First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Does Scientific Life Necessarily Coincide With Moral Life?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/09 , edited 4/24/09
Contrary to popular belief there is no debate concerning the status of a fetus, embryo, or zygote within the scientific or medical community. Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade, claimed that ‘There has always been great evidence that life does not begin until live birth,’ but since we’ve learned otherwise. The United States Judiciary Subcommittee gathered brilliant scientists from all across the world to discuss the facts. They concluded:


“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.”
- Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

It should be noted that every single one agreed that human life begins at some point during conception except one who said that he wasn’t sure and didn’t think that anybody was. Although they were invited to do so the pro-choice legislators were unable to produce a single professional to specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception.

Here are some quotes from the various scientists during the trial that you may or may not want to glance at:


So as you see there is no argument. A zygote is, scientifically, a living human being. But so what? Does scientific life necessarily coincide with moral life? Does a secular government like America have room to consider religious concepts like morality when they’re ruling on the definition of life and humanity?

You can get more details and source citations here: http://religiousgenocide.blogspot.com/
13847 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / I am in a hut, ga...
Offline
Posted 4/24/09
I personally think it's not part of the human culture until it's born.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/09

Animelovexx wrote:

I personally think it's not part of the human culture until it's born.


That’s not necessarily true; it depends on –which- human culture doesn’t it? There are actually some cultures in Asia that start counting your age on the moment of conception. You’re already considered eight-to-nine months old by the time you’re born in their culture.
13847 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / I am in a hut, ga...
Offline
Posted 4/24/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Animelovexx wrote:

I personally think it's not part of the human culture until it's born.


That’s not necessarily true; it depends on –which- human culture doesn’t it? There are actually some cultures in Asia that start counting your age on the moment of conception. You’re already considered eight-to-nine months old by the time you’re born in their culture.


PER SON A LLY
which means an opinion.

If you had an answer to your 'question', then what is the point of this hm?..
17773 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / some where heaven...
Offline
Posted 4/24/09
there no link between it..our moral life are influnge by around us
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/09 , edited 4/24/09

Animelovexx wrote:

PER SON A LLY
which means an opinion.

If you had an answer to your 'question', then what is the point of this hm?..


I’m just encouraging the topic. It’s a conversation, so converse. I want you to explain your belief more in depth. What exactly –is- the human culture and why don’t fetuses fit into it?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/24/09 , edited 4/24/09
Because a fetus isn't born yet, it's not necessarily immoral to not see it as human yet. Killing an already born person is much worse because they have developed relationships, have experienced life in this world, have memories, thoughts, etc. If a fetus is killed, no one gets hurt except it. And I don't think a fetus would really suffer as much as an already born human if it was being killed. I think something like abortion can only be considered immoral if it's for the wrong reasons.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 4/24/09 , edited 4/24/09
You people go on and on about abortion being immoral, who cares, life is not a right in the fist place, and besides the simple answer is, if you don't want to get fucking pregnant, don't have sex, is that so fucking hard ? And if it is your nothing more than a whore. And a whore has less value then a piece of trash on the ground, and that includes males, if your a sex driven male your still a whore.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/09 , edited 4/24/09

Yei wrote:

Because a fetus isn't born yet, it's not necessarily immoral to not see it as human yet. Killing an already born person is much worse because they have developed relationships, have experienced life in this world, have memories, thoughts, etc. If a fetus is killed, no one gets hurt except it. And I don't think a fetus would really suffer as much as an already born human if it was being killed. I think something like abortion can only be considered immoral if it's for the wrong reasons.


I’m not sure I agree. Even before a child is born parents and family members often begin to form relationships. When my aunt was pregnant uncle Walter got to a point where he wasn’t able to sleep without singing a lullaby to her belly. He loved Belle long before she was born, and so did my aunt-and so did the rest of our family.

Whenever a mother is in an accident and her fetus is killed she mourns the loss. So, an abortion can and often does hurt more than just the fetus. Fathers are given no say in abortion, but I don't think my uncle would've been able to cope if my aunt attained one.


