(Prolifer)ations 9/4/07

pro-lifeblogbuzz3.jpgOn the pro-life blogs....

New addition to my blogroll, After Abortion, had a couple good posts, a quote to ponder and a suggestion to "[g]o to this website and just look at all the photos. Just do it. Guaranteed to make you feel a lot safer being inside, away from the elements, and might even just make you feel a lot humbler (as it did me)." I did go, and it was quite spectacular.

Americans United for Life has posted its review of 2007 state legislative sessions. Find yours.

In America, the Juvenile Diabetes Association leads the charge to fund human embryo experimentation. But the Canadian Diabetes Association is trying to walk the fence. Read CDA's gobbledygook on the Big Blue Wave.

Dawn Eden links to a new married's sex diary, or rather, her not-tonight-dear-I-don't-feel-like sex diary she thinks may be linked to hormonal contraceptives.

Gotta lift this from Elizabeth Andrews' blog, "Modesty, it's everywhere you want to be":

But go there anyway for a funny line on how to end a date.

Generations for Life links to what John says is a "good write-up" in the Aurora Beacon on Saturday's Youth Rally. The Beacon to date has treated the Aurora Planned Parenthood scandal as a PP lovefest, so I was interested to read the link, but it unfortunately doesn't work. Not John's fault. Maybe they'll fix it soon. Anyway, John has some good photos.

JivinJehoshaphat links to an op ed where the writer calls those who want to ban cloning in MO "an insurgency." The man needs to return to his spider hole.

Hm. The Constitution uses male pronouns to describe qualifications for President. Does this mean women are excluded? MInTheGap ponders.

Whoops, they botched it again. Real Choice links to a September 1 Journal Star article about a woman who is suing Planned Parenthood of Lincoln, NE, for what was found to be "catastrophic perforation" of the uterus.

NationalProLifeRadio reminds us the monthly Call for Life is this Friday. What's that, you ask? Find out.

not.gifWhat happens when someone wants life-saving treatment but his or her guardian disagrees? Not Dead Yet describes an actual case.

The Passionate Pro-Lifer is in the thick of the PP Denver battle. She links to an article on the intended abortion fortress (50,000 sq. ft.).

Fr. Frank Pavone basically says to stuff it if you're pro-abortion but upset that the wrong twin was aborted in Milan. Well, he says it a little more politely. He's a priest, after all.

Over at ProLifeBlogs, MommyLife is looking for Evangelicals who stopped contracepting for Biblical reasons.

At Pro-Life Community Journal, James writes on Reverend Falwell's mixed legacy. Thought-provoking.

Nathan Sheets introduces us to a novelty: an almost aborted pro-life Jewish comedienne.

"The United Nations, long a promoter of abortion for 'population control' as well as the liberation of women from traditional roles, is now experiencing a change of heart...at least when it concerns one particular motivation for abortion." Find out what that is at Vital Signs.


Comments:

Wow. I don't think I've ever had something "lifted" (in the good way) from my blog. Thanks for the props!

I thought your interview with O'Reilly was really amazing.

Elizabeth

Posted by: Elizabeth Andrew at September 4, 2007 10:41 PM


The MommyLife link was dead.

Posted by: SUZANNE at September 4, 2007 10:48 PM


Where can I get some shoes like that?

Posted by: Doug at September 4, 2007 11:41 PM


http://www.voteforjoe.com/

This guy is pretty cool.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2007 11:45 PM


Doug,LOL!

Posted by: Heather at September 5, 2007 6:40 AM


Ongoing debate with Doug...

Mk asked Doug "It's pre-Roe v Wade. And YOU are the deciding factor. Show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these human beings are not persons, keeping in mind that depending on YOUR answer 45,000,000 persons might die if you are wrong."

Doug replied:

here we go. People must be "Homo Sapiens" and have to have personality. They can go to sleep, or be in a coma or be otherwise incapacitated for some time, but the capacity for sentience and mentally aware perception must be there. People will have the right to life, but it is not absolute. Killing is allowed under due process of law, in wartime, in cases of self-defense, and guilt will not be deemed if the cause is accidental with no negligence involved. Personhood will be deemed at 24 weeks gestation, for that is when personality appears, though the right to life is not absolute there, either. If the physical danger to the pregnant woman is such that the pregnancy should be ended, delivery will then be induced. In cases where the induction of labor would cause greater danger to the woman than would abortion, then abortion will be done.

His Royal Majesty,

Doug

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 6:54 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVXEh4Jzs2s&mode=related&search=

MK, I know there are phenomena we cannot explain.
Posted by: Doug at September 4, 2007 11:34 PM

Doug,

Yes, I played "Make Believe" when I was little. When I was 8 and my little brother Scott was 4 he became the "Camping Baby" and had to stay under the dining room table, which I had covered with blankets so they draped down to the floor, making a "tent." Poor little guy wanted out after a while, but oh no, he had to stay because after all he was the "Camping Baby.."


Could heavens, you mean even back then you were trying to put people into "little boxes"...

And you played make believe so rarely that you remember the "one" time...

No wonder I'm having such a hard time getting through to you...lol
Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 6:49 AM

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 6:55 AM


"People must be "Homo Sapiens" and have to have personality."

Well, that leaves out half of my family...personality? Really? I think you need to define "personality".

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 6:58 AM


They can go to sleep, or be in a coma or be otherwise incapacitated for some time, but the capacity for sentience and mentally aware perception must be there.

So if a person is asleep, or in a coma, the capacity for sentience is there, because it's only a matter of time before they are no longer insentient?

How is this different from the unborn? The "capacity" is there and it's only a "matter of time" until it manifests itself.

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 7:00 AM


Personhood will be deemed at 24 weeks gestation, for that is when personality appears,

So at 23 weeks and 29 days a fairy appears and personality is magically infused? Do we allow for daylight savings time?

And exactly how many 24 week old fetuses have you met, interviewed and determined that "personality" was present? What, some are funny, some are brilliant, some are shifty? How exactly to you give a "personality" test to a fetus?

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 7:04 AM


In cases where the induction of labor would cause greater danger to the woman than would abortion, then abortion will be done.

Since you have already attributed full personhood to the fetus at 24 weeks, why isn't it that the mother shall be killed to save the fetus?

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 7:06 AM


Doug, personhood begins at conception. The child has implanted, and you are pregnant. Pregnant with what? A baby. It's pretty basic. An embryo and fetus are just descriptives for stages of human development. The end.

Posted by: Heather at September 5, 2007 7:22 AM


Doug, it isn't any wonder that it confuses you. Run, "Is a fetus human" on your search engine. These pro choice wing dings sat down, and they proceeded to twist and turn everything around to suit themselves. You cannot do that! Did they do this to help themselves come to terms with their own abortions? I think so. They are not God. They don't make the rules. However, some women and men will use this argument over and over again. A comfort zone? Denial? Diversion?

Posted by: Heather at September 5, 2007 7:35 AM


When does a fetus become a person?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.

Shaunti's bio
Forum


SHAUNTI FELDHAHN
for ajc.com

Asking when a fetus becomes a person is sort of like asking when a bird becomes winged. By definition, a bird is winged. By definition, a fetus is a person. What else would it be -- a horse?

But this question, as asked by the pro-choice movement, is not about when a fetus becomes a homo sapiens. It's about when a fetus is enough of an individual to have the rights of any other homo sapiens -- in other words, when it has the right to life.

A pro-choice professor at Princeton, Peter Singer, has an interesting answer. He says, with perfect intellectual consistency, that there's nothing special about the demarcation line of birth. If the parents are allowed to abort a baby a few weeks before birth, he argues, they should be allowed to kill the baby a few weeks after birth if that results in greater happiness overall. As he says in Practical Ethics, "A newborn baby, [like a fetus,] is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy."

Being a parent of a new baby myself, that position sickens me -- but it is more honest than the argument that birth brings some fundamental change that suddenly results in 'personhood.' In an earlier column, Diane stated a common liberal position that the qualification for human personhood is free will -- so an unborn baby, dependent on the mother, is not a person.


Well why on earth would you think a fetus lacks free will? Free will is about someone's internal desires and ability to make choices (it is not about the ability to carry out that choice -- you would never say that a quadriplegic lacks free will). And a fetus does make free-will choices in its own little environment. It sucks its thumb for comfort. If you press on it, it gets irritated (or interested) and presses back. And if it's asleep or dozing and you press a buzzer to your belly, the fetus thrashes around and practically shrieks "stop that!" Some experts believe that by 14 weeks a fetus can even feel pain - such as the horrific pain that would surely attend an abortion. An unborn baby has free will, and it wills to live just like the rest of us.

So when does a fetus become a person? It's not when you can feel that little warm body nuzzling into your shoulder, and it's not when you can feel little legs pushing against the inside of your ribs. It's not when the ultrasound shows a huge head and little waiflike body turning lazy somersaults before the baby is big enough to be felt. It's not even when a lone heartbeat pulses out of its dark ocean. A fetus becomes a person when the spark of life is launched on its miraculous journey. A fetus becomes a person at the beginning. Where all life begins.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For more information,
I suggest:


Abortion and Human Rights

Diary of an Unborn Baby

More on Peter Singer




Diane's bio
Forum


DIANE GLASS
AJC columnist

Posted by: Heather at September 5, 2007 7:43 AM


Bethany claimed without giving a shred of evidence to support her claim:
"You like to distort scripture, take it out of context, and twist it to your liking (actually, not even your liking, it's Bob Enyart's liking- I don't believe you actually do read the scriptures alone and come to your own conclusions as the Holy Spirit leads you)."
If you can prove that I have twisted or misused just ONE scripture reference then I will give you a reward of $20 in the form of a gift certificate to a good restaurant in your area.

Hmm, let's see... which one should I reference?
How about the verse you posted, in which you said that Jesus was advocating killing people for not respecting their parents, when in reality, he was saying something MUCH different?

Here is the entire chapter in Matthew, since I do not think you'll be posting it:

Matthew 15

1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

The Pharisees, trying to find fault in Jesus and His disciples, accuse the disciples of breaking tradition by eating with unwashed hands. Jesus responds to them that they themselves had themselves ignored the commandments of God, and that they were putting WAY too much emphasis on a vain tradition, rather than putting the emphasis on the things that actually mattered.
You are taking part of the verse, out of it's intended context, to make it sound like Jesus was saying, "You should all be executed because you are dishonoring your parents."

That's totally not what He was saying at all. Not once did I see Jesus trying to change laws and make people be executed who were not following God's laws.

