Diary of an Unborn Child

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: chiefsmom

I think 3 months sounds about right as well.

All this nonsense will serve to achieve is to once again drive abortions underground, make them dangerous, and introduce another black market revenue stream to the economy.

Woman will do as they please anyroad stupid draconian nonsensical law or otherwise same as they have throughout recorded history where abortion is concerned.

Well, if the woman is smart then she'll avoid what makes you pregnant then, eh? Rape victims and women in danger of losing their lives should be an exception though.

I'm happy to encourage women to be willing to do "what makes you pregnant". You'll get no complaints from me on that.

Outlawing birth control would lower a lot of folks' quality of life. For what? To save brainless entities? Every sperm is a potential human being, if it manages to find an egg. You were once a sperm, and you were once an egg. And prior to that, you were two morsels of food, on a man's and a woman's breakfast, dinner, lunch or snack time plate.

I can't see a good reason to draw the line at the unification of sperm and egg, since every step up until that point, and each incremental step after it, is equally arbitrary. With one exception: the first brainwave.

So if every sperm is a human being, then when a teenage boy masturbates, is he committing genocide?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...
I can't see a good reason to draw the line at the unification of sperm and egg, since every step up until that point, and each incremental step after it, is equally arbitrary. With one exception: the first brainwave.

Perhaps you don't see a good reason to acknowledge the well-established scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception (fertilization), because you don't want to see (or acknowledge) one because it doesn't fit very well into your line of argumentation? And doesn't fit very well into the process of setting up what appears to be a straw man about sperm cells being human beings?

Perhaps that's also involved in the one exception you see: "the frst brainwave" (which you didn't really elaborate on the reason this would be the exception; but it seems to fit better with how you want to view the subject regarding the question: "When Does a Human Life Begin?").

Consider what a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics has to say about the subject:

Fact Check: Yes, Human Life Begins at Fertilization (by Michael R. Egnor)

The debate about abortion in our country is obviously a matter of great importance for public policy and for the lives of our children and our neighbors who are caught up in the controversy. But the abortion debate is also important for a clear view of the integrity of our scientists. This understanding of the integrity of the scientific profession has far-reaching consequences for the relationship between science and public policy.

Science has quite a bit to contribute to our debate about abortion as a matter public policy. Of course the abortion debate also includes questions of ethics, questions of legality, and questions of prudent public policy. These other questions can only be answered thoughtfully on a foundation of scientific facts about human life.

What does the abortion debate teach us about the integrity of the scientific community? It teaches this: the scientific issues regarding the beginning and nature of human life were settled in the early 19th century. Human life begins at fertilization of the egg by the sperm. After that point, every fertilized egg is a distinct separate human being. There is no scientific debate about this fact. It is a fact as certain as gravity or that the earth orbits the sun.

Genuine Settled Science

So how has the scientific community contributed to this debate? Much of the scientific contribution has been, to put it mildly, reprehensible. Despite the fact that it is a scientific fact that each human life begins at fertilization, many scientists have argued publicly and strenuously that children in the womb — from zygote to embryo to fetus to emerging newborn — are not human beings. They have been described as tissue, parts of the mother’s body, etc., and some scientists go so far as to describe them as a kind of parasite or cancer.

I reiterate: the science regarding the beginning of human life is settled and has been settled for 200 years. There is no debate on the science. There remain profound questions of ethics, law, and public policy regarding respect for human life, which are valid issues for debate. There remain no questions regarding the science of the beginning of human life.

Where are the major scientific organizations on this issue? Why has not the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the American Medical Association stated clearly and publicly the basic scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization? The answer is obvious: many scientists in these organizations are willing to do what it takes to advance their ideology, and scientists who do understand and embrace the truth about the beginning of human life are generally too cowardly to press the issue. It’s an enormous scandal.

A Profound Problem

So what are we to make of a scientific profession in which scientific experts consistently distort the science of human life? The conclusion we should draw from this is obvious: there is a profound problem with integrity in the scientific profession. Science is everywhere tainted by ideological bias that has no basis in evidence or reason.

The take-away lesson from the scientists who twist the truth about the nature of human life to advance their own personal opinions about abortion is this: claims about science in public policy debates are not to be trusted. There is a deep corruption in the scientific profession, and on matters such as abortion, as well as matters such as evolution, climate, and cosmology, scientists should be understood as narrowly educated specialists who have no qualms whatsoever about publicly misrepresenting scientific facts in order to advance their own personal ideology.

We have much to learn from the abortion debate about the scientific profession, and it’s ugly.

This article was originally published in 2019.

I skipped all the links in that article, for those, you'll have to click the article link. The subject has been discussed along with the reasons why some scientists do acknowledge that a new human life, a new individual, begins at conception (fertilization) in my previous commentary as well. It feels to me that perhaps you may have seen them, but you can't fit them into your preferred views and argumentation, so in an effort to dismiss them as relevant or valid, you say "I can't see a good reason to draw the line at the unification of sperm and egg", i.e. they're not 'good enough for you'. Because they don't fit in to your preferred line of reasoning.

