. That is false. God is also not a “genie in a bottle.” We don’t just ask for something and have our wishes granted. In fact, there are four types of prayer: adoration, thanksgiving, penitential, and petitionary. Adoration is the highest form of prayer; petition (asking for something) is the lowest, and the lowest form of petition is asking for some material thing for yourself. So prayer isn’t just asking for stuff; it is also about praise, giving thanks, and confessing your sins. Here is the key: prayer is part of God’s divine providence. What that means is that God wills, he WISHES us to pray in order to participate in his “grand plan” for the universe. We see that God wishes to raise us up to participate in his work in passages like 1 Cor 3:9 where we are called “God’s coworkers.” God has pre-destined from all eternity how his eternal plan will unfold. So why pray at all? That’s like saying “my dissertation will either get done or it won’t get done; God has known whether it will or not from all eternity, so I might as well not work on it and see if it gets done or not.” That misses the purpose of our participation in what is God’s eternal plan (his Providence).
So I’m starting to go off on a bit of a tangent. Let’s return to the question of how prayer helps. It helps on several levels. First of all, just on a personal level, it brings you closer to God. We should all strive for “God consciousness”, that is, thinking with the mind of God and conforming our will’s to that of God’s. Contemplating God and “spending time” with him makes us “closer” to him so that our wills are closer to his. More so to the point though (I knew I’d eventually get there), is that it can confer grace (which is the “thing” that helps people to do the right thing (that’s a very, very rough definition)) to people who need it. That means that God will give extra grace to people who need it through our prayers (based on what I said above). Extra grace can cause people to do the right thing (I’m really simplifying things here). Without grace, none of us would be able to do anything good at all. I cannot love God without grace, I can’t love my wife without grace, I can’t pity a starving child without grace, etc. God also knows exactly when the most beneficial time to confer that grace on someone is; he knows when they would be most dispensed to receive it rather than reject it. So this is essential for everyone to do any sort of good. Incidentally, this is why I try and love those who support abortion even MORE than others; because I know that the only reason that I don’t support it is because of grace. It is a totally gratuitous gift, and as such, I have to realize that anything I have is because of grace, and pray as much as I can for grace for those who need it most.
Beautiful Bobby, a perfect example of the ‘convenience theory’.
“Beautiful Bobby”
Thanks! It makes a lot of sense once one understands what is meant by prayer.
Yeah, that the whole premise is ‘convenient’.
Your dissertation basically stated that god will do what he was going to do anyway, praying won’t change it. Yet there are so many claims that outcomes were changed due to fervent prayer. If prayer doesn’t change god’s plans what is the point of praying for change? The most positive outcome of prayer that I have observed is that it sometimes seems to be a placebo for a mild opiate.
“Without grace, none of us would be able to do anything good at all. I cannot love God without grace, I can’t love my wife without grace, I can’t pity a starving child without grace, etc. God also knows exactly when the most beneficial time to confer that grace on someone is; he knows when they would be most dispensed to receive it rather than reject it.” – so, do I love the one I love or not? Can I pity a starving child or not? Do I have grace or not? So do I have it whether I asked for it or not? Was it conferred on me anyway? If I haven’t and it hasn’t does that mean I don’t really love the one I love or pity the starving? So even if I deny any god-given grace, I have it anyway? Am I unable to reject it? Doesn’t matter what the question is the answer’s always the same isn’t it. Like I said, convenient.
“So this is essential for everyone to do any sort of good” – and here I was thinking I was doing something positive by giving my time, money and other resources to a number of needy organisations over the years. I’d better stop then hadn’t I.
My purpose is to demonstrate to anyone who cares to observe that explanations attempting to justify prayer are indicative of the broader “convinenint, convineient, convinenet (sic)” concepts of god/s. That’s who I write for.
You are getting a human reaction. I am using my ability to think and reason based on my knowledge, learnings and experience to write in response to what you have written.
and now your post that I am responding to seems to have gone……………
“and now your post that I am responding to seems to have gone……………”
Yes, it was foolish of me to reply…
“Your dissertation basically stated that god will do what he was going to do anyway, praying won’t change it.”