In fact, when he was being crucified, wrongly, he cried out, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

If you can't do so within a week from now then you owe me an apology.

Well, I doubt you will admit that you took that out of context, but there you have it.

The opposite is in fact true. Because if the US government began to follow GOD'S CRIMINAL CODE when it comes to dealing with crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping and adultery then the result would be a HUGE DECREASE in the amount of people who die from murder each year.
In other words, I would rather have 20 murderers a year on average surely, swiftly, painfully and publicly executed in the Chicago area than to have 200 murders a year on average where those who promote misguided mercy allow those convicted murderers to live. Which number is greater? 20 or 200?

But you keep saying murderers, when you know I already support the death penalty for convicted murderers.

Far fewer people are harmed if God's response to murder is enforced. Same with rape, kidnapping and adultery. To believe otherwise is to say that God gave an inferior criminal code to the world and that YOU know better than God when it comes to punishing capital criminals.

No, I don't know better than God, you are correct.

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2007 8:00 AM


Elizabeth, 10:41p: Thanks. And thanks again for the "lift"!

Suzanne, 10:48p: Fixed. Thanks.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 5, 2007 8:05 AM


Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
-- Albert Einstein

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 8:21 AM


This passage has nothing to do with enforcing God's criminal code which is based upon absloute morality. Nothing in that passage says that it is somehow NOW allright to led rapists live in prison funded by taxpayers instead of being executed swiftly, painfully and publicly as God commanded be done in order to bring about justice.

Explain to me why you personally feel that some codes from the Old testament should be obeyed, and some should not.... with scripture to back up your claim.

If we are under the old law, then that would also include not eating pork, keeping the Sabbath day, not mixing certain fabrics, etc. Note: I myself know why I see a difference between some laws today, and others from that time, but I want to know what your views are on it, and why YOU feel the differences are there.

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.

Romans 6:14
Ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:4, 6
Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead.

Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.

Galatians 3:24-25
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.

Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to his cross.

This is the basic criminal code I want to see enforced.
http://shadowgov.com/Constitution/AmericasCriminalCode.html

If you are going by old Testament Biblical principles, why are you flogging instead of stoning?

I wrote:
Zeke, why did God save Paul, when he was a murderer?

Zeke replied:
Paul thought he was doing God's will by obeying his teachers and working to stop the spread of those in Israel who accepted Jesus Christ as their savior and king.

An excuse? You make an excuse for Paul, when he murdered Christians?
Would you have made excuses for him back then?


God had picked out Paul to have a special role in His plan for Israel while Paul was still in his mom (Gal 1:15). Paul was misguided, but when he encountered Jesus Christ he obeyed what Christ wanted him to do. Paul became the FIRST (protos) member of the Body of Christ (1 Tim 1:15).

Actually, Gal 1:15 says that he was separated from his mothers womb - 1 event- and that later he was called by God's grace- 2nd event.

Would you have known, if you had lived in that day and time, before God converted Paul, whether God had set him apart or not?
How do you know that some of the people who you would like executed today, are not set apart by God?

Perhaps Bernard Nathanson was set apart by God, and called by God too. He was a murderer (of the worst kind), then, later converted and now for 30 years he has been working hard against abortion, speaking out against it every chance he gets.
What say you? (I admit, I have a hard time with it myself- forgiving him for killing the babies he killed. But he has repented and God is using Him. God can work miracles in the most unlikely of subjects. And why would God have converted Bernard if he had thought he should die?

Paul said that if he had committed anything worthy of death that he did not object to dying. Paul supported executing murderers and other capital criminals (1 Tim 1:8-11).Acts 25:11 "For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar."

He was appealing his case in a court of law. He was saying if he did anything which the laws would execute him for, he wouldn't fight it. But since he felt that there was nothing that they could legally do to him, he appealed to Caesar.

God made it clear that there were no other options other than execution for capital crimes. Prisons existed back when He gave those commands, but prisons are one of the most obviously unjust forms of punishment the world has ever seen and that fact is proved each day in the USA when a prisoner is released and rapes or murders again.

I understand your point of view, Zeke.

I found some questions on a blog that I thought might help you understand where I am coming from on this:
One of the things that jumps out at me whenever I see a plea for a return to "God's Law" is the lack of clarification in defining the law. If honoring the law means adherence to the Old Testament, then what other laws should we enforce? Should a man who lies with a woman during her menstrual cycle be banished (Lev. 20:18)? Should women who aren't virgins be stoned to death (Deut. 22:20-21)? Should all adulterers be executed (Deut. 22:22)? Should we stone rebellious children (Deut. 21:20-21)? What's to be done with those who mar the edges of their beards (Lev. 19:27)? Should women who have just given birth be kept from attending church services for 33 days—66 if they give birth to a girl (Lev. 12:4-5)? And how should we lawfully and biblically deal with those who have bodily discharge (Lev. 15)?
http://contemporarycalvinist.blogspot.com/2006/06/is-old-testament-law-applicable-today.html

Can you tell me what your response is to these questions?

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Gal. 3:24-25
How is that so Bethany? How is it that the law is our tutor to bring us to Christ?

We are no longer under the tutor. When we were under the tutor, we had to rise up to perfection in order to be good in God's eyes. God knew we could not possibly fit this bill of perfection (We are all sinners, we cannot keep the whole law. Not even you, Zeke). , therefore he provided lambs for them to sacrifice t atone for their sins.

So God at first had it to where people were to sacrifice pure animals every year. But these were only temporary measures for salvation...they were a analogy for what was to come.
Jesus had to come to earth, to fulfill the law, by perfectly obeying the law himself FOR us. He was perfect, he had no sin, and therefore, he fulfilled the law by being here. Then, he made the ultimate sacrifice, to take our sins upon himself. He is now our advocate, since we cannot possibly follow the whole law ourselves.

God came to call the sinners, not the righteous, to repentance. If we killed all the sinners, who would be left?

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2007 8:48 AM


Oh Dang it Bethany,

Benedict and I were all set to eliminate the Catholic Church and join the Church of Zeke, and now you had to go and give such great counter arguments.

I'll call the pope and ask him to hold off canceling the Church for a day or two...

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 8:59 AM


Bethany, if sinners aren't forgiven, then I'm going to hell for sure.

Posted by: Heather at September 5, 2007 9:02 AM


Summary List Of The Commandments Of Jesus

I. The Universal Moral Law
A. The Law Of Love
"First, love God your Creator more than anything
else. Then, love all other people the same as you
love yourself."

B. The Ten Commandments
1. "Do not put anything ahead of God your Creator."
2. "Do not make or worship idols."
3. "Do not take the name of God in vain."
4. "Take one day of complete rest each week, in honor of God."
5. "Honor your father and your mother."
6. "Do not commit murder."
7. "Do not commit adultery."
8. "Do not steal."
9. "Do not tell lies against anyone."
10. "Do not covet other people's possessions."
C. The Golden Rule
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
II. The Other Commandments Of Jesus
1. "FORGIVE EVERYBODY OF ALL THEIR OFFENSES AGAINST YOU."
(Forgive, and be forgiven.)
2. "YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN."
3. "ABIDE IN ME, AND LET ME ABIDE IN YOU."
4. "LET PEOPLE SEE YOUR GOOD WORKS." (Do not hide your light
under a basket.)
5. "END DISPUTES QUICKLY."
6. "WHATEVER CAUSES YOU TO SIN, GET RID OF IT."
7. "DO NOT SWEAR OATHS AT ALL."
8. "DO NOT RETURN OFFENSE FOR OFFENSE." (Turn the other cheek.)
9. "GIVE WHAT PEOPLE ASK OF YOU, AND GIVE MORE THAN IS REQUIRED."
(Go the extra mile.)
10. "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES AND THOSE WHO WORK AGAINST YOU."
11. "GIVE TO THE POOR TO PLEASE GOD, NOT TO GAIN APPROVAL
FROM OTHER PEOPLE."
12. "PRAY PRIVATELY AND SIMPLY, NOT TO IMPRESS OTHER PEOPLE."
13. "MAKE YOUR PRAYERS BE LIKE THE LORD'S PRAYER."
14. "WHEN YOU FAST, DO IT SECRETLY, NOT FOR SHOW."
15. "STORE UP YOUR TREASURES IN HEAVEN, NOT ON EARTH."
16. "DO NOT WORRY ABOUT YOUR MATERIAL NEEDS."
17. "DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE FUTURE."
18. "MAKE GOD YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITY, AND HE WILL TAKE CARE OF
ALL YOUR NEEDS."
19. "DO NOT JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE." (Judge not, lest ye be judged.)
20. "DO NOT GIVE HOLY THINGS TO DOGS OR CAST YOUR PEARLS
BEFORE SWINE."
21. "ASK GOD FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO HAVE." (Seek, and ye shall
find.)
22. "FEED THE HUNGRY, CLOTHE THE NAKED, SHELTER THE HOMELESS,
COMFORT THOSE IN DISTRESS."
23. "FOLLOW THE NARROW PATH TO LIFE." (Enter by the narrow gate.)
24. "BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS."
25. "EXERCISE POWER OVER UNCLEAN SPIRITS."
26. "LOVE LITTLE CHILDREN, DO NOT DESPISE THEM."
27. "DO NOT TAKE THE TITLES 'MASTER' OR 'FATHER' FOR YOURSELF."
28. "RESOLVE DISPUTES IN AN ORDERLY WAY, LIKE THIS . . . "
29. "DO NOT OPPOSE OTHER BELIEVERS IN CHRIST WHO ARE NOT IN YOUR
GROUP."
30. "HAVE TOTAL FAITH IN GOD FOR EVERYTHING."
31. "BE LIKE THE GOOD SAMARITAN." (Go, and do likewise.)
32. "LOVE OTHER PEOPLE AS I HAVE LOVED YOU"
33. "EAT BREAD AND DRINK WINE IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."
34. "WASH ONE ANOTHER'S FEET."
35. "BE MERCIFUL."
36. "GO AND TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM."
37. "KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."
38. "BE PREPARED FOR YOUR MASTER TO RETURN."
>

You can see the detailed list with scriptural references here:
http://www.loveallpeople.org/pearl-thecommandmentsofjesus.html

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2007 9:04 AM



Repent, and again I say Repent

There are two parts of us in conflict "the flesh" which is temporary and which stops having any influence after we die or Christ returns, and the spirit which is eternal, spotless, undefiled and holy. Hence another name for all Christians is "saints" or "holy ones' because our true, essentials selves are holy.

