Amazing stuff.
National Geographic

Watch the VIdeo

Tell me that's not a human being.

Thumps....

You know very well that a human being is defined by the presence of an immortal soul created by God, including reason and free will.

While I may agree with you that what you have shown is a human being, physical characteristics do not a human being make. Anyone can look at the pictures and say, yep, it looks like a human being but disagree that it is one. It is the soul which makes us human, not the body.

If we use physical characteristics as the determinant, we deny the God's hand in the procreation process; something I am not prepared to do.

It is just beautiful. I wish I could see the whole program.

I still think only the mother can decide for her unborn child.

Elena
http://wwwpianofourhands.com

A much more basic definition is an animated being of human nature. There is clearly self animation (anima, zoe, soul, call it what you will), it has being, and the nature is that of a human.

Your "definition" is more descriptive and presupposes God, immortality, and an imprecise expression of Aristotelian hylomorphism -- none of which is required for us to recognize a human being in utero.

Edit: I suggest it is imprecise because "particular matter" is required to be informed by the human soul in classical Aristotelian metaphysics. It is not just the soul, but the human is a composite of "body and soul" -- one does not exist without the other.

Let me rephrase that. I wish no woman felt compelled to terminate her pregnancy but she is the only person who can make that decision. And if she does, as history has shown she does regardless of legal or societal pressures, I would want her to have the safest one possible.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

There is a doctor in Oklahoma, I'm told, that did several hundred abortions on post-20 week old fetuses last year.

We are rapidly closing in on that age being routinely viable.

When a viable baby is aborted, does not that mean the law should be re-visited?

After all, now you are killing something that will survive outside of the womb, and in no way can be construed as POC.

Elena: I realize that we might be poles apart on the question, and I respect that.

Please explain why the mother is the only one who can (that is "ought") decide for her unborn child (that is, whether to continue to live or to die).

What is the difference whether the child is living inside the womb or outside of it?

I actually do believe the law should be revised to LIMIT (not eliminate) late term abortions where the fetus would survive outside the womb. Allow late term abortions in cases of rape, incest, the health of the mother, and any major anomaly detected in the child.

I have a couple of friends who have had children with severe developmental problems and both their lives and those of their children are essentially ruined. Obviously they love their children but I wonder how many of them would have terminated their pregnancy had their children been diagnosed in the womb.

In some cases it is better to wonder "what if", than see your child suffering throughout his/her life.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

Very Cool
Thanks.

The technology is amazing.
The photography, editing, music and voice are very skillful.
It make me feel emotion and marvel at the mystery and unanswerable questions of life.
Great production.
I'd love to see the TV show.

I'd guess Ivory is posting here and using this as some type of anti-abortion tool.

But this TV show has nothing to do with religion, abortion, definition of human soul , blah blah  blah .
It is just science.
It's just doing a new and better job of showing what is and always has been.

Nothing has changed because of an advancement of technology or a well made TV show.

Ivory, this is somewhat related to the late-term thing. I believe that as long as the embryo or fetus cannot survive outside the womb it is technically still part of the mother's body, not a separate being deserving its own rights. Therefore her rights as a human being override the fetus's until it can function on its own. Perhaps with medical innovations this stage will be reached earlier and earlier, that is fine by me, but an embryo without fully developed organs or brain does not have more rights than the mother which gave it life.

I understand why people are against abortion morally, I [edit] am in favor of providing the choice simply for practical reasons: I don't think our society would be a better place if women had to go to a back-alley quack to end their pregnancy, and this is inevitably what happens when abortion in all its forms is outlawed. The poor are the ones that get hurt and the rich still have it done privately.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

Be careful where you go, when you start to abort viable babies with developmental problems.

That is a Pandora's box one may not wish to open...

I know, I have thought of that. It is a complicated and very loaded issue. But I look at my friends and it is just so heartbreaking. There must be some way of determining where to draw the line.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

I don't think there is.

You play the cards God deals you, and you make the best life you can.

