Discuss when human life begins

[Old_alum]

In a separate poll I asked posters to choose the point at which human life begins and therefore should not be killed.

There have been 9 responses:
6 chose "at conception";
2 "when baby is completely out of the birth canal"; and,
1 chose "one hour and 12 minutes after birth".

I have no idea how many people view or post "Off Ship" but I hope this is enough to start a discussion of reasoning.

Can anyone --- not necessarily any one of the participants --- please speculate on the logic which says that although a baby deserves the protection of the law a few (or 72) minutes after "birth, that exactly-the-same "lump of tissue" does not deserve any legal protection from being chopped into pieces just a few minutes earlier?

It really perplexes me. I had expected at least some "Pro Choice" supporters to pick a biological breakpoint: when the fetus's independent survival outside-the-womb is viable or before the baby can feel pain. But no one chose such a biologically dictated option.

Over the weekend the giant pandas in the Smithsonian Zoo gave birth to two cubs. Many were amazed at how tiny and helpless these cubs were. They were even smaller and seemingly more helpless than a premie human baby. But people all over the US voiced "concern" about their survival. Similarly, if one has ever seen a video of the "birth" of a marsupial one can see an eyeless worm-like creature struggle out of the womb and then, on its own, having to crawl six inches into its mother's pouch to finish gestation. Why did "nature" give these dumb creatures this ability to struggle for so early a survival but not give it to human embryos? Could it be that human mothers are supposed to protect these creatures which if in some "lower" species would already be independent-enough-to-survive on its own?

The only "logic" I can fathom for supporting late term abortions (especially the so-called and horrific partial birth abortions) is the mantra of "don't judge others" who have their own "conscience" and thus their own principles, their own "standards" of "right" and "wrong". Is this mantra derived as a personally determined principle only after hours or days of agonizing reflection? Or is it fear of reciprocity: judge not lest thee be judged?

How can some people argue that it is moral --- and should remain legal --- for a totally-non-Hippocratic-compliant "doctor" to hack into pieces a fully viable infant and then to vacuum those pieces out of a woman's birth canal --- only to have these "parts" sorted through by some abortive Quality Assurance team so as to restock the inventories of baby arms and legs and brains?

How can this not bother everyone? How can everyone not react in outrage? Can someone please suggest some reasonable explanation of this for me?

Inquiring minds need to know.

 

[knowknow456]

The answer is simple. If (as I do) someone believes that a fetus is a life with rights separate and distinct from the mother, that person will very likely fall on the pro-life side of the fence.

However, if someone believes the rights of the mother to control her own body include the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, that person will fall on the pro-choice side of the fence.

These are not innovate statements and have been the central argument of abortion for over 40 years.

 

[cernjSHU]

In a separate poll I asked posters to choose the point at which human life begins and therefore should not be killed.

There have been 9 responses:
6 chose "at conception";
2 "when baby is completely out of the birth canal"; and,
1 chose "one hour and 12 minutes after birth".

I have no idea how many people view or post "Off Ship" but I hope this is enough to start a discussion of reasoning.

Can anyone --- not necessarily any one of the participants --- please speculate on the logic which says that although a baby deserves the protection of the law a few (or 72) minutes after "birth, that exactly-the-same "lump of tissue" does not deserve any legal protection from being chopped into pieces just a few minutes earlier?

It really perplexes me. I had expected at least some "Pro Choice" supporters to pick a biological breakpoint: when the fetus's independent survival outside-the-womb is viable or before the baby can feel pain. But no one chose such a biologically dictated option.

Over the weekend the giant pandas in the Smithsonian Zoo gave birth to two cubs. Many were amazed at how tiny and helpless these cubs were. They were even smaller and seemingly more helpless than a premie human baby. But people all over the US voiced "concern" about their survival. Similarly, if one has ever seen a video of the "birth" of a marsupial one can see an eyeless worm-like creature struggle out of the womb and then, on its own, having to crawl six inches into its mother's pouch to finish gestation. Why did "nature" give these dumb creatures this ability to struggle for so early a survival but not give it to human embryos? Could it be that human mothers are supposed to protect these creatures which if in some "lower" species would already be independent-enough-to-survive on its own?