Now this battle between the flesh and the spirit can be very intense and very discouraging. In fact the apostle Paul cries out (Romans 7:21 NKJV) " I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good."

This is the experience of all Christians and often makes us feel very condemned. However there is a solution to this problem!


Galatians 5:16-18
16) I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
17) For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.
18) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.


Romans 8:1-6
1) There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
3) For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
4) that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5) For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6) For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

The solution then is to fill your life with the things of the Spirit and to direct your mind into the things of God. Set your mind on the things of the Spirit and you will have life and peace. To do this you should regularly pray, read the Bible, live according to its teachings and meet with other Christians. The more time you make for God - the less time there will be for sin and self-defeat. In particular pray for these things:

Grace- God to be kind toward you and give you the power to resist sin.
Mercy - for God to deliver you from the messes you get yourself into.
Peace - the integration of your life under the blessings of God.
Understanding - of what God has done for you in Christ and the power in you over sin.
Wisdom & Discernment - so you can apply your understanding to real life situations.
To Be Filled With The Love of God - which takes over our hearts and makes thinking spiritually easy.
To Be Filled With The Spirit - able to see and perceive the things of God so that we are bold and joyful.

Posted by: Heather at September 5, 2007 9:05 AM


29. "DO NOT OPPOSE OTHER BELIEVERS IN CHRIST WHO ARE NOT IN YOUR
GROUP."
"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one
casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not
us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

"But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man
which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly
speak evil of me.

"For he that is not against us is on our part."
(Mark 9:38-40 KJV)

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2007 9:06 AM


Hey guys. Read the didache for my morality class.

Very interesting! I can see the basis for many Catholic beliefs and sacraments there. It's very clear.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2007 10:30 AM


Zeke, another question. Do you think Jesus would have ever said anything even closely resembling this paragraph by you?

"Diana was a tramp and adulterer who should have been tried for adultery and upon conviction executed.
When she died I could care less. All the news coverage on this tramp was annoying and I remember going a long while not watching TV to avoid all of this news crap.
The constant coverage of the Craig scandal on the news networks reminds me of how disgusted I felt when that tramp was being talked about on the news incessantly.
The very sight of Diana makes me flatulate."


How did Jesus feel about the people who crucified
Him? How did he feel about the adulterous woman? How did he feel about the woman who had had five husbands and was living with another man who she was not married to? How did he feel about the thief on the cross next to Him? He wanted God to forgive them. He loved them. He loved his enemies and he loved sinners of all kinds. He said that "I come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

The pharisees always scorned him for spending his time with the "sinners"...but you know what? He was giving us an example of how we should treat others.

If you had said that you were sickened by Diana's behavior, that would be one thing.
But you say that you hated DIANA. Not her sins, herself. Just as you have said similar things to different people on this board over the last couple of months.

How is this Christlike? How am I supposed to look to YOU as some beacon of light, when this is the kind of "fruit" you display?

I'm not perfect, and I have many times said something I don't mean, so please don't think I'm saying that I have never done anything that was not Christlike. But I do feel sorry when I do something that gives a bad witness to others. Do you feel sorry for having insulted others on here, many of whom are Christians, who you should consider sisters and brothers?
Perhaps you didn't really mean it the way it came out. Maybe you were angry, or frustrated when you posted it? Maybe you could clarify, so I could understand what you meant.

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2007 11:14 AM


PIP, MK, what is the Didache? I know it is a book or scripture used by Catholics but I am not sure exactly what it is, or who it's written by, etc?

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2007 11:17 AM


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

See, I told you the church was a deep well...I didn't even know this existed. I do now, and I have much reading to do! Thanks Pip! Glad to see your "Catholic School" is doing it's job. lol

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 11:31 AM


Here's an excerpt from our introduction:

The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostle was discovered in 1873 by the Orthodox Byzantine metropolitan Philotheos Bryennios at Constantinople in an 11th Century Byzantine manuscript, the Codex Hierosolymitanus....
The text was originally written in Greek or Syriac in the 1st century. Some scholars have dated it at 75 AD, not necessarily by one aughor.
The Didache is not a theological work but a rule for ecclesiastical practice, a handbook of church morals, ritual and discipline. It is aimed at practical needs, presumed by scholars to be for instruction for baptism and Eucharist.
The book does not claim to regulate the behavior of the entire church; it appears to have only local situations in view.
This document, which is approximately the length of Paul's Letter to the Galations, in 16 chapters, consists of four clearly separate sections.

I. Baptismal catechesis: The Two Ways
II. The Liturgy
III. The church order
IV. Eschatological conclusions.

My own notes: These reflect on a lot of New Testament stuff, with a lot of Jesus' own teachings here (like bless those that curse you, and pray for your enemies, fast for those that persecute you, love the God who made you, and your neighbor as yourself, etc).
This here is another quote: "do not kill a fetus by abortion, or commit infanticide"--one of the sources of this age-old belief held by the church.
"Do not by any means neglect the commandments of the Lord, but hold fast to the traditions neither adding or subtracting anything"; "In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilty conscience"; "Baptise as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize int he name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water"; "Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord"; "Anyone coming in the name of the Lord must be welcomed, but, after that, test him and find out-you will of course use your discrtion either for or against him"; "Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest, and well tried"; "Furthermore, correct one another, not in anger, but in composure, as you have it in the Gospel"; "What over your life;...You do not know the hour in which Our Lord is coming."

Those are the quotes that stuck out to me.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2007 11:37 AM


"Glad to see your "Catholic School" is doing it's job. lol"
Told ya :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2007 11:38 AM


*Watch over your life

There are a lot of typos, sorry, I was just typing off of my paper.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2007 11:40 AM


Hey, thanks for the link. If you look, I usually have my pro-life posts on Fridays, as that would definitely seem to fit in better with what you have to say!

Keep up the great work!

Posted by: MInTheGap at September 5, 2007 11:56 AM


Hi all. I love the Didache! I just wanted to let people know that if you want a hard copy of the Didache, it can be found in William Jurgens book "Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol 1", which I think is a must for all Catholics. I think it was also considered for the canon of the new testament along with the letters of Clement and other things in the early church. So which school do you to, PIP? Is that course part of your major? Sounds pretty fun! God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 5, 2007 12:18 PM


Didache, interesting... from PIP, "Baptise as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize..."

*Protestant backs out of this conversation*

:)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 5, 2007 12:34 PM


" So which school do you to, PIP?"
Saint Louis University. It is a Jesuit school. I am getting my BA in biology and am a pre-PA scholar. But part of the Jesuit mission is a well-rounded education, and as such 9 hours of theology and 9 hours of philosophy are required (among others). I'm quite glad because sometimes I just want to explore other areas of academia, you know? And it helps to have a background in theological and philosophical thinking to help to think critically in the sciences.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2007 1:12 PM


Most definitely, very cool. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 5, 2007 1:14 PM


Doug,

.......


Doug, you wrote:

"I'd guess I'd try to demonstrate that they did have emotions, cares just like non-slaves, loved each other and other people just like non-slaves, etc."

I responded: You mean, as successfully as I have demonstrated to you that there are sentient (as per your definition) babies in the womb in the late second and early third trimester?

You responded again: ::chuckling :: Hey, you didn't prove that to me, did you? Heck, I've thought that all along - for years anyway.

Well I didn't really mean that. What I meant was, bringing up the point that the unborn baby DOES have feelings in the womb after viability, hasn't been a successful way to convince you that the fetus after viability deserves to live. Just as you could not convince slave owners that they were wrong, just by saying they were hurting thinking, feeling people. So what else might you use?

I did not say merely "disfigured." There are matters of degree here. If the fetus is anencephalic, for example, I would go with the desire of the mother, whenever. What purpose does it serve to continue the pregnancy, there, against her will? Many times, with the kind of deficiencies I'm talking about, the fetus won't be sentient. There are conditions where sentience can be there, and the prognosis is for a very short life with a lot of suffering. Even in those cases, I'd let the mother/parents decide. IMO in those cases it's not worth it to force the continuation of the pregnancy.

You don't think there's any physical suffering involved in the abortion itself at that late term, Doug?

There are already cases where the decision between the parents and the doctors is not to resuscitate. Maybe this isn't really "taking the life," but it's letting the life end without going to medical measures to continue it. I don't have an argument with that - again, I'd say it serves no good purpose to go against the wish of the parents in some situations.

The two are not comparable. A mother who aborts her terminally ill child isn't "letting him or her die". She is actively killing her child before it's natural time.

If it's just a "genetic disorder," then I'd probably be against the mother "killing her born child." I'd have to see the specific situation in question, Bethany.

Okay, which of these conditions do you believe a child doesn't deserve the basic right to life for being conceived with:

Angelman syndrome
Canavan disease
Celiac disease
Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
Color blindness
Cri du Chat
Cystic fibrosis
Down syndrome
Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Hemophilia
Klinefelter syndrome
Neurofibromatosis
Phenylketonuria
Prader-Willi syndrome
Sickle-cell disease
Spina bifida
Tay-Sachs disease
Turner syndrome

I wrote: Explain to me how it doesn't apply. Tell me, Doug... if I witnessed a person who was beating her dog, every single day. And it hurt me to see it, but I didn't want to get involved, and I just decided to keep quiet about it. Would I not be contributing to the problem, by not reporting it to someone? Maybe I don't even really care, as long as it's not my dog. Maybe I just look at that dog and think, "at least it's not me". Now, if that is my attitude, do you think that dog ever has a chance of getting away from it's cruel owner? Perhaps there are others like me, looking at that woman beating her dog, and just figuring that the problem will sort itself out...or someone else will probably take care of it, but they are not going to get involved. Each one has become part of the situation, because they are made aware of it happening. Once this is true, they each become part of the problem ,by failing to report it, when it is within their ability to do so. They may mean well, they may be people who would never, ever beat their own dogs. But because they ignore this horrible dog owner, they have become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. I agree, it would make a great bumper sticker but not because it just sounds good...but because it holds a truth.

You responded: You would not be taking action on the problem, but you yourself would not be part of the problem. I don't want the dog to suffer, and I'm glad you don't either. I'm saying it is fine to take action, because that's what we want to do and because I'm for less suffering. But that does not mean we're part of the problem if we don't. The problem exists, whether we even see it in the first place, or not. You can say "we have a duty to take action," and I would agree with you, because we both want the same thing there. We need to act on our desire, per our desire.

