Why are our tax dollars going to fund other countries'' abortions?

[elle_chris]

Actually, I don't believe an "unborn baby" is a baby.

When the goverment decides when an abortion is warranted, you're taking the rights of the woman away, period. Yes, it doors open doors to extremists. Who's to say that a woman who was raped and it resulted in a pregnancy wouldn't be forced to have it? I mean, if i think along the lines of those that believe it's murder, then it's not the fetus' fault so why shouldn't she be made to give birth? I understand that's an extreme situation but it does happen.

Also, who's going to decide when it's unsafe to the woman? A doctor I presume. But having a doctor deciding whether or not it's medically necessary to abort, sorry- but doctors have differing views as well, it's not always so clear cut as to whether or not a pregnancy is safe. The last thing I'd want is as doctor who places more values on an embryo, than on my life.

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 1/28/2009 1:08:33 PM
Author: Cellini3

Date: 1/28/2009 10:17:30 AM
Author: elle_chris
Many people have personal experiences leading them to choose one side or the other.

For me personally, I had a tubalar pregnancy four years ago. It was caught very early so that my doctor was able to give me a shot saving me from surgery.

In my case, I needed to have three ultrasounds done and it was still unclear. The deciding factor was that I was having severe pain so they didn''t want to take a chance.

In a world where choice is taken away, there''s an extremely high chance that this type of pregnancy would be forced to continue since neither my doctor nor the second one I saw, could reach a conclusive desicion about the pregnancy even though, chances were pretty high is was ectopic.


I''m sure many people would think, ''well, in that type of situation it''s obvious it should be terminated''.

But when you take the choice away from a woman to decide on whether or not her own health, be it mental or physical be the only decision on what to choose to do about a pregnancy, you''re opening up the door for extreme regulation who''s primary objective would not be in the interest of the woman. In fact, all she becomes is a vessel without any rights. And when a womans rights get taken away, that to me is very scary.

Elle, I too have been in a similar situation. I had a surprise ectopic pregnancy. It is painful and totally sucked.

I also had several ultra sounds/sonos and second opinions as well as severe & debilitating pain. I respectfully disagree with you as this is not considered a termination of a pregnancy. The shot that you received is likely in lieu of an D&C or tubal removal not to terminate the life of your child. Although I am not a dr & cannot know for sure.
If abortion on demand or otherwise were restricted or eliminated thee types of situations would remain unaffected. The baby is not viable, not viable and can never be placed in the womb to become viable. Typically the baby dies early on but your body hormone levels may continue to rise as can the baby''s body remain unabsorbed. & This is not considered a termination of pregnancy nor is it considered to be under the realm of ''choice''. My baby died @ 6 weeks and we found out after @8 weeks. That was my child, he died and had to be removed from my tube in an emergency surgery so that I could live. I lost my tube and what remained of my baby & fertility that day. It was a hard day I beat myself up over that decision as I am prolife, however this is not to forget the life of the mother..in fact research proves that in less than 2% of cases (that is adding a (.05%)abortion was an option to either save the mother''s life or the result of rape/incest.

I do know your pain and the uncomfortableness of the situation of ectopic pregnancy, it is not a choice situation. Your baby is dead or dying and the time is ticking to save you. If you or anyone else harbors guilt/shame from a ectopic pregnancy it is false. You had no choice and you were not at fault. I say this because I struggled to come to terms with my beliefs and what happened to my own child. There was no choice and there was no abortion, but there was in fact a child.

Cellini- I don''t harbor shame or guilt. It happens. Thanks though, and I''m sorry about your situation as well.
I''m just a strong proponent for choice in your personal life.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM
Author: vespergirl
Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.


Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother''s life is in danger?


I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it''s position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don''t. It''s a slippery slope to say that it''s OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it''s not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can''t have it both ways.

I totally agree Vespergirl. Even though I no longer consider myself a Catholic, I do appreciate that the Church''s stance on "life" is consistent.

I would add that the Catholic Church is also against in-vitro fertilization. Among other reasons, this is given at catholicinsight.com: "Only a small percentage of fertilized ova result in a child being born. The other children are lost or killed."