The only "logic" I can fathom for supporting late term abortions (especially the so-called and horrific partial birth abortions) is the mantra of "don't judge others" who have their own "conscience" and thus their own principles, their own "standards" of "right" and "wrong". Is this mantra derived as a personally determined principle only after hours or days of agonizing reflection? Or is it fear of reciprocity: judge not lest thee be judged?

How can some people argue that it is moral --- and should remain legal --- for a totally-non-Hippocratic-compliant "doctor" to hack into pieces a fully viable infant and then to vacuum those pieces out of a woman's birth canal --- only to have these "parts" sorted through by some abortive Quality Assurance team so as to restock the inventories of baby arms and legs and brains?

How can this not bother everyone? How can everyone not react in outrage? Can someone please suggest some reasonable explanation of this for me?

Inquiring minds need to know.

Well, the flip side of the coin is how can life begin with conception when cells are just dividing? There is no human form it is just microscopic cells?

 

[Old_alum]

Well, the flip side of the coin is how can life begin with conception when cells are just dividing? There is no human form it is just microscopic cells?

I am so grateful that you responded!

Moving a little closer toward the essentials, it seems to me that we would have to agree that even a single cell zygote is alive, right? (Science does)

And further wouldn't one have to say that this zygote is human? (Science does). Properly protected its humanness is incontrovertible.

Well, then what do you call a creature that has the combined attributes of being both "human" and "alive"?

But let's go back to your premise. first, for argument's sake. Some might see that as "logical". The premise seems to be that it is the "form" that a living human has which determines whether the cells may be terminated. Is that a fair restatement?

Which part(s) of the human "form" is really the essential part?

What exactly must a human "form" be lacking before it is okay to kill it?

Is it the arms and legs? Is a quadriplegic's life sacrosanct?

The genitals? Is a eunuch's life sacrosanct?

Is it the ability to communicate? Is the life of a comatose relative sacrosanct?

How about the ability to emote? Is the life of a severely autistic child sacrosanct?


But I would prefer to focus first on the more subtle differences which puts a human life at risk.

Let's start at the other end of the scale where everyone is in agreement and then perhaps look at the differences which distinguish her as we move down from there?

Do we agree that it is not moral to kill a baby girl who is one-hour-and-17-minutes old? {edited to be consistent on 1hour 17 min., not 1 minute 17 seconds}

If so, then what is the logic that would make it moral to have chopped up the body of that VERY SAME baby girl just 3 hours earlier? {edited to be consistent on 1hour 17 min., not 1 minute 17 seconds}

Does she then lack biological viability?

Does she then not feel pain?

Is it some lack of actual experience breathing oxygen (as opposed to her inherent "ability" to breath oxygen?)

I really don't understand any logic at all for this argument.

Would someone please explain it to me?

 

[Old_alum]

The answer is simple. If (as I do) someone believes that a fetus is a life with rights separate and distinct from the mother, that person will very likely fall on the pro-life side of the fence.

However, if someone believes the rights of the mother to control her own body include the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, that person will fall on the pro-choice side of the fence.

These are not innovate statements and have been the central argument of abortion for over 40 years.

Thanks, KnowKnow

That is a good, simple summary of the positions.

How are the boundaries of the woman's "own body" defined, and by whom?

As I understand it, the Pro Choice crowd argues that if any part of the baby is still inside the woman's birth canal then the mother has sole authority over its fate. Is that right? WHY do they think that?

What I would like to better understand is the logic or science that stands behind the argument that, whenever a woman wants, she may do whatever she wants to another "human life" living inside her womb or birth canal.

Another thing I am not sure of is whether the 'Pro Choice' crowd do or do not acknowledge that the embryo/fetus is a separate and distinct human life with DNA that is distinct from the mother's.

It indisputable that this distinct human life must live inside the woman's body --- for at least some period of time. Should independent viability factor in?