Doug, please don't pretend you don't understand what I'm saying. That is sooooo annoying...honestly.

You know that once a person knows about the situation with the dog, that person has 2 choices. (1)He or she can attempt to help- one way by letting someone know about the situation, or (2) he or she can ignore the problem.
Option 1 will most likely ensure that the dog is safe. Or at least, if the dog isn't saved, that person is definitely not to blame. Option #2 will result in the dog still being abused day in and day out, though the person in question KNEW about it, and knew what he or she could do to help, and chose NOT to.

Ay Yi Yi.... The majority has nothing to do with that. I mean that if abortion was not desired, then I would not desire it either.

Doug, that is just silly! Come on! Do you support murder of born people, just because some people still desire it?
Do you support rape, just because some men desire it?

No, you don't have to support them, and there really isn't much argument about all the others except abortion. (Except maybe the "cheat on their spouses" - in some countries that's not nearly so big a deal.)

See, AGAIN, majority, Doug. Please don't pretend you're not influenced by the majority, because as soon as i ask you why something is not wrong, you immediately say,
"Well the majority doesn't feel that way."
If I then say, "So majority is what you base it on?"
Then you say, "no, not necessarily. I wouldn't support abortion if someone didn't want it."
Then I say, "Well, does that apply for other wrongs in this world",
then you say, "Well, but those other things aren't contested...by the MAJORITY".

This is very obviously a circular argument, and very frustrating. It ALWAYS boils down to what the MAJORITY thinks, and what the MAJORITY wants is what the MAJORITY gets in your world, and you won't contest it because it might actually mean you have to swim upstream instead of going with the flow.

Tiller says elective aborttions to 26 weeks, I think.

No, he says up to 38 weeks on his site. Valerie posted the link a couple of days ago...I can look for it if you'd like.

This has come up before. What actual proof do you have that those guys do truly elective abortions in the third trimester? In the third trimester, outside of the rare situation, why would an abortion be done if delivery can be induced to end the pregnancy?

Oh I don't know...stuff like this:


Not to mention the testimonies of dozens or more of women who have aborted in the late second and third trimesters.

In fact, there was one girl here, named Teri, who had an abortion at 28 weeks, and she talked to us about it. She has posted at my blog, and she has posted here. She also has a website that you can visit:
http://tillerpatientspeaks.homestead.com/

Her testimony: http://tillerpatientspeaks.homestead.com/baby.html

:: rueful grin :: Yeah, I coulda done better. The right to life is the only one I see attributed to the unborn, even partially. But it's not nearly as "absolute" as it is after birth.

Why?

I say "nebulous" as it's situational - there are still some pregnancies that can be ended due to danger to the mother, etc.

If they both are persons with sentient minds, then why is it the baby's life that hangs in the balance in this kind of situation? Why not try to save them both?

Nope - I have no problem with anesthesia if pain is a concern, whether provable or not. Viability is not arbitrary - it just means whether the unborn can survive outside the womb or not. If the woman wants to end the pregnancy after viability, then the baby can be delivered.

And yet, after viability, some women still choose to have abortions. Why is it that you are not outraged about this, Doug? When they obviously have better ways of dealing with this by your own admission?

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2007 1:28 PM


Bethany,

I read that girls testimony above....God Almighty in heaven...that this could go on in this country. I'm interested in Dougs thoughts....

Posted by: jasper at September 5, 2007 2:13 PM


Doug,

Just took a nap, as I was up late last night. Fell asleep arguing with you in my head...

2 points.

1. You like to argue that the law says nothing about a fetus being a person. But the constitution says:

"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment."

Now let's take that apart...
Inalienable...no one can mess with that. Now it says men, but we don't exclude women. We know that women are meant to be included. When they weren't we fought to prove that they should be. It was wrong to leave women out. Women were sentient, conscious, and had personalities, and yet they weren't listed as people with inalienable rights...the same thing happens in our Church. Drives me nuts. Like we're too stupid (women) to know that "men" or "mankind" means us too. This is, after all 2007.

So, we know that not every type of person is automatically included in the line "all men are created equal" but we understand that it is or should be implied that ALL MEN means all humankind. If it didn't we would have to list every type and form of human beings to include everyone. Hermaphrodites. Transexuals. Midgets. Black men. Tall men...ridiculous no?

At one point (1800's) corporations were given personhood status! They are not sentient, they do not have personalites, heck they aren't even human and yet...

"But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings."

So your definition of "personhood' is right out by your own rules...

Then we have the case of Blacks and slavery...
At one point Black "men" were not considered persons or citizens. They should have been because this was implied by the phrase ALL MEN, but due to unfathomable stupidity, we actually had to add an amendment that said that black people were indeed persons...

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

This represented Congress's reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all people born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined this principle in the Constitution in order to stop the Supreme Court from ruling it unconstitutional for want of congressional authority to pass such a law, or from a future Congress altering it by a bare majority vote.

If midgets were being persecuted and considered non-persons, we'd have to add an amendment to define them as "persons" too. Even tho it is "Implied" by the term ALL MEN...the same thing happened to women.

Now comes a time where the personhood of the unborn is in question. No where does it specifically say that the unborn are citizens. (Although fetal homicide laws are making that much harder to argue)...and due to unfathomable stupidity, we are once again forced to "define" a class of human beings by specifically naming them.
By my estimation, if this continues, the amendments to the constitution could eventually take on the proportion of "A Tale of Two Cities".

Using common sense, we would agree that it was superfluous to have to "define" women, blacks and midgets as persons, but there you have it...

As Jill pointed out in an earlier post, you are incorrect in your assertion that by English Common Law abortion was always legal...

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/06/us_abortion_his.html

So now an amendment must be made to protect the unborn. To give them personhood status.

Roe v Wade snuck in there before that question had a chance to be addressed and answered. Clever of them, but it can't last.

So, it is my contention that ALL MEN, does and should include Blacks, Women, Midgets and the Unborn. As long as the woman carrying the unborn child is a citizen, then so should her unborn child be.


Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 3:54 PM


Didache, interesting... from PIP, "Baptise as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize..."

*Protestant backs out of this conversation*

:)


Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Christ Calls All to Baptism


Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Backing away my foot...troublemaker!

:) :)

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 4:04 PM


Doug,
Don't let the War of the Scriptures keep you from seeing that there are plenty of posts to you on here...starting at the top!

For the life of me I can't remember point number two (losing my sentience?)...but I will.

Until then, lets work with point #1.

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 4:12 PM


My church believes children are protected until they reach an age of accountability and then if they are being called to be baptized and they are able to know what exactly they are committing to, then they are baptized. My church believes that either a child doesn't really sin, or when they do they don't know any better, so they are forgiven without needing to confess their sins or be baptized.

Posted by: JKeller at September 5, 2007 4:59 PM


Read this article about water baptism and let me know what you think.

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/Two_Bible_Studies_on_Baptism.htm

Posted by: Zeke13:19 at September 5, 2007 5:44 PM


Mk, 4:04p: That's moi, troublemaker... :)

Can't help myself... and I know I'm not going to convince you... but gotta respond to what you said, "Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently..."

In the New Testament era, meaning IN the New Testament, in the book of Acts, there was always a process followed to lead one to salvation. It always involved teaching, expression of understanding of sin (confession), expression of understanding that salvation is a free gift from God provided by Jesus Christ living a sinless life on this earth and dying to pay the ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins, repentence, and baptism by immersion. Each conversion did not follow that identical order, but all of those components were present.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 5, 2007 6:18 PM


"New Testament era" is to general.

The line of demarcation that counts is when Jesus Christ revealed to Paul the mystery. As Paul makes clear several times, it is when Jesus Christ revealed to him the mystery and gave him "the house rules of the grace of God" that things changed.

Some of those changes included: Circumcision no longer required (Rom 3:21; Gal 5:2,6; 6:15), abstaining from certain foods no longer required (Acts 10:9-16), abstaining from Gentile's homes no longer required (Acts 10:28; 11:2-3), tithing no longer required (Matt 23:23 compared with 2 Cor 9:7), the righteousness of God now APART from the law (Rom 3:21), no longer any difference between Jew and Greek, slave or free, man and woman (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).

All of these changes BEGIN TO OCCUR just after Paul's Damascus Road experience. Its not a coincidence. Paul was given a new set of doctrine to give to the Body of Christ which began with his conversion (Paul is the first member of the Body 1 tim 1:15) that had some big differences when compared to the doctrine that Christ gave to Peter to communicate to believing Israel.

Posted by: Zeke13:19 at September 5, 2007 6:39 PM


MK: 1. You like to argue that the law says nothing about a fetus being a person. But the constitution says:

"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment."

Now let's take that apart... Inalienable...no one can mess with that. Now it says men, but we don't exclude women. We know that women are meant to be included. When they weren't we fought to prove that they should be. It was wrong to leave women out. Women were sentient, conscious, and had personalities, and yet they weren't listed as people with inalienable rights...the same thing happens in our Church. Drives me nuts. Like we're too stupid (women) to know that "men" or "mankind" means us too. This is, after all 2007.

MK, that's not part of the Constitution. That's the Declaration of Independence. 13 years apart. Different deals. Nothing there about the unborn or in the Constitution.

......

So, we know that not every type of person is automatically included in the line "all men are created equal" but we understand that it is or should be implied that ALL MEN means all humankind. If it didn't we would have to list every type and form of human beings to include everyone. Hermaphrodites. Transexuals. Midgets. Black men. Tall men...ridiculous no?

No, it was basically thumbing their nose at England and wanting a better deal for themselves - white male landowners.

......


At one point (1800's) corporations were given personhood status! They are not sentient, they do not have personalites, heck they aren't even human and yet...

There is that legal meaning of "person" that can be extended to corporations, yes.

"But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings."

So your definition of "personhood' is right out by your own rules...

What are "my own rules"?

........

Then we have the case of Blacks and slavery... At one point Black "men" were not considered persons or citizens. They should have been because this was implied by the phrase ALL MEN, but due to unfathomable stupidity, we actually had to add an amendment that said that black people were indeed persons...

Again, that's not the Constitution. That was guys "talking" to England.

......


"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

This represented Congress's reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all people born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined this principle in the Constitution in order to stop the Supreme Court from ruling it unconstitutional for want of congressional authority to pass such a law, or from a future Congress altering it by a bare majority vote.

If midgets were being persecuted and considered non-persons, we'd have to add an amendment to define them as "persons" too. Even tho it is "Implied" by the term ALL MEN...the same thing happened to women.

