Aborting babies with Down syndrome is a topic close to me, since, as most of you know, holding one such live aborted baby propelled me into the pro-live movement eight years ago.

The New York Times reported today on a movement to curtail the huge percentage - 90% - of mothers aborting babies with DS. I'm glad about that, though, of course, the NYT had to apply a liberal slant.

Blogger Sherry W. at Intentional Disciples did a great job of dissecting the article....

The new push for universal testing for Down syndrome is having an entirely predictable outcome: 90% of parents choose to abort.

The result: there are only about 350,000 individuals with Down syndrome in the country today, less institutional support, less research, and a lonelier world. As one father put it: "How much more hostile will the environment be if there are fewer people with Down syndrome?"

The parents of Down syndrome children are organizing and fighting back:

They are offering expecting parents a chance to meeting their children and hearing their experiences before they make a decision.

The Times calls them "parent evangelists". Indeed.

The Times carefully portrays a large number of these parent advocates as "pro choice" and not religiously motivated, because, you know, not being religiously neutral on this subject would be bad. It is very poignant to hear one mom described her motivation as possibly "selfish."

Others admit freely to a selfish motive for their new activism. "If all these people terminate babies with Down syndrome, there won't be programs, there won't be acceptance or tolerance," said Tracy Brown, 37, of Seattle, whose 2-year-old son, Maxford, has the condition. "I want opportunities for my son. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I do."

But love for their children has enabled these carefully neutral parents to grasp one essential thing: "Some see themselves as society's first line of defense against a use of genetic technology that can border on eugenics. 'For me, it's just faces disappearing,' said Nancy Iannone, of Turnersville, N.J., mother to four daughters, including one with Down syndrome."

George Will calls it "a search and destroy mission". (Will is father of an adult Down sydrome man named Jon. Jon was born in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade).

This is a work that pro life advocates should get behind in a heart-beat.

I would add that while doctors in the NYT article protested there is no arm-twisting of expectant parents to abort handicapped babies, I constantly hear the opposite. Insurance companies favor aborting these kids, too, since doing so cuts their costs.

The NYT has two compelling videos accompanying this story here and here.

Quote from story to consider:

But as prenatal tests become available for a range of other perceived genetic imperfections, they may also be heralding a broader cultural skirmish over where to draw the line between preventing disability and accepting human diversity.

[Hat tip: Kathy O.]

AAAWWWW, These children tug at my heartstrings. These children could bring so much joy to someone. Even though they have DS, they are still functional. Why should they be aborted?

It is so frustrating that OB's looked at the women who weren't aborting (younger women)and decided "Hey, let's get them in on this baby killing action too!".

DS syndrome children are wonderful and caring.

...I remember when I was a kid, you use to see DS kids around alot (my brother worked at a home to assist DS adults), and now today you hardly see any. It's sad.

jasper,That's true.

When I was in high school I babysat for a family that had a DS daughter, Amy. She was beautiful. She loved to give hugs and wanted to "snuggle" all the time. She could not lie. She could not steal. These idea's were so foreign to her she couldn't even comprehend the meaning behind the actions. She knew how to throw a temper tantrum, but always felt bad afterward.

When her Mother got pregnant with their 3rd child, (Amy was the 2nd) she was advised to abort. Now this was in the mid 1980's, testing was either not available, or not reliable (I can't remember which). The possiblity of having a 2nd DS child is good. This mother considered it, and went to my Mom for advice. She knew my Mom was Pro-Life. My Mom asked her if she regretted having Amy. She said no, and was almost offended. My Mom then said, and I will always remember this, "then what is your problem?" There wasn't a problem. Amy was a blessing, not a curse.

Amy's Mom went into labor. I was watching the other two kids while they were in the hospital. Their 3rd daughter was born, without DS. Amy's mom almost sounded disappointed when she told me that.

Why would a mother be disappointed that her child *didn't* have DS? That makes no sense, or did I read your post wrong?

that's a nice story Valerie, kudos to your mom.

"Why would a mother be disappointed that her child *didn't* have DS? That makes no sense, or did I read your post wrong?"

midnight, I don't think you would understand......

You know something Jasper, I am not stupid, I (gasp) have a brain. I simply asked a question, and it wasnt direceted towards you anyways. I am being respectful and curteous, unlike you.

(and it is midnite, not midnight)

Jasper,

I mean, it's great that she went through with the pregnancy regardless of the risk. Not many people could do that, you know? Not many people have that kind of patience. I know I don't.

But I see her point. If I was a mother and my child had a risk of being born with DS, I'd be relieved that they didn't. I'd be glad that they were perfectly healthy.

midnite678,

I know you have a brain and are problably very smart. But do you have compassion for life?

Lauren, How right you are. I gave birth to my daughter on 4-19-07. I was "assured" by one of my female OBGYN s that I could always have an abortion if my child wasn't healthy. I think the look I gave her spoke volumes. I found another doctor.

I went through this yesterday with MK. Yes, Jasper, I do have compassion for life. I have empathy & a conscience as well. But unfortunately for any of you on this site you'll never get to that side of me b/c you dont know me.

As I explained yesterday I have helped a friend through an abortion and another friend thrugh a pregnancy. My best friend's mother forced her to have an abortion & I went with her, held her hand, and cried with her afterwards about her baby she never got to know. My other friend has a beautiful three year old daughter and I am her godmother, and I spoil her rotten. Her mother is a highschool drop out who lives paycheck to paycheck. I help buy my goddaughter's clothes, food, daycare etc., b/c her mother can not do it by her self. Now then those are only two examples of the side of me none of y'all will ever get to see, and that is *truely* a shame for you.

midnite678,

Thats great, you seem like a nice person. I'm looking forward to you coming over to the pro-life side.

God-Bless

C'mon over midnite. We don't bite. You do seem nice. Are you from the south?

My best friend's mother forced her to have an abortion & I went with her, held her hand, and cried with her afterwards about her baby she never got to know.

Now that is really sad. This is one thing we've been trying to explain, that it's not always about girl's choice.

Parents forcing their children to have abortions is actually pretty common. Not just parents but also boyfriends too.

Parents should not be able to force their children to have abortions, just as babies should not be forced to give up their lives.

I hope that your friend will still be able to have a baby again one day.

I don't know how recent this was, but if you ever want to recommend a book for her, this book that really helped me after my miscarriage...it's "I'll hold you in Heaven". This book was tremendously comforting to me as I grieved the loss of my unborn baby. It may help her too.

Yes I am from the south; born & raised in B'ham Alabama. And I am a very nice compasionte person as long as people give me the same respect (and dont personaly attack me).

Howdy, Neighbor! :) I'm from Alabama too.

