Actress Brooke Shields kills 140 of her very own Children by undergoing 7 IVF Treatments

Various | 07.25.04

[Askel5]

Is it because you can't understand what I'm saying or you simply reject the notion that God's will was for us to freely choose Good over Evil instead of being forced like automotons always to do what He wanted?



I don't see any "rationalization" inherent in accepting objective reality's consistent natural laws of physics. How would scientific achievement be possible were we not able to confirm by repetition and empirical analysis our predictions about how the world -- right down to human procreation -- works?

These laws allow for magnificent feats in the realm of medical advances to repair, lengthen and alleviate suffering in human lives. Unfortunately, they're also the subject of manipulation by those who would destroy human live en masse in order to build a better Human in their own image of Perfection.

Where's the "rationalization" here?

[South40]

Respond to me again when you've determined that it's somewhat judgemental. Otherwise it's pointless to talk to someone who won't acknowledge reality.

Insipid posts of clueless cant notwithstanding...at least they haven't told you you have no right to hold an opinion.

[pascendi]

Hey, anytime. Remember, ask for it and you shall receive it.

[dsc]

"at least they haven't told you you have no right to hold an opinion."

Now, now. No spinning.

You were told that you have a civil right to be wrong, but no *moral* right to be wrong.

[dsc]

"Well since the destruction of a fertilized egg is a sin, the killing of a human being, the only way to make sure this doesn't happen again is to quit trying to have children. Do you have children? A miscarriage is one dead human. I advocate the ceasation of sex worldwide while we sort this out."

Painful as it may be, one cannot understand this issue unless one is willing to make crucial distinctions.

One must, for instance, draw a distinction between the early death from natural causes of a preborn human--such as in your example of a miscarriage--and the deliberate killing of a preborn human.

Your premise, that death from natural causes is the equivalent of deliberate homicide, would appear to be just a little difficult to defend.

[HairOfTheDog]

The rationalization is to propose that because some cute children survive this evil process, and we can't condemn cute babies, then the survivors must be God's way of making some good come of it. Once you proposed unequivically that the process is against the will of God, then I wonder exactly why he would bless it with life and a soul. I am not a fan of IVF myself either for a host of reasons.... I just don't propose to know exactly how God feels about it, only note that he lets it happen.

Thanks for your responses though!

[South40]

Now, now. No spinning.

No spin was/is needed.

[DoughtyOne]

Oh how easy it is to rationalize when it's your own ox that's getting gored. No sale bub.

With every pregnancy the couple makes a concious decision to accept the possible detroyed embryo via miscarriage. That is a concious decision to contrubute to the death of a human being. Now deal with it.

As I said, I think we should have a world-wide moratorium on sex until we sort this out. Quick, think of a god awful title and get that thread up.

[cpforlife.org]

Tori said: "Guys, you are trying to make a subjective judgment about what has a sufficient degree of humanness to warrant the protection of the law, and just how much one should equate potential and actual when making such an evaluation, into an objective claim. That can't be done, and just repeating over and over again, your same arguments, is a waste of bandwidth. I'm done."

IT WAS DONE TORIE! At the federal level in 1970 (see below) and please respond to this. Three years before Roe v Wade, another case was decided at the federal level that was consistent with the objective truth (as well as biological-genetic-scientific truth) that life begins at conception.

The case went to the extent to say that legally, Human Personhood Begins at Conception : "Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."

More specifically, the "personhood" case is the legal factor that is the heart of the matter as to why this nation has had a 30-year holocaust of people waiting to be born.

From Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion

The common law basis of our system embodied in the principle of stare decisis and the just requirements of consistency in applying the law demand a respect for precedent. To this objection I offer two replies. First, there was a federal court precedent for the unborn person reading of Fourteenth Amendment before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court.

In Steinberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated that "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology."

"Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."

Yet in commenting on the unborn person argument in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." He did so despite the fact that he had cited the case just five paragraphs earlier!

