CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Science speaks to when human life starts
Science and technology have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that each unborn child is a unique member of the human family with his or her own genetic makeup separate from the mother or father.
What is common from pro-aborts is to say that the unborn is just a blob, a mass of tissue. It can't think, can't feel, its tiny...therefore it's ok to kill. This tissue however so says science is a new human being.
Even if the pro-abort agrees with what medical science says, many times it makes no difference...they maintain the choice should lie with the woman. It is her body, her choice. Many say that choice should be allowed on demand throughout the entire nine months...no reason...and some say no...the more the unborn looks like a baby...killing should be off the table.
The unborn is not a blob...not just a hunk of tissue. It is a living human being from conception...and science states this over and over...and yet pro-aborts don't get it, they choose NOT to believe it. They think that only someone who comes to this issue through God...would think this way.
The fact is everyone of us came to be after our mothers egg was conceived with our fathers sperm.This is when our human life began. Everything we needed happened then. You had your own genetic makeup, your own organs.....apart from your parents. The unborn baby is not the mothers body.
The information comes from Medical textbooks, Medical dictionaries…from universities such as Harvard and from such medical institutions as Mayo Clinic. Others come from Scientific Encyclopedias. NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT THE SOURCES.
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
1. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
2."Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
3. "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
4."Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
5."Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
6."The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, thezygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
7."Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
8."I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
9."The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
10. "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
11."Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
12."The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
13. "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
14. "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
15. "[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
None of these sources mention God...or personal beliefs.
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.
Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”
Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.
Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”
Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,
I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.
The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:
The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.
The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
Modern science long ago resolved the question. We actually know when the life of a new human individual begins.
A recently published white paper, “When does human life begin? A scientific perspective,” offers a thorough discussion of the facts of human embryogenesis and early development, and its conclusion is inescapable: From a purely biological perspective, scientists can identify the point at which a human life begins. The relevant studies are legion. The biological facts are uncontested. The method of analysis applied to the data is universally accepted.
Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. You were never an ovum or a sperm cell, those were both functionally and genetically parts of other human beings — your parents. But you were once an embryo, just as you were once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. By an internally directed process, you developed from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of development and ultimately into adulthood with your determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. You are the same being — the same human being — who once was an embryo.
It is true that each of us, in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, were dependent on our mothers, but we were not maternal body parts. Though dependent, we were distinct individual human beings. That is why physicians who treat pregnant women know that they are caring not for one patient, but for two. (Of course, in cases of twins and triplets physicians are caring for more than two!)
Why, then, do we seem so far from a consensus on questions of abortion and embryo-destructive research?
Perhaps because the debate over when human life begins has never been about the biological facts. It has been about the value we ascribe to human beings at the dawn of their lives. When we debate questions of abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, we are not really disagreeing about whether human embryos are human beings. The scientific evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any real debate on this point. What is at issue in these debates is the question of whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives. In other words, the question is not about scientific facts; it is about the nature of human dignity and the equality of human beings.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.
Condic, a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, published her conclusions in a white paper titled "When Does Human Life Begin?" In the report she addresses the topic using current scientific data in human embryology. An associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Condic received her doctorate in neurobiology from the University of California, Berkely. Her teaching focuses primarily on embryonic development, and she directs the University of Utah School of Medicine's course in human embryology.
As a scientist and as director of a medical school course in human embryology, I have been considering the general question of when human life begins for quite a few years. The argument put forward in the white paper has grown out of discussions with philosophers, scientists and ethicists, as well as out of my own research in this area. Yet this topic has come to the fore in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the topic of when life begins has generally been avoided by politicians and government officials, recently a number of prominent figures have offered their interpretations, making this a timely subject to consider with scientific rigor and neutrality.
Q: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion? Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be? To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways. These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.
I think we should take all the abortionists and bomb them. That's the solution a lot of good christians on this site want to use with the "muslim problem", and I respect their opinion, coming, as it is, from God, so let's use it on the abortionists as well.
I'm sure you don't. The above statement wasn't directed at you, but at some of the other "christians" on this site who have suggested bombing the middle east to solve the "muslim issue".
If the morality of killing a human being is determined by their level of development, I think we could justify (however grossly) eugenics with this kind of logic. But then, I often think of abortion as a disguised form of eugenics anyway.
Murder is a human being killing another human being. I don't think a mass of unthinking, unfeeling, emotionless DNA and cells is a human being. Its a medicsl procedure with limits on how late it can be performed and those limits are just fine.
No it doesn't. Science doesn't define what a human being is. Only what is defined as human. A fertilized egg is human DNA. But not a human being. No mind, no emotion, no feelings, nothing. Sorry, not murder.
So what about late term babies....are they just a hunk of mass?
No. At some point a baby develops a mind and can feel pain. Abortion should happen before these things take place.
You are pro-abortion throughout the nine months right?
Pro-choice. And no of course not. Theres obviously a huge difference between a week old fetus and a 9month old fully-formed baby. I happen to know the difference but you pro-lifers try to guilt people into seeing a mass of cells as equal to a full child. they are not the same.
Or do you want to enslave the woman to your morality
What? No. its called pro-choice for a reason dumbass. i want women to be free to choose abortion or keeping a child. i dont want that choice taken away from them by them losing the option to safely abort a pregnancy if they so choose. My personal opinions dont matter, they should be free to do what they want.
Its YOU assholes who can shove pictures of aborted fetus hearts in the faces of young girls making the most important decision of their lives and feel okay about it in the morning. and who try to guilt people into your way of thinking by using improper scientific terms and lumping two very different forms of life together.