Yes, Miss Midnite, I'm looking for a new Conversion Story to post. Come to the light!

My great-uncle was born in the 1950's with Down's Syndrome...when he was a baby he was small enough to sleep in a shoebox (my great-grandparents were too poor for a crib because my great-grandfather was a low-life, abusive, alcoholic scumbag).

He's still around, though he's gone downhill the last few years with heart problems and dementia, but he is very old for somebody with Down's Syndrome. He doesn't remember me anymore but he still likes his horses and Chicago Cubs. :)

Most of my family lives in Alabama.

Bethany, I checked out the book you posted about. I'll bet it was good. The title brings tears to my eyes. I'd love to order it and read it myself.

Miss Rae, you're another conversion candidate, getting closer by the day. How about it?

Rae, He has good taste. The Cubs are a great team.

@Jill: I'm sorry, but I'm not planning to convert anytime soon. :)

@Heather4life: It's a shame the Cubs never win...I'm personally a Twin(kies) fan. :D Joe Mauer is a hottie. ^_^

My mother tells me my great-aunt gave birth to a boy with Down's syndrome. He died really young, long before I was ever thought of.

And I have a friend who's niece (sp?) has it as well. She shows me countless pictures every time we hang out. Kid's cute and whatnot, but I'm not big on baby pictures.

Rae,You make me laugh with the beginning of your post. You remind me of myself sometimes.

@Heather4life: How so?

Bethany, where are you from in Bama. As I said I am in the Ham, but I commute from there to the Gulf Shores/Foley area (where my family lives). We own a resturant in Gulf Shores, so I am down that way frequently.

Rae is not converting "anytime soon." Ah, an open door, I'll take it... :)

The post about your great grandfather. There are times I sound like that on the phone, I'm told.

I live in Cullman... we go to Birmingham every once in a while for garage sales (I love yardsaling!). Also there's an art store I like there.

Midnite,Do you know where Athens and Ardmore are?

@Heather4life: You sound like a low-life, alcoholic scumbag on the phone? O_o

My great-grandfather was NOT a nice man, he was manipulative as all get out, right up till the day he died (and I think he lived so long just to spite people).

No Rae. I meant that I can sound that same way describing someone too.

Rae: It's because you're nice. They think all pro-choicers are mean and angry and hate people and especially babies. If you actually seem like a nice person, they automatically assume that you will be pro-life. ;) You know, because nice people can't think that maybe they don't have the ability to judge every woman's situation.

@Heather4life: Ooooh, I see. Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. ^_^*

I pass through Cullman going to the lake all the time (my boyfriend is a fishing nut).

I've heard of Athens & Ardmore, but I am not exactly sure where they are at. What major city/town or what county is it in?

Why would a mother be disappointed that her child *didn't* have DS? That makes no sense, or did I read your post wrong?

Posted by: midnite678 at May 9, 2007 03:08 PM

I should have explained better. She was told by so many people and so many professionals that the chances of having another DS child was very high. So in her mind she was all prepared to have another one. She was happy that the baby didn't have it, but she was just so prepared.

Well, I'm pretty sure it's close to Tennessee. My mother lives in TN. and all of our relatives on her side live in TN and Alabama.

Lynn -

What the reason for all the hostility?

Is the Space Center still there?

I live in Tennessee...

No kidding Heather B. It's a really pretty state.

Yeah, it is. I wasn't too fond of it when I first moved here, though.

Valerie:
Sarcasm and joking don't count as hostility when MK does it. ;)

Ah. I dont travel north that often, except to the lake in cullman (i can never remember which one it is), I am always going or east or west (beaches, atlanta or new orleans). And I am pretty sure the Space center is still there. Took a field trip there once in Elementary school, and I

Heather B. - East, West, or Middle?

And Valerie:

Thank you for explaining it to me with more detail. What you are saying makes perfect sense now. Sorry, I got kind of confused for a second there.

Lynn,

I live in Middle Tennessee (Cookeville...or Cookevegas...to be exact).

haha, I'm East, Cleveland (or Clevegas, actually, people are really original with these things ;)) I had a cool friend that lived in Cookeville that's at Northwestern now and one girl that transferred to my high school from Cookeville and new the girl that I knew. Very small world :)

Lynn,even smaller. WE are neighbors!!!

Lynn,

Coolness. It really is a small world.

And now I have that stupid song stuck in my head. You know, that was always my least favorite ride at Disneyland?

Lynn, I just remembered that there is a Cleveland TN. I am in OH.

Have you guys seen MommyLife's A Mother's Day Celebration of our children with Down syndrome?

Thanks for the link Michelle. Awesome! Gonna check it out.

I have relatives that live in OH, used to live in Cleveland, OH but now they are in Columbus. Apparently there is a Cleveland in 48 states :) (and I am going to school in Georgia which also has a Cleveland in it of course, but I come home a lot to visit my mom (usually she's in the hospital) and my sis and brother.

HeatherB: I didn't ever get to go to Disneyworld! ::pout:: haha, When my bro was little, my mom promised him he could go to Disneyworld when he was five, but I was born when he was 3 and a half. Then she promised him we would go to Disneyworld when I was five, but my lil sis was born when I was 3 and a half. Then by the time my little sister was five my brother wasn't interested in going to Disneyworld anymore, but he still jokes about blaming it on us young ones. :)

Still a small world.

My parents never took me to DisneyWorld *tear*, I went in 8th grade with my friend and her family. They took pity on me and invited me to come along with them.

I've never been to DisneyWorld either

I have been to TN plenty of times, though :-)

PP has an unhealthy concept of pregnancy, as it views the state of gestation as an abnormal condition or disease. Speaking for the organization, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."("Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971,

I thought the girls from the pro-choice side said that they came up with this idea all by themselves...you know, free thinkers, no outside influences...

Coincidence? I don't thiiiiiiink so. Maybe subliminal advertising. They just didn't realize they were quoting PP...

MK don't you directly follow Catholic teachings? Who are you to tell us we are "indoctrinated"

And how many pro-choice women have told you pregnancy is a disease?

I never said I viewed pregnancy as a disease...I view it as a medical condition that a woman's body endures/undergoes.

And I live in Pennsylvania....kind of a small world, I suppose. :)
I've never been to Disney World, either...and I'm 19. *sigh*

Ok, I'm set for the night. Bought Queen's greatest hits this afternoon.

I LOVE DISNEYWORLD. What I love about it is the incredible attention to detail, the professionalism, the excellence. The rides never break down. There is never gum on the sidewalk. Every employee treats you like royalty. I cannot believe what these people have thought through.

And they serve frozen margaritas in Epcot. Different flavors. Kiwi even.

Jill,

Yes, Disney world is alot of fun. Did you stay in the park or outside? I plan on taking my sons next year.