Also, recent studies in fetal development have discovered that in later stages a fetus is capable not only of thought and memory but also dreaming and emotion. By thirty-two weeks a fetus is a fully developed baby capable of doing anything that a newborn can do. It has relationships-enjoying its mother’s attention, or the voice of its father. It gets fitful when there’s too much commotion, it’s even curious and tries to explore but is limited by the surroundings.

It can even enjoy Cat in the Hat or Green Eggs and Ham. Very early in a fetus gains self awareness. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, cofounded the NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and owned what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere.

Nathanson later lamented that he knew “with an increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” You see, when Nathanson started his pro-choice works Roe v. Wade was still fresh and the world didn’t know much about abortion or the development of a fetus.

Today we’ve discovered that fetuses are in fact functioning human beings. As Nathanson said, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.”

He later discovered that during an abortion the fetus actually screams and struggles. The process of an abortion is to systematically avulse each of the fetus’ arms and legs and then turn it over and suction the head off. The fetus is cognitive and can feel the whole procedure. It squirms away and cries. He made a documentary of his findigns "The Silent Scream."

So, a thirty-two-week-old fetus is fully aware of itself and its surroundings. The fetus can think and even dream. It has emotions-fearing jarring movements or strange noises. In Nathanson’s documentary you see that the fetus starts to scream and claw long before the actually process begins. The instant it’s ‘sanctuary,’ is disturbed it senses something is wrong-much the same way you would if a strange person barged into your home.

A fetus has relationships, enjoys interacting with its mother and the outside world to the best of its abilities, and likes to listen to music. Now, thirty two weeks is pretty far into the pregnancy. Most of these abilities are attained long before the thirty two week mark.

Still, I feel obliged to note that what I said above only applies to mid-to-late-term abortions. Early term abortions are essentially the same thing as pulling a brain-dead-relative off of life support-except, in this case without their permission but since the fetus can’t give permission I don’t know what we’re supposed to do about that….

So, considering that do you still feel that a fetus isn’t as morally significant as a newborn baby, even after the thirty-two-week mark?
Posted 4/24/09
not sure really =T
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/24/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

Because a fetus isn't born yet, it's not necessarily immoral to not see it as human yet. Killing an already born person is much worse because they have developed relationships, have experienced life in this world, have memories, thoughts, etc. If a fetus is killed, no one gets hurt except it. And I don't think a fetus would really suffer as much as an already born human if it was being killed. I think something like abortion can only be considered immoral if it's for the wrong reasons.


I’m not sure I agree. Even before a child is born parents and family members often begin to form relationships. When my aunt was pregnant uncle Walter got to a point where he wasn’t able to sleep without singing a lullaby to her belly. He loved Belle long before she was born, and so did my aunt-and so did the rest of our family.

Whenever a mother is in an accident and her fetus is killed she mourns the loss. So, an abortion can and often does hurt more than just the fetus. Fathers are given no say in abortion, but I don't think my uncle would've been able to cope if my aunt attained one.


Also, recent studies in fetal development have discovered that in later stages a fetus is capable not only of thought and memory but also dreaming and emotion. By thirty-two weeks a fetus is a fully developed baby capable of doing anything that a newborn can do. It has relationships-enjoying its mother’s attention, or the voice of its father. It gets fitful when there’s too much commotion, it’s even curious and tries to explore but is limited by the surroundings.

It can even enjoy Cat in the Hat or Green Eggs and Ham. Very early in a fetus gains self awareness. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, cofounded the NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and owned what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere.

Nathanson later lamented that he knew “with an increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” You see, when Nathanson started his pro-choice works Roe v. Wade was still fresh and the world didn’t know much about abortion or the development of a fetus.

Today we’ve discovered that fetuses are in fact functioning human beings. As Nathanson said, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.”

He later discovered that during an abortion the fetus actually screams and struggles. The process of an abortion is to systematically avulse each of the fetus’ arms and legs and then turn it over and suction the head off. The fetus is cognitive and can feel the whole procedure. It squirms away and cries. He made a documentary of his findigns "The Silent Scream."