Veering off from the original debate (whether or not tax dollars should support abortions)...It always amazes me that the anti-choice crowd insists on calling an embryo an "unborn baby" when it''s contained in a woman''s uterus but isn''t at all bothered by the half million frozen embryos that exist in this country as a result of the practice of in-vitro. Why is that? Why do anti-choice people insist that someone has to "speak for the unborn baby" in some cases but not others? Have you ever heard of a demonstration at an in-vitro clinic? Are couples considering in-vitro given pamphlets that attempt to make them feel guilty for the excess embryos they *must* produce to go through with the procedure?

It''s all so hypocritical to me.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to speak out against in-vitro. While I personally would never have an abortion or in-vitro fertilization, I am completely for a woman''s right to choose.

 

[luckystar112]

What's with all the assumptions being thrown around? Just because someone is pro-life (not anti-choice

) does not mean that that person is pro-war, pro-death penalty, or pro-frozen embryo, anti-woman or anti menstruation. Not that anyone has said that last one, but I'm waiting for it.

I will say that while it is wonderful that families who were once considered not able to have babies can now have them, I do have a problem with artificial insemination from sperm taken from a bank. Has nothing to do with me being pro life though. I wouldn't even consider myself pro-life, I consider myself pro-responsibility while being fully aware that there are times when responsibility doesn't factor into the equation.

As with every single abortion discussion that has ever been had in the history of the abortion debate, it all boils down to when you consider life to start. In a petri dish, in the womb, the day of birth, whenever.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/28/2009 2:38:05 PM
Author: luckystar112
What''s with all the assumptions being thrown around? Just because someone is pro-life (not anti-choice

) does not mean that that person is pro-war, pro-death penalty, or pro-frozen embryo, anti-woman or anti menstruation. Not that anyone has said that last one, but I''m waiting for it.

I will say that while it is wonderful that families who were once considered not able to have babies can now have them, I do have a problem with artificial insemination from sperm taken from a bank. Has nothing to do with me being pro life though. I wouldn''t even consider myself pro-life, I consider myself pro-responsibility while being fully aware that there are times when responsibility doesn''t factor into the equation.

As with every single abortion discussion that has ever been had in the history of the abortion debate, it all boils down to when you consider life to start. In a petri dish, in the womb, the day of birth, whenever.

I would like to be anti-menstruation!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM
Author: vespergirl
Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.

Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother's life is in danger?

I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it's position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don't. It's a slippery slope to say that it's OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it's not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can't have it both ways.

Death row inmates cannot be equated with a defenseless fetus. Not in any instance. At all.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/28/2009 4:29:30 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM

Author: vespergirl

Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.


Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother''s life is in danger?


I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it''s position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don''t. It''s a slippery slope to say that it''s OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it''s not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can''t have it both ways.

Death row inmates cannot be equated with a defenseless fetus. Not in any instance. At all.

That''s what you took from what she said?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/28/2009 1:22:54 PM
Author: elle_chris
Actually, I don''t believe an ''unborn baby'' is a baby.

When the goverment decides when an abortion is warranted, you''re taking the rights of the woman away, period. Yes, it doors open doors to extremists. Who''s to say that a woman who was raped and it resulted in a pregnancy wouldn''t be forced to have it? I mean, if i think along the lines of those that believe it''s murder, then it''s not the fetus'' fault so why shouldn''t she be made to give birth? I understand that''s an extreme situation but it does happen.

Also, who''s going to decide when it''s unsafe to the woman? A doctor I presume. But having a doctor deciding whether or not it''s medically necessary to abort, sorry- but doctors have differing views as well, it''s not always so clear cut as to whether or not a pregnancy is safe. The last thing I''d want is as doctor who places more values on an embryo, than on my life.

I''m about done with this conversation because I''ve pretty much said all I can say about it. My views on war, etc., have about zero to do with abortion, so it is beyond me why that has been added to this conversation.

But before I close, I do want to address this. You know how I know that an unborn baby is a baby? Aside from having ultrasounds and seeing my own babies and their beating hearts in my womb, I have one other proof. I have seen women be joyous over becoming pregnant, sometimes after a long period of infertility. And I have seen some whose babies died in the womb through miscarriage. I have seen them mourn with deep sorrow the loss of their baby. If the unborn mass of cells was not a baby, then I think there would be nothing to mourn. We have a PS member who recently lost twin boys at 6 months, and those clearly were babies. They were held, named, and I believe they had a funeral. Go tell that mother that her babies were not really babies. The only difference between those babies and an aborted "fetus" is that the first were wanted and the latter was not.

