I had an abortion at 20...

[amicus]

When Does Human Life Begin?

There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins. This is hardly controversial. If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

At the average time when a woman is aware that she is pregnant (the fifth to sixth week after conception), the preborn human being living inside her is metabolizing nutrition, excreting waste, moving, sucking his or her thumb, growing, and doing many other things that non-living things just do not do. As early as 21 days after conception, the baby’s heart has begun to beat his or her own unique blood-type, often different than the mother’s. (Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human, p.310; Nilsson & Hamberger, A Child is Born, p.86; Rugh & Shettles, From Conception to Birth, p.217.) At 40 days after conception, brain waves can be read on an EEG, or an electroencephalogram. (Dr. H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG, JAMA, Oct.12, 1964, p.113.)

~~~

As I said, a matter of science, not faith, not belief, not wishful thinking nor political affiliation.

Amicus

edited to add: key word search: science, human life, moment of conception....the first of 825,000 entries, no cherry picking I chose the first entry.

 

[penandpaper]

Youre right, abortion steals your YOU, too.

Some will argue that things change once egg and sperm combine. And whatever that thing is doesnt travel as far as it could.

Actually if my biology facts are correct, the eggs go through a slight metamorphosis after a person's first cycle. Then another change occurs after someone has sex for the first time. Then another change once sperm and egg meet.

Science is afraid to get in this battle and it's a shame. It's where they're needed most.

 

[penandpaper]

~~~

As I said, a matter of science, not faith, not belief, not wishful thinking nor political affiliation.

Amicus

edited to add: key word search: science, human life, moment of conception....the first of 825,000 entries, no cherry picking I chose the first entry.

Actually by that definition Ami, an unfertilized egg sitting in a women is life. The top states human life, then the definitions you give are just life. There's a difference.

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

As I said, a matter of science, not faith, not belief, not wishful thinking nor political affiliation.

Amicus

Which of these links did you copy and paste from?

Because not one of them is an actual peer reviewed scientific resource.

Omigawd, Ami, so lame!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Which of these links did you copy and paste from?

Because not one of them is an actual peer reviewed scientific resource.

Omigawd, Ami, so lame!

What did you expect? If lameness was a science, Ami would've been the inventor of hyperspace travel already and we'd be drinking Mai Tais with the Vulcans on the other side of the Milky Way Galaxy right now.

By the way I'm loving your mind in this thread and wishing I could clone you from a hair sample or something.

 

[Edward Teach]

Not making light of the argument, but merely trying to simplify it a bit, I offer Joy Hickey's succinct comment on My Name Is Earl: "My body, my choice. Hear me roar; kiss my grits."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If so, God (or Mother nature, take your pick) is the biggest baby killer of them all. Because a minority of all fertilized eggs survive the first week, and is aborted naturally. I find it hard to think of spliced genomes in a tiny cellular blob as being the definition of people. It's as arbitrary a definition as anything else.

I'm not pro life. I'm pro people. I'm against the abortion of people.

Call it what you want, but when you destroy IT you destroy IT and its future.

 

[Verdad]

I can't even read through all this. The issue is choice. 'Sanctity of life' women are perfectly free to carry to term when they get pregnant, even if it's a product of the nastiest rape ever by a most disgusting psychopath ever. No one forbids them to sacrifice themselves for what they believe to be right. Trying to sacrifice someone else is where it gets repulsive. It's like aspiring to be a saint by nailing someone else's ass to the cross.

 

[cloudy]

I had an abortion about a month after I turned sixteen. I was completely and totally stupid about birth control, and my mother was so not helpful when it came to sex that it was ridiculous. She knew about it, though, when I had it since the doctor that did it lived three houses up the street from us.

I don't regret it...I never have. There's no way in hell at that age, and that level of immaturity that I could have raised a child (I was a late bloomer, emotionally).

I had my next child three months after I turned nineteen. I wasn't married, I dropped out of college for about a year to get my feet underneath me, and then went back. I wanted that baby so badly that the situations really can't be compared. She wasn't planned, but she was definitely wanted.

I have three now - oldest will be thirty this year, then Spawn will be twenty-one in a few months, and then there's the youngest, the one I call my "oh my god" baby: he'll be ten in the summer.

None of them were even close to being planned. I was actively planning against getting pregnant, but BC failed, either due to my carelessness or as part of that 5% of people that it craps out on. Its all good, though. The three I have were all wanted (once I got over the shock).

Like you, Stella...if I had had that first baby, that probably would have been it for me, and the three that I can't imagine life without wouldn't be here.

for your courage.

 

[~Haze~]

And you have no idea what I'm saying as you really didn't read what I wrote. Because what I wrote is not what you quoted in your post. ( never said what is bold in your post, not even close )

And as far as I'm concerned it's her decision to make. No one should be forced to carry a fetus to term that doesn't want too no matter how they arrived at that decision.

Not even close? That's exactly what you said.

