[ScottGem]

Sorry, Inthebox, but the people those quotes are from may "know" those things, but what all that really means is that they BELIEVE them. In many of those quotes, it refers to conception or fertilization as the STARTING POINT of life, but that doesn't mean it's a viable life. In fact it is possible for a fetilized egg to not attach itself to the uterine wall and therefore not develop. The mother might never even know that she miscarried.
I could find, if I looked quotes that support the opposite position. So what I said initially still holds; that when life begins remains a controversial issue. And to impose one groups beliefs on another is wrong.

[jillianleab]

There is no universally agreed upon "start" of life. If anyone read the link I posted, it goes into this at the end, and explains all the points of view. Here's a summary:

The metabolic view: There is no one point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.

The genetic view: A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.

The embryological view: In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 PC. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as "pre-embryonic." This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.)

The neurological view: Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) should be defined as when a human life begins. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).

The ecological/technological view: This view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted.)

The immunological view: This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

The integrated physiological view: This view sees human life as beginning when an individual has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.

inthebox seems to agree with the genetic view. Scott seems to agree with the ecological/technological view. There is no one point of view. That's why we're not all in agreement! :)

[inthebox]

Sorry, Inthebox, but the people those quotes are from may "know" those things, but what all that really means is that they BELIEVE them. In many of those quotes, it refers to conception or fertilization as the STARTING POINT of life, but that doesn't mean its a viable life. In fact it is possible for a fetilized egg to not attach itself to the uterine wall and therefore not develop. The mother might never even know that she miscarried.
I could find, if I looked quotes that support the opposite position. So what I said initially still holds; that when life begins remains a controversial issue. And to impose one groups beliefs on another is wrong.

Well why don't you find the opposite quotes?

Oh and the science proves it - ever see one of those fancyy 3d ultrasounds of the fetus?

Why don't you look that up and tell me if a fetus with a beating heart and movement is not human or not life?

I'm not imposing my views.


Just stating them and pointing out the facts and the actual science.


People can look up the reality and make their own decision.


How about this : a person is in a motor vehicle accident and suffers multiple traumatic injuries neccessitating mechanical ventilation to maintain life supporting oxygen levels in the blood.

They are not "viable" without a "machine " supporting them. Would you just not try to help them? Or let them die?

Slaves were not considered human or less than human. Do you think it right that the abolitionists "impose" their views?

[ScottGem]

Inthebox, I refer you to Jillian's posts and the link she gave.

Your analogies just don't hold water. As to the accident victim, if the only thing keeping them alive is a machine AND there is no hope of recovery from their injuries then yes I would let them die. As for slaves, the facts are reality were they were human.

I've reviewed the facts and the actual science and I do not believe that life begins at conception. But I don't believe I have the right to impose my view on others. But anti-abortionists want to impose their beliefs. They want to eliminate the ability of the individual to choose for themselves because they believe that abortion is murder.

[N0help4u]

From what I heard what they use to distinguish is
The mother WANTED the baby
Vs
The mother didn't want the baby

[jillianleab]

When machines are keeping people alive we have the right to "pull the plug". When someone is brain dead, we consider them dead; a fetus is brain dead until 22 weeks or so.

Just stirrin' the pot...

:)

[Fr_Chuck]

"Right to choose" I always see that as right to kill, and it is only a right because 4 men choose to rule that way, it is not really a right, it is a law. There are many universal rights, and one of those were the right to life as described in the US Constitution

And I do understan the idea of abortion, it has been used as a form of birth control lately with no respect for the life they are creating

As for as my comment on culling, I see abortion as a slipperly slope that will lead to less respect for human life, so I don't see a reason for it to stop at this but lead to what we have already seen, partial birth abortions
( which is the worst killing I can image) . So what is next, killing a 1 year old since it is decided he is mentally challenged or a 2 year old that ends up phsycially handicaped. Once a society starts showing no respect for human life it is just a matter of time

[ScottGem]

"Right to choose" I always see that as right to kill, and it is only a right because 4 men choose to rule that way, it is not really a right, it is a law. There are many universal rights, and one of those were the right to life as described in the US Constitution

You may see it a right to kill, but that's because you believe life begins at conception. Others don't see it that way. The Declaration of Independence endowed us with the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Clearly, an unwanted pregnancy can inhibit the Pursuit of Happiness. So, if one doesn't consider a fetus a life, then it has yet to gain those rights, while the mother has them.

I understand what you are saying and I also am uncomfortable with the use of abortion as a form of birth control. But I strongly believe a woman has control over her body and such does have the right to choose what happens to it. Until the fetus can exist outside the womb it's a part of the women's body.

[bEaUtIfUlbRuNeTtE]

We all have different beliefs...

[Allheart]

Like anything in life, I feel it is not my right to say someone has done wrong or is doing wrong.

Then I share what I believe, I do not mean matters of rape/incest/ or medical emergencies.

These are my beliefs that I follow:

When someone says a women has a right to do with her body as she chooses...

She most certainly does. That night, that morning prior to having relations. Once she has chosen to give of her body, she has made her choice that she has a right to.

The results of her choice may then begin to grow within her body. She has already exerised her right to choose that night or evening, now, it is my opinion from there on in, she is making a choice for the child inside of her, who does not get a vote.

That is my belief for me, but I in no way would hoist my belief on someone else. If they came to me PRIOR to ask for advice, the above is what I would share and do all I could to make her realize or be very sure of whatever choice she is going to make.

For those who base their choice for religious reasons, all you can do is share when asked, or help someone prior to the act.

Ultimately, God wants them to make their own choice, and does not make an exception to His loving desire, that we Judge not yeast not be judged.

I have never and hope to never be in a situation where a choice would need to be made.
I pray for all and feel for all those who have had to make that choice.

[inthebox]

When machines are keeping people alive we have the right to "pull the plug". When someone is brain dead, we consider them dead; a fetus is brain dead until 22 weeks or so.

Just stirrin' the pot.....

:)

The difference is that fetus - if allowed to live and be born and raised - hopefully :) - won't be a brain dead adult.


An adult who has had anoxic brain damage due to, say a cardiac arrest of 30 minutes, does not have the same neurological prognosis.