Now comes a time where the personhood of the unborn is in question. No where does it specifically say that the unborn are citizens. (Although fetal homicide laws are making that much harder to argue)...and due to unfathomable stupidity, we are once again forced to "define" a class of human beings by specifically naming them. By my estimation, if this continues, the amendments to the constitution could eventually take on the proportion of "A Tale of Two Cities".

Using common sense, we would agree that it was superfluous to have to "define" women, blacks and midgets as persons, but there you have it...

It wasn't defining persons. It was telling the British to kiss off.

......

As Jill pointed out in an earlier post, you are incorrect in your assertion that by English Common Law abortion was always legal...

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/06/us_abortion_his.html


Oh Geez, no, no, no.. What I said was that under common law, abortion to "quickening" was legal. Sheesh. I know full well that it wasn't after quickening, although whether it was treated as a felony or misdemeanor is in doubt - as I quoted to you from the text of the Roe decision, or even if it was treated as a crime at all, in practice.

.......


So now an amendment must be made to protect the unborn. To give them personhood status.

Roe v Wade snuck in there before that question had a chance to be addressed and answered. Clever of them, but it can't last.

So, it is my contention that ALL MEN, does and should include Blacks, Women, Midgets and the Unborn. As long as the woman carrying the unborn child is a citizen, then so should her unborn child be.

But now you know that that's not the Constitution. It was guys who weren't really concerned with the status of women and slaves - they took them for granted - addressing England.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 5, 2007 8:11 PM


Yes, I played "Make Believe" when I was little. When I was 8 and my little brother Scott was 4 he became the "Camping Baby" and had to stay under the dining room table, which I had covered with blankets so they draped down to the floor, making a "tent." Poor little guy wanted out after a while, but oh no, he had to stay because after all he was the "Camping Baby.."


MK: Could heavens, you mean even back then you were trying to put people into "little boxes"...

Ha! Not bad, MK, not bad....

I'm not trying to shut people in, away from the truth, by insisting on religious dogma, though.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 5, 2007 8:15 PM


"People must be "Homo Sapiens" and have to have personality."

MK: Well, that leaves out half of my family...personality? Really? I think you need to define "personality".

The mental and emotional characteristics that distinguish us from each other and from a non-sentient body.

.......


"They can go to sleep, or be in a coma or be otherwise incapacitated for some time, but the capacity for sentience and mentally aware perception must be there."

So if a person is asleep, or in a coma, the capacity for sentience is there, because it's only a matter of time before they are no longer insentient?

No, they have just lost some mental faulty, for the time being, providing the coma will be recovered from. A sleeping person is still sentient, though at a lower mental state than when awake.

.......

How is this different from the unborn? The "capacity" is there and it's only a "matter of time" until it manifests itself.

Nope, the capacity is not there at that stage of gestation. Most fetuses would later develop it, if the development continued, yes.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 5, 2007 8:27 PM


"Personhood will be deemed at 24 weeks gestation, for that is when personality appears,"

MK: So at 23 weeks and 29 days a fairy appears and personality is magically infused? Do we allow for daylight savings time?

No - I'm drawing the "line" per your instructions and that's where I put it.

........


And exactly how many 24 week old fetuses have you met, interviewed and determined that "personality" was present? What, some are funny, some are brilliant, some are shifty? How exactly to you give a "personality" test to a fetus?

That date is based on the electrical activity in the brain, which medical science has been able to detect, easily, for many decades. For many fetuses, it's not going to be there at 24 weeks, but I did try to go a little earlier than where I'd put the 50/50 point or the "fairly sure" point.

.......

>In cases where the induction of labor would cause greater danger to the woman than would abortion, then abortion will be done.

Since you have already attributed full personhood to the fetus at 24 weeks, why isn't it that the mother shall be killed to save the fetus?

Because I said the right to life for the unborn wasn't absolute.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 5, 2007 8:29 PM


Heather: Doug, it isn't any wonder that it confuses you. Run, "Is a fetus human" on your search engine.

Heather. Confused. Not me. You.

I never say the unborn in this argument are not human. I always say they are.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 5, 2007 8:36 PM


Because I said the right to life for the unborn wasn't absolute.

Based on what?

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2007 8:38 PM


"Because I said the right to life for the unborn wasn't absolute."

Based on what?

Bethany, based on what I say. That was the deal in MK's hypothetical.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 5, 2007 9:31 PM


Bethany: What I meant was, bringing up the point that the unborn baby DOES have feelings in the womb after viability, hasn't been a successful way to convince you that the fetus after viability deserves to live.

I don't know why you say that. I've said I'm fine with the restrictions on abortion we have then. I've said that if it's viable, it can be delivered versus aborted.

........


"I did not say merely "disfigured." There are matters of degree here. If the fetus is anencephalic, for example, I would go with the desire of the mother, whenever. What purpose does it serve to continue the pregnancy, there, against her will? Many times, with the kind of deficiencies I'm talking about, the fetus won't be sentient. There are conditions where sentience can be there, and the prognosis is for a very short life with a lot of suffering. Even in those cases, I'd let the mother/parents decide. IMO in those cases it's not worth it to force the continuation of the pregnancy."

You don't think there's any physical suffering involved in the abortion itself at that late term, Doug?

There may be, Bethany. In some cases I still think it serves no good purpose to continue the pregnancy. If pain is a concern, anesthesia can be done.

........

"There are already cases where the decision between the parents and the doctors is not to resuscitate. Maybe this isn't really "taking the life," but it's letting the life end without going to medical measures to continue it. I don't have an argument with that - again, I'd say it serves no good purpose to go against the wish of the parents in some situations."

The two are not comparable. A mother who aborts her terminally ill child isn't "letting him or her die". She is actively killing her child before it's natural time.

I don't think I was commparing it to abortion, but you're right - there certainly is a difference.

.....


"If it's just a "genetic disorder," then I'd probably be against the mother "killing her born child." I'd have to see the specific situation in question, Bethany."

Okay, which of these conditions do you believe a child doesn't deserve the basic right to life for being conceived with:

Angelman syndrome
Canavan disease
Celiac disease
Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
Color blindness
Cri du Chat
Cystic fibrosis
Down syndrome
Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Hemophilia
Klinefelter syndrome
Neurofibromatosis
Phenylketonuria
Prader-Willi syndrome
Sickle-cell disease
Spina bifida
Tay-Sachs disease
Turner syndrome

Dont' see anything there where I'd say no good purpose is served by continuing the pregnancy, and this is just for gestation, let alone after birth. It's up to the parents, first and foremost, and it's not up to me to tell anybody to have an abortion.

I don't know what all of those are, but I don't see anything there that is like what I'm talking about - anencephaly, etc. Pediatric Pathology Even here, if the parents want to continue the pregnancy, then I say fine, but with these there's going to be enormous agreement with them if they want to end the pregnancy.

......

I wrote: Explain to me how it doesn't apply. Tell me, Doug... if I witnessed a person who was beating her dog, every single day. And it hurt me to see it, but I didn't want to get involved, and I just decided to keep quiet about it. Would I not be contributing to the problem, by not reporting it to someone? Maybe I don't even really care, as long as it's not my dog. Maybe I just look at that dog and think, "at least it's not me". Now, if that is my attitude, do you think that dog ever has a chance of getting away from it's cruel owner? Perhaps there are others like me, looking at that woman beating her dog, and just figuring that the problem will sort itself out...or someone else will probably take care of it, but they are not going to get involved. Each one has become part of the situation, because they are made aware of it happening. Once this is true, they each become part of the problem ,by failing to report it, when it is within their ability to do so. They may mean well, they may be people who would never, ever beat their own dogs. But because they ignore this horrible dog owner, they have become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. I agree, it would make a great bumper sticker but not because it just sounds good...but because it holds a truth.

"You would not be taking action on the problem, but you yourself would not be part of the problem. I don't want the dog to suffer, and I'm glad you don't either. I'm saying it is fine to take action, because that's what we want to do and because I'm for less suffering. But that does not mean we're part of the problem if we don't. The problem exists, whether we even see it in the first place, or not. You can say "we have a duty to take action," and I would agree with you, because we both want the same thing there. We need to act on our desire, per our desire."

Doug, please don't pretend you don't understand what I'm saying. That is sooooo annoying...honestly.

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I do not see that failing to take action is the same thing as being "part of the problem." May just be the way we look at it.

......

You know that once a person knows about the situation with the dog, that person has 2 choices. (1)He or she can attempt to help- one way by letting someone know about the situation, or (2) he or she can ignore the problem.
Option 1 will most likely ensure that the dog is safe. Or at least, if the dog isn't saved, that person is definitely not to blame. Option #2 will result in the dog still being abused day in and day out, though the person in question KNEW about it, and knew what he or she could do to help, and chose NOT to.

"Blame" is a separate issue. That's what I meant about our desire and conceptions of "duty." You are presupposing that the person feels it's a problem. If you see it, and don't do anything, you're going against the hurt you feel for the dog's suffering, and against your desire to do something. But you are also defining "knowlege of a situation" combined with inaction, as being part of the problem, and that's where I am arguing. Choosing to not become involved results in the same thing as if the person didn't know in the first place, and that's why I say they are not really part of the problem. I might agree with you, situation-by-situation, that a person has a duty to get involved (that I want them to get involved) and I may well blame them for not doing so, but there again that's my/our desire and our conceptions of "duty."

I'm not just trying to be argumentative here. It just doesn't seem correct, "mathematically," to me that failing to take action = part of the problem.

.......

"Ay Yi Yi.... The majority has nothing to do with that. I mean that if abortion was not desired, then I would not desire it either."

Doug, that is just silly! Come on! Do you support murder of born people, just because some people still desire it?

Bethany, that is just backwards! Not being for a given action "by itself" or in a vacuum (without the desire of others' being considered) has nothing to do with a different action and somebody's desire.

.......


Do you support rape, just because some men desire it?

No, because rape involves suffering, necessarily IMO, and because I don't see the rapist's desire as trumping the victim's.

.....


"No, you don't have to support them, and there really isn't much argument about all the others except abortion. (Except maybe the "cheat on their spouses" - in some countries that's not nearly so big a deal.)"

See, AGAIN, majority, Doug. Please don't pretend you're not influenced by the majority, because as soon as i ask you why something is not wrong, you immediately say, "Well the majority doesn't feel that way."