Is the position that only she may choose its fate --- even when it is independently viable --- based merely on the "logic" I described above:

....(the) mantra of "don't judge others" who have their own "conscience" and thus their own principles, their own "standards" of "right" and "wrong".

I ask again:

Is this mantra derived as a personally determined principle ...after hours or days of agonizing reflection? Or is it fear of reciprocity: judge not lest thee be judged?

If there has been "agonizing reflection", what arguments and evidence were reflected upon?

 

[donnie_baseball]

Agree that, in answering cern's query, if the cells are dividing, that indicates it's alive. This recent focus on PP and the mention of preserving/destroying "parts," should, to anyone with eyes and ears, poke some serious holes in the assertion that it's not a human being.

I would recommend anyone to read Bernard Nathanson's book, the name of which escapes me for the moment. He was an OB/GYN who performed tens of thousands of abortions, and, with the advent of ultrasound, could see the fetus recoiling in pain, when probed. He then did a 180 and became a pro-life activist. He also details how the pro-choice crowd, himself included, used deception and falsehoods in an attempt to get abortion legalized.

 

[knowknow456]

If there has been "agonizing reflection", what arguments and evidence were reflected upon?

If this is your main concern, I don't think anyone here is qualified to answer the question. It would be better to volunteer at Birthright or one of the diocesan crisis centers to gain a real understanding.

I hope someone here will better engage your thirst for understanding when life begins. I find myself more concerned with when life ends. Based on the CDC website you provided, there were 730,322 abortions in 2011. Of that amount, 91.4% (667,514) of those abortions took place in the first 13 weeks of gestation. Even if I write off the other 8.6% (62,808) as illogical and evil people, I still have an opportunity to theoretically reduce abortion by 90%. Even a modest 10% reduction saves over 60,000 lives.

 

[Old_alum]

If this is your main concern, I don't think anyone here is qualified to answer the question. It would be better to volunteer at Birthright or one of the diocesan crisis centers to gain a real understanding.

I hope someone here will better engage your thirst for understanding when life begins. I find myself more concerned with when life ends. Based on the CDC website you provided, there were 730,322 abortions in 2011. Of that amount, 91.4% (667,514) of those abortions took place in the first 13 weeks of gestation. Even if I write off the other 8.6% (62,808) as illogical and evil people, I still have an opportunity to theoretically reduce abortion by 90%. Even a modest 10% reduction saves over 60,000 lives.

Hoorah!!!!!

Eliciting this kind of post is my only intent on this board. I try to do everything I can to fight abortions. IMHO this board is an opportunity to share ideas and perhaps discern logic or facts that might not have been readily apparent before.

As on the basketball forum (but with more serious consequences) I hope for a give-and-take with open-minded people. So, the point of my posting here is to dialogue with anyone who does not share my understanding or my conclusions.

I know there are folks here who do not share my opinions on abortion: specifically there are people here who indicate they support partial-birth abortions --- at least as the rule of the land.

I do not expect that we all will agree on everything --- especially the point at which an embryo is a human life. But a reasonable evaluation can (and should) lead to the conclusion that "when in doubt, don't" kill what might be a human life. Short of that if everyone on this board would at least voice to others that he/she considers third-trimester abortions to be, as you say, "illogical and evil" acts which must be ended.

I get the impression that many people think that having an abortion is like removing a wart: one just adds a few chemicals and the tissue disappears. Those people must be taught that in a partial-birth abortion a "doctor" delivers a baby so that half its skull is outside the birth canal. He/she then takes a scalpel and with NO anesthesia proceeds to repeatedly stab the baby's brain. Then --- until they entered into the "parts" resale business ---- he/she chops up the rest of the baby and vacuums it out of the birth canal. The abortions perpetrated earlier in a pregnancy are very similar except the "parts" are smaller, less developed.

This goes beyond sports fanaticism. Beyond economic discussions. Beyond a life-style choice.

In plain English, abortions are horrible, bloody, physically and psychologically painful assaults on the mother and the child and they are abominations against humanity.

The rationalization of the taking of ANY human life --- at any stage of development --- is jumping onto the quintessential slippery-slope that without the utmost care will quickly degenerate into another Nazi holocaust if not opposed.

