Posted on 05/14/2013 1:29:54 PM PDT by MNDude
PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia abortion doctor convicted of killing three babies who were born alive has agreed to give up his right to an appeal and will be spared a potential death sentence.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell was convicted Monday of first-degree murder in the deaths of the babies who were delivered alive and killed with scissors. The 72-year-old Gosnell gave up his appeal rights Tuesday, and prosecutors agreed to two life sentences without parole.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Pope John Paul II, the great, practical theologian and philosopher, said abortion is the fruit of contraception, one.
The scientists agree that life begins at conception, and abortifacients certainly are, by definition, causative to abortion.
When people, men who like to tell girls all about what they think about life, say all kinds of things without any information from informed philosophers, scientists and publications, they are not worth listening to and they can do a lot of destruction.
Read up on what you’re talking about, like most pro choice people ought to.
Glad to know you worship the god Science.
What being intrudes the womb to implant this "nervous system" in the fertilized egg?
Didn’t he kill more than three babies?
Question for discussion:
Should the women whose babies were killed by Gosnell be prosecuted as accessories?
I don't see why not.
> Abortion, according to Poe John Paul II, the great
> philosopher, is a FRUIT of contraception.
Agree completely, and I’m not even a Catholic.
The same spirit behind abortion is behind contraception.
Consider the meaning of the word contraception: against the conception of a new life, or, essentially, anti-life. It is the same spirit.
They are accessories, so, go from there.
Let them talk about how remorseful they are.
That is what the media and the court system doesn’t want getting out.
It’s worse than the violence, to them.
To be a practicing Catholic it is to follow the sacramental life.
But the Catholic philosophy of life can by anyone. I recently read that from some contemporary theologian, can’t recall who. It made so much sense, I took it away without even thinking I’d want to cite in this case, the specific philosophy is on the Theology of the Body, which is the antidote to the anti family, sex obsessed culture in which we live.
Take a look at Humanae Vitae - a quick google search.
Pope Paul VI wrote it in 196?(8?). It’s brainy, but accessible in its being logical.
He made common sense predictions and warnings.But it’s a guide - NOT necessarily a religious guide, just how to respect life and family.
Anyone can read it. It’s Biblically based.
Let’s put it this way.
Pro-aborts use anything they can to discredit the pro-life position. If you claim to be pro-life based on some non-scientific criterion, then you give the pro-aborts the ammo they need to ridicule and dismiss the pro-life position. They don’t just laugh at the idea that “ha-ha-ha, he actually believes that a just fertilized egg is exactly like a newborn baby”—they extend that out to ridicule any claim that a baby can possibly be alive before birth.
IMO, the strongest position you can have is one that is based purely on objective, observable, measurable characteristics of the embryo.
Scientifically, there is nothing particularly special about a fertilized egg. It is made when two living cells fuse together to become one living cell. Since cell fusion is a common event, fertilization is not a defining event. Neither is unique DNA. Even though cells are dividing in the fertilized ovum, they have no form. Form and function don’t start showing up until after implantation. You don’t need a scientist (like me) to tell you that everything you know, all of your perceptions, feelings, thoughts, etc., are only possible because you have a brain in your head, and that removal of the brain—even if the rest of your body can be kept alive—would essentially eliminate you as a person. So, as a measure of what makes us human, I think that formation of the nervous system is the defining event. Before the nervous system develops, there is nothing but a clump of featureless cells. After the nervous system starts to develop, there is an embryo that has awareness of its world.
Also, I don’t believe that God implants a soul at fertilization. I know it is a romantic concept for some people, but I am also aware that most fertilized ova never even implant, much less go on to become embryos. I do not believe that God kills off 9 souls for every one that is allowed to live.
What being intrudes the womb to implant this "nervous system" in the fertilized egg?
Science is a methodology used to observe and describe the physical world. Yes, I am a scientist. It is a natural career choice for someone as rooted in logic and curiosity as I have been my whole life.
You should be glad for science and the scientific method. Without a scientific description of human embryonic development, the pro-life movement would have died out decades ago, except for a few hold-outs who would be widely regarded as kooks. But since we do have science, the pro-life movement is actually able to point out physical characteristics of the embryo and explain that those characteristics make it a human being worth protecting. Characteristics like the fact that when the nervous system starts to form at three weeks the embryo becomes aware of its world and able to feel. The nervous system consists of the brain and the network of nerves that carry signals between the brain and the rest of the body. Without a nervous system, life can exist, but it is unaware, like plants.
I don’t care if I get ridiculed about this. Why should I?
Nor do I spend time arguing about when the soul enters the person. The soul does enter the body at a particular point. That’s a fact, whether we believe it or not.
Just like the fact that if I drive my car into a wall it’s going to get smashed whether I believe it will or not.
I’m not sure to what you are referring, but I can assure you it was a defense I was making, and certainly not an attempt to change anyone’s mind.
There is no science yet, nor is there any forseeable, of when the soul takes its place.
When I assume that it happens, as I do, at the time a person is formed, at fertilization, when DNA is that of a different person, then there is order.
Is there some scientific data to which you can point that causes you to assume that I should believe your assumption that God doesn’t take on should that don’t make it to implantation?
Please don’t lecture me on what God wants, nor on your assumptions on when a person becomes a person. I prefer to ignore those uninformed ideas of people around me who want to tell God how things are.
There are many theologically informed philosophers and Biblical researchers of good will whom I prefer to hear. They never veer away from the assumption that God invented sex, not us, and we are best served by using it according to His will - within a marriage of good intent.