Nevertheless, they are valid reasons for many of those whose expertise is in biology and medical care. And they really shouldn't be so easily dismissed by simply telling yourself, 'well, they're not good enough for me'.

Incidentally, this attitude also happens a lot when it comes to the presentation of evidence for God's existence or against evolutionary philosophies presented by scientists discussing the evidence relevant in their field of expertise (again, biology and biochemistry for example). And it happens a lot when presenting the facts (especially those well-established in the sciences) to victims of propaganda (obviously those facts that demonstrate they have been affected by propagandistic argumentation and conditioning*), political, ideological, philosophical or religious propaganda.

*: talking about the 'inconvenient facts' mentioned in the article in my signature, which I quoted from before (so I'll keep it a bit shorter this time):

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others.

The ones that are concealed are the inconvenient ones. In this case, that a human life begins at conception (and not the first brainwave, which is irrelevant regarding this point and well-established fact/certainty/reality/truth).

More from Michael Egnor regarding the question:

When Does Human Life Begin?

originally posted by: whereislogic
... The subject has been discussed along with the reasons why some scientists do acknowledge that a new human life, a new individual, begins at conception (fertilization) in my previous commentary as well. It feels to me that perhaps you may have seen them, but you can't fit them into your preferred views and argumentation, so in an effort to dismiss them as relevant or valid, you say "I can't see a good reason to draw the line at the unification of sperm and egg", i.e. they're not 'good enough for you'. Because they don't fit in to your preferred line of reasoning.

I wonder if I should go through some of the highlights in my commentary regarding that subject again. But I doubt that it will help you 'see' those reasons any better because of what I described above. Also I'm afraid it's going to be a bit repetitive, let's see how far I get...

originally posted by: Hecate666
As long as you can save some cells who have not even developed any sentience.

originally posted by: whereislogic
The claim is often made that the pregnant woman should have control of her own body, but the fetus is not her body. It is not an appendage or part such as the appendix or gallbladder the removal of which has been likened to the removal of the fetus from the mother’s body. Dr. A. W. Liley, world-renowned research professor of fetal physiology, said: “Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the foetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception.” He continues with a description of the activities of the fetus, as follows:

“We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort determines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less if it is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And finally he determines his birthday, for unquestionably the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus. . . . This is also the foetus whose existence and identity must be so callously ignored or energetically denied by advocates of abortion.”

After reviewing such amazing abilities of the fetus in the womb, Dr. Liley says: “You would think this knowledge would bring a new respect for the unborn. Instead some now are hellbent on his destruction​—just when he had achieved some physical and emotional identity.” ...

...

Conception, the union of sperm and ovum, was first accurately described by a German scientist in 1827. Thereafter it was appreciated that life began at conception rather than at “quickening,” as previously believed. After the Civil War the new American Medical Association sent its scientists to testify before committees and state legislatures, informing them that life began at the time of the egg’s fertilization. In response to this new information, every state in the union during the 1870’s and early 1880’s passed new laws making abortion a felony from the time of conception. AMA testimony: “We were dealing with nothing less than human life.”

...

This changed thinking is illustrated by International Planned Parenthood. Founded by Margaret Sanger, who strongly opposed abortion, it was meant to promote the use of contraceptives and thereby prevent the need for abortions. In 1964 Planned Parenthood stated: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. ...”

In a dramatic about-face, today Planned Parenthood promotes abortion as a means of population control. ... Its former statement, “An abortion kills the life of a baby,” no longer appears in its literature. However, that truth does appear in an editorial in the September 1970 California Medical Journal:

“The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life. Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death.”

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
When Does a Human Life Begin? (Awake!—2009)

...

“The human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age,” reported Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a celebrated molecular biologist. He concluded: “There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization.”

...

Bernard Nathanson, M.D., once head of New York’s now defunct first and busiest abortion clinic, did a dramatic turnabout as he said: “I became convinced that as director of the clinic I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” He added: “To vehemently deny that life begins when conception begins is absurd!”

...

Just a quick reminder why I bolded "human being", and in an earlier bolded phrase the term "separate individuals" was used, from the dictionary google uses for the word "person": "1. a human being regarded as an individual."

originally posted by: whereislogic

When the male sperm unites its 23 chromosomes with a like number in the female ovum, a new human life is conceived. From this time of conception, the sex and other personal details are immutably established. The only change will be in growth during the nine-month term of pregnancy. “It is a statement of biologic fact to say that you once were a single cell,” writes Dr. John C. Willke.

And now it gets really repetitive (but I just sort of brought it up again anyway when sharing the definition for "person"; and it relates to the quote above)...

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

Abortion—A Citizens’ Guide to the Issues states that in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, “the tiny amount of tissue in a gelatinous state is very easy to remove.” Can abortion rightly be regarded as “removing a blob of tissue” or “terminating the product of conception”? Or are these sugarcoated terms designed to make the bitter truth palatable and put troubled consciences to rest?