So you know what? I am secure, 100% secure, that an unborn child has value and is loved by the Creator who created him or her. I remember what it was like to have the other view, so I know where people are coming from. But I know I was totally wrong.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:13:12 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/28/2009 1:22:54 PM
Author: elle_chris
Actually, I don't believe an 'unborn baby' is a baby.

When the goverment decides when an abortion is warranted, you're taking the rights of the woman away, period. Yes, it doors open doors to extremists. Who's to say that a woman who was raped and it resulted in a pregnancy wouldn't be forced to have it? I mean, if i think along the lines of those that believe it's murder, then it's not the fetus' fault so why shouldn't she be made to give birth? I understand that's an extreme situation but it does happen.

Also, who's going to decide when it's unsafe to the woman? A doctor I presume. But having a doctor deciding whether or not it's medically necessary to abort, sorry- but doctors have differing views as well, it's not always so clear cut as to whether or not a pregnancy is safe. The last thing I'd want is as doctor who places more values on an embryo, than on my life.

I'm about done with this conversation because I've pretty much said all I can say about it. My views on war, etc., have about zero to do with abortion, so it is beyond me why that has been added to this conversation.

But before I close, I do want to address this. You know how I know that an unborn baby is a baby? Aside from having ultrasounds and seeing my own babies and their beating hearts in my womb, I have one other proof. I have seen women be joyous over becoming pregnant, sometimes after a long period of infertility. And I have seen some whose babies died in the womb through miscarriage. I have seen them mourn with deep sorrow the loss of their baby. If the unborn mass of cells was not a baby, then I think there would be nothing to mourn. We have a PS member who recently lost twin boys at 6 months, and those clearly were babies. They were held, named, and I believe they had a funeral. Go tell that mother that her babies were not really babies. The only difference between those babies and an aborted 'fetus' is that the first were wanted and the latter was not.

So you know what? I am secure, 100% secure, that an unborn child has value and is loved by the Creator who created him or her. I remember what it was like to have the other view, so I know where people are coming from. But I know I was totally wrong.

Why is this being brought into this conversation?

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/28/2009 4:29:30 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM
Author: vespergirl
Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.

Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother''s life is in danger?

I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it''s position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don''t. It''s a slippery slope to say that it''s OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it''s not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can''t have it both ways.

Death row inmates cannot be equated with a defenseless fetus. Not in any instance. At all.

Isn''t having that opinion sort of like playing God? I thought that Christians believed that God is the only one who can judge people.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:13:12 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

So you know what? I am secure, 100% secure, that an unborn child has value and is loved by the Creator who created him or her. I remember what it was like to have the other view, so I know where people are coming from. But I know I was totally wrong.

Let''s remember that there is no set definition of when human life begins. We all have different beliefs and opinions, and one is no more "right" than the other.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:13:12 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/28/2009 1:22:54 PM

Author: elle_chris

Actually, I don't believe an 'unborn baby' is a baby.


When the goverment decides when an abortion is warranted, you're taking the rights of the woman away, period. Yes, it doors open doors to extremists. Who's to say that a woman who was raped and it resulted in a pregnancy wouldn't be forced to have it? I mean, if i think along the lines of those that believe it's murder, then it's not the fetus' fault so why shouldn't she be made to give birth? I understand that's an extreme situation but it does happen.


Also, who's going to decide when it's unsafe to the woman? A doctor I presume. But having a doctor deciding whether or not it's medically necessary to abort, sorry- but doctors have differing views as well, it's not always so clear cut as to whether or not a pregnancy is safe. The last thing I'd want is as doctor who places more values on an embryo, than on my life.

I'm about done with this conversation because I've pretty much said all I can say about it. My views on war, etc., have about zero to do with abortion, so it is beyond me why that has been added to this conversation.


