0
   

When Does Life Begin?

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 11:12 am
Hokie is only testing YOUR claim, not his own RL. His indifference is becuase his own test has nothing to do with chromozones. You're taking the post ut of context.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 11:18 am
baddog1 wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:

Actually, I wasn't hoping for anything. Really, I'm indifferent. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not. I simply wanted to point out that there are many children born with fewer than 46 chromosomes.


So you indifferently chose to point out that there are many children born with fewer than 46 chromosomes?

Huh? Shocked

How does your assertion fit into the context of this thread?


Perhaps you should read the last few pages...
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 11:24 am
real life wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Actually, I wasn't hoping for anything. Really, I'm indifferent. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not. I simply wanted to point out that there are many children born with fewer than 46 chromosomes.


Yes , you wanted to imply that I don't consider them human beings.

However I do.

And I would allow them to live.

You would allow them to be killed.

So it kinda turns the intent of your post on it's head, doesn't it?


I'm not implying anything. You are the one who stated that a human being must have 46 chromosomes.

And honestly, if in very early development it was determined that a fetus was affected by turner syndrome or trisomy-13 or -18, I would absolutely NOT object to the abortion (again, provided it were at a very early stage of development). These children have almost no life expectancy and even less hope for quality of that life. The deformities they suffer are extreme and I would rather have been aborted than to "live" like that.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 12:49 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
real life wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Actually, I wasn't hoping for anything. Really, I'm indifferent. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not. I simply wanted to point out that there are many children born with fewer than 46 chromosomes.


Yes , you wanted to imply that I don't consider them human beings.

However I do.

And I would allow them to live.

You would allow them to be killed.

So it kinda turns the intent of your post on it's head, doesn't it?


I'm not implying anything. You are the one who stated that a human being must have 46 chromosomes.

And honestly, if in very early development it was determined that a fetus was affected by turner syndrome or trisomy-13 or -18, I would absolutely NOT object to the abortion (again, provided it were at a very early stage of development). These children have almost no life expectancy and even less hope for quality of that life. The deformities they suffer are extreme and I would rather have been aborted than to "live" like that.


In my experience, I have known several women who were told that their baby would or would probably have great deformity, etc and were coaxed , advised or pressured to abort.

Here's an interesting article on the same topic

Quote:
New Study Fuels Controversy Over Down Syndrome Abortions
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 05, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A new study is fueling the debate surrounding the abortion of babies thought to have Down syndrome and other birth defects.

The study published in the March issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology shows that many pregnant women receive only negative information from medical professionals when a prenatal diagnosis reveals a potential for giving birth to a baby with Down syndrome.

The study is being billed by the Harvard University Gazette as "the largest and most comprehensive study on prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome to date."

Among the examples noted in the report was an expectant mother who spoke of a medical professional who "showed a really pitiful video, first of people with Down syndrome who were very low tone and lethargic-looking, and then proceeded to tell us [in 1999] that our child would never be able to read, write or count change."

The study also found that expectant mothers were often not counseled by medical personnel regarding the latest information on Down syndrome or given any contact information about parent support groups during the emotional period when many women decide whether to seek an abortion.

While the live birth rate of babies afflicted with Down syndrome has remained steady in recent years, studies have shown the abortion rate of Down syndrome babies is estimated at 80 to 90 percent when prenatal screening reveals the possibility or probability for the condition.

The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the prenatal Down syndrome testing is wrong 20 to 40 percent of the time, raising the question of whether healthy unborn children are being aborted.

Down syndrome is a chromosomal anomaly that causes an error in cell development resulting in 47 chromosomes rather than the usual 46. The extra gene material slightly changes the orderly development of the body and brain and can be the cause of retardation.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) about three percent of babies born in the U.S. have birth defects and it is estimated that about 5,000 children are born with Down syndrome annually. It is estimated that 250,000 individuals with Down syndrome are currently living in the U.S.

Past studies have shown that the prenatal diagnosis of the unborn child with Down syndrome has resulted in high rates of abortion with at least one study showing medical professionals often pressure woman to abort.

A 1993 study conducted by the Canadian Royal Commissions on New Reproductive Technologies found that 25 percent of the Canadian women surveyed felt pressure from medical staff to undergo an amniocentesis. Thirty-three percent of the women who tested positive for some form of birth defect felt pressure from medical staff to have an abortion.

Three years earlier another Canadian study of 22,000 women who received prenatal diagnosis found that 88 percent of the women carrying a child diagnosed with Down syndrome had an abortion.

