Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

As I have stated repeatedly...and this is also the position of the Supreme Court...a Fertilized Egg has not yet developed or does it have 100% Probability of developing into a Human Life nor can it be called a Human Life.

Split Infinity

It is already a human life, the first stage of a human life. It already has the DNA it will carry with it throughout the course of it's life.
A fertilized egg is neither the life of the mother or the father. It is a new human life.
Again, no beliefs required.

[

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

No one denies that Life is being killed. What is at issue is whether that Life is Sentient.

Split Infinity

Hope this helps with the issue of whether a human embryo has sentient.

Should humans be recognized as persons under the law? Yes, because humans are persons. Something is a person if it has a personal nature. In other words, something is a person if, by nature, it has the capacity to develop the ability to think rationally, express emotion, make decisions, etc. This capacity is something that a person has as soon as he begins to exist, since it is part of his nature (in other words, if he exists, he has it). Since humans have a personal nature, humans are persons. As for the fetus, since it is a human (something with a personal nature), it is a person. Just as a cat qualifies as a feline simply by being a cat, a fetus qualifies as a person simply by being a human. So, it is impossible for a fetus to not be a person.

http:www.abort73.com/abortion/personhood/

Maybe this would also help with that issue of sentient.

At this point, some people define the term "person" according to function (call this view the functional view of persons). That is, they say that something qualifies as a person if it can do certain things, like think rationally. But this definition of personhood fails. First, there are clear cases in which something qualifies as a person, but cannot do the things required of the functional view of persons. For example, a human person under a general anesthesia does not qualify as a person under the functional view of persons, since a person in this situation does not have the ability to think rationally. Two, the functional view of persons does not fit certain intuitions about persons. For example, if you had a cat that couldn’t purr, couldn’t chase mice, and couldn’t climb trees, you wouldn’t say that your cat isn’t a feline (though you should if you define "feline" in terms of function). Instead, you would say that your cat is a cat that can’t purr, chase mice, or climb trees. In the same way, if you know a human that can’t think rationally (like a fetus, or a person under a general anesthesia), you shouldn’t say that this human isn’t a person, but that this is a person who (at the moment) can’t think rationally. In light of these reasons, the functional view of persons should be rejected.

www.abort73.com...

The video pretty much sums it all up. Sentient is there at the time of conception. It may not be visible to start with, but it is there. Where do we stop with this sentient stuff? Seriously, do we kill everyone who seems to be unable to think for themselves, feed themselves, clothes themselves, etc? This list could go on and on and many in this world be put to death.

reply to post by GideonFaith

These statements you have posted are OPINION and they are not backed up by Scientific Evidence.

Split Infinity

reply to post by Quadrivium

Just because it is Human Life does not mean it is a Human...it is not. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

These statements you have posted are OPINION and they are not backed up by Scientific Evidence.

Split Infinity

I can tell you didn't read them and/or go to the website.

Didn't even bother to answer any of the questions I had. Did you at least look at the video?

I leave you with one last external content from the same website.

In America today, there is only one group of human beings for which being human is not enough: "unwanted," unborn children. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in a legal loophole of shameful proportions. They're small. We can't see them. They're in the way, so we define personhood in a way that conveniently excludes them. Ask yourself this, is it ever legitimate to categorize specific members of the human community as "non-persons"? If it's morally reprehensible to kill a developing human being after birth, why is it morally permissible to kill a developing human being before birth?

www.abort73.com...

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

Just because it is Human Life does not mean it is a Human...it is not. Split Infinity

Why is it not A human life?
It starts with 23 chromosomes from the mother.
23 from the father are then added.
This creates an entirely new human life with 46 chromosomes. It is no longer the fathers life (sperm) or the mothers life (egg).
It is a new human life. It has it's own unique DNA.
Quad

Originally posted by Bone75

Could you do us all a favor and post one of those illustrations of the human life cycle? I've heard 2 or 3 of you refer to this cycle, so I was hoping maybe you could give us something to look at and a brief summary of how this cycle works. The first picture your Yale Professor refers to would be ideal, but if you can't find that particular image, I'm sure something close would be fine.