But before I close, I do want to address this. You know how I know that an unborn baby is a baby? Aside from having ultrasounds and seeing my own babies and their beating hearts in my womb, I have one other proof. I have seen women be joyous over becoming pregnant, sometimes after a long period of infertility. And I have seen some whose babies died in the womb through miscarriage. I have seen them mourn with deep sorrow the loss of their baby. If the unborn mass of cells was not a baby, then I think there would be nothing to mourn. We have a PS member who recently lost twin boys at 6 months, and those clearly were babies. They were held, named, and I believe they had a funeral. Go tell that mother that her babies were not really babies. The only difference between those babies and an aborted 'fetus' is that the first were wanted and the latter was not.


So you know what? I am secure, 100% secure, that an unborn child has value and is loved by the Creator who created him or her. I remember what it was like to have the other view, so I know where people are coming from. But I know I was totally wrong.

If an "unborn baby is not a baby" then when IS it a baby? The day it's born? At 6 months gestation? At 7 months and 3 days gestation?

It's not up to you or me to decide when a baby is a baby. In other words, it's not up to us to play God and say when life is of value and when it's....nothing.

I'm sure if you were pregnant right now, you'd do everything in your power to keep yourself healthy and protect that life growing inside you. And "life" is the operative word here. If it weren't "alive" it would never grow past a single cell. Inanimate things don't grow--only living things do. That, in and of itself, is PROOF of life! While an early stage embryo may not be viable outside the womb, it develops toward viability every second of every minute of every day. At what moment would you say it becomes "a baby"?? I am not asking this in a snarky way, I am really interested in knowing.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:33:57 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 1/28/2009 6:13:12 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

So you know what? I am secure, 100% secure, that an unborn child has value and is loved by the Creator who created him or her. I remember what it was like to have the other view, so I know where people are coming from. But I know I was totally wrong.

Let''s remember that there is no set definition of when human life begins. We all have different beliefs and opinions, and one is no more ''right'' than the other.

Thank you. That decision should be left to the woman that must carry the child. It should be no one else''s decision outside of hers. And if people believe God judges all than leave it between HER and GOD, it is not YOUR business.

Geez.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:35:38 PM
Author: beebrisk

At what moment would you say it becomes 'a baby'?? I am not asking this in a snarky way, I am really interested in knowing.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway: A "baby" becomes a baby whenever the woman/mother/carrier deems it one. From the moment of conception, to the minute the heart starts beating, to the moment it can survive outside the womb, there is no one set definition as to when life begins. There is a consensus that once a child can survive outside of the womb, it should be given a chance to live, but before then? Who gets to draw the line for *every* woman?

Date: 1/28/2009 6:35:38 PM
Author: beebrisk

It's not up to you or me to decide when a baby is a baby.

Exactly. Who am I to tell YOU when your baby is a baby? Who are you to tell anyone? You say "it's not up to us to play God," and diamondseeker speaks of the Creator and claims her views are *fact*, but you're assuming everyone should be coming from the same place you are- a place of religion, and they aren't. I won't say any more as we aren't allowed to discuss it, but being strongly pro-choice, I will not make that decision for any woman and I don't believe you should be able to either.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/28/2009 4:48:11 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 1/28/2009 4:29:30 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM

Author: vespergirl

Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.


Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother''s life is in danger?


I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it''s position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don''t. It''s a slippery slope to say that it''s OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it''s not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can''t have it both ways.

Death row inmates cannot be equated with a defenseless fetus. Not in any instance. At all.

That''s what you took from what she said?

Uh. Yeah. Equating tax dollars spent in executing death row inmates to tax dollars for abortions? That''s certainly what I read. What about you?

"Why is it okay for government to play God in warfare and executions?"

Now one side is telling the other side they don''t know how to read????

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:20:48 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/28/2009 4:29:30 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM
Author: vespergirl
Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.

Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother''s life is in danger?

I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it''s position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don''t. It''s a slippery slope to say that it''s OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it''s not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can''t have it both ways.

Death row inmates cannot be equated with a defenseless fetus. Not in any instance. At all.

Isn''t having that opinion sort of like playing God? I thought that Christians believed that God is the only one who can judge people.

No. It isn''t against the Judeo/Christian religion to put to death certain criminals. Never was. Not BC or AD.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:33:57 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 1/28/2009 6:13:12 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

So you know what? I am secure, 100% secure, that an unborn child has value and is loved by the Creator who created him or her. I remember what it was like to have the other view, so I know where people are coming from. But I know I was totally wrong.

