Posted on 09/22/2004 3:52:13 PM PDT by paltz
Sorry lady, you have your facts wrong and should know the difference between and egg and embryo. A miscarriage is part of God's natural law and is not the same as humans trying to harvest children the unnatural way. You can't change my mind, I believe in God and know that IVF is wrong.
You should try reading those links and learn some science.
At what point is abortion wrong for you?
There are actually video games now where the player can choose to rape a female on the game!!!! SICK SICK SICK.
That's calling lying, which last time I looked was a prohibited activity for Christians, per the 10 Commandments >>
I used editorial license and sensationalism to put up a title to catch one's eye as it did yours, you fell for my trap, thanks. The info. is out there and poor brooke is excommunicated from the catholic church for participating in IVF where her child(ren) was/were killed.
I know the difference between and egg and an embryo. And the vast majority of naturally conceived EMBRYOS never become babies.
Depends a lot on the circumstances and the methods. I think it is absolutely wrong to bring a seriously defective child into the world, and if a serious defect isn't discovered until quite late in a pregnancy, I think the responsible thing to do is to abort it. I fully support laws which aim to minimize any pain and suffering that a late-stage embryo might experience (I know such laws are in place in the UK; I don't know if any US states have them). But I don't buy that it's wrong to inflict ANY pain whatsoever on it, if it can't be avoided without harming the mother. Infants and children with serious defects are routinely subjected to painful invasive medical procedures that they'll never be able to understand the reasons for, and to me that's worse than a little one-time pain before birth and before the fetus is really aware of its surroundings.
On the other hand, waiting until late in a pregnancy -- i.e. past the point where the fetus becomes really capable of feeling pain -- just because you can't make up your mind whether you want a baby or not, is unethical in my mind. However, I wouldn't want to make it illegal, because I can just imagine how these mothers will treat their babies after they're born. And even if they give them up for adoption, the developing fetus almost certainly didn't have the benefit of a drug and alcohol free womb, a decently nourished mother, etc.
Legally, I think the only safe place to draw the line is when a baby has taken its first breath of air. Ethically, there's tons of gray area, and lots of religious beliefs involved, that the law has no business getting involved in. Ethically, I disapprove of a woman aborting a 3rd trimester pregnancy because the father dumped her and she has a brand new boyfriend who doesn't want the baby -- but that doesn't mean I think there should be a law against it. Any resources that could be expended (money, adoptive homes, etc.) on rescuing that baby from its lowlife parents, could be better spent on rescuing the millions of starving and abused children who've already been born.
I'm quite sure Brooke wouldn't be interested in trading in her beautiful baby daughter for membership in the Catholic Church. The baby daughter is much more important.
She is now an excommunicated member of the Catholic Church for violating catholic law and participating in IVF where fetuses are created, implanted, aborted and/or frozen and stored. And to make matters worse, she, as a celebrity where young and even old impressionable people idolize her, should not be pushing the culture of death, abortion, IVF because what she is doing is swaying Catholics and others into abortion and out of grace with the Catholic Church
Trade in a child? now don't be silly.
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.