You have it wrong, Bethany. For some things, I may go with majority opinion just because they are the majority, yes. But in no way is that always or even usually the case. It's situation-by-situation. I also don't know what "wrong" you are talking about? My opinion? Yours" Societys"

.......


If I then say, "So majority is what you base it on?"

Then you say, "no, not necessarily. I wouldn't support abortion if someone didn't want it."

Then I say, "Well, does that apply for other wrongs in this world",
then you say, "Well, but those other things aren't contested...by the MAJORITY".

GOOD GRIEF - I don't know what I was responding to. In the post of yours to which I am right now replying, you began with me saying, "Ay Yi Yi.." and I don't know what you said before that. I really do not think you need feel so exasperated - this is not circular and we are just missing something here. I gotta go back to the jobsite after this post - the guy working nightshift blew some circuit breakers and can't get things going again. But, I will copy this and go back later to the original thread and find out what the deal is....

.......


This is very obviously a circular argument, and very frustrating. It ALWAYS boils down to what the MAJORITY thinks, and what the MAJORITY wants is what the MAJORITY gets in your world, and you won't contest it because it might actually mean you have to swim upstream instead of going with the flow.

No - the majority may not matter at all. Ask me my own personal opinion, and I will give it. In no way do I always support the majority.

......

"Tiller says elective aborttions to 26 weeks, I think."

No, he says up to 38 weeks on his site. Valerie posted the link a couple of days ago...I can look for it if you'd like.

Oy Vey - it says there was at least one abortion at 38 weeks - it's just giving the range, and it does not say "elective." I've been to the site and elective to 26 is what I remember.

........

"This has come up before. What actual proof do you have that those guys do truly elective abortions in the third trimester? In the third trimester, outside of the rare situation, why would an abortion be done if delivery can be induced to end the pregnancy?"

Oh I don't know...stuff like this:

Yeah - elective before the 3rd trimester, not during.

........


Not to mention the testimonies of dozens or more of women who have aborted in the late second and third trimesters.

In fact, there was one girl here, named Teri, who had an abortion at 28 weeks, and she talked to us about it. She has posted at my blog, and she has posted here. She also has a website that you can visit:
http://tillerpatientspeaks.homestead.com/

Her testimony: http://tillerpatientspeaks.homestead.com/baby.html

One anecdote or claim isn't significant proof. I'd want it verified anyway. I realize that somewhere, sometime, an abortion or abortion may have been done after 26 weeks on an elective basis. No way to prove the "never" there. I am saying that I've never seen it stated that "we will do elective abortions after 2t6 weeks." Nor have I seen proof that it is current practice anywhere in the US.

....

":: rueful grin :: Yeah, I coulda done better. The right to life is the only one I see attributed to the unborn, even partially. But it's not nearly as "absolute" as it is after birth."

Why?

The restrictions on abortion late in gestation could be said to be a limited form of right to life. Not absolute - abortion still can be done for danger to the woman or severe enough fetal deficiency, but with most pregnancies it's no longer just a matter of the woman's desire.

........


"I say "nebulous" as it's situational - there are still some pregnancies that can be ended due to danger to the mother, etc."

If they both are persons with sentient minds, then why is it the baby's life that hangs in the balance in this kind of situation? Why not try to save them both?

They do try to save them both. If delivery can be induced, why not do it? It's a rare thing. There are not many third trimester abortions to begin with. However, if the danger to the mother is too great, then the woman takes precedence, almost always. I've heard of women saying, no, I don't care if I die - I'd rather not lose the pregnancy. That's fine with me too, if that's what she wants. Most times, though, her life will take precedence.

........


"Nope - I have no problem with anesthesia if pain is a concern, whether provable or not. Viability is not arbitrary - it just means whether the unborn can survive outside the womb or not. If the woman wants to end the pregnancy after viability, then the baby can be delivered."

And yet, after viability, some women still choose to have abortions. Why is it that you are not outraged about this, Doug? When they obviously have better ways of dealing with this by your own admission?

This is where you need some proof, Bethany. "Elective" abortions after 26 weeks?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 5, 2007 9:37 PM


http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PEDHTML/PED026.html

Sorry, Bethany - here's the "Pediatric Pathology" link - it didn't copy above. These are cases where vast numbers of people wouldn't have a problem with the parents wanting to end the pregnancy.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 5, 2007 9:39 PM


MK, that's not part of the Constitution. That's the Declaration of Independence. 13 years apart. Different deals. Nothing there about the unborn or in the Constitution.

......
That's it? That's your response? I had six windows open and started that post thinking I was going to quote the constitution. Left the post, came back, realized I wanted the declaration, and for got to change what I'd already written...for heavens sake...just address the issue!

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:20 PM


Doug,

I'm not trying to shut people in, away from the truth, by insisting on religious dogma, though.

Doug, the Catholic Church isn't insisting you do anything either. They invite, you come or you don't! Dear Lord, no one is holding a gun to your head saying FOLLOW MY DOGMA!


Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:24 PM


Doug,

That post took me over an hour to write. And you did not address a single real issue. You gave me a history lesson, a civics lesson, and corrected every technical mistake that I made...when I'm sure all along you knew exactly what my point was...PLEASE do not make me answer each of your "responses" because personally I think they were off the cuff and don't deserve my time.

I'd like you to read my post (feeling free to insert declaration of independence for constitution) and actually respond to what I said.

I'm really disappointed!

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:27 PM


Because I said the right to life for the unborn wasn't absolute.

But why? If it's not going to be absolute, oh great one, then why draw a line at all?

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:30 PM


You like to argue that the law says nothing about a fetus being a person. But the constitution says:

"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment."

Now let's take that apart... Inalienable...no one can mess with that. Now it says men, but we don't exclude women. We know that women are meant to be included. When they weren't we fought to prove that they should be. It was wrong to leave women out. Women were sentient, conscious, and had personalities, and yet they weren't listed as people with inalienable rights...the same thing happens in our Church. Drives me nuts. Like we're too stupid (women) to know that "men" or "mankind" means us too. This is, after all 2007.

MK, that's not part of the Constitution. That's the Declaration of Independence. 13 years apart. Different deals. Nothing there about the unborn or in the Constitution.


No kidding Doug...that would be the point of the rest of my post...it doesn't say anything about midgets or 5 fingered men but we INFER that they would be included!

......

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:37 PM


So, we know that not every type of person is automatically included in the line "all men are created equal" but we understand that it is or should be implied that ALL MEN means all humankind. If it didn't we would have to list every type and form of human beings to include everyone. Hermaphrodites. Transexuals. Midgets. Black men. Tall men...ridiculous no?

No, it was basically thumbing their nose at England and wanting a better deal for themselves - white male landowners.

Yes dear, we know. Again, the whole point of this post is to show that there are times when we have had to address a specific group of people and spell out, that they are persons and have the same rights as other "persons."

Is there a reason that you are being difficult here?

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:40 PM


At one point (1800's) corporations were given personhood status! They are not sentient, they do not have personalites, heck they aren't even human and yet...

There is that legal meaning of "person" that can be extended to corporations, yes.

"But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings."

So your definition of "personhood' is right out by your own rules...

What are "my own rules"?

Well you've given them often enough...do you recall saying this?:

"People must be "Homo Sapiens" and have to have personality. They can go to sleep, or be in a coma or be otherwise incapacitated for some time, but the capacity for sentience and mentally aware perception must be there."

People being the plural of persons, (dear God don't you dare play semantics with me on this one) by your own rules a corporation cannot be a person in that it does not have a personality, is not a homo sapien and has NO capacity for sentience or mentally aware perception!

And yet, it was given personhood. I don't give a rat's patootie WHY it was given it. It WAS given it!

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:45 PM


So now an amendment must be made to protect the unborn. To give them personhood status.

Roe v Wade snuck in there before that question had a chance to be addressed and answered. Clever of them, but it can't last.

So, it is my contention that ALL MEN, does and should include Blacks, Women, Midgets and the Unborn. As long as the woman carrying the unborn child is a citizen, then so should her unborn child be.

But now you know that that's not the Constitution. It was guys who weren't really concerned with the status of women and slaves - they took them for granted - addressing England.

Sweetheart, you are starting to piss me off! Now, once again, the point of this post is? To show that even tho it was not intended to include anyone but white men, situations arose, and it was necessary to ammend things to bestow these rights on other groups. Say it with me...first black men, then women, and now it is the unborns turn.

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:48 PM


Doug,

I think what Bethany is getting at is this...


"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." - Everlasting Man, 1925 GKCHESTERTON

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 10:57 PM


Doug,

I put fetal sentience in the search engine and came up with these:

BMJ Logo

*
BMJ
* BMJ Journals
* BMJ Careers
* BMJ Learning
* BMJ Knowledge
* BMJ Group

Search BMJ.com Search
Advanced

Register for free services | Subscribe | Sign In

* Research
* Education
* News
* Comment
* Topics
o Clinical topics
o Non-clinical topics
o ABCs
o Other series
o Theme issues
o Academic medicine
o Books
o BMJ USA archive
o US highlights
* Print Issues
o Past issues
o Cover image archive
o Polls archive
o Debates archive
o Theme issues
o US highlights
o BMJ USA archive
o Academic medicine
* Interactive
o Rapid responses
o Blogs
o Polls
o Debates
o Audio
o Webchats
o Talks
o PDAs
o RSS

Select a Resource Resources for
About BMJ

Home > Comment > BMJ 1997;314(7076):302 (25 January), doi:

* Email IconE-Mail this page to a friend
* Print IconPrinter-friendly Page
* RSS IconRSS Feeds

BMJ 1997;314:302 (25 January)
Letters
Do fetuses feel pain?

Can fetal suffering be excluded beyond reasonable doubt?

Editor–The BMJ's initiation of a debate on fetal pain is commendable, because the subject is often dismissed as being off limits because of its associations with abortion: women seek assurances that fetal pain will not occur.1 As the author of a paper on behalf of the pro-life parliamentarians mentioned,2 I wish to respond.

One comment in the articles in the debate encapsulates the dilemma–namely, Vivette Glover and Nicholas Fisk's that "currently we have no direct way of assessing pain in fetuses." Omit "currently" and there's the rub. Pain cannot be directly assessed in non-communicating subjects; ignore this and we drive into an epistemological layby.