No shit life starts at conception. The fertilized egg isn't dead. But what defines humanity? Having human dna? If something had no body, no mind, no morals, no emotions, nothing but had human DNA is it really a human being? I don't think so. I think abortion is a medicsl procedure that is the choice of a woman and her partner and doctor that shouldn't be controlled by other people who have no business interfering with her body and life. I don't think a fetus is a human being until it develops a brain and can feel pain. Two things that develop well after the legal boundary to get an abortion. I obviously don't support abortions for all 9months but the boundary now (which I think is 20 weeks) seems just fine to me for a normal medical procedure which can save lives and is nobodys business but theirs.
Did you read the evidence I gave as to when science says...A NEW HUMAN LIFE STARTS?
Abortion is killing a living human being. FACT
You call it medical procedure....can you name another medical procedure like it? No...this one kills a living human being. But you pro-aborts try to use more user friendly terms...its killing....it is a procedure that ends, terminates...a life already started, that if left alone would surely be born healthy. In fact you were born that way. You were not terminated, but allowed to live. You help paint a bulls eye on every unborn in the womb.
Your position is hypocritical however. You are wrong....it is a human being, science and our laws say it is.
You talk about choice. Ok...a woman has the right to choose...she alone makes the decision. You say there should be no control on her decision because obviously it is her body.
Then you mention that you think it becomes more of a human when it develops a brain and starts to feel. Could you tell me when that is? Give me the exact time....as we are dealing with killing a life ok?
You talk about legal boundaries...which throws your position into hypocrisy. At that time...YOU WANT TO TAKE THE WOMANS RIGHTS AWAY AND ENSLAVE HER TO YOUR WARPED SENSE OF MORALITY. What makes you think that you can do this? You tell those that want abortion banned they don't have a right...and then you turn around and do the same thing.
You are a hypocrite about abortion.
How did you come up with 20 weeks? LMAo Its a crap shoot for you.
Did you read the evidence I gave as to when science says...A NEW HUMAN LIFE STARTS?
im not disagreeing that a fetus is HUMAN. Homo-sapien-sapien. Im disagreeing that a fetus is a human BEING. its a moral issue not a scientific one.
Abortion is killing a living human being. FACT
A human life. not a human being
You call it medical procedure....can you name another medical procedure like it?
It is a medical procedure yes. And no, but so what? can you name another medical procedure like circumsision? Nope. so what?
But you pro-aborts try to use more user friendly terms
Not user friendly, accurate and scientific. If the accurate and scientific terms seem more "friendly" that isnt our fault you people would rather use inaccurate hatred spewing words to guilt people.
a life already started, that if left alone would surely be born healthy. In fact you were born that way. You were not terminated, but allowed to live.
And? You know what i wouldve been thinking had i been aborted? NOTHING. because my consciousness wouldnt exist. Is something without any mind, memory, feeling, or functioning brain and body a human being? I dont think so. if you do then thats your opinion but i dont.
You help paint a bulls eye on every unborn in the womb
No, i help maintaining a safe option for women that is available to them to choose at their disgression. And protect that procedure instead of revoking it to suit religious nutters leaving women to seek un-safe methods of abortion and causing the deaths of women from pregnancies gone-wrong.
Your position is hypocritical however. You are wrong....it is a human being, science and our laws say it is.
Again, im not arguing that a fetus isnt human DNA. it is human. But the fetus itself is not a human being. its not a person. its not equal to you and me.
You talk about choice. Ok...a woman has the right to choose...she alone makes the decision. You say there should be no control on her decision because obviously it is her body.
Yup
Then you mention that you think it becomes more of a human when it develops a brain and starts to feel. Could you tell me when that is? Give me the exact time....as we are dealing with killing a life ok?
Dont see what that has to do with the previous paragraph but ok.
Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care.
From the sources ive found online it appears that most states will only allow abortions up to 14 weeks with some going to 20.
However that is just the limit on how long you can have one with most actual abortions taking place much earlier. Consciousness and pain-reception dont develop until a while after 14 weeks so theres no interference. I wouldnt agree with the abortion of a conscious, pain feeling, almost fully developed fetus.
You talk about legal boundaries...which throws your position into hypocrisy.
How? they align just fine
At that time...YOU WANT TO TAKE THE WOMANS RIGHTS AWAY AND ENSLAVE HER TO YOUR WARPED SENSE OF MORALITY.
No. Pro- choice. i want them to have abortion as an option to CHOOSE. YOU assholes are the ones who want to enslave them to YOUR sense of superiority giving them NO choice of their own. How can we possibly enslave women to a choice? you make no fucking sense.
What makes you think that you can do this? You tell those that want abortion banned they don't have a right...and then you turn around and do the same thing.
I could ask you the same thing. And you have the right to believe whatever you want. but when you want to come in and misrepresent what abortion is and guilt lawmakers and people into taking away a women's choice to recieve their right to a medical procedure, THEN i have a problem. THEN you have no right
You are a hypocrite about abortion
again, how?
How did you come up with 20 weeks? LMAo Its a crap shoot for you.
That was the number for how late an abortion can occur that i thought it was, and it turns out i was a bit off. so what?
The option you want available to women...kills another living human. You can't look at it as a person...because then what would that reveal about you? How would that make you look?
You place brain development between 24th-28th week of gestation. Wow. Roe law states abortion can happen up until 24 weeks...on demand for any reason. So for 4 weeks....the unborn has brain development. And still that does not matter to people like you. My niece born at 23 1/2 weeks....even before this time line you give. And that brain of hers did ok....she is graduating this year from college.
But you are for choice as you said....you condone unborns being slaughtered at full term for no reason. Wow. that is inhumane.