So what would you all do about this--let me guess, you'd have the government force women to bear disabled children?

In the park. There are family priced resorts now ($85-115/night): Pop Century and All Star Sports, Music, or Movies. I personally wouldn't stay outside. Not worth the hassle and few bucks you might save. You lose all that in time and perks....

If you stay at a Disney resort, you get airport pick-up and luggage drop-off in your room free; the interpark transportation is top-notch; and every day one resort opens an hour early and stays open 2-3 hours late that only resort guests can take advantage of.

Plus the resorts themselves are Disney all the way in every way. Very cool for kids and adults alike.

Smoggy, are you promoting eugenics again?

Eugenics by personal parental choice, yes, without apology.

"Eugenics by personal parental choice, yes, without apology."

SMOG, Adolf would've been proud of you!

You need a history lesson, jasper.

Thank you for explaining it to me with more detail. What you are saying makes perfect sense now. Sorry, I got kind of confused for a second there.

Posted by: midnite678 at May 9, 2007 04:42 PM

uh,oh! My ability to be easily confused in getting contagious!

Pretty soon, people will be confused for longer than a second! It will be anarchy!

HIC!

"I thought the girls from the pro-choice side said that they came up with this idea all by themselves...you know, free thinkers, no outside influences...

Coincidence? I don't thiiiiiiink so. Maybe subliminal advertising. They just didn't realize they were quoting PP..."

@MK: I've never read that before...but i've never considered pregnancy to be a disease, a temporary condition that could lead to life long complications yes, but not a disease. But this is due to the "germ paradigm" that foreign thingies like bacteria, viruses and fungi cause diseases...not fetuses (though mirror syndrome can cause disease-like symptoms...but even then it's not a disease). Anyway... :)

By a patient of Tiller the baby killer:

read-this one:

http://www.tillerpatientspeaks.homestead.com/baby.html

SoMG:
"So what would you all do about this--let me guess, you'd have the government force women to bear disabled children?"

I can't see how that should seem such a remarkable ethical leap for someone who doesn't mind allowing women to kill abled ones.

Midnight:

As noble and compassionate as what you did for your "friend" sounds, accompaning someone while they committed murder is never justifiable. That's not compassion, that enabling one to commit murder. There's never any justification for murdering an innocent child in the womb.

A true "friend" would have stood up for the defenseless baby and not budged, and least of all not helped in any way with the extermination of a child. What you accomplished was to place the blood of the baby on your hands as well. And tears don't mean a thing. That's worldy sorrow, not godly sorrow.

Let none be deceived. Now that's the truth.

leave it to the times to only tell half the story, which is that the abortion rate for children with a cleft palate, an entirely correctable problem, is sky high as well. we wondered when we watched Gattaca if there would ever be such an America: with designer babies and genetic perfection as the only babies allowed to be born. and we're there. this is what that world looks like, perhaps we should start referring to "God babies" as those who aren't tweaked for perfection but endowed by their creator with all the little problems that we once considered normal.

Choosing to have a child with severe mental and physical problems is a moral atrocity. There's no way to get around the fact that Down syndrome causes suffering in everyone involved, especially the child. The parents who support bringing more people burdened with this illness into the world only want to extend their and their children's suffering to everyone else. They should be named for what they are - evil.

Every child should be loved and valued - but a fetus is not a child until he or she is born - and what kind of perverted monster do you have to be to want children to suffer their entire life? Only the religious dogma behind the hypocritical "culture of life" is capable of sinking people to this level.

I worked for several years with special children, several with Down Syndrome. I can also, however, understand why in certain conditions, abortion could be the best option. Medical expenses for special children can be phenomenally high, and for a young couple or a single mother who can support a child without disabilities, it could simply be too much of a financial drain for them to handle. I know that the parents of Dana, a wonderful little girl with DS, aborted their first child when it was diagnosed with DS, because they did not have the financial means to give the child the medical care it would need it's entire life. After they had more money together and had risen in their respective lines of work, they concieved another child, also who ended up having DS, and were able to care for her wonderfully. I don't think that it is so much an issue of not wanting a special child in many occasions- it's that the parents do not have the financial or home situation ready to support such a child, and they realize that that is something necessary before they can effectively raise him or her.

But I definitely share the love for special kids. They're so incredibly sweet.

Heroic - judging a woman for choosing to give birth to a mentally or physically disabled child is just as bad as judging her for having an abortion. Its not a black and white issue of "Its wrong to have an abortion" OR "its wrong to knowingly give birth to a disabled child". In reality, it comes down to a pregnant woman - an INDIVIDUAL, not a statistic. Her life, her circumstances, and her beliefs should dictate her choice - not what someone else thinks of her or her pregnancy.

And to everyone else - the decrease in Sped programs has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of disabled children, but rather that their parents have been lobbying for full inclusion in schools for decades and have finally started to succeed. There is less need for programs when so many kids end up functioning well in the normal school system.

That picture reminds me of my old gymnastics days. Oh...good times.

I'll say one thing. You have to be a very special person to care for a child with any sort of special need. I really must say that I admire those folks.

Alyssa, I go to PA often. I have a good friend there.

His Man,you are so right.

Hisman: I think you might be forgetting the part of the story where the mother was forcing the girl to do it. I don't know about you, but I think that *Midnite's call as a human being was to provide compassionate support to her friend, who did not want to get an abortion. I'm not sure what the girl's mom would have done to her if she had not gotten an abortion, thrown her out on the street, threatened to not pay for college, who knows, but the girl obviously felt that she could not disobey her mother's wishes. As a pro-choicer this story makes me extremely upset because the woman was *forced* to do this. Midnite did everything she could for a woman in a terribly difficult situation. The fact that you have absolutely no compassion for this woman, and think that Midnite should have further injured her by telling her she absolutely couldn't get an abortion that she was forced to have/not be the shoulder for this poor woman to cry on is really sad. But you're always right and always know what is best and moral in every situation, huh? Jesus Christ love the biggest sinners, the people that the rest of society shunned. Do you think you are acting like Jesus Christ? Or the people who wouldn't show any compassion to someone who had made mistakes.

Why do people who don't believe in God/Jesus use Him so often to further their arguments?

There is a difference between being a shoulder to cry on and actually abetting the deed.

Why do people who don't believe in God/Jesus use Him so often to further their arguments?

It is pretty ironic, isn't it?

Good morning breafast clubbers!

Choosing to have a child with severe mental and physical problems is a moral atrocity. There's no way to get around the fact that Down syndrome causes suffering in everyone involved, especially the child. The parents who support bringing more people burdened with this illness into the world only want to extend their and their children's suffering to everyone else. They should be named for what they are - evil.
Every child should be loved and valued - but a fetus is not a child until he or she is born - and what kind of perverted monster do you have to be to want children to suffer their entire life? Only the religious dogma behind the hypocritical "culture of life" is capable of sinking people to this level.

