Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Archivist]

You keep spreading the inaccuracies:

The colonies inherited English Common Law and largely operated under it until well into the 19th century. English Common Law forbade abortion. Abortion prior to quickening was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. This bifid punishment, inherited from earlier ecclesiastic law, stemmed from earlier “knowledge” regarding human reproduction.

In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she “felt life,” but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the “Offenses Against the Persons Act,” eliminating the above punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws. These laws, preceding and following the British example, moved the felony punishment from quickening back to conception.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/05/abortion-was-illegal-in-all-13-american-colonies-in-1776/

You are the one who us incorrect not me. Try sources other than lifenews.com.

 

[katerinah1947]

Before abortion was legal, not many women had them. Now that it
is cheap and convenient, it is the alternative to contraception. It is
cheapening life from conception to old age by saying some people
can be thrown away with no regrets or consequences.

God's judgment will not wait forever, and we are racking up the
offenses against him.

Hi,

I was in the hospital in 1969. TEOS, does explode, no one knew that then. Amazing, all it takes is blowing up a small lab room, to educate everyone. I think it was worth it.

Abortions, in the hospital I was staying at had the name D&C, or something like that. Lots of girls were getting them.

Additionally, the society even in the 60's held lots of things as scandalous. Unwed girls who were pregnant were part of that.

Much, was known, even shows were made, on the subject of back room abortions, that go and went horribly wrong.

Can, you not see mercy in allowing girls who will do it anyway and at any costs to themselves, an allowance to do it legally to forego, our then hardships placed on them, by us, the so-called loving compassionate public?

LOVE,

 

[redleghunter]

I don't see the term human being there any where.

No one debates that there is a unique human organism from conception, but science does not claim it is a being, i.e. a person.

So, your claim that "science says there is a unique human being from conception" is false.

No you failed to read the exact quotes. I can't help you if you won't read what I quoted.

It was right up there in the first quote. Here it is again.



A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


More at the links. Buy the book. You can get an e-book for less than $1US.


Human organism? Ok that's the same thing


Here's another source :

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

And another:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

And another:

This one is from eugenics bioethisist Peter Singer who believes we cannot determine if a born infant is a "person." In his quote below he confirms what science confirms:

It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 2008), 85-86.)


Yet more:

EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO LIFE'S BEGINNING
In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.11



http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

 

[redleghunter]

You are the one who us incorrect not me. Try sources other than lifenews.com.

Try actually providing a source.

 

[Armoured]

No you failed to read the exact quotes. I can't help you if you won't read what I quoted.

It was right up there in the first quote. Here it is again.



A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


More at the links. Buy the book. You can get an e-book for less than $1US.


Human organism? Ok that's the same thing


Here's another source :

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

And another:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

And another:

This one is from eugenics bioethisist Peter Singer who believes we cannot determine if a born infant is a "person." In his quote below he confirms what science confirms:

It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 2008), 85-86.)


Yet more:

EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO LIFE'S BEGINNING
In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.11



http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

An ethics text is not a scientific text. When a person achieves personhood is a philosophical distinction, not a scientific one. Your claim that it was a scientific one was and remains false.

Your claim that a unique human organism is the same as a human being is not scientific.

Beyond this, I'm pretty much done with the misquotes, logical fallacies and obtuse contrariness.

 

[katerinah1947]

I don't see the term human being there any where.

No one debates that there is a unique human organism from conception, but science does not claim it is a being, i.e. a person.

So, your claim that "science says there is a unique human being from conception" is false.

Hi,

It may be false scientifically, today, but it is still true.

Therein lies the problem and our situation, we don't know in a way provable to everyone who counts, and we are still so messed up as a group, that we can't handle the people correctly that are here on earth now, let alone those babies, whose mothers mercifully end their lives quickly, to in their eyes protect them from an impossible life, or the other extreme of mothers, with no compassion because they have been sufficiently brutalized in life so far, that they are affected mentally enough by that, to display no remorse, and abort for career or social reasons.

It is proof for personhood that is lacking legally. If personhood ever is established, abortion then becomes an issue of who has preferential rights, when an abortion decision is to be made.

If all children were taken care of despite their parents, things would be a little different also.

When I talk to mothers of aborted or even miscarried children, it hurts them. The loss of a person to them hurts them.

A woman in an abusive relationship, the spouse being a Sociopath, but not admitting it to her yet, refused to have a second child, by her spouse.

She grieves, the son should would have had, not only for her, but for her daughter who would have had him as a brother for life, enriching her life and the worlds.

Till this day, she calls that a mercy killing. She feels like the person, her son, she knows who and what he was, before she said no to procreative activities that night. Refusing, meant abortion to her.

She knows God forgave her for that, but wonders if it was the right thing to do.

Sure, he would also be victimized, by her spouse. She could not get out of that marriage then. She is older now. I am sure she would have chosen radically different now.

I am sure, she would have let her heart rule over everyone else, and left the abuser with her first child no matter what happened to her, only. Only, her a abuser was also a brilliant liar, and she may have lost her first daughter to her former spouse.