I feel that the presence of a body does not indicate human life. To me, life is defined by the presence of a soul. When someone first gets their soul, their life begins. This is called ensoulment. I believe this happens at birth due to Genesis 2:7, 38:24, Job 33:4, Ezekiel 37:6, Numbers 5:11-31, and other Scriptures. I am working on two prochoice projects outlining why I feel the prochoice life at birth position is the correct and logical view. Here they are: http://www.writerscafe.org/writing/Sitara/1289622/ and: http://www.writerscafe.org/writing/Sitara/1254396/ . Feel free to read, critique or suggest addictions to either one of them.
Abortion according to medical science is a living human being. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"As early as 21 days after conception, the baby's heart has begun to beat his or her own unique blood-type, often different than the mother's. (Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human, p.310; Nilsson & Hamberger, A Child is Born, p.86; Rugh & Shettles, From Conception to Birth, p.217.)
At 40 days after conception, brain waves can be read on an EEG, or an electroencephalogram. (Dr. H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG, JAMA, Oct.12, 1964, p.113.)"
""By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
And here are a lot of different statements backing up life starting at conception.
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.
This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
And here is more.
Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1
Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”2
Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:
HARVARD, YALE, MAYO CLINIC, MEDICAL TEXTBOOKS, WELL KNOWN SCIENTISTS TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS....I mean what more do you want?
The good news is, everything happens according to the will of the almighty creator, so don't worry churchmouse, The Lord works in mysterious ways and every single abortion that has ever taken place is part of his divine plan.
His plan is not to cause evil to happen. Is He responsible for your vile and hate filled position? No you are. You are responsible for your views and your actions.
His plan is perfect and He knows what you will do...but He does not cause you to do it.
The fact that you would even mention the word Lord...turns my stomach.
If what you say is right...then if someone murdered you...that would be ok, right? All part of his plan. LMAO
The fact is you are trying to derail the topic...because you don't want to address it.
You clearly don't understand the omnipotence of God. He is the creator of all; all that is, all that was and all that ever will be. He has designed every fibre of every being. Every chemical reaction and every pulse of electricity that control the actions of every living creature take place in accordance with his divine will.
If I am murdered, then surely it is good in the eyes of The Lord or such an occurrence would not come to pass.
You are but a filthy wretch; born of sin and the taint of Satan. This is why you question the wisdom of The Father.
Do you not get what he's saying? God causes everything to be. Anything that ever has, is, or will happen is his WILL. Therefore if an abortion happens god must have intended it to happen because nothing can happen without him causing it.
Your assumption that God causes everything to happen is incorrect. God gave man free will, so we can do what we want. Sometimes we do good, other times we do bad, but either way, we are the cause of our actions, not God.
Okay, I'm just curious who down-voted this comment? I had three other comments on this debate, all of which were far more worthy of a down-vote than this one, and none of them got down-voted. I'm not going to complain about being down-voted and not getting a dispute, because I've done that myself, some comments just aren't worthy of a response, but I thought the above response was pretty reasonable and non-offensive. I don't even know if it was a Christian or an Atheist that I offended.
If god created everyone and is omniscient (thus knowing everything that every person will ever do) then he must intend for those things to happen. Doesn't god have a plan for everyone? If we have free will now can he also have our lives planned out?
It's like this: if somebody shoots somebody who is to blame? The murderer who pulled the trigger? Or the gun? The murderer obviously. Well if god creates people knowing beforehand all the evil they will do, they're like a loaded gun. They have no free will to not fire. God clearly intends them to fire the bullets.
I hope this makes sense but if not I made a YouTube video that explains all this in depth more clearly if you want.
It totally makes sense, however, you're assuming that just because God knows something will happen, he must therefore intend for it to happen. It's quite possible that he's aware that something will happen, and would very much like for it not to happen, but decides to let it happen anyway, for whatever reasons.
For example, no parent wants to see their child get hurt, but a child needs to get hurt every once in a while just to learn how to protect themselves from getting hurt. A parent who is too overly protective will raise a child who isn't capable of succeeding in the real world.
Of course, parents will rush in to protect their child if the danger is too great, and likewise, if we are all God's children, then you would think that God would at least step in to prevent us from killing one another, but that would be projecting our values onto God, and that may or may not be valid. What if God's "child" is not any one individual, but society as a whole? In that case, sacrificing a few individuals in order to educate society as a whole about the undesirability of killing might be considered acceptable.
Basically, humanity has been debating this issue for thousands of years. The Oedipus Rex play, written 2500 years ago, is about this very issue. If the gods new that Oedipus was going to kill his father and marry his mother, and Oedipus was powerless to change that, then was he really wrong for doing it?
I would agree with you that, if God intends for us to do wrong, then we are not wrong in doing it, I just don't think anyone has proven that God intends for us to do wrong. In my knowledge of Christianity, as casual as it is, it is my understanding that God intends for man to have free will, and therefore must take responsibility for his own actions. In fact, it's my understanding that Satan fell from grace specifically because he disagreed with God on this very issue.
It totally makes sense, however, you're assuming that just because God knows something will happen, he must therefore intend for it to happen. It's quite possible that he's aware that something will happen, and would very much like for it not to happen, but decides to let it happen anyway, for whatever reasons.
If god created everything and put all human into motion with pre-planned actions throughout every life then that means that everything any human does is his intention.
If he knows something is gonna happen and caused it to happen and has the power to stop it but chooses not to for a specific reason then he must intend it to happen.
For example, no parent wants to see their child get hurt, but a child needs to get hurt every once in a while just to learn how to protect themselves from getting hurt. A parent who is too overly protective will raise a child who isn't capable of succeeding in the real world.
So the parent intends for this to happen
Of course, parents will rush in to protect their child if the danger is too great, and likewise, if we are all God's children, then you would think that God would at least step in to prevent us from killing one another, but that would be projecting our values onto God, and that may or may not be valid. What if God's "child" is not any one individual, but society as a whole? In that case, sacrificing a few individuals in order to educate society as a whole about the undesirability of killing might be considered acceptable.