If it's perverted and horrible and disgusting to want to keep your child alive who has a disease, then why would it therefore not also be "merciful" to kill born children with diseases? Suppose the mother did not know the child was disabled until birth? Should she kill her newborn infant to spare it a life of suffering?

Good morning, Heather!

Or also, suppose the child was perfectly normal at birth, and had a wonderful, normal life until one tragic day, at the age of 7, the child is in a car accident, and becomes severly disabled, needing 24/7 care.

Would it be more merciful to kill the child then, "heroiclife"?

A lot of people who don't believe in Jesus as deity still believed he actually existed, but merely as a man who did good things.

What if you had an adult son, and he was involved in a car accident that left him brain damaged? What would you suggest we do? Is he any less of a person now? We don't know what life will throw our way. When are our rights as human beings terminated? I don't think that stabbing a child at the base of his skull, and sucking his brains out is ever the answer. How about the Digoxin injection into the child's heart? It's killing!

Off topic a little. here is a Rush limbaugh parody of pro-abort John Edwards singing "I am woman"

Funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE-8csu7-bk

As a pro-choicer this story makes me extremely upset because the woman was *forced* to do this.

Are you and other pro-choicers angry enough about the fact that this happens, that you would be willing to fight it, by finding a way to make it less easy for parents, boyfriends, rapists, to force women to abort their children? Or are you satisfied with the system as it is, and figure a few here and there being forced to abort is tolerable?

BTW, Those children that were victims of PBA did feel pain!

MK: Have I ever told you that I don't believe in God/Jesus? Thank you for automatically assuming that just because I am pro-choice I don't believe in God.

And even if I did not, it wouldn't matter, would it? If you are claiming to be a Christian, and you are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ, while claiming to be acting correctly, isn't that a problem?

And in this case "abetting" was being her shoulder to cry on, so that she didn't have to go through a terrible experience (being forced into abortion) alone.

Lynn, 7:05a, actually stumbled on a pro-life point, in error, I'm sure: "I think you might be forgetting the part of the story where the mother was forcing the girl to do it. I don't know about you, but I think that *Midnite's call as a human being was to provide compassionate support to her friend, who did not want to get an abortion."

Here is how Midnite put it (3:40p): "My best friend's mother forced her to have an abortion & I went with her, held her hand, and cried with her afterwards about her baby she never got to know."

Actually, if Midnite were truly pro-"CHOICE," she would have helped her friend make the choice she wanted to make, which was NOT abortion.

In actuality, Midnite became part of the pro-ABORTION coercion. She helped her friend's mother force her friend to get an abortion.

HisMan is right. Midnite now has blood on her hands. And she was no friend to that poor girl.

Jasper, 9:45p: That was a horrifying story. I've written to the mother to ask her for an update and permission to post. Thanks for the link.

Clearly, her friend's mother was not allowing her friend to make a choice-thus the word force-so midnite was just being a really good friend in offering to hold her friend's hand while she was forced to do something against her will.

Bethany: Women get forced into keeping pregnancies as well, and of course there is no way for me to legislate that. However, I think that part of discussion before any woman's abortion should be to make sure that it is her choice to abort. I don't know how much currently happens by way of counseling/etc, in this respect, but I would be for it being a requirement that prior to an abortion, a counselor speaks with the woman to make sure it is her choice and not a forced matter. Of course, I don't know how to legislate for the outside pressures that might force women to abort. Like, I don't know if the woman's mother in the story would throw her out on the street and no longer support her if she didn't abort the baby. Or I don't know if say, someone's boyfriend might smack them around/try and toss them down stairs to do it himself if they don't get an abortion. I can't legislate the evils and bigotry of the people around women that I think are the main cause of forced abortions/pregnancies. And I don't think that most efforts to prevent forced abortions could correct or adjust those outside influences.

Jill: You have absolutely no idea what the girl was going through. Her mother could have been threatening to toss her out on the street. Midnite and her friend probably discussed every possible option, whether or not there was any way she could change her mother's mind, what she would do if she kept the baby and got thrown out of her house before she was even 18. The teenage woman didn't want an abortion, but she made the decision to get one, instead of whatever consequence her mother would have for her for not doing it. In a way it was her "choice," not her free choice, a coerced, and pressured choice, but she obviously chose that over whatever the consequences would be if she kept her pregnancy. Midnite was not involved in any pro-abortion conspiracy bull-hockey. She was a teen girl trying to stand by another teen girl in a terrible situation, who was forced to make a difficult choice between doing something she felt terrible doing, and whatever her mom was going to do to her. I think, hopefully, that we can all agree in this story that the mother who would not support the daughter's decision to keep her pregnancy is the true bad guy in this situation. And you all jumping on Midnite for doing the best she could do are really sad.

Heroiclife:

"Choosing to have a child with severe mental and physical problems is a moral atrocity....The parents....should be named for what they are - evil."

Please cite some adult Downs Syndrome persons who support this notion. Alternatively, confess the utterly ill-informed character of your gratuitous idiocy -- along with the risible irony of your username -- and be on your way.

Lynn,

If you are claiming to be a Christian, and you are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ, while claiming to be acting correctly, isn't that a problem?

Very much so. That's why if you are pro-abortion/choice we must assume that you are either A: not a Christian and therefore not held to it's higher standards.
or B: A Christian that is acting contrarty to the teachings of Christ while claiming to be acting correctly, which is a problem.

Either way midnite did not only hold her hand she went with her. This is akin to driving the "getaway" car in a robbery. Aiding and abetting.

My best friend's mother forced her to have an abortion & I went with her

And while I am sure that in midnites mind she believed she was showing compassion (and indeed by her concern she was) she was also contributing, albeit passively, to the death of another human being.

In the Catholic church this is considered reason enough for excommunication. Not assuming you are or aren't Catholic, just showing you that I am not alone in my opinion. I have the church behind me.

I myself have "comforted" many a girl after an abortion but have yet to accompany one to obtain one.

Jill: You have absolutely no idea what the girl was going through. Her mother could have been threatening to toss her out on the street.

So....forcing her to have an abortion actually is the solution then?

I don't know how much currently happens by way of counseling/etc, in this respect, but I would be for it being a requirement that prior to an abortion, a counselor speaks with the woman to make sure it is her choice and not a forced matter.

See, now this would be a step in the right direction. If the counselor was truly concerned and was not trying to make a sale.
But just stating that it would be good is not going to help anything....since you're an advocate for pro-choice, an activist, you should make an effort to see that this comes to pass, just as you would make efforts to see that other legislation for pro-choice efforts come to pass. Fight against women being forced (or coerced, just as bad) to have abortions.