Regarding the imaging. For those of you that have AOL the video footage there is even more impressive. Gives a lot more of the 4D imaging.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

Whoa Jolly ... you *know* I don't debate the abortion issue. Yet, I do disagree with your use of the words "rapidly" and "routinely viable", despite the great advances in medicine. "Viability" is one narrowly defined thing but the "reality" of facing life as a mirco-premie is an entirely different matter. 20 weeks is a very much fetus IMHO.

simply amazing.

When I started in the biz, we used to set 7 month old preemies in the corner, watch them gasp for a few gut-wrenching hours, and then declare them.

I am glad we have been able to advance beyond that.

I think that the 20 week viability goal is one that will be reached.

Can anyone tell me why not?

nope.

Elena
http://pianofourhands.com

In that case there is no difference between abortion, and euthenasia after failing apgars after birth. Heck, may as well euthenize at 2 years if they can't talk.

Nothing is ever black and white. The world is in shades of grey.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

There is only your eternal struggle against sin. You can give into it and take what appears to be the easy way out, or you can do what's right.

Many times defective children are by nature miscarried. Is it such a sin to help nature by aborting anything that might cause you inconvenience and pain?

It would make a lot of economic sense to get rid of all the people draining social programs and euthenize them. Taxes would be a lot lower. By what standard could we decide whether someone is worthy to occupy space on this planet of limited resources, since there are only shades of grey?

Ivorythumper,

Maybe you should post some pictures of aborted babies to give the Liberals some "warm and fuzzies," too.

The horror of our race appears
and rears it's ugly head,

"Sorry baby -hold your tears,
no life for you before you're dead".

No trials or tribulation
No woe or jubilation
No chance to merely smell the breeze
No hopes for graduation

“Sorry baby - I am here
and you will never be my dear”

Seebechstein I don't have answers. I'm not sure of my position on this particular subject yet and I know it is a slippery slope. So fine, remove that from my list of exceptions for late term abortions. I think the others are valid reasons to allow for late term abortions.

Mercutio you have contributed nothing to this forum in your whopping 11 posts but self-righteous, inciting bigotry. We have all seen images of aborted babies. It doesn't stop women from terminating their pregnancy if they feel it is necessary for them. If you want to talk about moral behavior, how morally correct is it to know you are going to be condemning thousands of women to have a coat hanger stuck in them, bad abortions that can possibly kill them, while you look the other way? If you illegalize abortion completely, this is what will happen, just look at the countries that have illegalized it.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

the poor dears

you can be so snide sometimes apple...

I'm sorry... I do feel so bad for them.

Humans are so precious and life is so special. I realize that not everyone's life is wonderful...But for the many who do live, very few choose not to. It seems selfish to consider one's future and convenience over the actual life of another..

Ignore him, Elena. He's not worth it. What kind of human being has to hide behind a sockpuppet? Someone very shallow and not at all worthwhile. Some who is weak and sniveling. To put it simply a creep.

Like you, my views are mixed. I'm definitely not *pro-abortion* and feel adoption as an option just isn't promoted the way it should be. But, for us to go back to the dark ages where women died in ratty motel rooms at the hands of butchers that scares me. It's an ugly issue.

I don't believe Elena said she supported the option of abortion as a *convenience*. Yes, abortion should be outlawed for people who simply use it as a form of birth control. But, when the mother's life is in danger and she has 3 small children at home. That is a different scenario that warrants thought and compassion. IMHO.

Apple, I agree. But we are not the ones making the choices for the mothers. Unless we plan on keeping them tied down and locked up under surveillance for nine months so they don't hurt their babies, all we can do is provide the most supportive environment for the choice to be made. If it is a choice we do not agree with, does that mean we should make her suffer as much as possible for it?

Perhaps that is what pro-lifers want. Make the mother suffer, have her be traumatised for life and make her as dysfunctional as possible as payback for terminating her pregnancy. How very Christian of them.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com