The CDC also reported in 1993 that prenatal diagnosis services and abortion reduced the number of Down syndrome births to white women in metropolitan Atlanta by about 70 percent.

Data from the Office for National Statistics in England and Wales in 2002 revealed that abortions on babies with Down syndrome, physical deformities and even such minor problems as cleft palates increased. In 2002 more babies with Down syndrome were aborted than were born with the disease, according to the British statistics.

'Culture of death'

Pro-life groups blame what they call the "culture of death" for the legal system that upheld the withholding of food and water from Terri Schiavo, culminating in her death from dehydration last week; and for the abortions on unborn babies thought to have Down syndrome and other birth defects.

"What I see today in America is in many respects the repeat of the eugenics era of American history back in the early 1900s, where infants were allowed to starve to death because they had deformities or abnormalities, where it was suggested that people who did not have the appropriate brain power should be sterilized or not allowed to have children," said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute.

Geer told Cybercast News Service that this current cultural trend in dealing with the physically and mentally handicapped is wrong. "I don't think that death is the appropriate solution for that, the same way a child who is diagnosed in womb as having some abnormality or deformity," Geer said.

Jim Sedlak, vice president of the pro-life American Life League, echoed Geer's comments, conceding that Down syndrome babies pose difficult challenges for parents but also produce a lot of love.

"Our experience with Down syndrome babies is that they bring more love into the world than a normal child just by being who they are. Their personalities -- the way people react to them -- there is just an outpouring of love for these children. If we abort these children we are going to miss a lot of love in our world," Sedlak said.

Several organizations that work with Down syndrome individuals and families indicate that they try to remain neutral on whether an expectant mother should opt to undergo an abortion.

"I try to provide them with information that will help them make an informed decision. I don't have a stand on that (abortion) either way. We just want people to consider all the facts and not just negatives," Sue Joe, a resource specialist with the Down Syndrome Congress told Cybercast News Service.

"We want to give them positive information, that it is not necessarily the end of the world [and] for them to consider other options," Joe added.

Prenatal testing for Down syndrome came into wide use in the 1980s, but the blood screening tests are estimated to be approximately 60 to 80 percent accurate in identifying an unborn baby with Down syndrome when the age of the mother is considered, according to Joe.

"There are a lot of false positives with those tests; there are a lot of false negatives. It's a controversial test in itself. It just raises some flags," Joe said, noting that the only completely accurate test, amniocentesis, carries with it a risk of miscarriage.

Despite the abortion rates of unborn babies, the number of Down syndrome live births has held steady over recent years, according to Joe.

"It's funny that [Down syndrome births] remain steady because you would think that because more older women are finding out prenatally and then terminating, that the number should go down. But because more younger women are having babies without prenatal testing because they are assuming they are not at risk, more babies with Down syndrome are being born to younger women so the number remains steady," Sue Joe said.

"[Younger women] don't feel they are at risk (for having a Down syndrome baby). But really they too can have a child with Down syndrome, so they don't do prenatal testing," Joe said.

The neutrality on whether a woman should seek an abortion is shared by the National Association for Down Syndrome (NADS).

When asked if she would advise an expectant mother against aborting a baby thought to have Down syndrome, Ann Garcia, the parents support coordinator of the NADS, told Cybercast News Service, "No, that is not our place; our place is to answer the questions to try to give them accurate up-to-date info.

"We just kind of listen to them, and really it is not our place to judge, it is not our place to put pressure on people, it's not our place to try to influence their decision one way or another," Garcia said.

'Sea change in the environment'

But the Down syndrome support groups say there is reason for hope since American society continues to show growing acceptance for individuals with Down syndrome.

"There has been a huge change culturally in those families that do decide to keep their children with Down syndrome," Garcia said. "It's much, much more common now for there to be a number of those families who are encouraged to do that. They do have a lot more support services than used to be the case 20 years ago."

"I think some of that (desire for abortions) may be coming out of perceptions that are not accurate. I would advise any family to look at more of the current research. It's much more encouraging about the capabilities, life expectancy, what it's like for a child with Down syndrome to grow up now. It is just so much more encouraging," she added.

Sue Joe from the Down Syndrome Congress agreed.

"It's not the same world of the 1960s, where those children or those adults were put aside, or 40 years ago when parents who had a child with Down syndrome -- they were told 'Don't take the baby home, tell your friends that the baby died and put him in an institution.' We don't do that anymore hopefully. It's just a different world now," Joe added.


The women I have known in this situation all gave birth to perfectly healthy babies.

So what your perception of the type of life a child 'may' face is really suspect.

Your preference would have been to be aborted. Do you assume that all handicapped individuals would share your desire to be denied a chance to live?