On another note,
Wasn't that girls mother simply exercising her right to choice? She was after all the mother of a minor, and as such is in a position to make "choices" for her.

And exactly how did she "force" her to have an abortion. It would appear that the mother did not accompany the girl to the clinic or else mindnites presence would not have been required...perhaps you mean the girl "felt" forced...as in, she had no choice. You guys often throw the word "force" around as in: Nobody has the right to "force" me to carry a parasite in my body against my will.

While you would consider criminal status being placed on abortion as force, I would not. No one forced that girl to get pregnant, and I sincerely doubt that anyone "forced" her to have an abortion.

Lynn, I find it interesting you are now defending forced abortions.

This is 2007 America. The pro-life community, the Christian community, and even governmental social services agencies have bent over backwards to remove any obstacle to having a baby in a crisis situation, to care for that baby afterward, and to complete one's education if the mother doesn't want to place him/her for adoption.

You also said, "Or I don't know if say, someone's boyfriend might smack them around/try and toss them down stairs to do it himself if they don't get an abortion."

So you promote a woman aborting in order to stay in an abusive relationship? It's incredible what pro-aborts will say to defend abortion.

So you promote a woman aborting in order to stay in an abusive relationship? It's incredible what pro-aborts will say to defend abortion.

Isn't it though?

You ought to tell the abused woman get out of her relationship.

Beth: I will certainly see what measures are currently in place at clinics by way of counseling/determining it is the woman's choice. If they are not sufficient, I will advocate changes. :)

MK: I believe in God. I am not a Christian, in that I don't believe that Jesus Christ was a deity. I do believe, however, that he was one of God's prophets on Earth and was directed by God to provide an example of how he wanted his people to live and treat each other. Therefore, my usage of the Bible is not as absolute fact and God's completely unadulterated word, because I think that men altered and shaped it. Aside from the fact that I have never seen a scripture that says that killing a fetus is equal to killing a person. I certainly don't think that the God supports the killing of fetuses, but I think that it is not a sin on equal level with murder. And, there are many people who are personally pro-life and politically pro-choice, because they do not believe that their religious morality should legislate for others. And no, I am not a Catholic. I was raised in a Methodist household, however, my views are of course different from Methodism today, but that was the shaping force for my religious beliefs as a child.

Lynn,

I've never seen a scripture passage that says killing a midget is wrong either. But I'm pretty sure it is.

Never seen one that says sticking pencils in someones nose is forbidden, or cracking someones skull open with a frying pan is not allowed.

Some things are just understood. If every single form of murder had to be listed in the bible for people to understand that it shouldn't be done, nobody would have been able to get through the entire book.

Murder is wrong. It's elementary, Watson.

This is the most infuriating group of people I have ever spoken to in my life.

Jill: No, I do not condone abuse. No, I do not want women to stay in abusive relationships. I volunteer at a domestic violence center helping women get out of abusive relationships. This does not mean, however, that I don't recognize that there are probably women out there stuck between a rock and a hard place. Women who are in abusive relationships and haven't figured out how to get out yet or haven't gone to seek help yet, and are in a terrible relationship where if they don't get an abortion their husband/bf is going to beat them until they do what he says. I am saying that I *understand* why these women might choose to get an abortion in that situation, for fear of their abusive relationship. I don't want them to get forced abortions, and I don't want them to stay in an abusive relationship. I would love for them to be able to find help at a shelter like the one I work at, but a lot of women are scared, and a lot of them have reason to be, because their exes come and hunt them down when they run away.

Heather: I do tell abused women to get out of their relationships. In fact, I help them have safe places with secret addresses so that they can get out of their abusive relationships. Jill just had fun twisting what I said to make it seem like A) I condone forced abortions and B) I want women to go and get abortions and stay in abusive relationships.

All I said was that I know that there are reasons why women are coerced into abortions that it would be very difficult for people at clinics to assist in. A woman who is beaten and abused by her significant other probably isn't going to tell people at the clinic about it. These women are afraid of what their spouses can do, or how much worse it can be for them if they leave and then are forced back into the relationship. I think that this is a terrible reason to get an abortion. I think staying in abusive relationships is terrible and sad, and I would love to help women in these positions, and I DO.

MK: No, a mother does not have the right to violate her daughter's bodily integrity. A mother doesn't have the right to kill her daughter, removing her right to live. She doesn't have the right to take away her daughter's bodily integrity. And, you can think what you will about the young girl in the situation she was in. And then we won't have this argument anymore, will we? The girl wasn't forced at gunpoint, but it was not free choice. If I tell someone that they will be on the street, pregnant and alone at 16, that's almost like holding a gun to their head. But we'll just say it was the girl's free choice, and then Midnite was supporting her free choice and no one is supporting forced abortion, and we can pretend like everyone was happy and had stars and rainbows. (oh, and the girl was just a big ol' sinner for having sex, too)

[quote]No, a mother does not have the right to violate her daughter's bodily integrity.[bold] A mother doesn't have the right to kill her daughter, removing her right to live.[/bold] She doesn't have the right to take away her daughter's bodily integrity[/quote]

Lynn...this is EXACTLY what happens in an abortion.

MK: Are you implying that a midget isn't the same as any other born person? The point is that in scripture, there are verses where fetuses are not treated equally with born humans and are specifically mentioned as such. Thou shalt not murder applies only to persons with souls. A midget is a born person with a soul, just a born person with a soul who has stunted growth. We can argue about ensoulment, but it is obvious that ensoulment cannot happen at conception. When, then, does ensoulment occur? God breathed life/soul into Adam after forming and shaping him, does that mean that possibly ensoulment happens after we are formed and take first breath? (do identical twins, who start out as one conceptus, get a "split" soul? Do chimeras, the joining of two separate conceptuses that become one person with different DNA in parts of their body have 2 souls?)

And God ordered his people to rip up women with child in the lands of their enemies, it would seem as if the innocent fetii should not be forced to succumb to God's wrath if killing them is really so bad.

Murder is murder - but it's only murder if the being being killed has a soul.

Lauren: No, because the fetus is violating the woman's right to bodily integrity. A born daughter is not violating her mother's bodily integrity or right to life. A fetus is.

Ok my html didn't work for some reason...

Basically Lynn you claim that

" No, a mother does not have the right to violate her daughter's bodily integrity. A mother doesn't have the right to kill her daughter, removing her right to live. She doesn't have the right to take away her daughter's bodily integrity."

Lynn, can't you see that aborting a child doees all of this? I mean, how can you claim that a mother doesn't have the right to violate her daughte's bodily integrity and moreover has no right to kill her daughter, yet still support abortion?

