First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Just the Science: When does human life begin?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/19/09
Political scientist Jule Boykoff and geographer Maxwell Boykoff recently conducted a study concerning the media’s presentation of global warming [5]. According to this study journalists and media outlets give off the impression that scientists are “embroiled in a rip-roaring debate on whether or not humans [are] contributing to global warming.”

Actually, the scientific community is hosting no such debate. Journalists try too hard to provide equitable coverage. People approach this issue under the mindset that there is no definite answer. Unfortunately this puts us out of sync with science. While we look at the world in shades of grey, science provides black and white answers. This is also true concerning the definition of life and humanity.

So, how do we identify an organism as a member of its respective species? It’s not actually that hard. There are 1.8 million known species on the face of this planet [6]. Each one is identified by a genetic signature unique to and universal among its members throughout their lifespan [7]. Human beings are not an exception.

At what point in the reproductive process does this unique genetic signature occur? Upon conception whenever the male's gamete fertilizes the female's oocyte and creates a zygote [8]. This instant marks our beginning as a unique member of the human species.

Blackmun claimed that “There has always been great evidence that life does not begin until live birth.” This is not true. Within the medical and scientific community there is no debate. According to the United States Senate judiciary subcommittee:

“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.” [9]

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, is famous for his film, "The Silent Scream." What many people may not know is that he also cofounded the NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League). Bernard Nathanson even owned and operated what was at that time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. After studying the science fetology he resigned from his position. Dr. Bernard Nathanson said that he knew with an "increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths." [10]

Nathanson later stated, "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 went on to publish the 'realities' of abortion in his "Aborting America."[11]

Dr. Landrum Shettles served for nearly thirty years as an attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. He is best known for his discovery of female producing sperm. Dr. Shettles also stated:

"...I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception." [12]

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, is most famous for discovering the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. Jerome Lejune testified before the Judiciary Subcommittee:

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." [13]

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

“By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Ashley Montague, pro-choice geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers:

"The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception."

There is no argument. Scientifically speaking a fetus is a living human being. At the 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." [14] (One expert DID testify that "no one can tell when life begins.")

However, Robert Flowers, arguing for the appellant in Roe v. Wade, felt that the status of a fetus should not be demonstrated by scientific fact. Instead he insisted that it should be ‘a legislative decision,’ and Blackmun agreed.

This being said, President Barrack Obama promised to ‘restore science to its rightful place’ in his inaugural address [15]. He also swears to ‘crack down on fathers avoiding child support,’ because he believes we are obliged to support our dependents [16]. So then why isn’t he having Roe v. Wade re-addressed?

Maybe he feels that science’s rightful place is second to the constitution and he may very well be right. The problem is that our constitution does not provide a definition of personhood or human life. Now, scientifically we know that a zygote is a person by definition [17].

Constitutionally the only thing we know is that a fetus does not classify as a citizen of the Unite States. This means that there is no constitutional protection of a fetus’ rights, but does this justify abortion? I shall address this in my next segment.

[5] Vivian, John. The Media of Mass Communication. 8th ed. Pearson Education, 2008.
[6] Heilprin, John. "Genetic 'Barcodes' Used to Identify Species." MSNBC. 14 Sept. 2007. Associated Press. 2 Jan. 20 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20778233/#storyContinued.
[7] Stoeckle, Mark. "A reliable, consistent, and democratic tool for species discrimination." Consortium for the Barcode of Life. 18 Jan. 2009. CBOL. 13 Mar. 2009 http://phe.rockefeller.edu/barcode/blog/2009/01/18/a-reliable-consistent-and-democratic-tool-for-species-discrimination/.
[8] Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.
[9] Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.
[10]Bernard N. Nathanson, "Deeper into Abortion," New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ð90.
[11]Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).
[12] Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.
[13] Alcorn, Randy. "Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception." EPM. 2008. EPM. 16 Apr. 2009
[14] Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_human_rights/Scientists_Attest_To_Life_Beginning_At_Conception.shtml
[15] Transcript- Barack OBama Inaugural Address." New York Times. 20 Jan. 2009. New York Times. 3 Apr. 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?pagewanted=1.
[16]"Family." Barack Obama. Obama for America. 4 Apr. 2009 http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/.
[17] Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation.


See this post on my blog @:

http://religiousgenocide.blogspot.com/2009/04/abortion-iii-scientific-status-of-fetus.html
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
Didn't you or someone else already post this?

Its obvious that a zygote is alive, but is the life of a clump of cells just as valuable as the life of a sentient being?
Posted 5/20/09
Wow again an nice read Alford but i guess I will say my stance on abortion again. Abortion should not be used unless the mother is going to die giving birth, is going to die during the pregnancy or if an women/child is molested/raped. Abortion should not be used at any means as a form of contraceptive at all, because if women and men are really to fucking stupid to use condoms (latex or sheep skin) or women to use birth control then it is there own problems. It is in human nature to want to have sex because it serves 2 purposes and those are for populating the earth of course and pleasure for both parties. I personally think that life does begin at conception, and ever life is scared because that's the way I was raised but I do tend to think a little more outside the box than my parents do.
9211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 5/20/09 , edited 5/20/09
Who cares? Not the people paying for abortions. alive? dead? Do you remember why we made them legal? Because people were getting them any way. Better in a clinic then in someones basement. If you don't want to have an abortion great. Good for you. Any one who does and has the money should be able too. It's your body, and nobody should ever be able to tell you what to do with it.