I'm not really sure what you're saying now. Are you saying that you didn't type what I quoted, or didn't mean what you wrote? I didn't change your post. I just quoted it and commented on it. It's exactly as you wrote it and it's right there and it's perfectly clear (and quoted below... again... untouched and unedited.)



Now, I do agree that it's a woman's decision and hers alone. If she cares to involve other people (involved the father) in the decision making process, that's entirely up to her, too.

Finally something that I can agree on with Stella...

Abortion is and should always be between the woman and her doctor, it's nobody's business but their's. And don't give me that crap about the father or would be father...the reason a woman even considers an abortion is usually because he has fled for the hills.

No other person on this earth has any business in the decision. The Choice is hers and only hers.

And if the would be father is around and wants the baby! I hear now there is no reason that the fetus can't be transplanted into his abdomen to mature and be born via surgery. So if he wants it let him carry it to term and raise the little darling.

I've known a number of people who got abortions over the years (that I know of). Friends, family, exes.

Sometimes, there were (what is in my opinion) very good reasons and sometimes (in my opinion) very bad reasons - or more accurately, poor choices or irresponsible thinking that lead to a pregnancy. I'm not saying my opinion should be used

Never once (within my experience, involvement, and exposure) was the decision made because the dad, as you put it, "ran for the hills". In fact, every single one of these situations had the 'father' standing right by the woman's side supporting her and her decision - whatever it might have been.

I'm not saying people don't make this decision because the father may or may not stick around. I'm saying that it's unfair (and entirely inaccurate) to make that kind of generalization.


Anyway, moving on...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CLOUDY

You just dont never know, do yuh?

We always assume that the one flushed down the drain was Frankenstein.

My daughter came within a gnats pubic hair of flushing my grandson, but didnt. He's such a gift that my daughter says he's God's reminder of how effing stupid she almost was.

 

[~Haze~]

Actually if my biology facts are correct, the eggs go through a slight metamorphosis after a person's first cycle. Then another change occurs after someone has sex for the first time. Then another change once sperm and egg meet.

Science is afraid to get in this battle and it's a shame. It's where they're needed most.

Hi Pen. Can I ask what you're referring to? In what sense is science reluctant to get involved? Or which battle?

Just gonna say....My mother had told me time and time again....If abortion was legal at the time...you would not be here. It 's something I didn't care to hear.


I believe in a woman rights to choose. But she should choose wisely.

But..I also believe...a woman AND a man need to be held accountable.

Passion is great...but it needn't negate a life for shear stupidity.

This is harsh. I'm not sure that I can understand the logic behind telling your child that "you're lucky I didn't abort you."

No person, especially a child, deserves to hear that. Nothing good that can come of it, but plenty of bad.

Just curious Stella....how many abortions is too much for one woman?

I am not trying to flame.

Just curious.

There is reason for my question.

PM me and I will explain further.

My ex-wife's cousin (who was close to us and often looked to us for support, friendship, and love. Whatever.) was young, careless, and irresponsible (with regard to everything, not just contraception). I love her, but she did make some poor and irresponsible decisions.

She ended up getting 5 abortions by the time she was 28. I haven't talked to her in years so that number could have gone up by now.

The point is, she was using abortions as birth control and I don't think that's healthy (for lack of a better word). Not that I have an alternative suggestion. Just an opinion about her decisions.

Now I support a woman's right to choose and make her own decisions, but her decisions were tough to respect. Decisions that lead to getting pregnant in the first place and decisions to get those 4th, 5th + abortions.

Is that what you're asking about, Misty?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Call it what you want, but when you destroy IT you destroy IT and its future.

Yes, that's very true.

We destroy lots of things and their futures. Other things we cherish, and do our best to make their future as optimal as possible.

Most of the women here flush one potential life each month. Sometimes, the potential life gets flushed a little later than usual via abortion.

I can't even read through all this. The issue is choice. 'Sanctity of life' women are perfectly free to carry to term when they get pregnant, even if it's a product of the nastiest rape ever by a most disgusting psychopath ever. No one forbids them to sacrifice themselves for what they believe to be right. Trying to sacrifice someone else is where it gets repulsive. It's like aspiring to be a saint by nailing someone else's ass to the cross.

You are brilliant, have I told you that lately?

Early on in this discussion, someone privately told me that they regretted an abortion because the father was such wonderful genetic material, and the baby could have been adopted out. My answer is that she could make a new baby, deliberately, to adopt out....

A rather horrifying idea, isn't it? Wonder why?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA we always explain things based on our fund of facts and what we want.

 

[stephen55]

I'm a doc, not a scientist.....but.....

Actually if my biology facts are correct, the eggs go through a slight metamorphosis after a person's first cycle. Then another change occurs after someone has sex for the first time. Then another change once sperm and egg meet.

Science is afraid to get in this battle and it's a shame. It's where they're needed most.