The failure of both appellees and the Court to treat this case is both unfortunate and inexplicable. Second, while our system is based upon a reasonable and healthy respect for precedent, this has never prevented the Court from revisiting and modifying precedent when the erroneous foundation and unjust results of that precedent become manifest. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a separate section--by a different author:

Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that. Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion. FT January 2003: Constitutional Persons http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/schlueter_bork.html Robert H. Bork is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

"Isn’t it ironic that those who trumpet their beliefs that we should separate God from our political lives insist on playing God when it comes to their politics regarding what they like to label “quality of life” issues?" -- Pamela Rice Hahn (www.ricehahn.com)

[drstevej]

***You can honor God by having a child...***

But can you honor God while killing unborn childen in a Petri dish?

[dsc]

"With every pregnancy the couple makes a concious decision to accept the possible detroyed embryo via miscarriage. That is a concious decision to contrubute to the death of a human being. Now deal with it."

The irrationality of your position is baffling, if one assumes it to be a sincerely held opinion.

You seem to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between accepting the risk every human faces of natural death, and conscious and deliberate homicide.

Amazing.

[fatima]

cpforlife.org,Thanks for the ping.Very hard to read about Brooke.

[drstevej]

***With every pregnancy the couple makes a concious decision to accept the possible detroyed embryo via miscarriage. That is a concious decision to contrubute to the death of a human being. Now deal with it.***

None of our seven miscarriages were the result of a conscious decision that caused the miscarriage.

Here's one for you. If you have a child, someday it will die. Ergo, by your "logic" having a child is "a concious decision to contrubute to the death of a human being."

Silly isn't it?

[narses]

"None of our seven miscarriages were the result of a conscious decision that caused the miscarriage."

Two of my siblings died at the hands of my mother, one of natural causes. You equate the two as if there is no difference. Unless you have had a child die (Deo Gratias, I have not) or a sibling die (I have, both of natural causes and abortion), you cannot understand the emotional issue involved, but can you see the moral one? The DELIBERATE choice to kill is somehow not clear to you?

Doc, I'm sure you've posted your grief elsewhere and I missed that, but please accept my sincere condolences for you and your wife. I suspect I cannot know your pain, but I share your grief.

[DoughtyOne]

This thread is all about the sin of killing even one fertilized egg, because it's a human being.  If that's truly the way you feel about it, then you should be willing to confront this issue openly and honestly.

Every year millions of miscarriages occur in this nation.  That's millions of human beings killed by the selfish decision of couples who could very easily quit having sex and prevent the carnage.

You of all people should understand the need for a moratorium on sex.  Millions of humans can be saved.

[hocndoc]

We'll disagree, except on the formularies designed to give hormones in amounts so great that they override the corpus luteum and the progesterone only pills that cause too many ectopic pregnancies.


Blackburn showed many inconsistencies in his logic in R v W. Would he throw out murder charges since Texas makes exceptions for self defense, or has a National Guard for defense and sends tax monies to support National Armed Forces?

You may be mixing the "Life of the Mother" exceptions and "health of the mother" exceptions.

[narses]

DoughtyOne Says:

Every year millions of miscarriages occur in this nation. That's millions of human beings killed by the selfish decision of couples who could very easily quit having sex and prevent the carnage.

Doughtyone, you really are not trying to equate the natural miscarriages that happen to the deliberate abortions that murder the innocent, are you? Tell me you are not so facile as to claim that accidents are the moral equivalent of murder, or that natural miscarriages are the moral equivalent of abortion. Please tell me you aren't that simple minded. Please.

[pascendi]

"Every year millions of miscarriages occur in this nation. That's millions of human beings killed by the selfish decision of couples who could very easily quit having sex and prevent the carnage."

If all else fails, try using reason. Please.

[DoughtyOne]

First of all, I am sorry that both of you have had to deal with losses of these types in your families.

Second, let me make it clear, I do not fault people for continuing to try to have children by natural means whether they have lost one or twenty children through miscarriage.  What does gaul me is the people who do continue trying to have children after multiple miscarriages, who none the less condemn someone else for using a different method that also results in destroyed embryos.

As I stated to one other individual in one of my last posts before this one, there are millions of miscarriages each year.  Should we pass a moratorium on sex?  Of course not.  That would be absurd.  Frankly I consider it equally absurd to call for abolishing in-vitro.  I'm sorry we can't agree on this one.

The best to both of you.

[DoughtyOne]

Oh so millions of dead embryos don't matter? Well I'm glad you've finally come out of the closet.