What if we simply killed off all the sick and handicapped (or at least encouraged them to die rather than face a difficult life) , and didn't bother working towards cures for them?

Is that where you would like to see society go?
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 01:56 pm
Down syndrome is by far the most gentle of these genetic disorders. The testing for such things has also become more precise and accurate.

And no, I don't expect that all people would. But then, there are varying degrees of "handicapped." A child with downs can look perfectly normal or have only very minor defects; he can lead a near-normal life. With trisomy-13 or -18 the defects are far more exaggerated - including a cleft palette or plate which can cause gross facial distortions. Many of these kids will not live to see their teen years and if they do, will most likely require constant care for the duration of their lives. Given the cruelty of society with respect for "normal" children, I cannot begin to imagine the hardship and hurt that an ill-formed child would face.

I suppose there are a few ways to answer the next question you pose... I would not advocate the killing of anyone. I only said that I would not object if a mother decided to abort a genetically broken fetus.

In a more cruel and cold response... if an ill-formed baby were to be born into this world by any other creature on this planet, it would most certainly die. That is nature for ya. The only reason most of these children survive is because of our technology.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 08:18 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
I only said that I would not object if a mother decided to abort a genetically broken fetus.



So, exactly how 'broken' or how 'ill' must one be before you have no qualms about killing them?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 12:18 pm
real life wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
I only said that I would not object if a mother decided to abort a genetically broken fetus.



So, exactly how 'broken' or how 'ill' must one be before you have no qualms about killing them?


I think by his own post, he'd first have to be a pregnant mother to begin evaluating.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 12:22 pm
I'm curious. For all the Pro-lifers out there who love to throw the words "killing" and "murder" around in sucha common manner.

Can a liver be killed? Can a arm be killed? What about an eye?

All are certainly forms of human life, but none can sustain itse;f independantly. If it can't live on it's own; function without the other components of the body, can it be "killed" or "murdered?"

I think that these words are a weak attempt at attaching some emotional baggage.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 01:26 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
I'm curious. For all the Pro-lifers out there who love to throw the words "killing" and "murder" around in sucha common manner.

Can a liver be killed? Can a arm be killed? What about an eye?

All are certainly forms of human life, but none can sustain itse;f independantly. If it can't live on it's own; function without the other components of the body, can it be "killed" or "murdered?"

I think that these words are a weak attempt at attaching some emotional baggage.

T
K
O


It's a good question and you're correct that they (arm, liver, etc.) are a part of human life. But they do not define or represent a human life, whereas all unborn are or will become a human life - depending on which side of the fence you choose to sit on.

"Killed" or "murdered" is used because it's accurate. As you know - the court system declares it murder if an unborn(s) dies from a result of the mom being murdered. The fact that pro-choicers deem it to be murder if the unborn is killed by anyone other then the mother, but not murder if the mom kills it seems to be emotional baggage to pro-lifers. In both cases - the unborn human life is dead by the decision of another human being.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 01:37 pm
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
...real life ...made the claim that cellular material with 46 chromosomes is a de facto human being


Incorrect, as usual Chumly.

I simply pointed out that the sperm and egg have only half of the normal 46 chromosomes, and thus cannot qualify as a living human being.

You routinely bring up the sperm and the egg, and try to imply that if an embryo is a human life , then one must also believe a sperm or egg is also.

No matter how many times it has been pointed out to you that this in incorrect, it seems that this smoke and mirrors trick is about the only one you know.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 02:12 pm
Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
...real life ...made the claim that cellular material with 46 chromosomes is a de facto human being


Incorrect, as usual Chumly.

I simply pointed out that the sperm and egg have only half of the normal 46 chromosomes, and thus cannot qualify as a living human being.

You routinely bring up the sperm and the egg, and try to imply that if an embryo is a human life , then one must also believe a sperm or egg is also.

No matter how many times it has been pointed out to you that this in incorrect, it seems that this smoke and mirrors trick is about the only one you know.
No need to strangle RL with his post, Chumly. He already deferred to the correction that a human can have less (or more? whatever) chromosomes. Not very many walking around with 23, though, right?

And though your skin cells may have a full arsenal of genetic material. It has yet to be demonstrated that, barring intervention, skin cells would eventually develop into full term infants.

So, your comment about dermacide, although hilariously funny Laughing and fully representative of your outstanding sense of humor Laughing , really doesn't make much sense.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 02:18 pm
False. This presumption of "intervention" has merited applicability to coitus and cloning and in vitro fertilization.