That, was an item she would not accept, and now her daughter years later thanks her profusely, while she says that she was not that good of a mother. Her, daughter tells her though, all great mothers think they were not that good. She still refuses to listen to her daughter, but loves her anyway, even though she is wrong.

That, is still no proof of personhood, but it is intriguing.

LOVE,

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

I was in the hospital in 1969. TEOS, does explode, no one knew that then. Amazing, all it takes is blowing up a small lab room, to educate everyone. I think it was worth it.

Abortions, in the hospital I was staying at had the name D&C, or something like that. Lots of girls were getting them.

Additionally, the society even in the 60's held lots of things as scandalous. Unwed girls who were pregnant were part of that.

Much, was known, even shows were made, on the subject of back room abortions, that go and went horribly wrong.

Can, you not see mercy in allowing girls who will do it anyway and at any costs to themselves, an allowance to do it legally to forego, our then hardships placed on them, by us, the so-called loving compassionate public?

LOVE,

What's your Catholic opinion on the subject?

 

[redleghunter]

An ethics text is not a scientific text. When a person achieves personhood is a philosophical distinction, not a scientific one. Your claim that it was a scientific one was and remains false.

Your claim that a unique human organism is the same as a human being is not scientific.

Beyond this, I'm pretty much done with the misquotes, logical fallacies and obtuse contrariness.

No it's an issue of you not reading the medical sources.

I am not asserting that a distinct new human being begins at conception. The sources I cited prove it.

MEDICAL sources.

Show the misquotes.

Show your rebuttal.

Show something other than your refusal to read the sources.

 

[Armoured]

Hi,

It may be false scientifically, today, but it is still true.

That's a perfectly valid philosophical position. However, the claim was that it was a SCIENTIFIC fact, and that claim is false.

 

[redleghunter]

That's a perfectly valid philosophical position. However, the claim was that it was a SCIENTIFIC fact, and that claim is false.

You are in no position to refute medical science.

I quoted from medical doctors some who are embyologists.

At conception a new human being begins. Scientific fact.

23 from dad+ 23 from mom=new human being. (46)

Simple math.

If you don't want to read the medical testimony I can't help you.

If you want to believe an embryo is not a human being you kick against the goads of sceince not my opinion.

What I posted was true. Your response was to stomp your feet and say no. Well sorry I posted scientific fact.

Now if you want to deny an embryo is a legal person that is another matter. But the burden of proof is on this type of view as if we kill an embryo we are killing another human being.

Sorry if this upsets a long held belief.

 

[katerinah1947]

What's your Catholic opinion on the subject?

Hi,

I do not have a Catholic Opinion. I have a Catholic Statement.

Abortion is a subject left to women to decide, and it is a subject to be understood, not from a fallible Church point of view as it involves people of God, coming to earth to live and be born, who were alive before they were conceived in a womb, similar to what we know of Jesus, but to be understood by all others in our best attempts to understand what God would have us do, in this life now, and in this time.

Since God is merciful with us, as He was at Ninevah and even in Sodom and Gomorra, we should acknowledge that, and be merciful also.

Abortion, although killing a full person, is wrong, but none of us humans is capable of not doing wrong occasionally, except Jesus, and The Vigin Mary, who were both born full of grace, so it is still forgivable by God, as God is like that, Merciful.

Therefore, since it also hurts both parents, then, but is realized later, the act of sorrowful abortion is forgivable in a Confessional to a priest, just like any other sin such as anger, which is murder to God.

This in no way is an approval or acceptance of abortion. It is a statement of fact about God's Mercy.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

That's a perfectly valid philosophical position. However, the claim was that it was a SCIENTIFIC fact, and that claim is false.

Hi,

I know. I thought I made that clear also.

I am sorry for making you think otherwise.

However, if I was asked to prove that scientifically, I am not sure it could not be proven.

LOVE,

 

[Kylie]

The scholars who used miscarriage or still birth are clearly in error. They form a very small minority and have engaged in eisegesis, the method of interpreting scriptures with a bias.

In order to determine the exact meaning of a word in the Bible you need a literal word for word translation and look back at the Hebrew for Exodus 21. Those trying to use miscarriage or still born are likely using a dynamic equivalent or paraphrase translation and not a literal word for word translation.


The majority of scholars who ascribe to the Hebrew and Greek lexicon.

Here is the passage in question.

Exodus 21: King James Version (KJV)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now another word for word literal translation from a modern English version.

Exodus 21: NASB


"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB


Now we take a look at the Hebrew lexicon.



If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled

he KJV translates Strongs H3206 in the following manner:child (72x), young man (7x), young ones (3x), sons (3x), boy (2x), fruit (1x), variant (1x).


child, son, boy, offspring, youth

1. child, son, boy
   
   
2. child, children
   
   
3. descendants
   
   
4. youth

Yeled is not not miscarriage nor still birth, it's a live child.

Is there a Hebrew word for miscarriage and stillborn? Yes and it is not Yeled.

Exodus 23: KJV


26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.

The above now in the Hebrew lexicon:
שָׁכֹל shakol


The KJV translates Strongs H7921 in the following manner:bereave (10x),barren (2x), childless (2x), cast young (2x), cast a calf (1x), lost children (1x),rob of children (1x), deprived (1x), misc (5x).


שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.


So we can see shakol is not used in Exodus 21:22ff.

Yaled is alive; shakol is miscarriage.

So why did they all make the same mistake?

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

I do not have a Catholic Opinion. I have a Catholic Statement.

Abortion is a subject left to women to decide, and it is a subject to be understood, not from a fallible Church point of view as it involves people of God, coming to earth to live and be born, who were alive before they were conceived in a womb, similar to what we know of Jesus, but to be understood by all others in our best attempts to understand what God would have us do, in this life now, and in this time.

Since God is merciful with us, as He was at Ninevah and even in Sodom and Gomorra, we should acknowledge that, and be merciful also.

Abortion, although killing a full person, is wrong, but none of us humans is capable of not doing wrong occasionally, except Jesus, and The Vigin Mary, who were both born full of grace.

Therefore, since it also hurts both parents, then, but is realized later, the act of sorrowful abortion is forgivable in a Confessional to a priest, just like any other sin such as anger, which is murder to God.

This in no way is an approval or acceprance if abortion. It is a statement of fact about God's Mercy.

LOVE,

Yes indeed God always offers His Grace and Mercy before Judgment. I cannot agree more.

I saw a very nice and loving application of the CCC and the Bible in your comments. Thank you.

 

[redleghunter]

So why did they all make the same mistake?

Please clarify "all." I showed they all did not. A few did but not all.

 

[Kylie]

A fertilized acorn IS an oak tree.

SO are you going to inform the authorities to let them know I destroyed an oak tree when it is against the law to do so without permission?

It is not wrong for us to kill oak trees if we are using them for a purpose. We have dominion over the world. People - the Cree and Apache Indians, for example - used acorns as their primary foodstuff. Not all acorns are fertilized, but those that are, are tiny oak trees. They're not potential trees, they are genetically whole trees, in an early state of their existence, just like the caterpillar is the Monarch butterfly, and and so is its chrysalis. And we can kill Monarch butterflies, too, without committing mortal sin. Though it serves no point to do so and is an abuse of the dominion we have been given.

And look how well it's turned out, giving humans dominion over the world. Haven't we done a brilliant job.

We have not, however, been given dominion over other men, and we have no right to kill them. God has delivered the animals and the plants and the soil and water into our dominion, and we may kill them to eat, or for other reasons, or for no reason (though to do so is to be a bad king), but he has categorically forbidden us to kill man.

God gives instructions telling people to kill others lots of times in the Bible, so you're wrong there.

Kill a fertilized acorn, or a chrysalis, or a zygote, and you have killed an oak tree, or a butterfly, or a man. And God forbade the third case.

Because humans are somehow special. We're at the top of the ladder. Religious privilege for you...

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

I know. I thought I made that clear also.

I am sorry for making you think otherwise.

However, if I was asked to prove that scientifically, I am not sure it could not be proven.

LOVE,

Are you claiming that science cannot determine when we become a human being or a legal person?

 

[redleghunter]

SO are you going to inform the authorities to let them know I destroyed an oak tree when it is against the law to do so without permission?



And look how well it's turned out, giving humans dominion over the world. Haven't we done a brilliant job.



God gives instructions telling people to kill others lots of times in the Bible, so you're wrong there.



Because humans are somehow special. We're at the top of the ladder. Religious privilege for you...

Yes we chopped down too many trees and started doing the same to our young.

 

[Kylie]

They don't always let them. Doctors recently forced a 17 year old girl to
undergo chemotherapy against her and her mother's will.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/teen-forced-undergo-chemo-ready-head-home-n348841

That wasn't really someone choosing medical care for themselves though, was it?

In some states, including CA now, you can be forced to take vaccines, whether
you want them or not.

Of course, a person's vaccination status also affects other people as well. It's called herd immunity.

And let's not start on the "vaccines are harmful" nonsense, because they are not.

This one is bad.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/bret-bohn/

I agree that this is bad. However, such cases make up the tiny minority of cases. ALso, this guy was released.

http://www.adn.com/article/20140613...ed-bret-bohn-man-family-said-was-hospitalized

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=862308547130509

 

[katerinah1947]

Are you claiming that science cannot determine when we become a human being or a legal person?

Hi,

The issue is personhood, not legal person like a freed Slave, versus a non freed Slave.
It is also personhood, for even some criminals lacking remorse are not considered human beings by everyone.
And, historically other Human beings now, we're not known to be such, in the time of Columbus.
In wars and genocide, others are not considered human beings, I think also then.

No. I am claiming that I and other scientists, if we were given this task, one of us probably would be able to prove that life begins before conception.

Science is rather a team sport in analogy. We all keep trying for a proof. A proof of true, or a proof of false, or a statement that I, he, she or they failed to be able to prove that item,,,,,,,,,Yet!

It may already have been proven. Science, in the Stratosphere where some of us work, is not accepted for tens of years or more, by others.

I have not heard of the proof, but I am retired now, and that is not in my field or vision yet, to do.

It is of interest though. It is.

LOVE,