That unwanted piece of tissue is a growing, thriving life, complete with its own set of chromosomes. Like a prophetic autobiography, it tells the detailed story of a unique individual in the making. Renowned research professor of fetology A. W. Liley explains (as quoted before): “Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the foetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception.”

I almost did the same thing in response to Shoujikina, so pardon if it's a bit too repetitive for anyone's taste. But the facts won't go away simply by saying one can't see them (or some variation of that general notion, what some people may equate with being in denial).

It's a double edged sword. Killing a human is disgusting...one day these women will be haunted by an adult form of their aborted baby.

It will be a person who looks just like them. And that person will say, look at what I could have become. Why did so many people fight for the right to end my life?

But then on the other side, the people who get abortions, it's a good thing they dont reduce more future criminals

a reply to: carewemust

Wait. What? Ummm. That’s what the birth control is for, silly. Your parents must have made you sit out that day at school where the teachers talked to you about this. Also, there’s something called condoms.

Nothing is 100% effective except abstinence and it takes a man and a woman to conceive. Not sure you knew that either. But thank you to the Republican senators who are trying to do away with IUDs, too.

Hmm. Wonder why.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...
I can't see a good reason to draw the line at the unification of sperm and egg, since every step up until that point, and each incremental step after it, is equally arbitrary. With one exception: the first brainwave.

Perhaps you don't see a good reason to acknowledge the well-established scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception (fertilization), because you don't want to see (or acknowledge) one because it doesn't fit very well into your line of argumentation? And doesn't fit very well into the process of setting up what appears to be a straw man about sperm cells being human beings?

The problem is that I don't see how "human life" is valuable. "Intelligent life" is valuable, be it human or alien.

But unintelligent life has no value. Even unintelligent human life.

If aliens turn out to exist, the next "racism" will be humans feeling like they are superior to ET because they're human, and that it's ok to put ET into concentration camps. (Then realizing that was wrong, and having their descendants remember them in shame, the way modern Germans remember the Nazi generation.)

We could get ahead of that if we defined our concept of "person" more broadly, to include non-human persons. Skip the bad part.

Perhaps that's also involved in the one exception you see: "the frst brainwave" (which you didn't really elaborate on the reason this would be the exception; but it seems to fit better with how you want to view the subject regarding the question: "When Does a Human Life Begin?").

Consider what a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics has to say about the subject:

.....

Nowhere in that article does he address the question of whether the fetus is intelligent life.

Sure, it's human. If my finger fell off of my body and a doctor was able to keep it alive on life support somewhere, it would now be a separate human life from mine.

But it wouldn't be a person.

I skipped all the links in that article, for those, you'll have to click the article link. The subject has been discussed along with the reasons why some scientists do acknowledge that a new human life, a new individual, begins at conception (fertilization) in my previous commentary as well. It feels to me that perhaps you may have seen them, but you can't fit them into your preferred views and argumentation, so in an effort to dismiss them as relevant or valid, you say "I can't see a good reason to draw the line at the unification of sperm and egg", i.e. they're not 'good enough for you'. Because they don't fit in to your preferred line of reasoning.

I don't doubt those links are all accurate, but they don't answer my concern.

A single unified sperm and egg is no more intelligent than a sperm, or egg alone.

(Indeed there is some evidence the sperm has some form of basic intelligence, since it has to swim to get to the egg, and the egg appears to exercise some degree of selection..... so the unified pair if actually less intelligent than either of the things that combined to make it.)

Nevertheless, they are valid reasons for many of those whose expertise is in biology and medical care. And they really shouldn't be so easily dismissed by simply telling yourself, 'well, they're not good enough for me'.

Their degrees are in hard sciences, not moral philosophy. So when they comment on the morality of the issue they are speaking outside their area of expertise.

Might as well ask a doctor how to fix your car.

Incidentally, this attitude also happens a lot when it comes to the presentation of evidence for God's existence or against evolutionary philosophies presented by scientists discussing the evidence relevant in their field of expertise (again, biology and biochemistry for example). And it happens a lot when presenting the facts (especially those well-established in the sciences) to victims of propaganda (obviously those facts that demonstrate they have been affected by propagandistic argumentation and conditioning*), political, ideological, philosophical or religious propaganda.

*: talking about the 'inconvenient facts' mentioned in the article in my signature, which I quoted from before (so I'll keep it a bit shorter this time):

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others.

The ones that are concealed are the inconvenient ones. In this case, that a human life begins at conception (and not the first brainwave, which is irrelevant regarding this point and well-established fact/certainty/reality/truth).

More from Michael Egnor regarding the question:

When Does Human Life Begin?

None of those facts are inconvenient.

The beginning of life is not the beginning of personhood. You have to be able to think in order to count as a person.

Otherwise, when someone victimizes you, in what possible sense are the victimizing you?

If you have no desires, then nothing can ever happen that contradicts those desires.