Reason is all we have. But a reasonable person does not lightly cast off the wisdom of the millennia because everyone has his or her own conscience to decide what is "right and what is wrong for her".

There are people who do support such acts.

I am hoping that by dialogue I can understand WHY they support abortions.

I am hoping that by reasonable dialogue a few of them will understand why I want so much to protect human life.

 

[Merge]

I will be honest that being a father has changed my perception regarding human development.

I am blessed to have two incredible girls (ages 3 and 10 months) and having the perspective of how different each may have been should their mother and I have waited another hour or maybe even seconds before trying to have a child each time.

I used to say life began around the time of the heartbeat which is about 6 weeks I believe, but I just can't argue that life begins at any point other than at conception after having a new perspective.

 

[Old_alum]

I will be honest that being a father has changed my perception regarding human development.

I am blessed to have two incredible girls (ages 3 and 10 months) and having the perspective of how different each may have been should their mother and I have waited another hour or maybe even seconds before trying to have a child each time.

I used to say life began around the time of the heartbeat which is about 6 weeks I believe, but I just can't argue that life begins at any point other than at conception after having a new perspective.

A beautiful post, Merge!

 

[HALL85]

I will be honest that being a father has changed my perception regarding human development.

I am blessed to have two incredible girls (ages 3 and 10 months) and having the perspective of how different each may have been should their mother and I have waited another hour or maybe even seconds before trying to have a child each time.

I used to say life began around the time of the heartbeat which is about 6 weeks I believe, but I just can't argue that life begins at any point other than at conception after having a new perspective.

+1,000...I can relate

 

[Old_alum]

I just learned of another action by government: "a government project conducted by government researchers funded by government money" which I find disturbing on many fronts. "Back on April 25, 2013, ...the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, MIT and Harvard put out a press release announcing this $12.4 million federal grant."

The NIH is forbidden by law to experiment on humans. "In March 1988, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a moratorium on federal funding of research that involved transplanting human fetal tissue into human subjects."

"The moratorium did not extend to research that involves transplanting human fetal tissue into animals."

It seems that since 2013 the NIH has been taking "tissues cut from human livers and thymuses taken from babies at 17 to 22 weeks gestational age" and implanting them into mice --- "called the TKO-BLT mouse—with TKO standing for triple knockout (representing changes in the mouse’s system) and BLT standing for bone marrow, liver and thymus."

"Each mouse would get a piece of thymus and a piece of liver taken from the same 17-to-22-week gestational age human baby. The part of the liver not cut into small pieces and transplanted under the kidney capsules of mice was cut into small pieces and processed to make stem cells that were injected into the mice after they underwent their transplantation surgeries."

They thus make what NIH terms: "humanized mice".

NIH reports that they "use ‘humanized’ mice, mice that contain human immune systems, as a model to study immune responses to HIV infection and to help us determine the basic mechanisms of vaccine protection against acute and chronic retroviral infections. The goal of these studies is to develop new ideas for HIV vaccines and therapies".

"The researchers noted that they followed NIH rules in the treatment of animals."

"The same government researchers had collaborated on another journal article about the “humanized” mouse with an NIH-funded researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital--which has an ongoing federal grant that also involves humanizing mice using human fetal livers and thymuses."

CNS News has uncovered this. They have asked the NIH thirty questions.

This was the NIH's only answer:
"Neither the NIH nor the co-authors responded to the specific questions. Instead, the NIH responded with this statement:

'NIH is a biomedical research agency and conducts and funds research to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. NIH does not regulate and is not involved with medical services for abortions. Additionally, NIH is not a direct source of human fetal tissue for researchers. In connection with some research projects, NIH-funded researchers obtain human fetal tissue that is donated to organizations for biomedical research under conditions governed by law, specifically sections 498A and 498B of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 298g-1 [sic 289g-1] and 298g-2 [sic 289g-2], through an intermediary such as university tissue banks, clinics associated with universities and companies.' "

It is also restricted in what it may do:
"Section 289g-2 of the law cited by NIH focuses on “Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue.” It says in part: “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.”"