Let''s remember that there is no set definition of when human life begins. We all have different beliefs and opinions, and one is no more ''right'' than the other.

That''s pure baloney. This is not a gray area. Simple biology tells you that conception is the beginning of life whether it is animal, vegetable, or human. When cells start dividing, you have life. This isn''t a theory. It''s not ''our take'' on the subject. It''s a biological fact.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks, Holly.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:19:57 PM
Author: HollyS

That's pure baloney. This is not a gray area. Simple biology tells you that conception is the beginning of life whether it is animal, vegetable, or human. When cells start dividing, you have life. This isn't a theory. It's not 'our take' on the subject. It's a biological fact.

From a biological standpoint, you are correct, and I apologize for not being more clear. What I meant to say was that there is no agreed-upon definition of when life becomes "a life" or its own entity with rights.

 

[MoonWater]

different strokes for different folks:

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins
Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:
The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Another slightly different though similar position maintains that the argument over when a new human life begins is irrelevant because the development of a child is a smoothly continuous process. Discrete marking points such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize development for academic purposes. This position is supported by recent research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell (Kuhse 198.

Genetic View:
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

Proponents of this view often propose the following hypothetical situation: Suppose that an egg is fertilized. At that moment a new life begins; the zygote gains a "soul," in the Catholic line of thought, or "personhood" in a secular line of thought. Then suppose that the zygote splits to form twins. Does the soul of the zygote split as well? No, this is impossible. Yet no one would argue that twins share the same "soul" or the same "personhood." Thus, supporters of this view maintain that the quality of "soul" or "personhood" must be conferred after there is no longer any potential for twinning. (Shannon and Wolter 1990)

The argument that human life begins at the moment that chromosomes of the sperm meet the chromosomes of the egg to form a genetically unique individual is also endangered by the twinning argument because genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life. "Genetic uniqueness" can be shared by multiple individuals, particularly indentical twins. Thus, this argument continues, the moment at which a unique individual human forms is the not the moment when its genetic code is determined, but rather the moment when the zygote can no longer split into multiple individuals.

In addition to twinning, there are other complexities that further confound the idea of the moment of conception. Just as it is possible for a zygote to form two or more individuals before it is implanted in the uterus, it is also possible for it to not continue to develop at all, but rather just become a part of the placenta. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). It is estimated that more than 50% of fertilized eggs abort spontaneously and never become children (Gilbert 2002). Or, if the zygote splits into multiple zygotes, it is also possible for these to recombine before implantation. All of these possibilities are examples of the ways in which the individuation of the zygote is incomplete until it has been implanted in the uterus.

Embryological View:
In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), Grobstein (198 and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.

One of the most popular positions among philosophers is the perspective that life begins at the point of gastrulation &mdash that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals. Gastrulation commences at the beginning of the third week of pregnancy, when the zygote, now known as an embryo, is implanted into the uterus of the mother. The cells are now differentiated into three categories that will give rise to the different types of body tissue. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). After gastrulation the zygote is destined to form no more than one human being.

The philosophers who support this position argue that there exists a difference between a human individual and a human person. A zygote is both human and numerically single and thus a human individual. However, because individuality is not certain until implantation is complete, and because individuality is a necessary condition of personhood, the zygote is not yet a human person. (Ford 1988; Shannon and Wolter 1990; McCormick 1991). Catholic scholars Shannon and Wolter (1990) describe this eloquently saying, "An individual is not an individual, and therefore not a person, until the process of restriction is complete and determination of particular cells has occurred. Then, and only then, it is clear that another individual cannot come from the cells of this embryo."

Some supporters of the fertilization position find fault in this argument by claiming that the potential of twinning is a technicality and not strong enough to support the claim that human life does not begin until gastrulation. Alan Holland puts forth the view that just because a zygote has the possibility to divide into multiple individuals does not mean that it is not an individual before it divides. As an analogy, he presents the case of the worm that is clearly a single individual worm until it is cut into two when it becomes two individual worms. (Holland 1990).

Some would also argue that in the discussion of when human life begins the question of whether a zygote will eventually become one individual or multiple individuals is irrelevant. The key point is that at least one human life may begin as the result of the zygote, and thus human life began at the creation of the zygote, fourteen days before gastrulation.

