Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«so again I don't understand how going full term would be less healthy spiritually, then having an abortion.»

And again, this is not what I said: all I referred to in this context, in response to the videos, was PHYSICAL health: I think (though I am not sure) that PHYSICALLY ONLY, having an abortion is healthier for the potential-mother than carrying a baby to full term. I also noted that the videos completely failed to relate to spiritual health.

I am quite aware of the emotional issues and I could write many pages about spiritual health in general, but I think that there is no need here because it is not my view that abortion is spiritually healthier - I must have been misunderstood.

.

Dear david f,

.

The link opens-up when I click on it. Here it is again :

http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimonies/1127-testimony-of-dr-anthony-levatino---former-abortion-provider
.

If it still doesn’t work, try this short video version :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE
.

If that doesn’t work, try typing this in your browser :

Testimony of Dr. Anthony Levatino - Former Abortion Provider

.

Dear NNS,

Abortion kills the human being inside the pregnant woman. We agree on that. However, I think the best judge of whether it is a good thing to continue the pregnancy is the pregnant woman herself. Any counseling she will get should neither promote nor discourage the procedure. It should just deal with the facts in a non-judgmental manner and give her the information she can use to make her own decision.

Dear OzSpen,

One meaning of value is the inherent value, the value in the thing itself. That is the kind of value I was taking about in my previous post when I said that I find it quite rational to regard any member of any species as equally valuable.

Another meaning of the word value is the value we assign to an entity. When we say a human animal is more valuable than a non-human animal it is because we have made a value judgment as to their relevant value. You did so, but the values were imposed by you. Other people may make different value judgments.

Of course the fox implicitly makes the judgment by his actions that his life is worth more than the rabbit’s life. However, if the foxes succeeded in wiping out all the rabbits it would be more difficult for them to find something to eat. Rabbits are necessary for foxes. The ecologist looks at the system from neither the point of view of the fox or of the rabbit and concludes that both animals are necessary to maintain the ecosystem. We humans can realise that we are also part of a web of life. If all bees were wiped out we could suffer famines because bees are necessary to pollinate our crops. It is better to think of humans as one element in a web of life rather than make value judgments about the superior or inferiority of one species in the web to another species in the web. The Jains in the doctrine of Ahimsa have regard for all creatures in the web.

david f,

<<OzSpen, Explain to me why a human being is more valuable than another animal. I find it quite rational to regard any member of any species as equally valuable.>>

I don't expect you to accept my explanation.

From the beginning of time, God explained the difference this way:

'Then God said, “Now let’s make humans who will be like us. They will rule over all the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. They will rule over all the large animals and all the little things that crawl on the earth.”

"So God created humans in his own image. He created them to be like himself. He created them male and female" (Genesis 1:26-27).

The Hebrew language of v. 26 emphasises that God's image in human beings makes humanity distinct from animals. To be made in God's image does not refer to our physical bodies as God is spirit.

Genesis 2:7 tells how God finished his work of creation in a personal way different to animals. After Adam was formed from the dust, God gave him life when He 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being'.

This makes human beings unique from any other living things in the universe as they have physical bodies with an immaterial soul/spirit.

"The image of God (Latin: imago dei) refers to the immaterial part of humanity. It sets human beings apart from the animal world, fits them for the dominion God intended them to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables them to commune with their Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.

"Mentally, humanity was created as a rational, volitional agent. In other words, human beings can reason and choose. This is a reflection of God’s intellect and freedom” (GotQuestions 2019), http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

This explanation fits the reality of the world in which I live. I cannot have a rational, mentally coherent conversation with a sheep, bee or a taipan snake. Neither can I do it with a chimpanzee

david f,

<<An eagle has better eyesight. A dog can run faster. A shark lives longer. Other animals are superior to us in many ways. We have bigger brains.>>

However, I cannot have a loving, compassionate, sexual relationship with any of these.

Dear OzSpen,

I wrote <<An eagle has better eyesight. A dog can run faster. A shark lives longer. Other animals are superior to us in many ways. We have bigger brains.>>

OzSpen wrote <<However, I cannot have a loving, compassionate, sexual relationship with any of these.>>

Dear OzSpen,
You have opened new horizons to me. I never thought of having sexual relations with an eagle, a dog or a shark. However, I am an incurable romantic and will remain faithful to my wife.