When does human life begin?

[shuamort]

Simple question with most likely a complex set of answers.

 

[Schweddy]

I believe it is conception.

 

[Fantasea]

These seem like a good place to start the debate. Go to it.

Science is in Agreement: It's a Human Life
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception (they defined fertilization and conception to be the same) marks the beginning of a human being -- a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings...”
-Report" Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary S-158,97 Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7

Pro-Abortionists Agree: It's a Human Life
Abortion Provider Admits that Abortion Kills Babies:
In 1965: "'An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it."
-Planned Parenthood “Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness” 1965

In 1989: "'Women are not stupid - - women have always known that there was a life there."
-Faye Wattleton. Past President of Planned Parenthood. NBC television broadcast. May 15. 1989

 

[shuamort]

Here's Planned Parenthood's answer from their website:

Q: My friend says that life begins when the egg and sperm join together. I say that it begins when a baby takes its first breath. Which of us is right?

All kinds of people — theologians, philosophers, scientists, lawyers, legislators, and many others — hold very different views about when life begins. In fact, both the egg and the sperm are living things before they meet and join. There's no real argument there.

The really hot question is, "When does being a person begin?" Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath.

Some of our oldest religions have changed their views about this question many times over the centuries. Today, some people sincerely believe that being a person begins when the egg is fertilized. Some, just as sincerely, believe that it begins with birth. And lots of others believe it begins somewhere in between.

What we are all sure about is that a pregnant woman is a person. We know for sure that she has morals, feelings, human needs, and a conscience. Because of this, we know that she is the only one able to make a decision about her pregnancy options. She does it based on her own needs, ethics, and religious belief about when being a person begins. It would be wrong to force her to observe someone else's religious belief.

 

[Montalban]

Here's Planned Parenthood's answer from their website:

Q: My friend says that life begins when the egg and sperm join together. I say that it begins when a baby takes its first breath. Which of us is right?

All kinds of people — theologians, philosophers, scientists, lawyers, legislators, and many others — hold very different views about when life begins. In fact, both the egg and the sperm are living things before they meet and join. There's no real argument there.

The really hot question is, "When does being a person begin?" Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath.

Some of our oldest religions have changed their views about this question many times over the centuries. Today, some people sincerely believe that being a person begins when the egg is fertilized. Some, just as sincerely, believe that it begins with birth. And lots of others believe it begins somewhere in between.

What we are all sure about is that a pregnant woman is a person. We know for sure that she has morals, feelings, human needs, and a conscience. Because of this, we know that she is the only one able to make a decision about her pregnancy options. She does it based on her own needs, ethics, and religious belief about when being a person begins. It would be wrong to force her to observe someone else's religious belief.

Again you introduce evidence that says "I don't know".

I like the very weak argument starting with "Some of our oldest religions have changed their views about this question many times over the centuries." Such a truism doesn't add any weight... what it is is an attempt to undermine religious viewpoints by saying "Well, science can't tell you, but then religion doesn't know either".

 

[shuamort]

Again you introduce evidence that says "I don't know".

Hmm, can't say that I submitted it as "evidence", but if that's what helps you get through the night. I've introduced an opinion that reflects my own opinion. You can find scientific evidence that a fetus has thought at this age or fingerprints at that age or insemination occurs here or an egg has life there. That's all evidence. Your interpretation of that evidence is also called opinion.

 

[Fantasea]

Hmm, can't say that I submitted it as "evidence", but if that's what helps you get through the night. I've introduced an opinion that reflects my own opinion. You can find scientific evidence that a fetus has thought at this age or fingerprints at that age or insemination occurs here or an egg has life there. That's all evidence. Your interpretation of that evidence is also called opinion.

Main Entry: [1]ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : an outward sign b : something that furnishes proof

I don't see any room for disputing or interpreting the scientific evidence you cite.

 

[shuamort]

Main Entry: [1]ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : an outward sign b : something that furnishes proof

I don't see any room for disputing or interpreting the scientific evidence you cite.

And that's your opinion, isn't it?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Main Entry: [1]ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : an outward sign b : something that furnishes proof

I don't see any room for disputing or interpreting the scientific evidence you cite.

And that's your opinion, isn't it?

Wiggle and squirm all you wish. You can't get out of it.

 

[shuamort]

Wiggle and squirm all you wish. You can't get out of it.

Get out of what?

 

[Fantasea]

Get out of what?

The simple fact that you cannot produce a single medical or scientific fact which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million US children since Roe v. Wade.