My mom always said "I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out of it." and I was like 16 before she stopped.

Lets get real any way, your objection to abortion has nothing to do with any kind of science but religion. Lots of us don't have your religion and we don't care how alive it is.
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
For me some time in 1985.
Posted 5/28/09
!
Too much reading -___-

I say 2009
4930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / Singapore
Offline
Posted 5/29/09
Life begins at conception. In regards to abortion, my stand is totally against it except for extreme cases (i.e. life of the mother is at stake, pregnant toddler, etc.)
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/29/09
Yeah, but at that point it's just a small mass of sells, with the same value as a rock or a leaf. Its not a capable human being until it can survive on its own without the mother, if it can't survive without the mother, then it's not a capable human being, and has no worth, except as a source of stem cells. Besides it's the woman's body, its her choice.
Posted 5/29/09

Allhailodin wrote:

Yeah, but at that point it's just a small mass of sells, with the same value as a rock or a leaf. Its not a capable human being until it can survive on its own without the mother, if it can't survive without the mother, then it's not a capable human being, and has no worth, except as a source of stem cells. Besides it's the woman's body, its her choice.


Ha ha ha what about people that need government support to live what does that make them?? As far as I am concerned kill off everyone that can't live on there own and the homeless as well to make a better world.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/29/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Yeah, but at that point it's just a small mass of sells, with the same value as a rock or a leaf. Its not a capable human being until it can survive on its own without the mother, if it can't survive without the mother, then it's not a capable human being, and has no worth, except as a source of stem cells. Besides it's the woman's body, its her choice.


Ha ha ha what about people that need government support to live what does that make them?? As far as I am concerned kill off everyone that can't live on there own and the homeless as well to make a better world.


That's retarded, because those people who can't live on their own now can always decide to do something about that, and hell a few of em could even become very successful. Besides a goverment is nothing without people to govern.
Posted 5/29/09

Allhailodin wrote:


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Yeah, but at that point it's just a small mass of sells, with the same value as a rock or a leaf. Its not a capable human being until it can survive on its own without the mother, if it can't survive without the mother, then it's not a capable human being, and has no worth, except as a source of stem cells. Besides it's the woman's body, its her choice.


Ha ha ha what about people that need government support to live what does that make them?? As far as I am concerned kill off everyone that can't live on there own and the homeless as well to make a better world.


That's retarded, because those people who can't live on their own now can always decide to do something about that, and hell a few of em could even become very successful. Besides a goverment is nothing without people to govern.


why not there not fit to live if they can't take care of themselves are they?? there nothing but a huge leech off of society and would be better off dead children and all.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/29/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Yeah, but at that point it's just a small mass of sells, with the same value as a rock or a leaf. Its not a capable human being until it can survive on its own without the mother, if it can't survive without the mother, then it's not a capable human being, and has no worth, except as a source of stem cells. Besides it's the woman's body, its her choice.


Ha ha ha what about people that need government support to live what does that make them?? As far as I am concerned kill off everyone that can't live on there own and the homeless as well to make a better world.


That's retarded, because those people who can't live on their own now can always decide to do something about that, and hell a few of em could even become very successful. Besides a goverment is nothing without people to govern.


why not there not fit to live if they can't take care of themselves are they?? there nothing but a huge leech off of society and would be better off dead children and all.


Because, like I said, they can always decide to change that.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/29/09 , edited 5/30/09

Allhailodin wrote:

Because, like I said, they can always decide to change that.


That’s not always true. I’ll allow that in most cases you’re right, but there are exceptions. Take illegal immigrants in southern Texas. The state has laws barring illegal immigrants from getting driver’s licenses and has made the penalty for hiring an illegal immigrant so severe that many businesses have ceased to do so.

These are recent developments, illegal immigration is not. In other words these people arrived into a system where they could thrive and now-through no fault of their own-they can’t. There’s nothing they can really do about it. They’re not allowed to drive and can’t afford cars because they’re not allowed to work. So, they get on welfare and absorb our tax dollars.

They’re not capable of sustaining themselves. They need support. While a fetus leeches off of one woman these people leech off the entire nation-and considering that we’re further in debt than we’ve ever been I’d say that’s an issue that needs to be dealt with. Either we need to allow free immigration and stop barring the aliens from work and transportation or we need to build a wall. Either way, if you argue that because the child isn’t capable of sustaining itself its human rights (the right to life,) then that same logic extends to these illegal immigrants-and really, any individual (including newborn children,) who depends on someone else for his/her survival.