The dismissal of fetal withdrawal from noxious stimuli as "only reflex" is a secondary inference that is naive unless one can confidently exclude suffering. Independent verification of that exclusion requires comprehensive understanding of the structure of pain pathways in the developing nervous system. Accepted correlations between structure and function in this context, however, are unreliable. How can aborted fetuses respond to touch before the "required" end organs develop?3 How can the essentiality of an intact cortex for the experience of pain be consistent with the reality of anencephalic infants?4 Two questions–whether the cortex is normally involved in the appreciation of pain and whether it is necessary for this–are regularly conflated. To assert that a cortex is essential for pain and hence that pain does not occur in its absence begs the question. The existence of alternative pain pathways is illustrated by failures of cordotomy.

A decade of reappraisal of neonatal anaesthetic practice has established a trend to suspect distress when it was not previously considered. Convention now requires that, before embarking on interventions with potential to inflict suffering, one accepts the burden of proof when relevant data are incomplete. Can fetal suffering be excluded beyond reasonable doubt?

Semantics confuses the issue further. Neurophysiologists' working definition of pain differs from the beliefs of the community at large. Why should experiential and emotional components be required before suffering in response to tissue damage becomes real? Aborted fetuses respond to trigeminal stimulation by seven weeks' gestation,5 and the relevant thalamic nucleus approaches maturity by 12 weeks' gestation. How sound are claims that motor responses in the first trimester are totally reflex? Old canards, such as the supposed need for myelination for pain, have been discredited; are new ones replacing them?

Perhaps parliamentary "excitement" about fetal pain reflects its non-accidental causes. If parliamentary claims of fetal suffering are tactics to undermine abortion1 how should we interpret opposing claims?

Posted by: mk at September 5, 2007 11:04 PM


"MK, that's not part of the Constitution. That's the Declaration of Independence. 13 years apart. Different deals. Nothing there about the unborn or in the Constitution."

......

MK: That's it? That's your response? I had six windows open and started that post thinking I was going to quote the constitution. Left the post, came back, realized I wanted the declaration, and for got to change what I'd already written...for heavens sake...just address the issue!

Oh for Pete's sake, MK. You started out saying: But the constitution says:

So that premise was simply incorrect. When we say there's no Constitutional basis for attributing personhood to the unborn, we're right.

There's nothing in the Declaration about the unborn either.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 6, 2007 1:10 AM


MK: I think what Bethany is getting at is this...

"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." - Everlasting Man, 1925 GKCHESTERTON

Indeed, and some of us want proof, rather than wishful thinking; some of us want reasoning and motivation that we can agree with, rather than blind "faith," (however well-intentioned).

If I just went with the flow and agreed with your brand of religion, you'd applaud.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 6, 2007 1:15 AM


"I'm not trying to shut people in, away from the truth, by insisting on religious dogma, though."

MK: Doug, the Catholic Church isn't insisting you do anything either. They invite, you come or you don't! Dear Lord, no one is holding a gun to your head saying FOLLOW MY DOGMA!

Not my head, no, but lots of kids don't really have a free choice - they're not old enough to really choose, and in the case of the abortion argument, it's not just Catholic women that pro-lifers want to affect.

You made a comment about having to "have all your ducks in a row" - something to that effect, and even within the RCC itself, there are loads of expectations for "ducks" etc., and if not then you're supposed to feel guilty. Okay, that's partly a joke.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 6, 2007 1:17 AM


"Because I said the right to life for the unborn wasn't absolute."

MK: But why? If it's not going to be absolute, oh great one, then why draw a line at all?

Because you asked, and because that is what we people do. Heck, right-to-life is not absolute now, nor would it be no matter where we draw it.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 6, 2007 1:23 AM


"But now you know that that's not the Constitution. It was guys who weren't really concerned with the status of women and slaves - they took them for granted - addressing England."

MK: Sweetheart, you are starting to piss me off! Now, once again, the point of this post is? To show that even tho it was not intended to include anyone but white men, situations arose, and it was necessary to ammend things to bestow these rights on other groups. Say it with me...first black men, then women, and now it is the unborns turn.

Well, you want that, MK, but there is nothing in the Constitution now that is applied to the unborn. "Necessary" here is in the eye of the beholder. Your feeling that it is in no way is any proof for me nor for society as a whole. Not saying that it's impossible it would ever happen, but all you're saying about is "I want this.."

........

So your definition of "personhood' is right out by your own rules...

"What are "my own rules"?"

Well you've given them often enough...do you recall saying this?:

"People must be "Homo Sapiens" and have to have personality. They can go to sleep, or be in a coma or be otherwise incapacitated for some time, but the capacity for sentience and mentally aware perception must be there."

You are confusing your hypothetical situation (where I said that) with the existing laws in the US. They are not the same. They are two different things.

.......

People being the plural of persons, (dear God don't you dare play semantics with me on this one) by your own rules a corporation cannot be a person in that it does not have a personality, is not a homo sapien and has NO capacity for sentience or mentally aware perception!

And yet, it was given personhood. I don't give a rat's patootie WHY it was given it. It WAS given it!


Don't worry, MK, in our hypothetical situation where I make the rules, for simplicity's sake if nothing else, the corporations aren't included.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 6, 2007 1:30 AM


MK: So, we know that not every type of person is automatically included in the line "all men are created equal" but we understand that it is or should be implied that ALL MEN means all humankind. If it didn't we would have to list every type and form of human beings to include everyone. Hermaphrodites. Transexuals. Midgets. Black men. Tall men...ridiculous no?

What is the point of this? We started out talking about whether there was support in the Constitution for the unborn being accorded legal personhood or not. The Declaration is not law. It doesn't matter what it says here and it has no bearing on any of the people you mentioned above. I know what you mean about it being ridiculous to have to enumerate every type of person - but the Constitution is not really into that. It's mainly about limiting the powers of government to mess with people.

......

"No, it was basically thumbing their nose at England and wanting a better deal for themselves - white male landowners."

Yes dear, we know. Again, the whole point of this post is to show that there are times when we have had to address a specific group of people and spell out, that they are persons and have the same rights as other "persons."

Is there a reason that you are being difficult here?

I'm not. Why is it difficult for you to see the differences between the Declaration and the Constitution, and the differences between the intents of the writers of both?

There is a third thing, as well, and that is the desire of many people to include the unborn under Constitutional protection. There, that's the issue. We ought to talk about that, not about the other two, MK.

Douug

Posted by: Doug at September 6, 2007 1:41 AM


MK: That post took me over an hour to write. And you did not address a single real issue. You gave me a history lesson, a civics lesson, and corrected every technical mistake that I made...when I'm sure all along you knew exactly what my point was...PLEASE do not make me answer each of your "responses" because personally I think they were off the cuff and don't deserve my time.

I'd like you to read my post (feeling free to insert declaration of independence for constitution) and actually respond to what I said.

I'm really disappointed!

Okay, MK, I can respect that. I'm sorry that it works out this way sometimes.

The Declaration, while a historic document, does not have force of law in the US, though. There's no logical extrapolating from it to the abortion debate. It's not that we can insert the Declaration in your post, it's that we'd have to insert the Constitution's language for what you quoted from the Declaration, and that's a big change. Do you see that?

........

Now let's take that apart... Inalienable...no one can mess with that. Now it says men, but we don't exclude women. We know that women are meant to be included. When they weren't we fought to prove that they should be. It was wrong to leave women out. Women were sentient, conscious, and had personalities, and yet they weren't listed as people with inalienable rights...the same thing happens in our Church. Drives me nuts. Like we're too stupid (women) to know that "men" or "mankind" means us too. This is, after all 2007.

Still, let me give this another try. It's almost 3 a.m. and I gotta work tomorrow, so bear with me.

I know you want the "inalienable" rights granted to the unborn. It's a concept that appeals to many people. I agree about women, etc., of course they're sentient, have personalities, etc. I don't want rights withheld from them.

Why I'm okay with having the Birth Standard for personhood, and with ending elective abortion at viability, is that the difference with all the other groups versus the unborn - that only the unborn are inside somebody's body, is a large matter for me. Same for viability, where afterwards presumably the pregnancy can usually be ended by delivery, rather than abortion. There are the matters of sentience and suffering, but surely we've gone around and around about them enough.

It's not impossible that things will end up as you wish for. I strongly doubt that personhood will change, but abortion could be illegal in some states if Roe were overturned, and there is some possibility of that, I concede.

Nighty night.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 6, 2007 2:10 AM


The constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The point I have been trying to make is that just like women, midgets, 5 fingered men, and blacks are protected by the constitution (albeit we had to fight for women and blacks) the unborn should be considered citizens and be protected in the same way...

I understand, that as of now there is no law that does this, and that is my problem with Roe V Wade. They based a law on the fact that the unborn are NOT considered persons, before they even addressed whether this was so or not.

If tomorrow, Smith vs. Lalowski provided an avenue that said it was alright to kill midgets, we'd be up in arms. Unless it was "first" determined that midgets were not persons.

I believe that they jumped the gun here.

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:19 AM


Which brings me to point number 2...Hah! I remembered.

You say that nowhere in the constitution is it explicitly stated that the unborn are persons.

Fine. I agree. I think it should, but I agree that it doesn't.

Well where in the constitution or anywhere else is the "Right to Bodily Autonomy" mentioned? I don't see it? And yet your entire argument is based on it. Perhaps it is implied, but just like the unborn, "implied" doesn't seem to matter...

So where is this "right" that carrying a pregnancy to term violates, written. Where did you and other prochoicers come up with it?

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:24 AM


Doug,

The fetus continues to move in distinct motor patterns, picking up new patterns such as localized movement of the arms and legs, hiccups, breathing-like movements, and stretches and yawns .[8][12] The breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.[13] At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object.[14] The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance. Eyelids close and remain closed for several months. The different appearance of the genitals in males and females becomes pronounced. Tooth buds appear, the limbs are long and thin, and red blood cells are produced in the liver. A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head. The gastrointestinal tract, still forming, starts to collect sloughed skin and lanugo, as well as hepatic products, forming meconium (stool). Fetal skin is almost transparent. More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder. The first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week.[9][15] By the end of this stage, the fetus has reached about 15 cm (6 inches).

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:35 AM


the above came from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:36 AM


Doug,

means in general "capacity for survival" and is more specifically used to mean a capacity for living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. The word is especially used in the following contexts: * pregnancy, viability refers to either: an early stage pregnancy that has a chance of reaching full-term and a live birth (as opposed to, for example, an ectopic pregnancy); or
the shortest length of pregnancy after which a child born prematurely has a chance of survival. Generally, this ranges from 20-27 weeks.

also from wikipedia...

