| Life begins at conception—NOT birth. Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old. |
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 01/11/2005 12:29:05 PM PST by beavus
Not that I am aware of. What the author is saying is that babies from 32 weeks gestation and beyond (up to 42 weeks, at which time, babies usually are born already or are induced), will continue to behave as a newborn infant. That's all.
| Life begins at conception—NOT birth. Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old. |
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
32 weeks + 12 weeks = 44 weeks
OUCH!
Ouch is right, lol. My math was bad, sorry. :) I think the general thrust of what he was trying to say is the same, though.
Obviously, you can take that opinion with a grain of salt! ROFL!!
If you're asking strictly secular sources, that would probably be your conclusion. However, those two moments by which you are baffled are clear and simple to Him who gives life.
Hoping for the answers to life and death and existence from science alone is like hoping for a typewriter to sing an aria.
I beg to differ, beavus. Conception is when the egg accepts a sperm, and that's when life begins.
Please read my comment on post 1.
There is no "when". Death is not an instantaneous event. It is a continuous process. It involves billions of chemical events over a period of time.
Don't be tricked by The Beard!
The simple fact is that there is no point of meaningful transition from non-human-being to human being. The process of conception involves millions of individually similar and insignificant chemical events occuring serially and in parallel. On some time scale, the process appears quite smooth and gradual. Life can be said to exist at specific time points, but it does not start at any point.
So, if anyone askes "When does life start?", the answer is simply, "It doesn't."
In short, there is no poof.
You sound like some kid who has just heard a couple of new words, but doesn't have a clue what they mean. You sound like a raving, rambling lunatic.
In FT January 2003: Constitutional Persons, Robert H. Bork stated,"Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception." This objective fact refutes any wishful subjective speculation stating otherwise!
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.
"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.
"The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists - not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists." http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
"The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes - the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species." http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
"Scientifically, the international consensus of embryologists is that human beings begin at fertilization (or cloning)--i.e., when their genetic code is complete and operative; even before implantation they are far more than a "bunch of cells" or merely " potential human beings."" http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/
"The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question - not a scientific question. I will not go into great detail here, but ""personhood"" begins when the human being begins - at fertilization." http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html This objective argument refutes all metaphysical speculations stating otherwise.
"Life begins like everything else, at the beginning. At the moment of fertilization, a new human life begins. The human embryo is a being; and being human, she is a human being. She is person and not property because no property has the property of building itself. Everything necessary to make the new human being-the entire blueprint necessary to build a human being capable of going to the moon and putting a foot on the moon-is there in the very beginning. Nothing is added after the moment of fertilization. It is all locked in. Not only the color of our hair and eyes but even how long we will live, accident or sickness not intervening, is there in the very beginning. The complete information necessary to build the new human being is written in the smallest subscript of the universe. We are fearfully and wonderfully made!" http://www.cbhd.org/resources/reproductive/palmer_1999-10-15.htm
"A fertilized egg, or zygote, is the first cell stage and exists for only 24 hours. After cell division, this is no longer a fertilized egg. We then use several other names, which are incomprehensible to the general public, but one name covers them all and that is "embryo." So after the first day, he or she is a "living human embryo." Most importantly, "fertilized eggs" do not implant within the womb. There is a certain power to their sneering comment, "Why would you want to protect a fertilized egg from planting?" It makes a difference if you say, "Why would you want to prevent a living human embryo from planting?"" http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=04oct.htm#health
They speak of reproductive and therapeutic cloning, "reproductive" being when the new living human is planted and carried to term and delivered. "Therapeutic" is when "it" will not be planted in a womb, but will be experimented upon and then "destroyed." We can accept the term "cloning for reproductive purposes," but it is best not to use "reproductive cloning," for that indicates there are other types. "Therapeutic" cloning is a total lie, for there is nothing therapeutic about this. President Bush uses the term "research cloning" which is quite adequate and accurate. But since they don't allow these tiny humans to live when they are done with their destructive research, very commonly the best words to use are "clone and kill." Finally, they often now don't use the word "cloning" at all because it is too negative. They use the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer." This is the scientific term for cloning, however it does confuse the public and sounds awfully important and scientific. From our standpoint we should not use those four words. Let's call it "cloning." http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=04oct.htm#health
"....medical research shows ""the sensory pathways and connections to the cortex necessary for pain perception are present, or beginning to form, at twenty weeks gestation."" For documentation see a complete paper, "Fetal Pain Legislation: Is It Viable?" Teresa S. Colette, professor S. TX College of Law, Houston. See also, R. Hyfield, ""Unborn Child Can Feel Pain At Twenty Weeks"", Daily Telegraph 2, 8-28-01." http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=04july.htm#advance and http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fetal_pain.htm
It is true that all the structures are essentially in place after the embryonic period. The fetal period is primarily a time of growth. However, the authors are saying that the observed behavior at 32 weeks is the same with a fetus at 40 weeks and a newborn at 4 weeks. They are saying that they could not observe any meaningful change in behavior shortly before and shortly after partruition.
