Posted on 01/11/2005 12:29:05 PM PST by beavus
Robots, Brownian motion, fire, those wierd tubular dancing fan men at sporting events, quicksilver, ...
Of course there is also an abundance of rightsless life that exhibit behavior.
The abortion debate is not framed around the concept of the continua. It is framed around the beginning & end of *human* life. Would you say that a human corpse is alive? If so, how is it alive? If not, when did it start living?
I think you're correct in saying that life is a continuum, but *human* life is not. The human body has a definite end to its life and has a definite beginning, although we aren't able to scientifically say when that beginning is.
I have a wondrous thing to share with all. For nine months I rubbed my daughters tummy, saying, "Hi, Sweetheart, it's your grandma who loves you". I was in the delivery room when my beautiful granddaughter was born. The Dr. put her on the scales and I said, "Hi, Sweetheart, it's your grandma who loves you" Whereupon she turned her head toward me and opened her eyes for the first time. Wow!
Life begins at conception.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you
Jeremiah 1:5
BTTT
Did you read the comment I posted with the article?
Ultimately, there is no specific beginning and ending of human life. A human corpse is not alive, but there is no meaningful instant that separates alive from dead.
Biology is almost entirely about continua, and human biology is no exception. Conception is a continuous process which ultimately has no meaningful specific dividing time for any property, including rights.
It is not that we aren't able to say scientifically when the beginning is; it is that scientifically, there is no beginning. Science recognizes the fact of continua in almost all physical observables. This is so fundamental to science that it is usually presumed to be understood, despite language about specific dividing times.
My son (in utero) got the hiccups at 4pm from the middle of the second trimester on. You could set a clock by that kid!
He was also extremely active in utero and was a fussy infant.
They know so much more now than even 14 years ago when I had mine.
If X is a part of a human being, then X is not a human being. No part can be a whole of the same sort as the part. That's ontology 101.
- A8
Deliveries are almost always wonderful experiences. Congratulations!
However, it is a fact that life does not begin at any meaningful specific time point. Conception is a continuous process.
Thank you. In probably hundreds of posts on this rather obvious point, you are the first person to agree with me.
Why do you think it is so hard for folks to understand this?
This article, and all research along similar lines (of which there is plenty), also explodes the myth that adoption fixes everything. Many unwanted babies are born after gestation in the inhospitable womb of a mother who doesn't care what effects her drinking, drug-taking, junk-food-eating, partying-all-night-to-deafening-music has on the developing fetus. Much of the resulting damage is irreversible.
True, a part is not the same as the whole. But, what are you referring to specifically?
btt
Sadly, you make a good point. What you say is, however, an argument for removing children from the custody of such mothers once they are born. One might also use it as an argument to regulate mothers' behaviors--another controversial issue. It is also used by those who favor legal abortion.
Sounds like the womb my husband was in. He was more angry when he found out that his parents planned him...and still his mom drank, smoked, and drugged up when pregnant.
If a corpse is not alive, then when did it's life end?
I don't understand these sentences. Is the author saying that newborns up to 12 weeks behave the same way as a baby at 32 weeks in utero?????????
Horse crap. This is such hypocrisy, when the same people will undoubtedly consider an adult "alive" even when entirely dependent upon life support equipment. Is total dependence on a heart-lung machine during open heart surgery de facto evidence that the patient is no longer alive? Similarly, the fact that a developing fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb is not evidence against the existence of life.
As uncomfortable as the implications are for many scientists, the facts are pointing more resolutely in the direction of the "life begins at conception" angle, or at least the "life begins months before birth" angle, with every study. To those of us who are not so uncomfortable with moral decisions, the implications of this information are quite clear.
As always, people will believe precisely what they choose to believe -- for the secular, this typically equates to those beliefs with which they are most comfortable -- regardless of evidence to the contrary.
It's conception. The penetration of the egg by the sperm that BEGINS the sequence that 9 months (or so) later produces what is legally called an infant. Sort of a mini big bang.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.