Dont you think hes commited enough murders and genocides to get that point across by now? We already KNOW its bad. Our morality has gotten to that point. And hell, even in the bible god says killing is acceptable for things we now do NOT think are acceptable. Weve evolved BEYOND his morality.
I would agree with you that, if God intends for us to do wrong, then we are not wrong in doing it, I just don't think anyone has proven that God intends for us to do wrong.
I thought i just did
In my knowledge of Christianity, as casual as it is, it is my understanding that God intends for man to have free will, and therefore must take responsibility for his own actions. In fact, it's my understanding that Satan fell from grace specifically because he disagreed with God on this very issue.
If an omniscient and omnipotent creator exists then free will is impossible. He already knows anything you will ever do so we THINK we are choosing things but theyre already chosen before hand. For instance: POTATO.
Right there i thought i chose to say that random word, but if god exists then he knew even before the universe began that i would exist and on this day at this very time i would type that very word.
If god created everything and put all human into motion with pre-planned actions throughout every life then that means that everything any human does is his intention.
The Bible says God created everything, but it doesn't say he put all humans into motion with preplanned actions. Sure, if you take a physicists point of view, and you believe that if you know everything about the universe at any one point in time, then with enough processing power you could predict all future events, then you could argue your point, that if God created the universe, then how he created it would predict all future events, but I think the two theories are mutually exclusive. Or at least, if you believe in a God, and that each man has a soul, then the laws of physics can be thought of to only apply when elements of the spirit world aren't affecting it. From a Christians point of view, God created the universe, and man, but he created man with a soul and the power of free will, and that gives man the power to change his course of action.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to push either a Christian or an Atheistic point of view. I just think that when you combine two different paradigms, like science and the Bible, then you're making a lot of assumptions about which elements you pull from each paradigm, and your readers aren't necessarily going to make the same assumptions. If you're going to convince people that you're right, then you have explain and justify those assumptions.
Weve evolved BEYOND his morality.
Our morality today is certainly much different than it was when the books of the Old Testament were written. Whether it's better or not is a judgement call. The world today is much different than it was back then. Today we have birth control, which allows us to keep our population more or less below what our resources can provide for. Without that, your only choices are war and murder or mass starvation. I personally prefer today's world, because I'm not sure I would have been one of the successful ones in the world of the Old Testament, but people don't get to choose when and where they are born, so you can't blame the people of the Old Testament for acting the way they did back then, or for projecting those morals onto their God.
I understand...but I believe he gave free will...other wise...we could do anything and blame it on God. And God is good.
Curious...are you a Christian? Did God create Hitler to kill that many people? Did God create and will the terrorists that took the towers down on 9-11?
But if god is real we don't have free will. We can't have free will if god is omniscient and knows everything about what we will ever think and do before we do it. I actually made a YouTube video explaining this I'm detail.
...other wise...we could do anything and blame it on God.
If god made everybody knowing full well everything evil they would do in their lives but made them anyways, so by extension he caused the evil. He could've not made those people or just made them not do those evil things. Remember god can't be surprised. He by definition knows everything about anything at all times. If something happens he must have intended and caused it.
And God is good.
People and beings are defined by their actions. God (in the bible) flooded the earth killing everybody. He created HELL and DEMONS. He created earthquakes and tsunamis and tornadoes. Is he REALLY good? I don't think so
Curious...are you a Christian?
Nope I'm an atheist. When I say that god did something or is something I'm speaking hypothetically
Did God create Hitler to kill that many people?
According to Christianity he made everyone. And since he is omniscient he made hitler knowing before hand what he would do. But he still made him and didnt stop him.
Did God create and will the terrorists that took the towers down on 9-11?
Same deal as hitler. He foresaw it and did nothing. Therfore he must have desired for it to occur.
You make Him out to be evil.
I'm just connecting the dots. If he is real and if the bible is true and if he is all knowing and all powerfull then he must be evil because of the atrocities that have occured.
I would like to see evidence that there is no God.
I don't have to give you evidence to reject your claim that a god exists. You're the one claiming god exists, you must back it up. I can reject it all day and not have to defend my case once. But I will to humor you. I don't think god is real because he hasn't been demonstrated to be real and we have numerous theories to explain the universe, earth, and life that all have actual real supporting evidence. Why should I accept unsupported myth over supported theory?
How did you form your worldview that formed the faith you have?
Correction: I have no faith. And I lost belief in god and religion by simply examining both sides of the argument. The religion side just lost every argument and had nothing going for it. No evidence no nothing. So logically I concluded that he probably doesn't exist.
What was the first cause?
I'm assuming you mean how did the universe come to be. Well the leading theory ATM is the Big Bang which has lots of evidence supporting it but there's also quantum graphity and string theory and even multiverse theory. But I guess the most honest answer at this time is we don't know. We have good ideas and promising evidence and leads. But we don't know. And that's ok. It's ok to not know instead of lying to ourselves pretending we DO know.
Why are we here and how did we get here?
Meaning of life shit? Idk, that isn't a logical question. I think the meaning of life is to live it. Survive. Enjoy it. And we didnt come to earth from somewhere else. We evolved. Abiogenesis then evolution.
"Did you know I have an invisible pet giraffe? You dont believe me? Well can you prove that I don't have an invisible giraffe? No? Well then until you can show me evidence that there is no invisible giraffe, it must be real"
Do you see how your logic works. We don't have to prove there is no God, you have to prove that there is a God and until then we have the right to remain skeptical. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Btw we don't know how we got here, but through science we are finding out more everyday, I have the courage to say I don't know how the universe began, you on the other hand are claiming you DO know how the universe began and your explanation has no evidence. You start with evidence and lead to a conclusion, you don't start from a conclusion and find evidence.