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:39 AM


Doug,

According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks' gestation”),[8] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

* 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other

Because reporting of abortions is not mandatory, statistics are of varying reliability. The Centers For Disease Control (CDC) regularly compiles these statistics.

So much for you anencephaly theory!

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:44 AM


Doug,

There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the common law adopted from England, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
“ With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[21] ”

Various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the 1820s. In 1821, Connecticut passed a statute targeting apothecaries who sold poisons to women for purposes of abortion, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor eight years later. It is sometimes argued that the early American abortion statutes were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by worry about the safety of the procedure; however, this theory is inconsistent with the fact that abortion was punishable regardless of whether any harm befell the pregnant woman, and many of the early statutes punished not only the doctors or abortionists, but also punished the women who hired them.[22] Many early feminists, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, argued against abortion for a variety of reasons. The former wrote:
“ Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime.[23] ”

The criminalization movement accelerated during the 1860s, and by 1900 abortion was largely illegal in every state. Some states did include provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman's life or pregnancies due to rape or incest. Abortions continued to occur, however, and increasingly became readily available. Illegal abortions were often unsafe, sometimes resulting in death, as in the case of Gerri Santoro of Connecticut in 1964.

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:51 AM


GO MARY KAY!!!!

And Doug....

Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2007 7:06 AM


MK,

I would like to add that the death rate from illegal abortion had been steadily declining for years and was at its lowest in 1972, the year prior to Roe v Wade. Bernard Nathanson and Co. at NARAL deliberately lied about the death rate to generate sympathy for legal abortion.

Posted by: Mary at September 6, 2007 7:09 AM


Thank you Bethany.

Thank you Mary, for the extra info!

Doug,

At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object.

Wouldn't this indicate "valuation"? Since it is clear that the 9 week old fetus does not desire to be touched, and pulls away? Or does desire to "accept" an object?

I know that you will say that it is not a conscious "movement", but why would it be "instinctual" to move away from touch. I would say that "touch" was uncomfortable for some reason and that this might be due to the immature receptors to pain and touch, which might indicate that pain is felt as early as nine weeks. If it isn't discomfort or pain, then the child is "willfully" moving away from touch. Which would imply sentience, albeit at a very fundamental level. You haven't met my son, but at 26 I often wonder if he isn't working at a lower brain function than a 9 week old fetus, and yet I still consider him a person!

(By the way girls, he's no longer in California. He is now in Australia. But he's still up for auction!)

By the same token, why would this fetus "accept" and object placed in his hands. Why would he reject some things and accept others?

When you touch a hot item and react by removing your hand, even though you didn't consciously make the decision to do so, isn't it still an indicator of sentience? I mean a person with no sense of touch would not pull away from a hot item. So if a 9 week old fetus is "pulling away" doesn't that indicate that his brain is working at least at the level that his sense of touch is intact?

You are the one insisting on sentience and not sapience, so he wouldn't need to understand why he is pulling away, would he?

Sentience: refers to utilization of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 8:01 AM


All of these changes BEGIN TO OCCUR just after Paul's Damascus Road experience. Its not a coincidence. Paul was given a new set of doctrine to give to the Body of Christ which began with his conversion (Paul is the first member of the Body 1 tim 1:15) that had some big differences when compared to the doctrine that Christ gave to Peter to communicate to believing Israel.

So, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Paul's commandments contradicted Jesus commandments?
Are you saying that his commandments voided out Jesus commandments? I'm not sure what your point is here.

Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2007 8:03 AM


Doug said: "Because I said the right to life for the unborn wasn't absolute."

I replied: Based on what?

Doug responded: Bethany, based on what I say. That was the deal in MK's hypothetical

Doug, please just answer the question. I know it is based on "what you say". That is obvious. What I am asking is what you personally base that "what you say" on. What makes a sentient being in the womb have a NON absolute right to life? What do you base that on? If they are viable, and could just as easily birthed as aborted, what is the reasoning behind not giving them the ABSOLUTE right to life?

I had written: What I meant was, bringing up the point that the unborn baby DOES have feelings in the womb after viability, hasn't been a successful way to convince you that the fetus after viability deserves to live.

Doug responded: I don't know why you say that. I've said I'm fine with the restrictions on abortion we have then. I've said that if it's viable, it can be delivered versus aborted.

Doug, being "fine" with it is not the same as wanting it to be the case. A slave owner could be "fine" with other people not owning slaves. Or a person who didn't own slaves could be "fine" with it if slavery were overturned, but unless they are actively against the slavery, they are not really doing anything to help it, are they? And slavery will go on until someone has the courage to step up and go against the grain and do what is right.

Your answer of "fine with it" obviously isn't what I'm looking for. And I know you know that! That's what makes it so frustrating to debate with you. You pretend not to understand the questions I ask you and then you act like you're surprised when I get frustrated.

If you asked someone back in the slavery days to please help you do something to stop slavery, and they said, "Eh, well I'm fine with it if one day things change", but did nothing more to help or at the very least, make a stand, do you think anything would ever change for those people who were suffering? Of course not. Apathy is a monster, as I said before.

You, Doug, are fine BOTH with it happening OR not happening. It is a cowardly response...it is a way to for you to not have to take a stance on anything. It is the easy way out.

Also, it contradicts your idea of "ending suffering", because it allows the suffering of many, many young infants, by your choosing not to take a stand to protect them from it!
Oh sure, it's easy to say, "Well , I'm really not to blame, because I am not actually HAVING abortions, and I am not actually PERFORMING abortions,...but in reality, Doug, you are partially to blame in that you are not part of the solution to this problem. You are part of the problem...you are here at this blog DEFENDING what is happening to these young infants in the womb.
You are a part of it, whether you want to admit it or not. I realize it's easy for you to say you're not to blame, because it makes your conscience feel better. Which is why you said that a woman who didn't call and do what is right for the dog isn't just as guilty, or at the least partially guilty, as the woman abusing her dog.

You're pretending that it is only the woman's perception and her feelings that make it her duty to help the dog, and that if she didnt care, then it isn't her fault and she isn't to blame if the dog isn't saved?? Doug, if she had the change to save the dog, and she decided not to, I'm sorry but she made a choice which resulted in the dog's prolonging of abuse and THAT makes her partially to blame for the dog's suffering.

I mean, your logic is just so twisted and I honestly think you've just been spending too much time thinking about words and how you can make them sound good, and not enough time actually LOOKING at the suffering that is going on in America and actually realizing the depth of reality behind your words!

"I did not say merely "disfigured." There are matters of degree here. If the fetus is anencephalic, for example, I would go with the desire of the mother, whenever. What purpose does it serve to continue the pregnancy, there, against her will?

To stop her from murdering her child! Duh huh!

Many times, with the kind of deficiencies I'm talking about, the fetus won't be sentient. There are conditions where sentience can be there, and the prognosis is for a very short life with a lot of suffering. Even in those cases, I'd let the mother/parents decide. IMO in those cases it's not worth it to force the continuation of the pregnancy."

Define sentient, according to your personal definition.

I had written: You don't think there's any physical suffering involved in the abortion itself at that late term, Doug?

Doug responded: There may be, Bethany. In some cases I still think it serves no good purpose to continue the pregnancy. If pain is a concern, anesthesia can be done.

That doesn't make it right to kill a human being.

By the way, this reminds me. I know you responded to that point I made about shooting a homeless man who had no family, if he asked me to shoot him. You said that I would have done no wrong.
Doug, why is it that you see killing him as an acceptable solution???
What if the man had had a bad day? What if he didn't really want to die, but he just thought he did that day? What if he was depressed and needed someone to care about him? What if he just was crying out for help? What if he had desires to have a house, wife, and family, but he just didn't know how to get there? All he needed was a friend to help, but instead, I looked at him and implied by my actions that, "Yes, you are as worthless as you think you are. Yes, you aren't worthy of living anymore. I'll take your life, because I think it's okay to play God with people's lives. "
DOUG, it is WRONG to kill human beings! It is NOT okay to kill them just because they are anesthetized! It is not okay to kill them just because they don't have family (why not GIVE them that family? Why not CARE about them and BECOME that friend they so desperately needed????? ) HAVE A HEART!!!!!


I don't think I was commparing it to abortion, but you're right - there certainly is a difference.

Thank you for understanding me on this one.

Dont' see anything there where I'd say no good purpose is served by continuing the pregnancy, and this is just for gestation, let alone after birth. It's up to the parents, first and foremost, and it's not up to me to tell anybody to have an abortion.

If it is a viable baby, a baby who is sentient and you have attributed person hood to it, WHY DO THE MOTHERS AND FATHERS RIGHTS TRUMP IT'S BASIC RIGHT TO LIFE? And don't tell me it doesn't have "absolute" personhood unless you are willing to tell me "Why".

I'll respond to the rest later. I'm pretty irritated right now. I'll have to wait to cool off a little.

Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2007 9:00 AM


Well where in the constitution or anywhere else is the "Right to Bodily Autonomy" mentioned? I don't see it? And yet your entire argument is based on it. Perhaps it is implied, but just like the unborn, "implied" doesn't seem to matter...

So where is this "right" that carrying a pregnancy to term violates, written. Where did you and other prochoicers come up with it?

Thank you, MaryKay~ That's what I've always wanted to know! Where is this right to bodily autonomy??

Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2007 9:49 AM


Doug, I really don't buy into this type of argument. It's like a cat chasing it's tail. Takes me back to the "Diana days." I just can't do it. It goes nowhere. This is just another feeble attempt to cheapen the life of the unborn child. I can't help but wonder, what some of these women put these poor gyn's through. I wonder if a woman who chooses to abort, has ever jumped down a doctor's throat for not entertaining her PC lingo.

Posted by: Heather at September 6, 2007 10:24 AM


Marykay, TERRIFIC post about sentience.

Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2007 4:11 PM


Doug,

Moved to "Bourne" post...hope I got everything...

Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 7:27 PM


Heather: Doug, I really don't buy into this type of argument. It's like a cat chasing it's tail. Takes me back to the "Diana days." I just can't do it. It goes nowhere. This is just another feeble attempt to cheapen the life of the unborn child. I can't help but wonder, what some of these women put these poor gyn's through. I wonder if a woman who chooses to abort, has ever jumped down a doctor's throat for not entertaining her PC lingo.

Who knows, Heather? I do see a difference between what you say and what happens in the real world, though.

Some (most, in the US) pregnancies are wanted, and some are not. It is not that there is any "cheapening" going on, it is that not everybody values a given pregnancy positively.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 6, 2007 8:13 PM