You make agruments based upon emotion and opinion. However, I'm still waiting for you to produce the first fact.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The simple fact that you cannot produce a single medical or scientific fact which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million US children since Roe v. Wade.

You make agruments based upon emotion and opinion. However, I'm still waiting for you to produce the first fact.

No "facts" are needed except this one: The woman gets to choose what she wants to do, period. Know what? That's also the law of the land, and always will be.

It's God awful to suggest that a woman's personal choice concerning her own body needs justification. The people who are unable to accept the FACTS are the ones who are suffering, not the aborted fetus.

I liked Planned Parenthood's explanation. The TRUTH is that there's no one universal answer....except of course that it's a woman's right to choose. Anyone care to dispute that fact?

 

[Fantasea]

I liked Planned Parenthood's explanation.

This one? It's one of my favorites.

Pro-Abortionists Agree: It's a Human Life
Abortion Provider Admits that Abortion Kills Babies:
In 1965: "'An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it."
-Planned Parenthood “Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness” 1965

 

[Fu_chick]

This one? It's one of my favorites.

Pro-Abortionists Agree: It's a Human Life
Abortion Provider Admits that Abortion Kills Babies:
In 1965: "'An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it."
-Planned Parenthood “Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness” 1965

1965? That's certainly a stretch. :roll:

 

[26 X World Champs]

This one? It's one of my favorites.

Pro-Abortionists Agree: It's a Human Life
Abortion Provider Admits that Abortion Kills Babies:
In 1965: "'An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it."
-Planned Parenthood “Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness” 1965

More Fantasea genius....Would anyone expect them to advocate abortion 40 years ago when it was illegal?

It's so absurd to use that quote, but of course you've used it several times before...can't you come up with anything newer than 40 years ago and a quote you've repeated....repeatedly?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I think he's trying to point out how much they've shifted their opinion. From "an aboriton kills the life of a baby" to "well some people have different opinions about killing babies.."

He's pointing out hypocrisy. I see it. :2wave:

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
This one? It's one of my favorites.

Pro-Abortionists Agree: It's a Human Life
Abortion Provider Admits that Abortion Kills Babies:
In 1965: "'An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it."
-Planned Parenthood “Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness” 1965

1965? That's certainly a stretch.

Why is that? Does truth decay with age? Certainly not. Truth is constant; it never changes.

When, as the saying goes, "the truth hurts", those whom it pains will often seek to deny that it ever existed.

Planned Parenthood is making a comprehensive statement. It is stating a number of things that it now denies.

1. It states that the occupant of a womb is a Baby.

2. It states that the Baby is alive in the womb.

3. It states that abortion kills a living Baby.

4. It states that there are health consequences for women who have abortions.

5. It states that after an abortion, future pregnancies may not be possible.

Planned Parenthood holds itself out as the oracle on human reproduction. Who, or what, has has more experience in the field? Its statement is simple, clear, concise, and certainly unambiguous. Why should the statement not be accepted exactly as Planned Parenthood intended when it was published, as the truth?

 

[shuamort]

The simple fact that you cannot produce a single medical or scientific fact which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million US children since Roe v. Wade.

You make agruments based upon emotion and opinion. However, I'm still waiting for you to produce the first fact.

Wait, aren't your arguments based on emotion and opinion too? You feel that life has value. You feel that abortion is killing a life. Thems opinions and emotions. Not facts. You've decided to want to have legislation based on these opinions and emotions. You can paint it any color you want, it's still just opinion.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
This one? It's one of my favorites.

Pro-Abortionists Agree: It's a Human Life
Abortion Provider Admits that Abortion Kills Babies:
In 1965: "'An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it."
-Planned Parenthood “Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness” 1965

More Fantasea genius....Would anyone expect them to advocate abortion 40 years ago when it was illegal?

It's so absurd to use that quote, but of course you've used it several times before...can't you come up with anything newer than 40 years ago and a quote you've repeated....repeatedly?

Forty years? Come, come, you must be better at math than that. Thirty-five years ago, just five years after they made the statement, was the point at which they decided that the truth would not help their cause as abortion advocates and went into the denial mode. Or, to use your favorite expression, they've been "lying" to the world for the past thirty-five years.

To make sure you don't miss it, I'll repeat part of an earlier post.

Does truth decay with age? Certainly not. Truth is constant; it never changes.

When, as the saying goes, "the truth hurts", those whom it pains will often seek to deny that it ever existed.

Planned Parenthood is making a comprehensive statement. It is stating a number of things that it now denies.

