0
   

When Does Life Begin?

 
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 08:51 am
That's a completely different situation. A body on the side of the road would have a nervous system. The embryo does not until a certain point in development.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 08:54 am
The problem with the pro death argument is they must make an arbitrary decision about whether a human is, in fact, human.

When we lacked the science to safely perform abortions without harming the mother, infanticide was the only option available to those wishing to dispose of an inconvenient birth.

Eventually, most societies came to the realization that infanticide is murder and that infants have a right to life.

Not to be denied, the pro death folks simply defined away the infants rights in utero.

Can't kill an infant. But a fetus, OK, a zygote, OK.

As Bill Clinton might have said: It depends on what your definition of the word 'human' is.

I dread the day when the word 'geezer' is no longer assigned the rights of humanity.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 09:02 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
That's a completely different situation. A body on the side of the road would have a nervous system. The embryo does not until a certain point in development.


And EXACTLY when is that point in development? (A very precise point needs to be defined, because after that point, by your admission, a human life is being extinguished if it is aborted.)
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 09:14 am
real life wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
That's a completely different situation. A body on the side of the road would have a nervous system. The embryo does not until a certain point in development.


And EXACTLY when is that point in development? (A very precise point needs to be defined, because after that point, by your admission, a human life is being extinguished if it is aborted.)
Yeah. What is your definition of 'human'?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 10:42 am
real life wrote:
And EXACTLY when is that point in development? (A very precise point needs to be defined, because after that point, by your admission, a human life is being extinguished if it is aborted.)


According to the state of Ohio - an EXACT point of human life is defined:

CONCEPTION.



As used in sections 2903.01 to 2903.08, 2903.11 to 2903.14, 2903.21, and 2903.22 of the Revised Code:

(A) "Unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" means causing the death of an unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another, as a result of injuries inflicted during the period that begins with fertilization and that continues unless and until live birth occurs.

(B) "Another's unborn" or "such other person's unborn" means a member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another, during a period that begins with fertilization and that continues unless and until live birth occurs.

(C) Notwithstanding divisions (A) and (B) of this section, in no case shall the definitions of the terms "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy," "another's unborn," and "such other person's unborn" that are set forth in division (A) of this section be applied or construed in any of the following manners:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(1) of this section, in a manner so that the offense prohibits or is construed as prohibiting any pregnant woman or her physician from performing an abortion with the actual consent of the pregnant woman, with the consent of the pregnant woman implied by law in a medical emergency, or with the approval of one otherwise authorized by law to consent to medical treatment on behalf of the pregnant woman. An abortion that violates the conditions described in the immediately preceding sentence may be punished as a violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, 2903.03, 2903.04, 2903.05, 2903.06, 2903.08, 2903.11, 2903.12, 2903.13, 2903.14, 2903.21, or 2903.22 of the Revised Code, as applicable. An abortion that does not violate the conditions described in the second immediately preceding sentence, but that does violate section 2919.12, division (B) of section 2919.13, or section 2919.151 , 2919.17, or 2919.18 of the Revised Code, may be punished as a violation of section 2919.12, division (B) of section 2919.13, or section 2919.151 , 2919.17, or 2919.18 of the Revised Code, as applicable.

(2) In a manner so that the offense is applied or is construed as applying to a woman based on an act or omission of the woman that occurs while she is or was pregnant and that results in any of the following:

(a) Her delivery of a stillborn baby;

(b) Her causing, in any other manner, the death in utero of an unborn that she is carrying;

(c) Her causing the death of her child who is born alive but who dies from one or more injuries that are sustained while the child is an unborn;

(d) Her causing her child who is born alive to sustain one or more injuries while the child is an unborn;

(e) Her causing, threatening to cause, or attempting to cause, in any other manner, an injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its duration or gravity, or a mental illness or condition, regardless of its duration or gravity, to an unborn that she is carrying.

Effective Date: 08-18-2000
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 11:24 am
real life wrote:
And EXACTLY when is that point in development? (A very precise point needs to be defined, because after that point, by your admission, a human life is being extinguished if it is aborted.)


Actually, I said that I "don't pretend to know... sometime after the nervous system..."

So there is no "admission."

I can't tell you the exact point at which the nervous system becomes functional. If you're actually curious, I'll ask STLStrike3 and get back to you.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 12:46 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
real life wrote:
And EXACTLY when is that point in development? (A very precise point needs to be defined, because after that point, by your admission, a human life is being extinguished if it is aborted.)


Actually, I said that I "don't pretend to know... sometime after the nervous system..."

So there is no "admission."

I can't tell you the exact point at which the nervous system becomes functional. If you're actually curious, I'll ask STLStrike3 and get back to you.


I doubt that Strike will be able to give a precise point that life begins either.

Which is the whole point.

At what point do you think that abortion should or should not be legal?
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 12:54 pm
He can tell me when the nervous system develops. As I stated above, the development of the nervous system is where I draw the line.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 01:29 pm
As I'm sure Strike can confirm, the development of the nervous system is not something that happens in a single moment in time.

It is a process.

So you'll still face the question: at what EXACT point (in your opinion) in that process does he/she 'cross the line' from NOT a living human being to NOW a living human being?