If we let the people who want to have abortions have abortions, then they will eventually be weeded out through natural selection, and we won't have any more abortions.
Oh wait, unless some of them are having abortions while they're still unable to support their offspring, and still plan on having kids later in life when they can properly take care of them. Then the kids they have later in life might be more successful and actually help perpetuate those evil abortionist genes even longer. Dang! I hadn't thought of that. :(
I don't believe anyone is making the claim that an unborn fetus is not human. It is, in fact, human as soon as the egg is fertilized.
However, it is not yet a person- in the same way that an individual who is brain dead but on life support may be alive, but is no longer a person, just a collection of living tissue. Everything that made a brain dead individual who they are is gone; everything that would make a fetus a person is no longer there yet.
Even after the central nervous system has developed, and it is possible for the fetus/infant to have perceptions and feel pain, it still takes more time for the connections to form, actual consciousness to arise, and for the person, the individual, to form.
However, this is a very problematic angle to take in terms of abortion, because consciousness (for lack of a better word) does not form in the first trimester, the second trimester, or the third trimester; it gradually starts to take shape during the first couple of years of life, varying depending on the individual. Usually the conscious mind begins to form a few months after birth, sometimes later; herein lies the problem with this angle, as stating it seems to imply advocating not only late term abortion but early infanticide. I don't believe anybody advocates the latter, and very few advocate the former.
I'm more of the mind that abortion should be limited to the period before the fetus is able to experience pain, and I see abortion as an unfortunate necessity given the current climate. Adoption is not a solution to the problem, as there are FAR more children up for adoption than there are families to adopt them, and the foster system is not only overloaded as it is, but the experiences of children in the foster system are on the whole awful- certainly there are some good foster homes, but they are very much exceptions to the rule. I don't like abortion, and being male myself it will never be my body on the line either. However, I can't personally countenance a ban on abortion without significant reform to the adoption and foster systems first; otherwise we'd just be queuing up even more children in a broken system and setting them up for a life of existential crises and abuse; it's bad enough to know that ones birth parents gave them up, but nobody wanted to adopt them either? If we can reform the foster system to improve the overall quality of foster care, as well as work out a way to encourage and increase adoption rates, maybe then we can table a ban on abortion, but as it is now anyone who is politically pro-life has either not sufficiently explored the whole picture, or is simply not really thinking of the children- in favor of pushing a religious and/or political agenda.
Your entire position is hypocritical. You believe women should have choice...you have an opinion on when life should be saved and when killing it is ok....and then you say that late term abortion is wrong...just because an unborn can feel.
Do you know for a fact that someone who is so called brain dead can't feel.
You say consciousness doesn't matter that it does not take place in the womb...but later...(which is absurd) but that pain matters. LMAO
What if the abortionist makes sure pain isn't an issue...and then kills the unborn would that make you feel better?
You don't even have a position. You're just regurgitating the same rhetoric over and over without a bit of analysis or reasoning of your own. You claim to be in favor of protecting life, but what you're really in favor of is mindlessly pushing the same agenda that must have just "sounded right" to you.
That said- Yes, I believe women should have a choice; in this particular case, men may have an opinion, but women by necessity have final say. Their bodies, after all.
Pain matters because it is important not to cause undue suffering. While only a few animals, for example, demonstrate consciousness, almost all of them can feel pain. Late term abortion is wrong because of that- if abortion is to be opted for, that decision needs to be made early in my opinion.
I never suggested killing was "ok-" those were your words, not mine; as I quite clearly stated in my post, I consider it a necessary evil considering the other options available.
Do I know for a fact that someone who is brain dead can't feel? Well, not as such, anymore than I know for a fact that you, or anybody else can feel. We do, however, know that there is an extremely strong correlation (read: 100% correlation in all subjects) between 1) nerve impulses from the various sensory organs and activity in certain regions of the brain that respond to it and 2) reported sensation from the subject or observed reactions to sensations from non-human subjects. Brain dead individuals do not show activity in those regions of the brain. If you'd like to suggest another metric for determining whether an individual can feel pain, I'm all ears.
I did not, in fact, say consciousness doesn't matter- though I did posit that it does not take place in the womb, which insofar as all data we have on the brain suggests, is factual. The mind is capable of feeling pain and responding to stimuli even while still in the womb, but it isn't for some time afterwards that sufficient neural interconnections form for there to be anything resembling consciousness as we know it. Having a child myself, I can state that for the first year or so they have far more in common the a needy pet than they do with a person. It's well into the first year before the brain is developed enough for learning and reasoning to begin. I've already touched on why pain matters.
If the abortionist makes sure pain isn't an issue- honestly, I still wouldn't like it, but it would improve things. Consider, for a moment, the fates of children put into the system before you spout more rhetoric.
If my position was all over the board (it's not; it's rather well reasoned and consistent), it would be because I'm personally opposed to abortion, but see it as a better alternative to pushing more kids through a broken system.
I challenge you to actually do some reading on both sides and from that, form your own position rather than regurgitate whats been preached to you. And as well, to be honest about your motives. You are not thinking of the children, you are thinking of your agenda. Without major reforms to the adoption and foster systems, abortion as an option is a necessary evil. If you're going to continually hammer the anti-abortion angle, at least address the issue of whats to be done with a slew of new adoptees in an already overloaded system.
I do have a position and it is not hypocritical like yours.
Pain is the only issue for you. If something can feel pain then ya can't kill it. If it doesn't ya can. How absurd that reasoning is.
My niece was born at 23 1/2 weeks...she felt pain. She had multiple surgeries as she was in the hospital for over 5 months. You would have said she couldn't feel pain that aborting her would be ok.