Neurological view:
Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

These principles of the neurological view of the beginning of human life are presented in The Facts of Life, a book written by Harold Morowitz and James Trefil in 1992 concerning the abortion controversy. An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a simple medical procedure in which electrodes are attached to different locations on a patient's head and the voltage difference over time is measured between the two points. The voltage data is plotted against time to produce "brain waves" with up and down voltage oscillations that are representative of the organized electrical activity of the brain (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Medical professionals use a patient's EEG pattern to identify a broad spectrum of mental states. Although EEGs are often used as a diagnostic tool, the exact mechanism behind how an EEG pattern is linked to an individual's cerebral neuron activity remains a mystery (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).

Despite lacking a precise explanation for the connection between the EEG and neural activity, there is a strong argument that the unique and highly recognizable EEG pattern produced by a mature brain is a defining characteristic of humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Therefore, the moment that a developing fetus first exhibits an EEG pattern consistent with that of a mature brain is indicative of the beginning of human life. It is from this point and onward during development that the fetus is capable of the type of mental activity associated with humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).

Because the state of modern technology still prohibits EEGs in utero, brain activity data for humans at various stages of development has been gathered using premature infants. Observations to date have led to the conclusion that 25 weeks of gestation is required for the formation of synapses needed for recognizable neural activity. At this point in development, the recognizable signals exist only as intermittent bursts that interrupt periods of random activity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). This conclusion is summarized by Donald Scott who in his book Understanding the EEG wrote, "Attempts have been made to record cerebral activity of premature infants and they have succeeded (only) if the gestational age was 25 weeks or more (Morowitz and Trefil 1992)." Such claims, as well as arguments that endorse an opposite argument, are for many the foundation for any dispute over defining the inception of human life. Consequently, the principles of the neurological view are tenets in the debate over another controversial subject: abortion.

Champions for a fetus's right to life often claim that the brain of a human fetus begins to show electrical activity at a remarkably early age. A key moment in the history of the abortion debate is the production and release of "The Silent Scream," an influential abortion film that graphically depicts the fetal response to its termination. The video accompanies the abortion of a 12-week-old fetus with the words "Now this little person at twelve weeks is a fully formed absolutely identifiable human being. He has had brain waves for at least six weeks..." (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Although such arguments appeal to both the emotion by depicting an infant, though still developing, in a moment of pain and crisis and the intellect by presenting a scientific line of reasoning, the position presented by the film conflicts widely accepted developmental theory. For instance, the film contends that a fetus has brain waves after 12 weeks and suggests, even in the title "The Silent Scream," that it reacts to its termination with fear and pain. These contentions contradict scientific evidence that indicates neural connections in the cerebral cortex have yet to develop in a 12-week-old fetus. Lacking these basic neural networks, the developing fetus is incapable of feeling the emotions recognized as fear or pain (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). The film's position is further contrasted by evidence that suggests a 12-week-old fetus is not yet capable to take direct actions in response to a thought. The developing fetus is therefore incapable of recognizing potential danger and unable to either be fearful of it or actively evade it through movement or any other willful activity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).

In addition to presenting 25 weeks as a critical developmental landmark, other proponents of the neurological view believe that events of the eighth week of human gestation represent the key moments marking the beginning of human life. Contemporary philosophical arguments for designating week 8 as the beginning of human life proceed in accordance with the following format: humanness requires rational thought and rational thought requires a brain and a nervous system. Philosophers who present such arguments contest that an embryo is not a human being until it has a rudimentary nervous system. At week 8, the embryo has completed organogenesis, meaning it has simple, undeveloped versions of all the basic organ systems, including the nervous system (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Philosophers who subscribe to this perspective pay close attention to the progressively increasing complexity of the nervous system or the first weeks and months of pregnancy. At week 5 the first neurons begin to appear, at week 6 "the first synapses ... can be recognized," and at 7.5 weeks the embryo displays its first reflexes in response to stimulus (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus around week 8 the embryo has a basic three-neuron circuit, the foundation of a nervous system necessary for rational thought. (Shannon and Wolter 1990).