In other words, if you aborting, at what precise point are living human beings being killed?
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 01:40 pm
I'm not sure that anyone will ever be able to pin-point a precise moment. I'm also not sure that's necessary.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 01:48 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
I'm not sure that anyone will ever be able to pin-point a precise moment. I'm also not sure that's necessary.


It is only necessary if you want to avoid killing living human beings.

If you cannot determine at what point the unborn 'becomes' a living human being, then how can you determine if what is being exterminated in an abortion is a living human being or not?
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 06:21 pm
Because I don't think that a fetus without a developed nervous system is a "human being." So even if you can't pin point that exact millisecond that the nervous system is switched on, you still have a long period before the development is complete where you know it not to be active.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 12:28 am
neologist wrote:
The problem with the pro death argument is they must make an arbitrary decision about whether a human is, in fact, human.

Not true. It is the Anti-mother camp that wishes to discuss whether the unborn is human. I no not a single person that thinks that the unborn is any other species than human.

neologist wrote:

When we lacked the science to safely perform abortions without harming the mother, infanticide was the only option available to those wishing to dispose of an inconvenient birth.

I know you're not here to discuss legallity, but if abortion was made illegal, you'd see a lot more of that.

neologist wrote:

Eventually, most societies came to the realization that infanticide is murder and that infants have a right to life.

Consensus reached and then a line drawn in the sand. It seems the Anti-mother camp is having a problem getting people to concensus. It would seem they want to drawn the line in the sand first, then ignore those who aren't on their side of it.

neologist wrote:

Not to be denied, the pro death folks simply defined away the infants rights in utero.

You seem to trivialize "in utero" as being a significant as "being asleep" or "walking."

neologist wrote:

Can't kill an infant. But a fetus, OK, a zygote, OK.

Correct. I naturally prefer that if someone elects to terminate, that it be the later of the three listed.

neologist wrote:

As Bill Clinton might have said: It depends on what your definition of the word 'human' is.

"It all about who you choose as your ethicist" right Neo? Bubba is not mine. I will say this for Bill though, I'm fairly positive that when someone questions the definition of something, there is a reason. In the case of the word "human," it is used ina very common sense. When we casually say human when specifically referring to a juristic person, we blur the definition.

Let's not forget that my hair is human too.

T
K
O

neologist wrote:

I dread the day when the word 'geezer' is no longer assigned the rights of humanity.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 06:49 am
Diest TKO wrote:
Let's not forget that my hair is human too.

T
K
O


Yes, but it is not a human, nor will it ever be. It will always be a hair.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 07:58 am
Oh my.

Planned Parenthood must now admit that their abortion centers do indeed perform surgical procedures, and be regulated accordingly.

It might cost $2 million, PP claims, to bring just one of their clinics up to code.

Do you mean that the 'advocates of SAFE abortion' have been operating clinics for 30 years that do not meet the standard requirements that all other surgical providers must abide by?

I thought their greatest concern was for the safety of women?

Quote:
Missouri sets new rules for abortion providers
The Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY | Missouri abortion clinics will face new regulations and new restrictions on teaching sex education classes.

Gov. Matt Blunt signed legislation Friday placing more abortion clinics under government oversight by classifying them as ambulatory surgical centers. Planned Parenthood claimed the law, HB 1055, could force it to spend up to $2 million to remodel one of its clinics and halt medical abortions at another site..........

The Republican governor said he had no qualms if the stricter state oversight caused hardships for abortion clinics.

"I say if they can't meet the same basic requirements that other (medical) providers do, then they should shut down," Blunt said..........


from http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/180691.html
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 08:06 am
You are twisting the words of the article. Before this law, they were NOT classified as surgical centers and therefore were not bound by the same regulations.

And this idiot (I happen to live in Mo) also refuses to let anyone teach anything other and abstinence-only. This stuff really pisses me off. People use their religious beliefs to withold education from children about a VERY important situation. Abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 08:11 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Because I don't think that a fetus without a developed nervous system is a "human being." So even if you can't pin point that exact millisecond that the nervous system is switched on, you still have a long period before the development is complete where you know it not to be active.


And EXACTLY how 'developed' must it be?

How about when there are measurable brain waves?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 08:27 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
You are twisting the words of the article. Before this law, they were NOT classified as surgical centers and therefore were not bound by the same regulations.



What this article shows is that PP has, for 30 years, benefited from special exemptions to common sense safety and health regulations that all other facilities that perform surgery must abide by.

If they were so concerned with SAFE abortion, why the special exemptions?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 08:36 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
And this idiot (I happen to live in Mo) also refuses to let anyone teach anything other and abstinence-only.


Teach your own kids whatever you wish.

Why do you need public money to teach your own kids what you want them to do?
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 08:42 am
real life wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Because I don't think that a fetus without a developed nervous system is a "human being." So even if you can't pin point that exact millisecond that the nervous system is switched on, you still have a long period before the development is complete where you know it not to be active.


And EXACTLY how 'developed' must it be?

How about when there are measurable brain waves?


That still leaves plenty of time before the brain is constructed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 09:39:16