Killing a living human being is wrong whether they can feel it or not. And there are methods to use to make sure the unborn can't feel pain.
Abortion is brutal. Have you ever seen one? What is your connection to this issue?
Is there something wrong with abortion? yes or no
Ya can't sit the fence on this one. You either are pro-life or you are not. Your position is immoral on every level.
You are pro-abortion in every sense of the word. You don't care if the unborn are killed. You are trying to talk yourself into making your position moral...and it's not.
I do NOT HAVE TO RESEARCH THIS...I KNOW FIRST HAND ABOUT ABORTION. What really ticks me off are people who pretend to know and don't. Ever had one?
Ever felt a child move inside your body? Ever see your child's ultrasound? Ever hear the machine that tears the living child apart?
You know nothing apart from what you read.
I have had an abortion and I know...all about it. I has affected my life since getting one in 1978.
Your position is QUITE hypocritical as you are more concerned with your agenda than the actual wellbeing of children.
Pain is far from the only issue, it just happens to be the only one relevant in this instance.
23 1/2 weeks would be very late second trimester- of course she could feel pain at that point.
I most certainly CAN sit the fence on this issue. You propose a false dichotomy. One can be opposed to abortion and yet see it as a necessity.
You do, in fact, have to research this. Adoption has quite a lot to do with the issue, unless you're asserting that everyone who would have an abortion would otherwise opt to raise the child themselves. Being male, I've never felt a child move inside my body- though I have seen my childs ultrasound. I'm familiar with abortion, I've been close to those who have had abortions, I've seen them done, and I'm pretty sure I've heard the machine, though it could be any number of other things present that I heard. Also, my fiancee has also had a couple of miscarriages in addition to our healthy son.
You are obviously too close to the issue to have an objective opinion on the matter- my condolences. But like it or not, your experience does not constitute the whole picture. It's not just a matter of whether or not to abort, when we're talking about the welfare of children- where they're going to go once they're born is rather vital.
Kindly refrain from making accusations regarding my character and my disposition towards children- you know less than nothing in this regard, particularly due to how your emotions have colored your perspective.
My position is not hypocritical at all. I want abortion banned not legal. You on the other hand want it legal...but then you don't.
Pain has nothing to do with whether or not a living human being should be slaughtered in the womb. You either respect life or you don't. YOU DON'T. So you try to come up with ways to make your position look humane. Gee if it can't feel...ok to kill. Absurd. Hitler also probably thought that gassing the Jews was also the humane way to do it.
Abortion is never a necessity unless the mother is dying in the hospital....this rarely but never happens. But to those with a "killing solves every problem" ( both personally and socially) abortion is the saving grace. Hitler had the same ideas.
I do not have to do research on this...you do. Adoption has nothing to do with killing living children. It only does to people like you who thinks killing them is better than life in an adoptive family. You presume to know what their lives would be like...you have NO RIGHT to do this.
I am close to this issue...very close. A soldier is close to the battlefield that he serves on....is that a bad thing?
I happen to work in this field. I have for over 13 years....with pro-life groups...Silent No More, Right to Life in my state, Operation Rescue, and my local CPC. I have seen it all, heard it all. I travel around to conventions,universities, colleges...fairs, Womens Expos, churches, schools....etc. I march in peaceful demonstrations. I picket and hand out information at PP clinics. I am very involved in abortion.
No condolences to me....but to the child I killed...fine. You have no clue, no idea what the majority of women believe about abortion. Basically as I said it is taboo to talk about.
Ever hear someone say....."hey thousandin1...can't have lunch tomorrow gonna get an abortion." Or...."Hey, can't go tonight not feeling well, had an abortion." Or "Hey I know how you feel I had two abortions."
You go to any debate site where abortion is discussed and you not find many women who have had abortions talking about them. Women don't want to talk about it...especially with other people who might judge them. It is one thing you get that you just want to go away. It was not traumatic for me at the time but hit me some 20 years later and about destroyed my life. I had no clue really what I was killing. I wanted and tried to convince myself it was just a blob of tissue. That is not the case as I found out from a doctor in a hospital who was taking care of my niece who was born at 23 1/2 weeks.
It makes me sick to my stomach to hear you say that killing children because they MIGHT NOT FIND A HOME...is better than giving them life. As I said...your worldview and Hitlers are very close.
I call it as I see it. You are pro-abortion and you do not value the life in the womb. You told me point blank I was to close to this issue to be objective....so if you can do it..so shall I.
The fact is....you are a man...and society says you don't matter in this. It is not your body, not your choice. The only reason your an issue is for monetary reasons. You should not even have a say or an opinion really...right?
If you want abortion legal for any reason....I question your morality..and your love of children...you bet I do.
You've obviously misunderstood my position. I don't like abortion, but the entire adoption and foster home issue needs to be addressed before ANY legislation is passed that would increase the number of children put into that system- the issue is bigger than just abortion, abortion is just a key player here. If you want abortion banned, thats fine- I can get behind that. But the bigger issue needs to be addressed first.
My notes regarding pain was not justification for abortion, but an intent to minimize suffering as much as possible. My views are to be taken within the framework of the current status quo- which, as it stands, is abortion being legal. Within this context, the humane thing to do is minimize suffering as much as possible.
You're right that abortion is only rarely medically necessary, but would you have a rape victim carry that child to term while dealing with the emotional aftermath? Would you have her raise that child, condemning her to 18+ years of a constant reminder of the violation she endured? Keep in mind that this decision also determines whether the genes of a rapist are selected for or selected against; not that I'm proposing that there is a rape gene or anything to that effect.
