In scientific terms I consider life to begin at conception, simply because the basic requirements of life generally are met at that point. Specifically;
- Cellular reproduction - Metabolism - Growth - Response to stimuli In the course of human development I believe a ‘person’ exists once there is a heart beat and brain activity. Probably at about 20 weeks. I've always been a strong supporter of both abortion rights and protecting [human] life. After much internal debate I came up with the 28 week mark as the point where I would begin to restrict abortions. The key for me is that at 28 weeks the fetus could survive outside the womb, on its own. So to me this makes the fetus a living human being and to terminate it is tantamount to murder. While I believe abortion before week 28 is still taking a life, that life would not be able to sustain itself without the mother and therefore I think of it more as opting to remove the feeding tube than murder. Some might argue this isn't particularly logical. Either you oppose taking a life or you don't, and if you believe life begins at conception then you have to oppose abortion at any time. But just like the argument for capital punishment or euthanasia, you can oppose taking a life in general and still accept that there are times when exceptions can be made. I believe giving a woman 28 weeks to decide whether to abort her pregnancy should be sufficient. After that it should be about saving the life inside her. This is all JMHO. I accept there is no right answer here and Mark is probably correct. The extremes on either side will never be happy and so the way we have it today is probably OK. I’d just like to see more restrictions on later term abortions. Right now there are too many loopholes and basically a woman can get it if she really wants it. On Feb 18, 5:11 pm, "Mrs. Rabbit" <[email protected]> wrote: > frank, in your mind, when does life begin? > > On Feb 18, 4:51 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Even at full term and after having taken their first breath with their > > own lungs, some don't make it. Life doesn't come with any guarantees. > > But the point is, at 28 weeks the fetus is developed enough to live > > outside the womb. That is a scientific fact. > > > I really find this interesting. What is so magical about the fetus > > taking its first breath that you grant it no rights until then? Why > > would you (I assume) find it so abhorrent to crush the skull of a > > living premature baby, yet five minutes earlier, while still in the > > womb, you would have no reservations in doing the same thing? The only > > reason the fetus is not breathing on its own is because it's entrapped > > in an embryonic sack full of fluid. It's not for lack of capability. > > > What I want is to protect our most basic and precious human right - > > the right to live. I do not wish to dictate to a woman what she can or > > can not do, but once the fetus has become viable I see no way to avoid > > it. > > > For you I guess it's a case of 'out of sight, out of mind'. Turn a > > blind eye to it and just kill the parasite. I've seen too many > > premature babies in my time to willingly accept this philosophy. I > > guess our priorities are different. > > > On Feb 18, 3:14 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Your key word there is "considered".... some live some don't. You do > > > indeed wish to tell the woman that at 28 weeks she has no decision in > > > the matter. I simply say that until that embryo takes its first breath > > > all the "rights" are the mothers. > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mark, > > > > I honestly have no idea why you feel the mother has the right to > > > > determine when life exists. Life is not arbitrary and it's not at the > > > > discretion of the mother. At 28 weeks the fetus is considered viable. > > > > That means it can survive on it's own outside the womb. What evidence > > > > would you present to argue the fetus is not a living human at this > > > > point? > > > > > Mrs. Rabbit, > > > > I have no interest in telling a woman what to do with her body. I do, > > > > however, have an interest in protecting human life. These goals are > > > > not mutually exclusive. > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> She is factually correct only if you believe in the premise.... which > > > >> I do not. An embryo is not human, a chicken is not a chicken until > > > >> hatched... ad nauseum. > > > > >> A Human embryo is not "life" unless the mother says so. Once it has > > > >> drawn breath it is a different story. > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:28 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > As do I. But I don't believe you can support the rights of one human > > > >> > at the expense of another. Attempting to portray an unborn fetus as > > > >> > something less than human (i.e., a parasite) makes this debate > > > >> > easier, > > > >> > but it's scientifically incorrect. At 28 weeks the fetus is legally > > > >> > viable and must be considered a human being. Prior to 28 weeks the > > > >> > debate gets fuzzier, and since I support a policy of compromise, I > > > >> > tend to not argue that aspect of abortion. > > > > >> > The point of debate in this thread was the claim that the 12 year old > > > >> > girl was factually incorrect and I don't believe anyone has made that > > > >> > case yet. > > > > >> > On Feb 18, 12:11 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> No, I simply support the womans right over her body and all that is > > > >> >> contained there-in. I support the SAME for men. It is called > > > >> >> fairness. > > > > >> >> On 2/18/09, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > Thanks professor, but I'm quite familiar with what parasites are. > > > >> >> > I > > > >> >> > did not 'need' to look it up, but on this board it's usually > > > >> >> > helpful > > > >> >> > to provide a reference to support your claim. You might very well > > > >> >> > find > > > >> >> > a classification that can be applied to a human fetus, but let's > > > >> >> > be > > > >> >> > clear; a parasite is typically of a different species than its > > > >> >> > host, > > > >> >> > it usually can not survive without its host and it is typically > > > >> >> > harmful in some way to its host. There are exceptions to all of > > > >> >> > these > > > >> >> > characteristics, but when discussing parasites in animals these > > > >> >> > are > > > >> >> > the accepted norms. > > > > >> >> > A human fetus is considered legally viable at 28 weeks of > > > >> >> > development. > > > >> >> > It is parasitic in nature because it is sharing the mother's > > > >> >> > bloodstream for nutrition and oxygen. It does this because it has > > > >> >> > no > > > >> >> > other means to eat and breathe while constrained in the womb. It > > > >> >> > is, > > > >> >> > however, a living human being that can now survive on it's own > > > >> >> > outside > > > >> >> > the womb. > > > > >> >> > You know damn well that classifying a human fetus as a parasite > > > >> >> > is a > > > >> >> > deliberate attempt by the abortion rights crowd to diminish the > > > >> >> > value > > > >> >> > of the fetus. People don't take kindly to killing human beings, > > > >> >> > but > > > >> >> > eliminating parasites is always acceptable. > > > > >> >> > On Feb 18, 12:55 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> > > Use a biological dictionary. There are Three (3) very > > > >> >> > > different types of > > > >> >> > > parasites and several very different crosses of those three > > > >> >> > > main groups. You > > > >> >> > > have found the "common" definition. Do try to do some homework. > > > >> >> > > It is simple > > > >> >> > > junior high school biology. But then the US schools do lack, > > > >> >> > > don't they > > > >> >> > > ?? Not my fault but definitely a problem for you, I can say > > > >> >> > > that, as you > > > >> >> > > obviously had to look it up and did not know enough to do so > > > >> >> > > correctly. In > > > >> >> > > the future if you are going to choose to argue a point at least > > > >> >> > > please be > > > >> >> > > rudimentarily informed on the subject or ask for assistance. > > > > >> >> > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41 PM, frankg <[email protected]> > > > >> >> > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > From dictionary.com: "an organism that lives on or in an > > > >> >> > > > organism of > > > >> >> > > > another species, known as the host, from the body of which it > > > >> >> > > > obtains > > > >> >> > > > nutriment." > > > > >> >> > > > The mother does not define what a fetus is. Science defines > > > >> >> > > > what it is > > > >> >> > > > and it is parasitic, but not a parasite. > > > > >> >> > > > I don't need to consult the mother. It's 'definition' does > > > >> >> > > > not vary > > > >> >> > > > from mother to mother. She can apply whatever label she wants > > > >> >> > > > but it > > > >> >> > > > does not change the facts. > > > > >> >> > > > And I am not going any extra steps. I am sticking to the > > > >> >> > > > facts. If a 5 > > > >> >> > > > month old fetus is delivered you would call it a human. > > > >> >> > > > Therefore, > > > >> >> > > > unless you can prove physiological changes took place during > > > >> >> > > > delivery > > > >> >> > > > we must assume the 5 month old fetus still in the womb is > > > >> >> > > > human as > > > >> >> > > > well. The little girl is correct. > > > > >> >> > > > On Feb 17, 11:50 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> > > > >> >> > > > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > No, it is the Mothers choice as to what it is. It is a > > > >> >> > > > > parasite by > > > >> >> > > > > definition. At very best a "humanoid" parasite. > > > > >> >> > > > > As to implying a difference, I am not applying ANY > > > >> >> > > > > definition other > > > >> >> > > > > than "parasite", "parasitic". It is you that is going the > > > >> >> > > > > next step > > > >> >> > > > > without consulting the mother as to "its'" sattus. > > > > >> >> > > > > On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mark, > > > > >> >> > > > > > I think it's more accurate to call a fetus parasitic. A > > > >> >> > > > > > parasite > > > >> >> > > > > > typically implies a different type of organism than the > > > >> >> > > > > > host it's > > > >> >> > > > > > feeding off of. Calling a fetus a parasite is a ploy used > > > >> >> > > > > > by abortion > > > >> >> > > > > > rights advocates as a means of diminishing the 'value' of > > > >> >> > > > > > the fetus. > > > >> >> > > > > > Make no mistake, a fetus IS a human. I think her example > > > >> >> > > > > > of a five > > > >> >> > > > > > month old fetus that is delivered is spot on. It did not > > > >> >> > > > > > undergo so > > > >> >> > > > > > magical transformation during its birth; it was human > > > >> >> > > > > > prior to deliver > > > >> >> > > > > > just as it is following delivery. > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Feb 17, 8:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE > > > >> >> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > It is a parasite until the mother says otherwise. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:16 pm, Ohio mark > > > >> >> > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > how so? > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:59 pm, "J.C." <[email protected]> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I am sure the speech was magnificent; however, it > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > isn't entirely > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > factual. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:07 pm, Ohio mark > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > >> >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > poor libs just cannot stands opposing points of > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > view. even > > > >> >> > > > from a 12 > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > yr old girl. how pitiful. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 6:21 am, Ohio mark > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > >> >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Despite facing threats of disqualification, a > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 12-year-old > > > >> >> > > > girl took > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > first place in a speech contest when she > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > eloquently argued > > > >> >> > > > for the > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rights of unborn children – after an offended > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > judge quit. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "What if I told you that right now, someone was > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > choosing if > > > >> >> > > > you were > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > going to live or die?" the seventh-grader > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > begins in a video > > > >> >> > > > recording > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of her speech on YouTube. "What if I told you > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that this > > > >> >> > > > choice wasn't > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > based > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