Yes, and I explained why. I explained that teh purpose of not prayer has NEVER been to change God’s will. That is poor theology.
“Yet there are so many claims that outcomes were changed due to fervent prayer. :
And those claims are wrong.
“If prayer doesn’t change god’s plans what is the point of praying for change?”
Reality, I already discussed this above. There are at least 4 kinds of prayer, petition is only one of them, and the REAL purpose of petetiary is to conform one’s will to God, not bend God’s will towards yours. It is not to ask for things and hope to get them like a genie in a bottle.
I’m not trying to say this to be mean, but in order to understand what I am claiming, you need to forget everything you thought you knew about prayer. The pop-culture understanding of prayer is a far cry from what it has been understood historically in the Catholic Church. You’re still (and I understand) bringing forth objections that only apply in the pop-culture prayer sense.
“so, do I love the one I love or not? Can I pity a starving child or not? Do I have grace or not? So do I have it whether I asked for it or not? Was it conferred on me anyway? If I haven’t and it hasn’t does that mean I don’t really love the one I love or pity the starving? So even if I deny any god-given grace, I have it anyway? Am I unable to reject it?”
Yes, only through grace can you do good.
“Doesn’t matter what the question is the answer’s always the same isn’t it.”
That’s right, because whet you’re doing here is giving multiple examples of things that all fall under teh same principle. It’s like if I said that “it is always wrong to murder someone” and you replied “So is it wrong to kill someone for fun? To kill someone with a knife? Can I chop someone into tiny pieces? Is it wrong to kill if it makes me happy? Is it wrong to pay someone to kill someone? Doesn’t matter what the question is the answer’s always the same isn’t it.” Yes, it all falls under the same principle, so just asking a lot of questions that all have teh same answer isn’t really an argument.”
“Like I said, convenient.”
Again, I’m trying to figure out what the “convenient argument” is. Can you put it in a general syllogism? It seems to me taht you are saying
If X is a convenient explanation, then X is wrong.
The Christian understanding of prayer is a convenient explanation.
Therefore, the Christian understanding of prayer is wrong.
Is the idea that if something is convenient, then it is wrong? Why is it a problem when a theory works? Again, not trying to be a jerk, but I honestly think that most people would ditch teh arguments they give if they actually try and put them into a syllogism. Couldn’t we blow off all of science because it is convenient? Again, I think the problem is that you would like the theory of prayer to be emperically verifiable. It’s not, and Christianity has never claimed it is. It is based on divine revelation. That’s fine if you don’t believe in revelation, but don’t try and make prayer something it isn’t. If you’re trying to critique prayer, you need to either critique it from teh interior (using what Christians consider divine revelation) or show that divine revelation is not possible. But again, teh BASIS for what we believe about prayer is CLAIMED to be from God, not derived from teh senses or through some sort of falsifiable experiment.
“and here I was thinking I was doing something positive by giving my time, money and other resources to a number of needy organisations over the years. I’d better stop then hadn’t I.”
Again, Reality, you are doing good if you do these things. So there is a common point of agreement :) So no, nothing about what I wrote implies that you should stop.
For Reality RE: In the womb or in the world?
See: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/09/surgery.spina.bifada/index.html
How would you address the baby operated on for spina bifida? His hand is outside the womb. Then the “Doctors replaced the spinal cord into the spinal column and closed up the back just as they would on a newborn.”
Sounds like in and out at the same time. Did they both “disappear” from the world while “in the womb” at the same time? Must have been crowded with that big doctor in there! ;o) Gives a whole new meaning to born and unborn!
“You’re still (and I understand) bringing forth objections that only apply in the pop-culture prayer sense.” – then perhaps you need to make a lot of the anti-choicers who comment here aware of that.
“Yes, only through grace can you do good” – so do I have unsolicited god-given grace or some other sort of grace? Or do I not have grace but do good things anyway. No, you said I couldn’t do that.