No.

But if you find something useful from watching the video, by all means do a screen grab and bring your thoughts to the table.

I was, however able to grab this from the transcript.

That was a Freshman textbook. When you get to upper level courses in reproduction, the
treatment is different.
From the textbook used in our Bio 240.
Here the story starts in the grandmother’s womb. (Slide 24)
This is inside your grandmothers womb.
The embryo in (a) is your mother or your father at three weeks.
Where are you? You are these little dots (primordial germ cells).
You start out, not even in the embryo, but in the yolk sac.
Some cells in the epithelium of the yolk sac start differentiating.
In (b), they crawl up into the embryo and deposit themselves in what will become the gonad.
Most of them have gotten there by about 30 days.
Well, that’s on page 7 of the textbook.
Fertilization doesn’t come up until p201. Coitus and Fertilization26
Again the emphasis is on the “establishment of diploidy”
And it reminds the reader that fertilization is not a necessary step
there are other ways to establish diploidy – in this case parthenogenesis.
Parthenogenesis 28
In a human, an unfertilized egg, can get to the stage of a beating heart and forelimbs. It
eventually dies, but the problem is with the placenta, not the fetus.
So, we’ve done freshman textbook and advanced textbook.
oyc.yale.edu...

reply to post by Quadrivium

I have repeated this several times and I feel we are just going around in a circle.

A Fertilized Egg is a form of Human Life so is a Sperm or Egg or Skin Cells or Blood Cells...etc...

What it is not is a HUMAN BEING. It is not even a Potential Human Being until it is implanted into the uterine wall. So it cannot be assigned as a Human Being until late in the Pregnancy when it achieves Sentience.

Split Infinity

reply to post by GideonFaith

As I have said...these statements are OPINION and are not backed by Scientific Fact. Add to this that this comes from a Pro-Life website.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

As I have stated repeatedly...and this is also the position of the Supreme Court...a Fertilized Egg has not yet developed or does it have 100% Probability of developing into a Human Life nor can it be called a Human Life.

Split Infinity

It is already a human life, the first stage of a human life. It already has the DNA it will carry with it throughout the course of it's life.
A fertilized egg is neither the life of the mother or the father. It is a new human life.
Again, no beliefs required.

What does that even mean, Not the "life of the mother or father?" Was not the egg within the womb a separate life? Wasn't the sperm a separate life? Each egg and sperm are unique too, otherwise all your kids would be the eactly same. There is no such thing as "new life,"

Every living thing carries DNA. The fertilization process merely passes on a genetic code that is a combination of the genes of the two genetic contributors. A set of instructions is not a human being. There are still lot of hurdles and chemical reactions to go through before becoming a human being.

The details of all this genetic machinery are not critical. The conclusion is: the “final genetic
constitution” of the conceptus is not set at sperm entry, but set by a complex of events starting
before fertilization and continuing into embryogenesis.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

As I have said...these statements are OPINION and are not backed by Scientific Fact. Add to this that this comes from a Pro-Life website.

Split Infinity

Footnotes from where my post information came from.

Footnotes
1.Greg Koukl, “Are Humans Persons?” Accessed June 3, 2009; Available from www.str.org...
2.Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (New York: Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, 2008), 58.
3.Francis Beckwith, “The Explanatory Power of the Substance View of Persons,” Christian Bioethics 10 (2004): 33-54.
4.Beckwith, “The Explanatory Power of the Substance View of Persons.”
5.Beckwith, “The Explanatory Power of the Substance View of Persons.”

It may come from a pro-life website, but it has views from abortion defenders stating facts about abortion and when a human life begins.

Biologically speaking, every abortion at every point in the pregnancy ends the life of a genetically-distinct human being.

www.abort73.com...

