Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does human life begin?
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 196 of 327 (650265)
01-29-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by shadow71
01-29-2012 2:22 PM


Disagreement
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:
Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.
Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is
to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual
to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services
to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality
to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications
Nothing there about eliminating any human lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 2:22 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 3:00 PM JonF has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 197 of 327 (650266)
01-29-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jar
01-29-2012 2:36 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 01-29-2012 2:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 01-29-2012 2:55 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 198 of 327 (650269)
01-29-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by shadow71
01-29-2012 2:49 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
Read other papers.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 2:49 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 199 of 327 (650270)
01-29-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by JonF
01-29-2012 2:47 PM


Re: Disagreement
JonF writes:
Nothing there about eliminating any human lives.
Is it Planned Parenthood's position that life begins at birth?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by JonF, posted 01-29-2012 2:47 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by JonF, posted 01-29-2012 5:41 PM shadow71 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 200 of 327 (650271)
01-29-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by shadow71
01-29-2012 2:30 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 2:30 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 5:04 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 220 by shadow71, posted 01-30-2012 4:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 201 of 327 (650273)
01-29-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by shadow71
01-29-2012 2:43 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 2:43 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:08 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 202 of 327 (650274)
01-29-2012 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by shadow71
01-29-2012 2:22 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 2:22 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by jar, posted 01-29-2012 5:04 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 208 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:24 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 203 of 327 (650275)
01-29-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Granny Magda
01-29-2012 4:53 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Granny Magda, posted 01-29-2012 4:53 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Granny Magda, posted 01-29-2012 5:29 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 209 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:27 PM jar has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 204 of 327 (650276)
01-29-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Straggler
01-29-2012 3:15 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Straggler, posted 01-29-2012 3:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2012 8:22 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 216 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 7:35 AM shadow71 has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 205 of 327 (650280)
01-29-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by jar
01-29-2012 5:04 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by jar, posted 01-29-2012 5:04 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 206 of 327 (650281)
01-29-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by shadow71
01-29-2012 3:00 PM


Re: Disagreement
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 3:00 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:31 PM JonF has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 207 of 327 (650287)
01-29-2012 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by bluegenes
01-29-2012 4:08 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by bluegenes, posted 01-29-2012 4:08 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 01-29-2012 9:20 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 208 of 327 (650291)
01-29-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Granny Magda
01-29-2012 4:53 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Granny Magda, posted 01-29-2012 4:53 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Granny Magda, posted 01-30-2012 2:26 AM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 209 of 327 (650292)
01-29-2012 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by jar
01-29-2012 5:04 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
jar writes:
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.
What about the 9 month fetus who is about to be born?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by jar, posted 01-29-2012 5:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 01-29-2012 7:43 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 224 by Evlreala, posted 01-31-2012 11:50 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 210 of 327 (650293)
01-29-2012 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by JonF
01-29-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Disagreement
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by JonF, posted 01-29-2012 5:41 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by JonF, posted 01-30-2012 8:09 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024