"There is no "when". Death is not an instantaneous event. It is a continuous process. It involves billions of chemical events over a period of time."
Fair enough. So you're saying that a person who commits murder isn't guilty of murder because the victim isn't really dead? I didn't think so.
Your original statement -- life has no beginning or end, or something similar -- is a red herring in the abortion debate. Even if Life (with a capital "L") has no beginning or end, from a legal, social, and moral standpoint human life (small "l") does have a beginning and an end.
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,
Definitely false. The most readily available facts (the space-time continuum) decidedly contradict the "life begins at conception" theory. That is, it is a fact that life does not begin at conception.
or at least the "life begins months before birth" angle, with every study.
Only if you really mean "life develops months before birth", would this be an even viable theory.
I have the same negative reaction to the authors words. "Life" is far to ambiguous a term in this debate. In one sense of the term, a fetus, embryo, zygote, and even gamete, are life. The real issue is when should rights be recognized.
The abortion debate can only be properly discussed in terms of human rights, not biology, as essentially the same biololgy applies to things which we agree do not have rights, such as lower animals. This requires an understanding of what rights are.
I reread those sentences several times, and I couldn't figure out if it meant 32 weeks plus 12 or what.
Regardless, of course a human in gestation is going to behave almost the same once he/she is born/out of the womb. Is the baby human going to suddenly act like a puppy? Or is going to act the same as it did the day/week/month before?
Please read my comment to post 1.
Conception is a continuous process involving millions similar chemical reactions occuring in parallel and in serial. There is no specific time point in the process of conception that meaningfully delineates human life.
Cosmologists speak of the big bang as resulting from a singularity, but strictly speaking, this is unrealistic speculation. No singularity (in the mathematical sense) has ever been observed, nor is it possible to imagine observing one. Furthermore, cosmologists know that the evidence to describe the earliest moments of the big bang are too limited to say anything with much confidence.
Thanks...that's what I was trying to say, much less eloquently and with very bad math. :)
Ping
But I'm not baffled. The chemical processes leading to cell death are very well understood. Furthermore, the smoothness of temporal processes is an experience we all have abundant access to. Temporal discuntinuities in biological processes such as you theorize about are quite contrary to an abundance of evidence.
Hoping for the answers to life and death and existence from science alone is like hoping for a typewriter to sing an aria.
Maybe, but this is no reason to promote factual falsehoods.
Please read my comments to post 1.
Conception is not an instantaneous event. Even under the microscope it can be observed as a continuous process. It consists of millions of insignificant chemical reactions.
There just is no poof. This is fact substantiated by so many observations that most scientists just take it for granted.
The space-time continuum?? OK, I'm going to need a guided tour of your fantasy world. I didn't follow the sharp left turn you just made.
Only if you really mean "life develops months before birth", would this be an even viable theory.
Viable theory??Your arrogance is exceeded only by your attempted obfuscation of simple concepts.
Human life, the existence of a mortal, individual, living human being, does not rely on the space-time continuum, the existence of dark matter, string theory nor quantum theory. It's a simple, basic fact under continuous attack by those who would debase its value to the level of a wart: a tissue mass which poses an inconvenience to its bearer.
Studies such as this, joining the ranks of many before it, strengthen the position that an individual, mortal life does not suddenly spring into existence as the fetus passes through the birth canal. That baby is alive well before this blessed event. It is breathing, thinking, dreaming, hearing, moving, feeling and growing. It is a living human being.
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.