|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does human life begin? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I think all agree that the intent of abortion is to eliminate a human life. Many, including me, do not agree.
See Planned Parenthood Well, they have a mission statement:
quote: Nothing there about eliminating any human lives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Well of course you are wrong and the scientific and legal consensus is that human life begins around the third trimester. Even at that point there may not be human life. I don't think that is the consensus of the scientific community from the papers I have read.As for the legal aspect the court is talking about viability not the beginning of human life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Read other papers.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
JonF writes:
Nothing there about eliminating any human lives. Is it Planned Parenthood's position that life begins at birth? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you honestly believe that all conceptuses are human lives imbued with souls?
Do you accept that about 60% of all conceptuses end up flushed down the toilet without anyone even realising that any conception had taken place? The majority of conceptuses never implant in the uterus. Do you agree that if the church really wants to save human lives and genuinely believes that human life starts at the "point" of conception they should focus on research into this majority of conceptuses rather than get too riled up about the comparatively tiny amount that get intentionally aborted? If saving human life as they have defined it really is the issue....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
shadow71 writes: That is your opinion and she obviously disagrees with you. I don't know your qualifications, but do know she is a qualified biologist. If you are also qualfied to give that opinion then there is disagreement. A biologist who insisted on calling a fertilized egg a chicken should probably be sacked. I can read English, and so can you. Read the paper again. Do you seriously consider a pre-solar nebula to be a solar system? Do you consider a caterpillar to be a butterfly? Do you consider the first European colonies established in North America to be a country called the United States of America? Only religious "biologists" could fail to understand that, in the continuum of life, if an "X" could potentially become a "Y", the "X" isn't actually a "Y" until the transformation has taken place. An acorn is not an oak tree, and most will never transform into one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
I was discussing human life and that was the topic of this tread. Well then, science tells us that human life has been around for about 200 thousand to 500 thousand years ago, depending on what you define as "human". You're still asking the wrong question.
I respectfull disagree that the question of when an individual life begins is not revelant to the abortion debate. I think all agree that the intent of abortion is to eliminate a human life. See Planned Parenthood. Clearly not everyone agrees with you there. Personally, I agree that a zygote is a "human life". I would not agree that it is an individual human life, nor a person. Of course, this is just a personal opinion and others may well disagree. Whatever the case, it's not a question that can be directly answered by science, only informed by science. Ultimately, a subjective ethical judgement must be made.
How would you define "personhood"? However I define it, a functioning brain would seem to be a requirement, along with the ability to survive independently of the mother to some extent. But like I say, it's a personal opinion, not one that can be objectively defined.
Is threre no human life until personhood? That's, in my opinion, a pretty dangerous moral slope to stand on. Well welcome to the world! In the real world we have to make these kinds of judgements. We live in a society of laws and laws are clumsy things. In the absence of a clearly defined natural boundary of person-hood, we have to make a judgement and create a (somewhat arbitrary) legal cut-off point. It's not a perfect solution but then, we don't live in a perfect world. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Well welcome to the world! In the real world we have to make these kinds of judgements. We live in a society of laws and laws are clumsy things. In the absence of a clearly defined natural boundary of person-hood, we have to make a judgement and create a (somewhat arbitrary) legal cut-off point. It's not a perfect solution but then, we don't live in a perfect world. Just to make it more interesting, there are no real boundaries that would apply across the board, which is why a decision such as abortion really needs to be made on an individual by individual basis by those individuals directly involved; the mother, the mother's doctor and then the mothers family.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Do you accept that about 60% of all conceptuses end up flushed down the toilet without anyone even realising that any conception had taken place? The majority of conceptuses never implant in the uterus. Can you link me to information supporting those statements?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi jar,
And to make things even more complicated, we have a whole raft of other issues that affect the context of any abortion. Is the birth viable? Is it even safe for the mother? If not, what is the risk and does it apply to both mother and child or just one of them. What are the ramifications for the mother's future fertility? Will the child be born into a loving and supportive environment? Will the father be around? Can the child be supported financially? What would the mother lose out on by having the child? I can see that how early or late term the abortion might be is one of these questions, but it is far from being the only factor. Trying to make a simple definition of "human life" the only factor in such a complex and individual judgement is overly simplistic. I think that in most cases societies are transformed for the better when women are empowered and in control of their own lives. Plus, a quick check on the World Population Clock shows us closing fast on 7 billion humans worldwide. That kind of growth is not sustainable. I'm afraid that shadow71's clear conscience just has too high a price. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Is it Planned Parenthood's position that life begins at birth? I don't know. I don't care. I don't think they take a position. You referred to Planned Parenthood as supporting your statement that "I think all agree that the intent of abortion is to eliminate a human life". They don't support that claim. They make no mention of eliminating any human lives. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
bluegenes writes:
A biologist who insisted on calling a fertilized egg a chicken should probably be sacked. You didn't answer the question. Are you a qualified biologist with the biological knowledge to refute her scientific statements? Do you refute her qualifications? By the way you can google her and review her CV.
bluegenes writes:
I can read English, and so can you. Read the paper again. Do you seriously consider a pre-solar nebula to be a solar system? Do you consider a caterpillar to be a butterfly? Do you consider the first European colonies established in North America to be a country called the United States of America? I did not see in her paper anything about the solar system, caterpillars or european colonies.She wrote a paper on the biolgical scientific evidence of when human life begins. Can you refute her SCIENCE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Granny Magda writes:
Personally, I agree that a zygote is a "human life". I would not agree that it is an individualhuman life, nor a person So when does it become a "person"? That in my opinion is a pretty important issue.
Granny Magda writes:
Well welcome to the world! In the real world we have to make these kinds of judgements. We live in a society of laws and laws are clumsy things. In the absence of a clearly defined natural boundary of person-hood, we have to make a judgement and create a (somewhat arbitrary) legal cut-off point. It's not a perfect solution but then, we don't live in a perfect world. I guess I can't adopt the compromise postion that even though it is a "human life", it might be convenient to dispose of it based upon the needs of society.We had some bloke in the 1930sand40s who had some pretty scary ideas about human life and who qualifed. Some decisions must be made based upon morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes: What about the 9 month fetus who is about to be born?
Just to make it more interesting, there are no real boundaries that would apply across the board, which is why a decision such as abortion really needs to be made on an individual by individual basis by those individuals directly involved; the mother, the mother's doctor and then the mothers family.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
JonF writes:
I don't know. I don't care. I don't think they take a position. You referred to Planned Parenthood as supporting your statement that "I think all agree that the intent of abortion is to eliminate a human life". They don't support that claim. They make no mention of eliminating any human lives. You don't think they will admit that do you? Do they abort viable fetuses in the womb knowing that if they are not destroyed they will be born as babies?Isn't that elimiinating a human life?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024