Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Feb 12, 2019.
Which saves me the trouble of saying:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
This is so funny coming from you, considering that sci forums is so full of sociopathic people. This is one of the reasons why I don't come here anymore.
Could you elaborate a bit more?
Just fuck you.
Indeed. In fact, look what we see here two posts later:
"Just fuck you."
No it doesn't.
About 40% of fertilized eggs fail to implant. We don't consider that a tragedy, because even though a fertilized egg is lost, we do not consider them to be human beings.
Not so much. Remove the embryo (before about 20 weeks) and it dies. It does not have an independent, separate life.
That's great! Have you tried to have kids? If so, you are more likely than not to have experienced a non-implantation. I suspect you did not grieve over this.
Perhaps they are going to do a selective reduction so their other child has a better chance to live.
Perhaps they know it will die moments after birth, and want to reduce their risk of carrying it to term.
Perhaps they know (because of the situation they are in) that the child will be abused, and want to spare them that.
I don't think any of those decisions are "depraved."
According to Science...
When a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages.
The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species.
The new human zygote has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique from itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother.
This DNA includes a complete "design," guiding not only early development but even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood, from hair and eye color to personality traits.
It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
So, is the human zygote merely a new kind of cell or is it a human organism; that is, a human being?
Scientists define an organism as a complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry on the activities of life by separately-functioning but mutually dependent organs. The human zygote meets this definition with ease. Once formed, it initiates a complex sequence of events to ready it for continued development and growth:
The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism.
By contrast, while a mere collection of human cells may carry on the activities of cellular life, it will not exhibit coordinated interactions directed towards a higher level of organization.
Thus, the scientific evidence is quite plain: at the moment of fusion of human sperm and egg, a new entity comes into existence which is distinctly human, alive, and an individual organism - a living, and fully human, being.
Some may concede the scientific proofs but will argue that the entity in the womb is still not, or not yet, a "person."
"Not a person" is a decidedly unscientific argument: it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with someone's own moral or political philosophy, though someone may not readily admit it.
Human beings develop at an astonishingly rapid pace.
The cardiovascular system is the first major system to function. At about 22 days after conception the child's heart begins to circulate his own blood, unique to that of his mother's, and his heartbeat can be detected on ultrasound.
At just six weeks, the child's eyes and eye lids, nose, mouth, and tongue have formed.
Electrical brain activity can be detected at six or seven weeks, and by the end of the eighth week, the child, now known scientifically as a "fetus," has developed all of his organs and bodily structures.
By ten weeks after conception the child can make bodily movements.
Today, parents can see the development of their children with their own eyes. The obstetric ultra-sound done typically at 20 weeks gestation provides not only pictures but a real-time video of the active life of the child in the womb: clasping his hands, sucking his thumb, yawning, stretching, getting the hiccups, covering his ears to a loud sound nearby -- even smiling.
Medicine, too, confirms the existence of the child before birth as a distinct human person. Fetal surgery has become a medical specialty, and includes the separate provision of anesthesia to the baby.
There are many surgeries that are now performed on children before their birth, such as shunting to bypass an obstructed urinary tract, removal of tumors at the base of the tailbone, and treatment of congenital heart disease. And many others.
The science on when human life begins is well known and is very clear.
Correct. So is a tumor.
Also true of a tumor.
Also true of a tumor.
Do you therefore think that non-implantation is murder? (Or perhaps manslaughter?)
"It is a person" is equally unscientific.
Legally, it is not a person.
We have three boys, two of them have congenital heart defects, one had open heart surgery to replace a heart valve. They are all doing great now and are contributing to society working in the civil and mechanical engineering fields.
We lost one child in the womb, we do not know what happened, and you better believe we both grieved over it.
But it was not a non-implantation.
I would think that most people would not even know if/when a non-implantation occurs. So how would they grieve?
James, this particular argument has never made any sense to me.
Dependent on, implies separate from. Right?
Are you really saying that this sets up a justifiable reason for killing another human life?
All we have to be is dependent on someone else and that gives them the right to kill us?
This would be insane to me!
It would just blow my mind, that you could suggest such a thing.
So you must not be.
Great, that's awesome.
Sorry to hear that. We did as well.
It would be difficult (not impossible) to determine. But if it is truly the death of a child, not much different than the death of a newborn, surely that's worth knowing, right?
If someone else needed a kidney to survive, and you were the only tissue match they could find - should the law compel you to donate that kidney? After all, the patient is dependent on you for survival. Or should you have the right to decide to kill him by not donating it?
To me, there are justifiable reasons to kill an unborn child: if it's growing to term threatens the life of the mother, if the mother didn't consent to bring a child to term, or if the child has a severe birth defect.
Perhaps I am not tracking with you here...
A kidney is not really the same thing as a developing child in the womb.
And I would not be killing anyone in not giving them my own kidney, the failure of their own body would be doing that, in some cases because of their own lifestyle, at other times not.
Should the Law protect or not protect human life?
In both cases one person has something the other person needs to survive. In both cases there is risk to the donor. In both cases they have a choice to make.
OK. Then rather than abortion, we will just do C-sections at whatever time a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy. The embryo/fetus will then be allowed to survive on its own. If not, the failure of its own body would be doing that.
I think I could walk down the road with you on one of these, in the rare event that it actually is threatening the life of the mother. Rare events could be described in law limiting it only to those circumstances.
I believe that Roe v Wade actually allows a woman to kill the child living in her womb, her son or daughter, for any reason at any time. A woman can kill her own child because she broke a nail if she wants to.
There is zero protection for her tenant.
That would be sick! On multiple levels!!!
You cannot be this cold hearted!
No, it doesn't. In the first trimester, it is entirely up to the woman and her doctor. From the first trimester to 20 weeks or so (fetal viability) states can make laws "reasonably related to the preservation and protection of maternal health." In other words, a state could pass laws that would prevent certain types of abortions at that stage. After viability (20+ weeks) states can prohibit abortion provided they make exceptions to protect the life or health of the mother.
Yet you could deny someone your kidney, knowing they would die without it? Are you that cold hearted?
A kidney is not a child. This is a stretch!
Separate names with a comma.