Adoptive families are great, for the most part. I know a number of others who are adopted, and I will most likely adopt in the future as well. The issue with the adoption system is that there simply aren't enough families; the remainder cycle through the foster system- I was in this briefly during some problems my parents had when I was younger, and I know still others who spent their entire childhood in the foster system. It's TERRIBLE.
Incidentally, while I haven't heard the other two, I have in fact heard the phrase "I know how you feel, I've had two abortions." A friend of mine consoling another friend, specifically.
As stated, repeatedly, I am not proposing that killing children is better than giving them life. I am stating, factually, that there are already far more children waiting for adoption than there are families to take them. This must be addressed before anything LIKE a ban on abortion can take place.
You just can't see the big picture, and I've had it with your constant trolling, especially with your comparing me to Hitler. I'm done having my very reasonable, very rational views on abortion (and more importantly, child welfare in general) picked apart by a judgemental, narrow-minded, holier-than-thou, pseudo-intellectual self-professed child murderer.
Oh I understand your position. You want to kill unborn children so that we won't have to worry about them being born and needing homes. No homes....kill.
You don't like abortion? LMAO You want it legal don't you? You want it legal so unborn children are not born and have to depend on society for help and support. You are pro-abortion if you want abortion legalized.
Abortion has nothing to do with adoption or foster care. You either are pro-life and want all life protected...or you don't. You want to use abortion as a way of controlling the population.
You want to minimize suffering....then ban abortion. Easy....nothing complicated. The humane thing would be to stop killing unborn children...stop abortion.
You bring up rape. Ok what about it? It is a violent act done on an unwilling person...an innocent person. But so is abortion equally violent....with an innocent living human being who has not given consent.
So the woman was violated and has to suffer the consequences of the act..which would be horrible. So if she aborts...add the guilt and anguish of killing another living human to what she has already suffered...and her guilt is doubled. Two wrongs never make a right.
You have no idea how many women suffer from past abortions. It is not fun...it never goes away, the aftermath can be devastating. Abortion is like no other surgery...it is done to kill another human being.
She could always put the child up for adoption...but the child should have a chance to live. Your solution would be to condemn another living being. Your focus is only on the woman that is why you are pro-abortion.
There are far to many people on earth who don't value life. I don't agree with a lot of people but I would not wish anyone dead. Would the world be better off if we did not have to worry about handicapped and mentally challenged people? Would we be better without poor people? We could kill a lot of people to make earth function better couldn't we?
I work in this field...I know what I am talking about especially on a personal level. What connections do you have that make you an expert?
I am not trolling. I am going to start a thread about the pro-abort views in relation to Hitlers and I will outline the similarities in the world views.
Your posiiton does not value life...and you don't go to bat for the life in the womb. How you can say you are reasonable...and rational..I don't know. If what you say is true about killing so kids won't go into foster care...then lets take that one step further and kill the handicap...the mentally challenged. Lets kill people who smoke...who drink and who don't eat healthy. Can you imagine how much money we would save?
You are the one who is narrow minded and you have not supported your position whatsoever. You want abortion legal so that population would be controlled.
You tell me I can't judge....you said, "picked apart by a judgemental, narrow-minded, holier-than-thou, pseudo-intellectual self-professed child murderer."
And then this sentence defines YOUR CHARACTER. Or should I say lack of one. You judged me...I am narrow-minded...I am holier than thou....I am a pseudo-intellectual self-professed child murderer."
What you show is this....that the ones who scream and whine the loudest are the liberal humanists...who don't apply their own statements to themselves. You have judged the unborn in the womb...and you have judged me.
I did kill my unborn child...and I have had to live with that for over forty some years. You don't deserve to hear the whole story because you just are here to make pot shots and judge people.
Okay so a fetus is a human being; so now what is wrong with terminating a baby that isn't wanted or loved, and has almost no personality or connections to world yet?
Proved without a shadow of doubt that an unborn child is a unique family member you say? Well, what if were to say that a blob of organic matter doesn't constitute a person, how are you going to convince me that I should treat it like one?
Well since I maintain that this blob isn't a person (yet), then it seems that your only resort is to appeal to this blob's ability to evolve into a person. You can only convince me that I should respect this blob by demonstrating that this blob has potential to become a functioning person.
Remember that no matter what, you won't be able to convince that a this blob is a person. A blob is not a person! So if you want my attitude to change, you need to appeal to something different than "this blob's intrinsic person hood". So your only option is to show that it has potential. But notice that any DNA string in my body is just as capable of becoming an individual as some random blob is. Moreover all clones will not be exact copies of me, environmental circumstances will cause these copies' epigenetic systems to arrive a wildly different configurations. My toenails, hair and feces has the potential to become a unique person.
But weren't this kind of inference what made an unborn blob worthy of respect? Weren't I supposed to respect this blob because it had potential? Doesn't all this mean that we have to respect a human hair just as much as a random fertilized blob? Well, since you can't convince me of the blob's intrinsic humanness, you have to resort to potential. But appealing to potential brings a whole range of bad conclusions into the mix, so it's a weak argument. A blob is a not a person, and you can't appeal to potential, so what other arguments are you left with?
From the second the egg and sperm unite and fertilization takes place...it is a human being. It has everything it needs to become a living functioning member of society. It is not a part of its mother other than using her body as a safe place to grow.
A blob? Nothing could be further than the truth.
It is a developing organism from the start....not a blob.
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
Highly specialized cells.....does not sound like a blob to me.
"The zygote contains DNA from the mother and the father, combined to form the full set of genetic material that will control the cellular production of the new baby. In some cases, two eggs are released in the same menstrual cycle, and they are both fertilized, forming two zygotes. If both zygotes develop, they become fraternal twins. The process of producing identical twins involves only a single zygote, which forms into an embryo before dividing into two separate bodies. As the zygote travels down the fallopian tube and into the uterus, it divides and replicates itself. Once it has formed a ball of cells, it is referred to as a blastocyst."