I’m sorry, and while I think there are strong arguments for abortion, I don’t think yours is one.


Coldwave123 wrote:

Who cares? Not the people paying for abortions. alive? dead? Do you remember why we made them legal? Because people were getting them any way. Better in a clinic then in someones basement. If you don't want to have an abortion great. Good for you. Any one who does and has the money should be able too. It's your body, and nobody should ever be able to tell you what to do with it.

My mom always said "I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out of it." and I was like 16 before she stopped.

Lets get real any way, your objection to abortion has nothing to do with any kind of science but religion. Lots of us don't have your religion and we don't care how alive it is.


Alright, let’s get real. In my religious point of view a fetus is not a human and should not be treated like it. In the Old Testament of the bible there’s a mitzvah that says the penalty for taking a human’s life is death. Yet, the penalty for attacking a woman and causing the abortion of her fetus is a hefty fine. If that fetus was a human then why wouldn't the killer be put to death? Because it's not a fetus-and, of course-the bible says that the mitzvah were handed down directly from God.

Aside this, the defining attribute of a human in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim line is the soul. In the New Testament of the Christian bible the word translated to “soul,” is the Greek “psyche,” the literal meaning of which is quite obvious to anyone who speaks English. A Catholic Encyclopedia defined the “soul,” as “the sources of all thought,” and the agnostic writer Paul Davies used the word as a synonym for cognition in his book “God and the New Physics.”

In other words a human being is given moral significant and defined as a human being by their cognitive abilities. A fetus does not have a brain and therefore cannot think for itself. With this understood I do not in any way believe that a fetus is human. Add in the concept of circumstantial morality introduced by Jesus in the NT and I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with abortion.

My whole point is that we shouldn’t allow religion to make decisions for us. My point is that our laws should not acknowledge religious sentiments and moral significant. They should be based strictly on a secular and scientific buttress. Our laws protect human life-a zygote, scientifically-poses human life. The laws should apply and its only when we allow religious sentiment, the desire for control, and political theology to cloud our judgment that we call this into question.


The idea that abortions are just as common in areas where they’re illegal as they are in areas where they’re legal spawns from a single study. This study was held by “Planned Parenthood,” and compared America to Mexico and other third world countries. I give this study the same level of respect I give to studies about global warming funded by the oil industry. It’s a load of crap.

One way or the other, this thread isn't about rather or not abortion should be legal. It's about the scientific status of a fetus. I find it highly amusing that when presented with facts they don't like, many people call on the "you're just a religious cook," card even though they have absolutely no idea how modern and liberal my religious views really are.... Religiously, I support abortion-but I don't believe in mixing church and state. I don't believe in allowing religious sentiment to define human life.


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

Wow again an nice read Alford but i guess I will say my stance on abortion again. Abortion should not be used unless the mother is going to die giving birth, is going to die during the pregnancy or if an women/child is molested/raped. Abortion should not be used at any means as a form of contraceptive at all, because if women and men are really to fucking stupid to use condoms (latex or sheep skin) or women to use birth control then it is there own problems. It is in human nature to want to have sex because it serves 2 purposes and those are for populating the earth of course and pleasure for both parties. I personally think that life does begin at conception, and ever life is scared because that's the way I was raised but I do tend to think a little more outside the box than my parents do.


I'm glad you liked it, sorry for the late reply. Our opinions are similar.
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 5/30/09 , edited 5/30/09

Coldwave123 wrote:
Do you remember why we made them legal? Because people were getting them any way.



Bullshit. The real reason abortion was legalized is because the liberals, like the conservatives, are power hungry. This isn’t about religion vs. secularism. It’s about control: hints most supporters of abortion are women, most “anti-choice” people are men. If we were really thinking “well they’re doing it anyway so let’s help these criminals do so safely,” we would’ve repealed national speed limits and a plethora of other public safety laws.

You see, public speed limits don’t do jack shit. Studies have proven that people drive at speeds they’re comfortable with. Don’t believe me? Look here:

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/home/safety-setting-speed-limits/#CONCLUSION

Yet, you don't give a rats ass about that and nobody's trying to remove those and provide ways that are safer for you to endanger those around you...conclusion? Your reasoning is bullshit and you probably know it but you're pissed because your best "it's not human" arguement just got beat with the logic stick.

By the way, I'm an atheist and I'm against abortion and so was Bernard Nathanson whenever he wrote all that jazz that the opening post quotes. Like Nathanson, I'm also pro-life because I'm not a puppet who can be made to dance around with emotional imagery and these claims that fetuses are morally less significant than other humans. Because the fact is that humans are objects, sentient objects, but objects none the less. None of us are worth more than your average rock and all of us can be replaced. Yet, we make laws for mutual benefit and if you start bending those laws and it all falls apart.
1015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / faraway land
Offline
Posted 5/30/09
it started with stinkin cockroach!!!
wahaha
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.