1. It states that the occupant of a womb is a Baby.

2. It states that the Baby is alive in the womb.

3. It states that abortion kills a living Baby.

4. It states that there are health consequences for women who have abortions.

5. It states that after an abortion, future pregnancies may not be possible.

Planned Parenthood holds itself out as the oracle on human reproduction. Who, or what, has has more experience in the field? Its statement is simple, clear, concise, and certainly unambiguous. Why should the statement not be accepted exactly as Planned Parenthood intended when it was published, as the truth?

 

[shuamort]

Forty years? Come, come, you must be better at math than that. Thirty-five years ago, just five years after they made the statement, was the point at which they decided that the truth would not help their cause as abortion advocates and went into the denial mode. Or, to use your favorite expression, they've been "lying" to the world for the past thirty-five years.

To make sure you don't miss it, I'll repeat part of an earlier post.

Does truth decay with age? Certainly not. Truth is constant; it never changes.

When, as the saying goes, "the truth hurts", those whom it pains will often seek to deny that it ever existed.

Planned Parenthood is making a comprehensive statement. It is stating a number of things that it now denies.

1. It states that the occupant of a womb is a Baby.

2. It states that the Baby is alive in the womb.

3. It states that abortion kills a living Baby.

4. It states that there are health consequences for women who have abortions.

5. It states that after an abortion, future pregnancies may not be possible.

Planned Parenthood holds itself out as the oracle on human reproduction. Who, or what, has has more experience in the field? Its statement is simple, clear, concise, and certainly unambiguous. Why should the statement not be accepted exactly as Planned Parenthood intended when it was published, as the truth?

It's like every argument could be said exactly about the Catholic Church's cover-up of the priests' sexual abuse.

 

[Fantasea]

It's like every argument could be said exactly about the Catholic Church's cover-up of the priests' sexual abuse.

I notice that once more, unable to offer a reasonable refutation, you drag the religious red herring across the trail in an effort to lure the dogs off in another direction, as it were.

It's become tiresome, don't you know?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The simple fact that you cannot produce a single medical or scientific fact which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million US children since Roe v. Wade.

You make agruments based upon emotion and opinion. However, I'm still waiting for you to produce the first fact.

Wait, aren't your arguments based on emotion and opinion too? You feel that life has value. You feel that abortion is killing a life. Thems opinions and emotions. Not facts. You've decided to want to have legislation based on these opinions and emotions. You can paint it any color you want, it's still just opinion.

No. It's not a feeling. It's knowledge of a biological fact. Planned Parenthood stated so in 1965, as you well know.

By the way, you haven't yet commented on the Planned Parenthood statement. Do you plan to do so?

 

[Montalban]

Hmm, can't say that I submitted it as "evidence", but if that's what helps you get through the night. I've introduced an opinion that reflects my own opinion. You can find scientific evidence that a fetus has thought at this age or fingerprints at that age or insemination occurs here or an egg has life there. That's all evidence. Your interpretation of that evidence is also called opinion.

I could be wrong, but on the thread you closed down you made categorical statements about when 'life' begins etc, you even introduced something about babies not being all there too.

Now it seems to me that this has gone from an assertion of fact, to an 'opinion'.

When Fatasea and I challenged you to 'proof' you provided a similar "I don't know" case from science.

But indeed you are correct that interpretation of evidence can be opinion.

 

[shuamort]

I could be wrong, but on the thread you closed down you made categorical statements about when 'life' begins etc, you even introduced something about babies not being all there too.

From post 314 from the thread you're referring:

I already did. I posted more opinions (which is what the pediatricians were offering as well) about when life begins. As it turns out, it's quite subjective.

So no, it doesn't look like I'm flip flopping.

 

[shuamort]

No. It's not a feeling. It's knowledge of a biological fact.

It is a feeling. It's an interpretation after the facts. It's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise. Sanctity of life is not a fact, it's an opinion based on emotion (based on some facts).

Planned Parenthood stated so in 1965, as you well know.

By the way, you haven't yet commented on the Planned Parenthood statement. Do you plan to do so?

Wait, so you're agreeing with Planned Parenthood from 1965? And then they changed their opinion? And now you don't? Great! We all have opinions and they can all be changed based on facts, evidence, emotion, other's opinions, and a changing world.

Whereas I haven't stated whether I agree with Planned Parenthood then or now but you're assuming I do and insisting I rebuff their statements from 1965? Pfft. I've already stated my opinion as to when life begins: It's subjective.