Or perhaps you feel a kinship to a dandelion seed in the wind looking for a pile of fresh horse manure and thus lack any ability to be reproductively "intervention"-ist?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 02:56 pm
Chumly wrote:
False. This presumption of "intervention" has merited applicability to coitus and cloning and in vitro fertilization.

Or perhaps you feel a kinship to a dandelion seed in the wind looking for a pile of fresh horse manure and thus lack any ability to be reproductively "intervention"-ist?
Merited applicability?

Verily, thy tongue must fairly be bursting in thy cheek.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 03:07 pm
If you don't believe in merited applicability in this context, you'd best explain how the initiation of human cellular division with the potential for a human life being the net result can be rationally construed as wholly lacking in intent Mr. Wayward Dandelion Seed.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 03:27 pm
Say that in English.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 04:03 pm
neologist wrote:
Say that in English.
"The answer is blowin' in the wind" Mr. Dandelion Seed.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 10:18 pm
Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Say that in English.
"The answer is blowin' in the wind" Mr. Dandelion Seed.
I can't keep up with your metaphors, Chum.

If you are still saying that the human zygote is no more a person than is a male or female gamete, you have failed. And your miserable attempt to cover your eructate has failed.

Even a dandelion cannot produce seed without pollinization.

I usually enjoy my exchanges with you because of your ready sense of humor. But try to stay on point.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 11:37 pm
Let's start again and we'll locate where you got lost.
neologist wrote:
And though your skin cells may have a full arsenal of genetic material. It has yet to be demonstrated that, barring intervention, skin cells would eventually develop into full term infants.

So, your comment about dermacide, although hilariously funny Laughing and fully representative of your outstanding sense of humor Laughing , really doesn't make much sense.
Chumly wrote:
False. This presumption of "intervention" has merited applicability to coitus and cloning and in vitro fertilization.

Or perhaps you feel a kinship to a dandelion seed in the wind looking for a pile of fresh horse manure and thus lack any ability to be reproductively "intervention"-ist?
Your presumption of "intervention" applies to coitus and cloning and in vitro fertilization. In fact your presumption of "intervention" applies to any and all deliberate acts in which the potential for a human being is a potential result. Unlike the dandelion seed in the wind in which there is no deliberate act.

Your logical failure (in part) is that you apply your presumption of "intervention" to skin cells but not to coitus or to in vitro fertilization.

I'll rephrase it using your own words
neologist wrote:
And though
fertilized eggs
neologist wrote:
may have a full arsenal of genetic material. It has yet to be demonstrated that, barring intervention
fertilized eggs
neologist wrote:
would eventually develop into full term infants.
As discussed your presumption of "intervention" fails the test of logic as said presumption of "intervention" applies to any and all deliberate acts in which the potential for a human being is a potential result.

Here I'll even say it again for your edification: you falsely infer that an "intervention" is required for a skin cell to be a human being however no intervention is required for a fertilized egg to be a human being. That's just plain drivel, given both cases could become human beings via your presumption of "intervention" and neither case would become human being without your presumption of "intervention".
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 01:08 am
Chumly wrote:
. . . Here I'll even say it again for your edification: you falsely infer that an "intervention" is required for a skin cell to be a human being however no intervention is required for a fertilized egg to be a human being. . .
Actually, that is the exact opposite of what I said.

I said that, while a fertilized (human) egg would normally be expected to develop into a human being, assuming no intervention, the same has yet to be demonstrated for skin cells, etc.

If I seemed to say otherwise, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

What else were you referring to with your dermacide metaphor?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 02:10 am
baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
I'm curious. For all the Pro-lifers out there who love to throw the words "killing" and "murder" around in sucha common manner.

Can a liver be killed? Can a arm be killed? What about an eye?

All are certainly forms of human life, but none can sustain itse;f independantly. If it can't live on it's own; function without the other components of the body, can it be "killed" or "murdered?"

I think that these words are a weak attempt at attaching some emotional baggage.

T
K
O


It's a good question and you're correct that they (arm, liver, etc.) are a part of human life. But they do not define or represent a human life, whereas all unborn are or will become a human life - depending on which side of the fence you choose to sit on.

"Killed" or "murdered" is used because it's accurate. As you know - the court system declares it murder if an unborn(s) dies from a result of the mom being murdered. The fact that pro-choicers deem it to be murder if the unborn is killed by anyone other then the mother, but not murder if the mom kills it seems to be emotional baggage to pro-lifers. In both cases - the unborn human life is dead by the decision of another human being.


Highlighted in blue above may be the beginning of comprimise if the Pro-life group will concur. Thanx for the reply.

T
K
O
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 07/28/2025 at 09:07:02