Answered above. As well as the fact that I don't think a fetus is a person, whereas I certainly think a born daughter is a person.

Lynn..Come on, you can't actually believe that a child violating one of it's parents rights makes killing ok. You JUST said that a mother has no right to either violate her daughters bodily integrity or to kill her daughter.

Children violate their parent's rights. My son is violating my right to privacy right now for "invading" my house. He violates my bodily auntonomy frequently by flinging his little hands inside my mouth. Oddly, although those little hands are clearly an invasion of my bodily domain, I have no right to bite them off for their offense.

Lynn, can you not see how ridiculous it is to say that parents can only violate their children's rights in X circumstance but NEVER in Y circumstance?

Lynn how do you define personhood?

I'm very curious to know how an infant fits this definition while a fetus does not.

Lynn,

but it's only murder if the being being killed has a soul.

and your scriptural reference for this is where?

We can argue about ensoulment, but it is obvious that ensoulment cannot happen at conception

and your scriptural reference for this is where?

A midget is a born person with a soul, just a born person with a soul who has stunted growth.

and your scriptural reference for this is where?

Lauren: As also previously answered: I don't think a fetus has rights or is a person. A fetus is not a person, does not have brain function, does not have soul, therefore, not being a person and all, DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO VIOLATE. If your son ties you down and rapes you, yea, I think you should be able to take whatever action against your born son to stay alive. If your son holds a knife to your throat, yea, I think you should be able to take an action to assert your rights. A fetus inside a pregnant woman could kill her, not likely, but could. A fetus inside a pregnant woman is using her body and nutrients and all of her internal organs/systems. If she so chooses to allow that fetus, I'm all for it. If she doesn't allow it, however, it is within her rights to reassert her right to not have her body used and harmed.

HEADLINE:

FETUS HOLDS MOTHER DOWN AT KNIFEPOINT AND RAPES HER!

A fetus is not a person

and you can prove this how?

A fetus does not have brain function

and you can prove this how?

a fetus does not have a soul

and you can prove this how?

Penises invade bodily autonomy during wanted sex, too. Abortion proponents should say this gives women the right to commit partial birth abortion against her partner if she suddenly gets a headache. Health exception and all that.

Is killing an animal ever considered murder in the Bible? They are beings without souls, and killing them is perfectly fine. God has no problem with killing beings without souls.

It is obvious, not because of scripture, but because of science. Like I said, do you think identical twins get one soul at conception, and then when they split they each get half a soul? Or, when two fraternal twins who were separate at conception and would both have to have a soul, join together, does that person have two souls? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

And the scriptural reference for ensoulment happening at first breath is in Genesis.

Since those with dwarfism are human and breathing, I'll say that's my scriptural reference. I think it's funny that A) you are using the generally derogatory term "midget," sorry I didn't correct it the first time and B) that you think that because God directly mentions fetuses in the Bible in one context, it's ridiculous for me to think they should be directly mentioned in another context.

Lynn, you're defining personhood with brain function? This is a bit tricky when we see that all animals have brain function, some with the ability of higher thinking. Obviously "brain function" can not be the sole criteria for personhood.

Also, "a fetus does not have a sould" What? How in the world can you know this? This is your opinion based on *nothing*. Lynn, what if I believe that ensoulment does not occur until the age of 2. Coincidentally, children prior to this age have quite limited brain function when compared to adults. Lynn, should I be legally able to kill a 2 year old based on this belief?

As far as my son's malicious actions twoards me: this is not analagous to a maternal/fetal relationship. The fetus has absolutly no intent. The fetus is in fact a created being who has haphazardly found itself inside its mother's womb. It has no dastardly plans. In order for me to claim "self-defense" their must be someone actually *attacking* me. If a man walks up to me on the street, perhaps a bit closer than I'm comfortable with, and I kill him...we'll I doubt the court will buy my claim of imminent threat.

Hey Lauren,

How you managing with all that nutrient theft goin' on? We can get counseling for your organs if you want...seeing as how they are being "used" and all.
Jeepers, do you think there is such a thing as Post Organ Use Stress Disorder?

Murder is murder - but it's only murder if the being being killed has a soul.

Can you show me where in the Bible the unborn child does not have a soul? Where do you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible.

Job 31:15
Did not He who made me in the womb make them [Job's servants]?
Did not the Same One for us both within our mothers?

Psalm 51:5
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

How can you "be sinful" (ie. possess sin nature)from the time you are conceived unless you have a soul?

Ever noticed that in the Bible, when it talks about women giving birth, it lists two separate events. "Conceived", and "bore".
Conception is an event in a human being's life....birth is an event in a human being's life.

Judges 13:7
""But he said to me, 'You will conceive and give birth to a son.'"

This is but one of hundreds of examples of this.
I can list more if you need it, but if you've read your Bible, I'm sure you already know where they are.

Luke 1
41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Notice that the Bible considers the unborn child as a "baby".

Job 3:1
"Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light."

Again, the unborn child is described as an "infant" in the Bible.

And by the way, God has punished for abortions:
Amos 1:13

13 This is what the LORD says:
"For three sins of Ammon,
even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}.
Because he ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead
in order to extend his borders,

And he has commended midwives who chose not to what you might consider "partial birth abortions":

Exodus 1
15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?"
19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive."
20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous.

""There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." [Proverbs 6:16-19]"

God forms people from the womb to serve a certain purpose:

Isaiah 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
Job 31:15

Before I formed you inthe womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.
Jeremiah 1:5

Here are more verses to ponder:

You hands shaped me and made me. Will You now turn and destroy me? Remember that You molded me like clay. Will You now turn mw to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me knidness, and in Your providence watched over my spirit.
Job 10:8-12

For You created my innermost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Psalm 139:13-16

This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. DOn no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Jeremiah 22:3

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

Or, when two fraternal twins who were separate at conception and would both have to have a soul, join together, does that person have two souls? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

How do you know that both souls are not already present in the one that splits into two?

Jill: You're funny! Of course, when a penis enters the body during sex and the woman allows it to be there, then it isn't violating her right. If she changes her mind, and says no, and the person keeps going, that's rape, and that is violating her right.

And you can prove they ARE a person? No, you can't. A late term fetus, probably a person. A late term fetus can have a functioning brain. An early fetus is just barely forming a brain, and therefore cannot have a functioning brain. Any medical site will tell you that there is no way a fetus can have any sort of consciousness or actual higher brain function until viability. If your pro-life starts tell you that a fetus has a full brain at 6 weeks, please kindly ignore them.

You say ensoulment happens at conception. I've given you two very good reasons why that doesn't work. I say ensoulment happens at first breath, which would be at birth, with Biblical reference to God breathing life/soul into Adam after fully forming him.