It should come as no surprise that this contemporary philosophical debate also consists of a second argument, which is in direct opposition to the aforementioned position. There are philosophers who believe that the capacity for rational thought is indeed a prerequisite of humanness, but that an 8-week-old embryo does not have the capacity for rational thought. At 8 weeks an embryo displays reflexes that are the result of its budding nervous system, but it does not yet have the structures necessary to engage in true rational activity in contrast to mere reflex motivated movement (Shannon and Wolter 1990).

A third developmental landmark presented by proponents of the neurological view occurs at 20 weeks. Some advocates of the philosophy that a prerequisite for humanness is the capacity for rational thought believe that the existence of a primitive nervous system after 8 weeks, with the ability to respond by reflex to stimulation, does not amount to rational thought. The embryological landmark of 20 weeks marks the completion of the development of the thalamus, a region of the brain, which enables the integration of the nervous system. Philosophers who support this view therefore believe that only after 20 weeks of gestation can the embryo be said to have the capacity for rational thought.

The precept at the heart of the neurological view of the beginning of human life is the significant development of neural pathways that are critical for characteristic human brain activity. The formation of these neural connections is often viewed to culminate in the acquisition of humanness, a stage during the third trimester of human gestation when the overwhelming majority of neural pathways in the cerebral cortex are established (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). The contemporary concept of the acquisition of humanness was developed and elaborated during the later half of the twentieth century by theological and biological leaders who emphasized the importance of the cerebral cortex in characterizing humanness. The Jesuit scholar and anthropologist scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin presented his belief that the transcendence of humanity was dependant upon the successful maturation of the cerebral cortex. Bernard Haring, a prominent Catholic theologian of the 1970s argued that individuality and the uniqueness of personal characteristics and activities originated from the cerebral cortex. A decade later, the anatomist Paul Glees argued "the (cerebral cortex) represents the signature of a genetically unique person" (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).

The contemporary idea of the acquisition of humanness is based on the contemporary theories of developmental embryology. Cerebral nerve cells accumulate in number and continually differentiate through the end of the second trimester of human pregnancy (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). However, it is not until the seventh month of gestation that a significant number of connections between the newly amassed neurons begin to take form. It is only after the neurons are linked via synapse connections that the fetus is thought to acquire humanness. Just as a pile of unconnected microchips is incapable of functioning and is therefore not called a computer, the unconnected neurons of the pre 24-week fetal brain lack the capacity to function, thus the developing fetus has yet to acquire humanness (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).

Ecological / Technological view:
Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates the point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother's womb).

Under most circumstances, the limiting factor for human viability is not the development of neural connections but the maturation of the lungs. However, advances in medical science permit a premature fetus to breathe after only 25 weeks of gestation, a stage in its development prior to the complete formation of functioning lungs (Gilbert 2002). Legislation using the ecological/technological view of when human life begins includes decrees of when a fetus can legally be aborted, mandating that after a fetus is determined to be independent its life can no longer be terminated (Gilbert 2002).

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:19:57 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 6:33:57 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 1/28/2009 6:13:12 PM

Author: diamondseeker2006


So you know what? I am secure, 100% secure, that an unborn child has value and is loved by the Creator who created him or her. I remember what it was like to have the other view, so I know where people are coming from. But I know I was totally wrong.

Let's remember that there is no set definition of when human life begins. We all have different beliefs and opinions, and one is no more 'right' than the other.

That's pure baloney. This is not a gray area. Simple biology tells you that conception is the beginning of life whether it is animal, vegetable, or human. When cells start dividing, you have life. This isn't a theory. It's not 'our take' on the subject. It's a biological fact.

Yup!
Dead things don't grow. Inanimate things don't grow. Only living things grow. If it's growing, it's living. If it's living, it's life. It's LIFE!

I think I learned this in 5th grade. I saw pictures and films of cells dividing and embryos growing. This is not a difficult concept. But it's one that needs to be denied by people who have to figure out a way to justify terminating a life and making abortion acceptable.

 

[luckystar112]

Oh geeze

Bonus hot mess in the middle.

It's never her fault.
"I was young"
"I was 13 and drunk off my a**!"
"He told me he was infertile!"
"The condom failed!"

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Bee, thank you as well.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:39:27 PM
Author: luckystar112
Oh geeze

Bonus hot mess in the middle.

The issue there doesn''t appear to be abortions.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:16:52 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 6:20:48 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/28/2009 4:29:30 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM
Author: vespergirl
Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.

Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother''s life is in danger?

I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it''s position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don''t. It''s a slippery slope to say that it''s OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it''s not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can''t have it both ways.

Death row inmates cannot be equated with a defenseless fetus. Not in any instance. At all.

Isn''t having that opinion sort of like playing God? I thought that Christians believed that God is the only one who can judge people.

No. It isn''t against the Judeo/Christian religion to put to death certain criminals. Never was. Not BC or AD.

Oh, really? I remember reading some quotes from the bible like "Judge not lest ye be judged'', and "thou shalt not kill." There wasn''t an exception for people on death row listed in the 10 commandments. However, the bible is full of contradictions, but since it was written by people, not God, that''s to be expected.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:44:07 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/28/2009 7:16:52 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 6:20:48 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/28/2009 4:29:30 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM
Author: vespergirl
Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.

Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother's life is in danger?

I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it's position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don't. It's a slippery slope to say that it's OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it's not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can't have it both ways.

Death row inmates cannot be equated with a defenseless fetus. Not in any instance. At all.

Isn't having that opinion sort of like playing God? I thought that Christians believed that God is the only one who can judge people.

No. It isn't against the Judeo/Christian religion to put to death certain criminals. Never was. Not BC or AD.

Oh, really? I remember reading some quotes from the bible like 'Judge not lest ye be judged', and 'thou shalt not kill.' There wasn't an exception for people on death row listed in the 10 commandments. However, the bible is full of contradictions, but since it was written by people, not God, that's to be expected.

Amen.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:42:33 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/28/2009 7:39:27 PM
Author: luckystar112
Oh geeze

Bonus hot mess in the middle.

The issue there doesn''t appear to be abortions.

That''s my point. It''s not about abortions...it''s about a lack of responsibility that leads to the overwhelming majority of abortions.
Makes you scratch your head that the entire UK comes in second for the amount of abortions each year, and the amount doesn''t even equal a fifth of the amount Americans have.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:38:34 PM
Author: beebrisk

Dead things don't grow. Inanimate things don't grow. Only living things grow. If it's growing, it's living. If it's living, it's life. It's LIFE!

I think I learned this in 5th grade. I saw pictures and films of cells dividing and embryos growing. This is not a difficult concept. But it's one that needs to be denied by people who have to figure out a way to justify terminating a life and making abortion acceptable.

Again, you say terminating "a life" as if its fact, when some don't consider a group of quickly dividing cells (or a pregnancy just hours after conception) "a life" with rights. This is where we're not meeting, and likely never will, but there's a big difference. The cells on the inside of my cheek are living. The cow that will likely become your dinner in future is living. Life does not necessarily equal "a life" with rights that are as or more important than yours or mine.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:45:39 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/28/2009 7:42:33 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/28/2009 7:39:27 PM
Author: luckystar112
Oh geeze

Bonus hot mess in the middle.

The issue there doesn''t appear to be abortions.

That''s my point. It''s not about abortions...it''s about a lack of responsibility that leads to the overwhelming majority of abortions.
Makes you scratch your head that the entire UK comes in second for the amount of abortions each year, and the amount doesn''t even equal a fifth of the amount Americans have.

It''s unbelievable.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:47:27 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 1/28/2009 7:38:34 PM
Author: beebrisk

Dead things don't grow. Inanimate things don't grow. Only living things grow. If it's growing, it's living. If it's living, it's life. It's LIFE!

I think I learned this in 5th grade. I saw pictures and films of cells dividing and embryos growing. This is not a difficult concept. But it's one that needs to be denied by people who have to figure out a way to justify terminating a life and making abortion acceptable.

Again, you say terminating 'a life' as if its fact, when some don't consider a group of quickly dividing cells (or a pregnancy just hours after conception) as 'a life' with rights. This is where we're not meeting, and likely never will, but there's a big difference. The cells on the inside of my cheek are living. The cow that will likely become your dinner in future is living. Life does not necessarily equal 'a life' with rights that are as or more important than yours or mine.

Exactly. Even vegetarians are out there killing life. But humans are narcissistic so of course the *most valuable* life is human and the rights of any potential human should be protected at all costs...even at the expense of...*gasp* another human's rights.