What do others think about this?

 

[donnie_baseball]

It is the opinion of many that science is the antithesis of religion, ignoring centuries of the Church serving as the sanctuary for the learned. Today, the new atheists' rallying cry is "Science!" with scant few of them having had classes past high school chemistry. As a scientist, I have never believed it, and the Vatican has always maintained that the theory of evolution was not only the best working theory, but that it poses no threat to the stories of Genesis, written by man, inspired by God, and allegorical in nature.

To the secular, science replacing religion allows grinding fetal tissue in a Cuisinart as a necessity for "prolonging life," as the NIH says. Human tissue, regardless of where it is harvested from (and adults, including myself, make decisions for organ -- some whole-body donation after physical death), is fair game, and has no more sanctity than that of a mouse.

To the faithful, a Creator masterminded the riddles of the Earth, and the human person, which man has not solved in eons. The human brain, the depths of the ocean, and the vastness of the galaxies have barely been touched. We have a limited time here, and limited knowledge (all being, as it says on McNulty Hall, from God). Man's way is not God's way -- on this side of eternity we desperately grasp at straws of things with little consequence. Sorry, but prolonging life is a farce. Those who work in the fields of medical research toil mostly in obscurity, and certainly have good intentions, or at least love a good challenge.

As a society that turns it's back on the unborn, is complicit with transgenic humanized mice, and labels all religious (though a fraction actually are) anti-science and anti-progress, we have lost our way.

It's simple, quoting the last (good) Indiana Jones film -- "...ask yourself: what do I believe?" I believe that there is a God, and an afterlife, and the conduit is Jesus Christ. I also believe -- as much as I would love to remove myself from these conflicts and live my life free of worry about what others are doing -- that as such, I must stand up and defend the sanctity of life. Don't believe in God? That's fine, but at least recognize that humans are the highest form of life on this planet, worthy of respect

 

[Old_alum]

The debate on fetal "stem cell" research has been publicized to a fair extent. That said, as much as I have read on the topic --- mainstream publications, mostly --- until yesterday I had been totally unaware that any human cells were ever inserted into non-human animals. I, personally, was shocked.

From my reading --- little done very recently --- no medical benefits have accrued from fetal stem cell research. There have been many and valuable medical break-throughs using adult stem-cells.

There are a multitude of questions raised by the NIH humanized-mice:

1. Is it legal? My understanding (as quoted) was it might not be.

2. Should the NIH have the responsibility of doing their own "due diligence" to assure legal compliance by their "parts" providers?

3. Do the abortionists explain to the woman having the abortion that her "baby's" (the NIH term) liver and thymus will be used to breed "humanized mice"?

4. Are the members of Congress aware that the NIH is inserting a "baby's" liver and thymus into a mouse to breed "humanized mice"?

5. In each person's opinion, is it right to use the insertion of fetal cells to justify abortions?

6. Is it moral to insert ANY human cells into any other animal?

7. If not moral, do any potential --- but unprecedented --- medical benefits that might be found justify such immoral research?

In essence, who believes that the "end" justifies the "means"?

 

[Merge]

I don't really have a problem with inserting cells into an animal for medical research.
Almost 40 million people have died from HIV and I wouldn't encourage abortion as a way to help the research but the abortion has already occurred. Doesn't really seem to be anything illegal going on from what you posted.

I do believe that any fetal donation must be approved by the the woman seeking an abortion but I do not know the language involved... I'm doubtful it says anything about animals but I would agree that it should.

In each person's opinion, is it right to use the insertion of fetal cells to justify abortions?

No, but I don't think anyone is justifying an abortion because it will be used for research.
The justification comes much sooner once they decide to have one.

Is it moral to insert ANY human cells into any other animal?

Probably not, but probably along the same lines of breeding animals to live in a box until we are ready to eat them. I don't specifically object to injecting the cells of a human into an animal.

7. If not moral, do any potential --- but unprecedented --- medical benefits that might be found justify such immoral research?

I do believe so.