So basically, you are saying that just because a person is small in stature but human and breathing we have no right to kill it, both scientifically and scripturally?

Beth: So, sometimes TWO souls enter at conception and sometimes one soul enters at conception? And that doesn't answer the one where the two separate conceptions come together. Does one conception get a soul and one doesn't? Does the person get two souls? This whole "every conception has a soul" thing is awful confusing when you look at scientific facts.

Lynn! Yes! We *can* prove that a fetus is a person!

(And we can do it without any biblical references!)

Are you ready?

Do fish
breathe air?
Yes, but not directly into the lungs as mammals do (except for some tropical fish). (Actually they breathe oxygen not air.) As water passes over a system of extremely fine gill membranes, fish absorb the water's oxygen content. Gills contain a network of fine blood vessels (capillaries) that take up the oxygen and diffuse it through the membranes.

Hmmmm...so it seems that a fetus is breathing, just not in the same way that it will after it is delivered...

You say ensoulment happens at conception. I've given you two very good reasons why that doesn't work. I say ensoulment happens at first breath, which would be at birth, with Biblical reference to God breathing life/soul into Adam after fully forming him.

Lynn, but aren't you forgetting that babes in the womb already are breathing....they breath amniotic fluid.

Also, Adam was a fully grown adult when he was created. If you use that verse to prove when the soul enters the body, then you'll have to conclude that a person must be a fully grown adult before they have a soul.

Can't have it both ways.

A PERSON that is small of stature and human and breathing air. A fetus, without a functioning brain, not breathing in open air, not having a soul, is not a person to me, or to most people. (did you know that early fetuses have gills?)

I have to write a paper. Enjoy pouncing on the next pro-choice individual foolish enough to speak to you!

(did you know that early fetuses have gills?)

Did you know that is a lie that has been disproven for years?

This whole "every conception has a soul" thing is awful confusing when you look at scientific facts.

Well of course it does. Science just hasn't caught up yet...patience, my friend, patience.

Why do we continue to search for a cure for cancer? We don't have one now, and can therefore say that since science can't fix it we should assume that it can't be fixed.

Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means science is lacking.

And no, a fetus is not breathing in the way implied in the Bible. The general Jewish belief on ensoulment is based on the passage in Genesis. And if knowing someone in the womb counts as personhood, what about the fact that the Bible says that God knows you *BEFORE* the womb. Does that make you a person before the womb? God knows everything, past present and future. So, he shapes in the womb the body of the PERSON to come, not the person already existing.

If souls are only present as according to the verse you showed me, Lynn, then we all do not have souls until we reach adulthood.

By the way, regarding the "fish gills":

"The same is true of the so-called "gill slits." In the human embryo at one month, there are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the "throat pouches" grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. That's when we find out for sure that these structures are not gill slits. If the opening were really part of a gill, if it really were a "throwback to the fish stage," then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply don't have the DNA instructions for forming gills.

Unfortunately, some babies are born with three eyes or one eye. That doesn't mean, of course, that we evolved from something with one eye or three eyes. It's simply a mistake in the normal program for human development, and it emphasizes how perfect our design features and operation must be for life to continue.

The throat (or pharyngeal) grooves and pouches, falsely called "gill slit," are not mistakes in human development. They develop into absolutely essential parts of human anatomy - the lower jaw, tongue, thymus gland, the parathyroid, etc. The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth.

Without a thymus, we would lose half our immune systems. Without the parathyroids, we would be unable to regulate calcium balance and could not even survive. Another pouch, thought to be vestigial by evolutionists until just recently, becomes a gland that assists in calcium balance. Far from being useless evolutionary vestiges, then, these so-called "gill slits" are quite essential for distinctively human development.

As with "yolk sacs," "gill slit" formation represents an ingenious and adaptable solution to a difficult engineering problem. How can a small, round egg cell be turned into an animal or human being with a digestive tube and various organs inside a body cavity? The answer is to have the little ball (or flat sheet in some organisms) "swallow itself," forming a tube which then "buds off" other tubes and pouches. The anterior pituitary, lungs, urinary bladder, and parts of the liver and pancreas develop in this way.

In fish, gills develop from such processes, and in human beings, the ear canals, parathyroid, and thymus glands develop. Following DNA instructions in their respective egg cells, fish and human beings each use a similar process to develop their distinctive features."

God breathed life/soul into Adam after forming and shaping him, does that mean that possibly ensoulment happens after we are formed and take first breath?

Ahhhhhh...I get it now. Only full grown men that are breathing have souls...I was feeling like Valerie there for a minute...you know confused.

Ok, we can all agree that "brain function" is not what makes us "persons". Animals have brain function. Unless we want to argue that animals are people, I think we can safely say that this is a given.

So then, what makes us persons? We can say "soul", which I believe, but how do we explain what this means in non-religious tones? What sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom?

Science tells us that we are unique because of our ability to affect our environment. No other animal has this capacity. Non-human animals are simply victims of their environments.

Humans, however, are capable of *changing* their environments. We can survive in antartica due to human ingeniuity, and create life sustaining answers to disease. We can alter our awareness, shield ourselves from destructive forces, and spread our influence throughout the world.

An ape, no matter how high functioning, can not design a skyscraper.

However, there is a catch. We can not reach this potential alone. Indeed, though we are all born with innate capacity, we can only access this capacity through our social interactions. This presents a scenerio where we alone have no value, but rather gain our value from our group.

Due to this nature, one individual is not raised above the rest. Even the highest performer is limited by his interaction. Were he a feral child, Einstine would never discovered the theory of relativity.

Because our capcity is realized only through inclusion in the group, every member of said group is included in the umbrella of "person". While one member may add nothing of substance to the group, he still pocesses this innate quality of humanness, and thus is a memeber of our group.

Inclusion is dependant on capacity, not expression of said capacity. This capacity, being as it is an innate quality, is present in our beings from conception. The second our genetics allign in human form, we become members of the group. Nothing we do (or don't do) can take away the fact that we have inhearted the innate "environment changing" capacity.

This capacity is what makes us human, and it is with us from the momment of conception.

Science makes your idea of every conception having a soul look foolish. Science explains perfectly that one conception becomes two and that two become one, your idea of ensoulment doesn't match with science, not the other way around. And early fetuses have gill-like structures. They don't function like *actual* gills, but they do have said structures.

And Beth: There is also a section in the Bible where the undead are raised, but they do not live/function/act, until breathed into. (can't remember exactly where, will get back to you when not writing a paper)

And no, you actually can't PROVE personhood, because personhood is an abstract philosophical concept. That's why birth is the legal definition of personhood, because philosophical distinctions don't agree and there is no way to prove philosophical/religious distinctions.