“If X is a convenient explanation, then X is wrong.” – not necessarily.
“The Christian understanding of prayer is a convenient explanation. Therefore, the Christian understanding of prayer is wrong.” – yes, because it doesn’t matter what the outcome is, it’s always ‘meant to be’. It lacks the consistency and logic of other conveniences.
“Couldn’t we blow off all of science because it is convenient?” – no, because it is actually either proven or dismissed and replaced with a new tenet which is proven. That does not happen with prayer.
“but don’t try and make prayer something it isn’t.” – ha ha.
“teh BASIS for what we believe about prayer is CLAIMED to be from God, not derived from teh senses or through some sort of falsifiable experiment” – or even an emprically provable one. “CLAIMED” says it all.
“Again, Reality, you are doing good if you do these things” – so again, if I cannot do good without grace, what’s happening?
Did it touch a tree, smell a flower or get licked by a dog Patty?
“so do I have unsolicited god-given grace or some other sort of grace?”
The former.
“Or do I not have grace but do good things anyway.”
No, you cannot do good without grace.
“No, you said I couldn’t do that.”
Right.
“yes, because it doesn’t matter what the outcome is, it’s always ‘meant to be’. It lacks the consistency and logic of other conveniences.”
AGAIN. It it NOT EVER meant to be something that CHANGES OUTCOMES. That is right it doesn’t matter what the outcome is. NEVER was it claimed that by me that the effects of prayer can be tested by outcomes. Again, if you want to understand what I am trying to say, you need to forget everything you have learned about pop-prayer.
” no, because it is actually either proven or dismissed and replaced with a new tenet which is proven. That does not happen with prayer.”
Okay, so at least this is more substantive than just “it’s convenient.” I have to keep guessing what your arguments are supposed to be because you tend to not flesh them out. The answer to this objection is that, again, prayer is not supposed to be an empirically verifiable or falsifiable principle. It is based, as I have said, on divine revelation.
“or even an emprically provable one. “CLAIMED” says it all.”
Yes, I have already admitted this in my previous post and this post. So now you’re starting to see where we differ. That is, on whether or not divine revelation can exist. Because THAT is what the Christian belief in the theology of prayer is based on, not empirically verifiable experiments. Again, if you seem to believe that the only kind of knowledge that we can have is derived from empirically verified facts, you need to argue how you can empirically verify that the only kind of knowledge that we can have is derived from empirically verified facts. I just do not know why this is teh only justifiable criteria for knowledge.
” so again, if I cannot do good without grace, what’s happening?”
Evil. I do evil without grace, all do evil without grace. Again, this is just theology, based on divine revelation. The difference with us in the existence of divine revelation, which I am happy to agree to disagree with you about.
But ultimately, the point is that there is a proper understanding of Christian prayer and a pop-understanding (again, I don’t blame you for understanding Christian prayer as the later because, indeed, that is how it is often portrayed). And one really can’t argue against the Christian understanding of prayer by attempting to hold it up to criteria that Christians never claimed it is based on. I mean, Reality, wouldn’t it be annoying if some Christian tried to argue that general relativity is false because “where does God teach general relativity in teh bible?” The Christian who asks that is asking for a justification for general relativity that is completely divorced from teh method by which the theory was derived. So it is with matters of divine revelation being held to scientific standards.
What I deduce from what you are saying Bobby, is that either I am totally incapable of doing good – which I must protest to at least a small extent – or I have god’s grace forced upon me. Yet you said earlier that I needed to ask for it.
“THAT is what the Christian belief in the theology of prayer is based on, not empirically verifiable experiments” – so it is totally non-evidential belief.
“the only kind of knowledge that we can have is derived from empirically verified facts” – yes, anything else is guesswork, hypothesis, faith, belief or delusion – not knowledge.
“it be annoying if some Christian tried to argue that general relativity is false because “where does God teach general relativity in teh bible?” – not to mention young earthers, ark theorists and geocentrists.