The blastocyst implants itself in the wall of the mother's uterus within a few days of fertilization. There, it continues to grow rapidly, into a ball of several hundred cells. Most of the ball is only one layer of cells thick. This part of the ball becomes the placenta, an organ that serves as a connector to the bloodstream of the mother and helps to mediate development. One region of the blastocyst is three to four cells thick. This region eventually becomes the embryo itself."
"The embryo floats in a thin, fluid-filled membrane called the amniotic sac. It is connected to the placenta via the umbilical cord. During this stage of baby development in the womb, the human shape becomes recognizable. The spinal cord and brain are clearly differentiated from the rest of the body. The heart forms and begins to beat. The arms and legs sprout at the beginning of this stage; by the end, fingers and toes form. As the brain develops, it starts to produce electrical activity doctors can record. The nerve impulses produced by the brain begin to cause the muscles to contract and move.
Teratogens are agents that can cause birth defects by disrupting normal development in the womb. Drugs, alcohol, infection and radiation are the most common teratogens. According to the National Institutes of Health, the embryo is especially sensitive to teratogens because of the great amount of developmental change that occurs during this stage. For this reason, expectant mothers are strongly encouraged to avoid exposure to teratogens during this stage of development."
Blob is not the right term to use...human being is. But if blob makes you feel better about the issue of abortion and what your actually killing then by all means use it.
Some peoples hearts are just hardened. If you can't see the humanity in all this then you never will. What is obvious is that you don't respect human life. Killing is your solution to all things...especially getting rid of a child. What gives you that right?
You want me to mention God so you then can discredit that argument?
I am a Christian and I believe we were....before we were even in the womb. But one need not be a person of faith to acknowledge what science says..that a new human beings life starts at conception.
DEfend the position that from conception it isn't what science says it is.
I made a slight mistake in my last post. I meant to say "intrinstic personhood" instead of "intrinstic humanness". My case is not that a zygote doesn't share a majority of biological characteristics with persons, they do. In this sense they are human, but they are not persons.
Still, my case is that you can't give me a good argument in favor of zygotes' rights without appealing to a zygote's intrinstic personhood. We have determined that zygote's are humans so this gives you two options. Either you can a) show that being human implies the rights of personhood or b) show that zygote's are persons.
b) is absurd so it must be discarded. You are left with a), so how do you show that being human implies the rights of personhood?
I believe at conception that the life is a person and so does society or we would not be debating that fact here... or have debated it in the past. Abortion still after being legal for over 40 yrs still a hot topic that still divides the nation and families. It is taboo today as most women will not admit to having one. Why? Have you ever had one to know? You never see television programs where the characters nonchalantly mention they have had or are getting an abortion do you? No. People don't discuss it...because it is about killing and that is personal when you are the one who has killed. Pro-aborts like to detach themselves from the personhood argument...why? Because then..if they convince themselves that which is being slaughtered isn't a person, abortion isn't so bad. No woman would need an abortionist if there wasn't killing involved. Someone has to kill to make the procedure successful. The abortionist kills the life. It is not the life of a rock, or a hamburger or a cow. It is the life of a living human...that if left alone would become.......like we are. You were a person after you were conceived did you know that? And your mother obviously allowed you to live...she recognized YOUR PERSONHOOD.
Louise Brown was the worlds first test tube baby. Was she conceived in her mothers womb? No. She was conceived in a test tube. She became all she would ever be in THAT TEST TUBE. She only grew and used her mothers womb to grow. She was a person.
Being human....?
Why don't you show me why the life does not deserve to be called part of the human race?
It is taboo today as most women will not admit to having one. Why? Have you ever had one to know? You never see television programs where the characters nonchalantly mention they have had or are getting an abortion do you? No. People don't discuss it...because it is about killing and that is personal when you are the one who has killed
Appeal to emotion is a bad argument.
People don't discuss it...because it is about killing
Yeah so what? You kill billions of microorganisms a day, it's called eating.
Why don't you show me why the life does not deserve to be called part of the human race?
If you actually did a careful reading of my posts you would know that I asserted that a zygote belongs to the human race, not once, but several times.
So yeah... In the end it seems you aren't capable of showing me why a zygote's humanness implies rights of personhood, you are only capable of telling me that a zygote is selfevidently a person. But listen to this, I don't agree. It's not as selfevident as you would like.
ARe you saying this topic is not an emotional one? To say that shows you have no understanding of abortion.
Isn't it funny that since Roe was passed into law...in January 1973......this issue has not gone away? It is just as controversial today probably more...than it was back then. Why? Science tells us more about fetal development...and viability has lowered.
If you care about life...and human beings...then your care about abortion. Most pro-aborts simply do not care. Outta sight outta mind. They are willing to look away even if they really think abortion is wrong. That is what people did in Germany when Hitler filed the Jews into the ovens. THEY LOOKED AWAY.
For you to also say...or compare abortion to micro-organisms...is laughable. We are talking about when science says a new human life starts...not an organism on a table or object.
You don't recognize the human life in the womb. You are pro-abortion. So sad that you would look away as women kill unborns even in the ninth month.
I should note here that you can't exactly say that it is a human being at the moment of fertilization.
That fertilized egg could separate (or partially separate) into two portions as it develops- in this case, it would be two human beings, twins (or conjoined twins).
That same fertilized egg could bond to and become incorporated into the structure of another developing fertilized egg- making that original fertilized egg only part of the resultant human being (who would be a chimera).
It could also fail to develop any further beyond that point, never implant, etc.
A fertilized egg can potentially become zero, one half, one, two, or more human beings.