It’s simple. And it is impervious to ridicule, because it doesn’t care about that.
You assume I am not?
Characteristics like the fact that when the nervous system starts to form at three weeks the embryo becomes aware of its world and able to feel.
And as I asked, and you refused to answer, what being intrudes the womb at 3 weeks gestation to implant the nervous system?
You assume I am not?
Your previous comment, "Glad to know you worship the god Science." strongly implies that you hold science and the scientific method in contempt. So, of course I concluded that you are not fond of science.
And as I asked, and you refused to answer, what being intrudes the womb at 3 weeks gestation to implant the nervous system?
I am not good at answering nonsensical questions.
No, it doesn't, not in the least. "Worship" is not a synonym of "fondness."
I am not good at answering nonsensical questions.
Nothing nonsensical about it. You explained the lack of distinctly human characteristics in the fetus before week 3, because it lacks a nervous system. I asked who put it there, at week 3.
Seems easy enough to answer.
Quit trying to backtrack by claiming you meant something other than what you clearly meant. Your message was clear: you don't like science, you don't understand the scientific method, you have no clue about what science shows us, and you hold those who devote their lives to advancement of human knowledge in contempt.
Nothing nonsensical about it. You explained the lack of distinctly human characteristics in the fetus before week 3, because it lacks a nervous system. I asked who put it there, at week 3.
Because that is utterly nonsensical. Who holds up flying airplanes? Who keeps your feet stuck to the ground when you walk around? Who keeps the moon from plummeting into the earth and destroying us all? Who makes vinegar foam up when you mix it with baking soda? Who shoots lightning across the sky during a thunderstorm and who makes the thunderstorm? Answer: no one. Simply put, natural processes don't have a "who" involved. If you believe that a "who" actively guides every single natural phenomenon that occurs... well... all I can say is that I've seen illiterate people who are more scientifically sophisticated.
If you *genuinely* want to know about the stages of embryonic/fetal development, I suggest you Google it. There are many very good descriptions of development available.
During the first few weeks after fertilization, the fertile egg grows into a ball of featureless cells. In the third week, part of the ball folds inwards, making a crease. That crease forms the neural tube. The top of the neural tube becomes the brain; the rest of it becomes the spinal cord. Because everything you know and feel is rooted in the brain, this is really the point at which a featureless clump of cells takes on human characteristics. And no one at all is involved, because this is a natural process. It either happens by itself or does not happen at all. Most fertilized ova never survive long enough to form a neural tube.
That is completely untrue, and as said, indicative of an utter lack of good faith in your discussion.
And for the question...wow. All that "science" and precious little understanding. I pity you.
If you say something and someone interprets it to mean something you genuinely did not mean to say, the graceful way out is to apologize and explain what you really meant to say. Since you have done neither, but instead have tried to backtrack, you have provided all the evidence I need that you meant *exactly* what I understood.
And for the question...wow. All that "science" and precious little understanding. I pity you.
Seriously, I thank God every day for my strong intelligence, sense of logic and pragmatism, and the opportunities I have had to use the gifts I was given. I actually feel sorry for people who drift through life swimming in swamps of illogic and emotion, whose sense of reality is warped by the desire to see signs of the supernatural everywhere they look.
My problem with using religious criteria instead of objectively measurable scientific criteria is that anyone can use religion to justify abortion all the way up to the point of birth.
Not everyone shares your religious background. And there are Christians who *do* use religion to justify abortion at any point of pregnancy.
Choosing an arbitrary point such as fertilization as the point at which life “begins” is just as arbitrary as choosing “quickening” or the first breath of air as that point.
Scientific criteria, on the other hand, are not arbitrary. Anyone can use a sonogram machine to view the heart beating in the third week. Anyone would agree that not seeing a beating heart is evidence that the embryo is dead. Nothing is arbitrary or subject to different interpretation here.
Also, the pro-aborts dismiss pro-lifers as wanting to control women, as only wanting women to be baby-machines, as wanting to force their religious views on them. You’ll never convince an adamantly liberal young woman to reject abortion by telling her that birth control and abortion are the same and she should avoid them. You might be able to swing her around to the pro-life position by discussing the facts of embryonic/fetal development to her and making her understand that a baby at three, four, five weeks is rapidly taking on the characteristics of a baby at birth. By six weeks, every organ is formed—destroying that baby is demonstrably murder!
Some things, like unique DNA, really aren’t all that significant. I can look out the window and see countless living things that all have unique DNA.
If I clone 100 children from my skin cells, they will all have DNA that is almost identical to mine. They will still be 100 separate human beings. Sometimes, two fertilized ova will merge to produce one person. This person has two separate sets of unique DNA, but they are still one person. Sometimes, a fertilized egg starts to split in two, but doesn’t quite make it, so a “Siamese twin” results. This usually results in two people sharing the same body (look up the two-headed girl). In most cases, however, a fertilized egg does not survive for more than a few days.
You are right, there is no science, nor can there be, to demonstrate when the soul appears. And the belief of when that happens is absolutely arbitrary. Circumstantially, there is plenty of evidence that fertilization by itself is not sufficient to draw in a soul. I firmly believe that it is not possible to have a soul without the ability to be aware, which is one reason I point out that nervous system development begins in the third week. It is just plain wrong to subject a feeling baby to the brutality of abortion.
Don’t get me wrong—I have nothing against explaining to a young woman that Jesus loves her *and* her baby—my problem is purely with using arbitrary religious beliefs to try to determine what a baby is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.