So, a thirty-two-week-old fetus is fully aware of itself and its surroundings. The fetus can think and even dream. It has emotions-fearing jarring movements or strange noises. In Nathanson’s documentary you see that the fetus starts to scream and claw long before the actually process begins. The instant it’s ‘sanctuary,’ is disturbed it senses something is wrong-much the same way you would if a strange person barged into your home.

A fetus has relationships, enjoys interacting with its mother and the outside world to the best of its abilities, and likes to listen to music. Now, thirty two weeks is pretty far into the pregnancy. Most of these abilities are attained long before the thirty two week mark.

Still, I feel obliged to note that what I said above only applies to mid-to-late-term abortions. Early term abortions are essentially the same thing as pulling a brain-dead-relative off of life support-except, in this case without their permission but since the fetus can’t give permission I don’t know what we’re supposed to do about that….

So, considering that do you still feel that a fetus isn’t as morally significant as a newborn baby, even after the thirty-two-week mark?



Any abortion done for the wrong reasons is immoral, IMO. Like if a couple is was irresponsible. But in the cases of rape or incest, I think abortion at any time should be an option for the mother. It's not about whether life is a right or not, it's doing what seems to be the best for everyone. If a child is the result of a father raping his daughter, I think it would be cruel for both the mother and child not to give the option of abortion. The child will probably have defects and not the most pleasant life, and imagine how the mother would feel. An abortion in that case is the moral thing to do, IMO, life isn't always a gift for everyone.

And I would assume most abortions are not decided upon 32 weeks into the pregnancy. Don't most people get them as soon as possible when they know they are pregnant? Abortions that are performed sooner aren't the same as killing an already born human for the same reasons I said before.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 4/24/09
Morality is not necessarily ethics, and "religious" morality is mostly rooted in cultural relationships and norms rather than reason. So the government shouldn't consider religious concepts, especially since religious morality will discriminate against those with other beliefs considering the issue. In all honesty, that should be left up to the market.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/24/09
Of course it's obvious that a zygote is alive. The question is when does it stop being simply a lump of cells, no more important than the individual cells that are constantly dying within us, and become a human being? If a bundle of stem cells is as valuable as a human/fetus who's cells have already differentiated into organs, and has just as much right to life as those do, then wouldn't killing gametes (sperm and eggs) be considered murder also, since as indivual cells they have just as much right to life as a human?

Of course I'm not including dead skin cells/blood cells/ etc, because those die naturally of "old age." But eggs are always being killed by mensturation, the egg is still alive when it is excreted, and it dies after it is forced into a hostile environment outside of the woman's body, even though she is forcing it out unwillingly, so I'm guessing that would be considered manslaughter. Sperm are of course always dying any time they exit a male, even during conception the ones that don't make it end up dying, and by forcing those sperm out of the safety of the male body into a hazardous environment, we are basically killing them, instead of allowing them to naturally die of "old age" and be recycled within the testicles.

So if killing a zygote is murder, no different than killing a fully developed human, then mensturation (the luteal phase at least) and male ejactlation are murder also. And in that case we're all murderers so why bother arresting anyone?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/09 , edited 4/24/09

leviathan343 wrote:

Morality is not necessarily ethics, and "religious" morality is mostly rooted in cultural relationships and norms rather than reason. So the government shouldn't consider religious concepts, especially since religious morality will discriminate against those with other beliefs considering the issue. In all honesty, that should be left up to the market.


How interesting, because it is my opinion that Roe v. Wade and the typical defense for abortion, that a fetus is not human, are both based upon the Judeo-Christian postulate that the soul (which is defined as ‘the source of thought,’ by a Catholic encyclopedia and ‘cognitive abilities,’ by the secular writer “Paul Davies,” in his “God and the New Physics,”) is what gives a human value. I think that this religious concept wormed its way into our culture and I think that's where we get the idea that fetuses aren't human.

Juts like the KKK uses their religious beliefs to say blacks aren't human, the rest of us are using a Christian concept to say that a fully developed fetus is not human. The word in the NW translated to 'soul,' is the Greek 'psyche,' and I don't htink I need to explain how that's relevant. Now, this isn't a fact. It's a theory. Correlation does not denote causation.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/09

mystic17 wrote:

not sure really =T


Ah, fair enough. What's yer heart say?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.