Lauren, that was an awesome post!

Science makes your idea of every conception having a soul look foolish. Science explains perfectly that one conception becomes two and that two become one, your idea of ensoulment doesn't match with science, not the other way around. And early fetuses have gill-like structures. They don't function like *actual* gills, but they do have said structures.

Now you are backtracking and agreeing with me that they are not real gills? If they're not real gills, then why bring it up?

Because the gill like structures are vestigial. Evolution, and all that ;)

Science makes your idea of every conception having a soul look foolish. Science explains perfectly that one conception becomes two and that two become one, your idea of ensoulment doesn't match with science, not the other way around.

Yes. But since our "idea" was there from the beginning independent of science, the burden falls on science, not God.

Scientifically speaking, we know that the baby in utero is l.breathing, 2.has brain function 3.has it's own DNA 4.has a beating heart 5.is developing 6.is alive

This is enough reason to give the baby the benefit of the doubt.

All you have is 1.it can't talk or read a book so it isn't a person. Therefore we can kill it.

Now which one of us sounds more reasonable?

Lynn, you never answered my question. Should I be legally allowed to kill a one year old if I believe 12 month olds not to be persons? (The child lacks self recognition which is my hypothetical definition of child)

You're saying that the law takes my theory into account, looks at the pro-life arguement of fetal personhood and settles on a middle ground. While this is functionally true, can you see the absurdity of such a notion?

And Beth: There is also a section in the Bible where the undead are raised, but they do not live/function/act, until breathed into. (can't remember exactly where, will get back to you when not writing a paper)

Are you referring to the dry bones in Exekiel?

"4 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.'"

These people existed previously and already had souls. The breath brought them to physical life. Being alive physically is different than being alive spiritually. Their soul existed before and after they were brought to life.

Because the gill like structures are vestigial. Evolution, and all that ;)

Um, no, Lynn. Read again:

Without a thymus, we would lose half our immune systems. Without the parathyroids, we would be unable to regulate calcium balance and could not even survive. Another pouch, thought to be vestigial by evolutionists until just recently, becomes a gland that assists in calcium balance. Far from being useless evolutionary vestiges, then, these so-called "gill slits" are quite essential for distinctively human development.

Lynn,

It's a shame you have to leave because we have a good debate going with you on CRTL exposes Planned Parenthood's scalpel on blacks also...

Maybe next time...

By the way, Lynn, I just want to say that I appreciate your respectful and courteous debate... I hope that you can understand that we are not trying to be mean to you (you said we infuriate you) but we are trying to help you understand our point of view, just as you are trying to help us understand yours. Please try to understand that at a pro-life site, pro-lifers are going to defend their positions.

Exactly,
And while we all have different styles, and mine especially can come off as being spiteful, I assure you I never "feel" that way. Mostly I am attacking "words"...Often forgetting that there are people behind them.

Hope I haven't upset you in anyway personally...

You were an excellent debater and I learned alot (about gills and vestigial somethin or other?) this time around.

Look forward to sparring again at a later date...for now, it's SHOWER TIME!!!!!!!!!

(the crowd roars...)

Have a good shower MK. I just got out,and I'm already sweating! It's hot! I'm throwin on my AC.

"You say ensoulment happens at conception. I've given you two very good reasons why that doesn't work. I say ensoulment happens at first breath, which would be at birth, with Biblical reference to God breathing life/soul into Adam after fully forming him."

:-/

Can the resident traducianist get in a word to say that as a pro-life person, I appear to be the only one holding a view of the human soul that wouldn't be at variance with any secularist's view?

Creationist views of the human soul (not to be confused with creationISM, generally understood as a theory of the origins of life on earth) can posit ensoulment at birth, at conception, or whenever.

Traducianisms like mine hold that everything that a child is -- from conception onward -- is a direct creation of the parents. Do we "have" a soul? Do we "have" a spirit? My answer to such questions is that we "are" a soul, that we "are" spirits, that we "are" bodies. Actually, we "are" persons -- those elements are conventional terms we need to speak of ourselves, but they don't refer to real "parts" of ourselves. And for those who might insist on thinking of them as real parts, I'd then only plead that we don't speak of such nonsense as souls being "in" bodies -- it'd be much more appropriate, if we're going to speak this way at all, to speak of bodies as being in souls.

;-)

At any rate, pro-choice people here can know that in me, at any rate, they have an interlocutor who doesn't interpose ensoulment as any kind of issue at all. They should also remember, though, that such a view doesn't in the least detract from my being a committed, credal, boringly orthodox Christian.

Rasqual,

if we're going to speak this way at all, to speak of bodies as being in souls.

This is exactly what I believe. Just didn't want to get into it because it was soooo esoterical.

The idea that God is encumbered by "time" as we understand it is a false one. Time happens all at once to Him, and there is no particular "moment" when anything happens.

This is why He can say that He knew us before He formed us. He knew us before He formed us, when He formed us, and after He formed us because they are all the same to Him.

It is also why I can pray for someone that has committed suicide 10 years ago and contribute to the salvation of his soul even though his death took place in the past. God hears my prayer (from what we would call the future)at the same time that the person is committing suicide (in what we would call the past)...

The soul, is the essence of who we are. Without it there would be nothing to attach a body to.

Well said. Thank you.

BTW,
I'm only agreeing that the soul encompasses a body, not with generationism.

mk

My view is that we are spiritual beings in physical bodies (human beings) for this very short stay on earth.

Viewed from eternity's perspective, life is a mere vapor. That does not diminish it's value, no, to the contrary, it makes every moment of our human existence of extreme value. Therefore, to deny anyone, including an innocent, dfenseless baby in the womb of the human experience, is to committ the ultimate theft.

Let's not complicate things. Sin is sin. Theft is murder, murder is theft, etc.

A baby living in the womb of a mother is evidence of God's intent for a human being to have a physical experience. Why, I am not sure, except to say that it obviously brings God glory. To interfere in that process of defined intent is direct rebellion against the Creator and therefore bears a penalty to be executed in God's realm of the spiritual world, more commonly know as hell.

Amen HisMan!

Lynn,

You never answered this:

So basically, you are saying that just because a person is small in stature but human and breathing we have no right to kill it, both scientifically and scripturally?

MK -

I need one of your summaries on this. I don't have time to read everything.

so far I have, through skimming.....

fetii don't have souls,
animals don't have souls,
So we can kill them both.
Somone forcing another to have an abortion is okay as long as the person who is being forced goes based on their forced decision and not because they were forced.
Fetus have gills and don't breath.
Fetus don't have gills and breath amniotic fluid.
The cow jumped over the moon.

oh... I'm confused ...