I heard you like dodging questions and I see you do. You have not answered even one on any of my post yet.

reply to post by GideonFaith

I have no intention of dodging a question. You have only asked things that I have made clear or your questions were based upon faulty information. Split Infinity

Who gives a rats a55. This is minor issue. Has anyone ever stopped u from having an abortion? I think not. It's all a scare tactic pushed by the liberal media to make u scare of the right. The Republicans merely said that they would cut funding to planned parenthood. If u want to kill ur baby u should pay to do it urself, not force other people to cover ur murdering cost.

reply to post by windword


He is stating that once the individual egg and individual sperm unite (assuming no twins), the chromosomes from the individual egg and individual sperm then becomes its own genetically-distinct human being.

Quadrivium, please correct me if what I am posting is not what you were saying.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

I have no intention of dodging a question. You have only asked things that I have made clear or your questions were based upon faulty information. Split Infinity

You bought up the subject of sentient. Here is my partial post and questions about that.

The video pretty much sums it all up. Sentient is there at the time of conception. It may not be visible to start with, but it is there. Where do we stop with this sentient stuff? Seriously, do we kill everyone who seems to be unable to think for themselves, feed themselves, clothes themselves, etc? This list could go on and on and many in this world be put to death.

Another post.

Did you at least look at the video?

I look forward to your insight on these questions. I truly do.

reply to post by GideonFaith

Footnotes
1.Greg Koukl, “Are Humans Persons?” Accessed June 3, 2009; Available from www.str.org...
2.Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (New York: Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, 2008), 58.
3.Francis Beckwith, “The Explanatory Power of the Substance View of Persons,” Christian Bioethics 10 (2004): 33-54.
4.Beckwith, “The Explanatory Power of the Substance View of Persons.”
5.Beckwith, “The Explanatory Power of the Substance View of Persons.”

It's interesting that the book "Embryo" by Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen, begins with a hypothetical story about the Biblical Noah and the flood. Religious much?

More about Robert George:

Robert A George is an editorial writer for the New York Post and a conservative/libertarian blogger and pundit. He was born in Trinidad and lived in the United Kingdom before moving to the United States. A graduate of St. John's College in Annapolis, Maryland, George worked for the Republican National Committee and, following the 1994 midterm elections, Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

Greg Koukl
Gregory Koukl is a Christian apologist, radio talk show host, author and speaker/teacher. He is the founder of Stand To Reason, a Christian organization dedicated to the articulation and defense of the Christian worldview.

Francis J. "Frank" Beckwith (born 1960) is an American philosopher, Christian apologist, scholar, debater, and lecturer who is currently an associate professor of Church-State Studies at Baylor University as well as associate director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. Beckwith works in the areas of social ethics, applied ethics, legal philosophy, and the philosophy of religion.

All your footnote guys are right wing, GOP, religious Christian apologists. Sorry, personal assumptions based on false doctrine is too much bias me to take seriously.

reply to post by GideonFaith


But this information isn't correct. DNA isn't a person. Every living thing has it's own DNA. DNA is merely a set of instructions, not the thing itself.

Additionally, twinning can occur from one egg. The whole process of twinning invalidates the whole personage theory, as both twins share the same DNA.

reply to post by GideonFaith

The idea that Sentience exists at the point of conception is beyond stupid.

The video was a Hard Watch as it is Pro-Life Propaganda that is way over the top. I find it just as stupid.

Split Infinity

reply to post by GideonFaith


These opinions are completely rooted in emotional blackmail. They're filled with lies and misrepresented science.

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 suggest, 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).
(For information concerning how photographs of the embryo are often
misrepresented on anti-abortion literature and websites, see Images of
Embryos Used by Anti-Abortion Activists.)
biology.franklincollege.edu...

reply to post by windword

All your footnote guys are right wing, GOP, religious Christian apologists. Sorry, personal assumptions based on false doctrine is too much bias me to take seriously.

I guess it's a good thing I wasn't replying to you then! I guess since you want to debate again, here goes. I guess one lecture from Yale University makes your point. Not! By the way Yale didn't even give the lecturer's name, wonder why? If you believe everything in a school and college textbooks, you have a lot to learn still. Textbooks are angled toward what people want you to believe.

I've already told you I will not get into a religious debate with you because religion has nothing to do with abortions or a human life.