I'm not sure about the idea that a woman's ovum, eggs, oocyts, whatever, go through these changes at these times. That said, scientists are not abstaining from this debate. Biologists, embryologists, anatomists and others are going about doing their jobs of finding out how things work. What the scientists contribute to the debate is knowledge.

Unfortunately, any scientist will tell you that science is an ongoing and never ending pursuit. Compare what we know today with what we knew one hundred years ago, then think ahead one hundred more years. You make todays decisions with todays knowledge.

Well, not quite. Decisions about pro life/pro choice are made almost entirely by personal views about ideas, about which science has nothing to say. Science goes about adding facts and theories and then constantly testing and re-examining those facts and theories. Scientists do not contribute to morals, theology, political and/or legal philosophy.

All of those non-scientific fields are valuable and needed. They simply aren't the province of science. Any scientist can toss an opinion into the ring, as long as that opinion is clearly labeled as such, kind of like what I'm doing now. That is, if you accept the somewhat dubious assumption that medicine is based on science.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Not even close? That's exactly what you said.

I'm not really sure what you're saying now. Are you saying that you didn't type what I quoted, or didn't mean what you wrote? I didn't change your post. I just quoted it and commented on it. It's exactly as you wrote it and it's right there and it's perfectly clear (and quoted below... again... untouched and unedited.)



Now, I do agree that it's a woman's decision and hers alone. If she cares to involve other people (involved the father) in the decision making process, that's entirely up to her, too.





I've known a number of people who got abortions over the years (that I know of). Friends, family, exes.

Sometimes, there were (what is in my opinion) very good reasons and sometimes (in my opinion) very bad reasons - or more accurately, poor choices or irresponsible thinking that lead to a pregnancy. I'm not saying my opinion should be used

Never once (within my experience, involvement, and exposure) was the decision made because the dad, as you put it, "ran for the hills". In fact, every single one of these situations had the 'father' standing right by the woman's side supporting her and her decision - whatever it might have been.

I'm not saying people don't make this decision because the father may or may not stick around. I'm saying that it's unfair (and entirely inaccurate) to make that kind of generalization.


Anyway, moving on...

Again you apparently can't read. What I said, and it's there in black and white:

...the reason a woman even considers an abortion is usually because he has fled for the hills.

There is quantifier there, I never said that's the only reason which is what you accused me of.

Yet women who get abortions make their decisions based solely on a man's position (to be a dad or not.)!?

Those are your words not mine.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In this thread, Zeb, the reasons for her decision aren't what I am focussing on-- it's the myth that each embryo is sacrosanct and that there will never be another one like it. Jimmybob is giving us some excellent examples of this line of thought.

In fact, for any normally fertile woman, there will be another ova in a few weeks, with equal potential.

 

[LaRocha]

~~~

As I said, a matter of science, not faith, not belief, not wishful thinking nor political affiliation.

Amicus

edited to add: key word search: science, human life, moment of conception....the first of 825,000 entries, no cherry picking I chose the first entry.

Human life ends with the cessation of brain activity, "Record the time, Doc." To keep things symmetrical, human life should begin with brain activity, at about 25 weeks gestation.

"Plato contended that the human soul does not enter the body until birth, and this was determinative for legal science in ancient Roman society (Buss 1967)."

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

 

[stephen55]

In a nutshell.......

I can't even read through all this. The issue is choice. 'Sanctity of life' women are perfectly free to carry to term when they get pregnant, even if it's a product of the nastiest rape ever by a most disgusting psychopath ever. No one forbids them to sacrifice themselves for what they believe to be right. Trying to sacrifice someone else is where it gets repulsive. It's like aspiring to be a saint by nailing someone else's ass to the cross.

Verdad, Stella beat me to it. Probably because I'm a slow typist. I took band class in high school, rather than typing. My bad.

IMHO, you've hit it right on the button. This issue is all about choice. In this very much less than perfect world, the freedom to choose is to be valued and protected. And yes, we all must take ownership of what we have chosen. I choose to smoke cigars. I accept that it isn't good for my health. My choice and my health.

"Trying to sacrifice someone else is where it gets repulsive."

I'm not going to get into arguments about building a list of those choices which are more or less important than others. The point is that we can and do choose. Any attempt to erode the right to choose is an attempt to return to tyranny. It doesn't matter whether its the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority. Neither have a place in a free and democratic society.

 

[~Haze~]

Again you apparently can't read. What I said, and it's there in black and white:

...the reason a woman even considers an abortion is usually because he has fled for the hills.

There is quantifier there, I never said that's the only reason which is what you accused me of.



Those are your words not mine.

I know what you said. My point is that it's inaccurate (actually, it's just wrong).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I know what you said. My point is that it's inaccurate (actually, it's just wrong).

Okay, it's wrong but I didn't say what you said I said, that's my point!

 

[where]

The Church says that life begins at the moment of conception; science confirms that human life begins at the moment of conception.
Amicus

actually many christians take 'life' as starting from the development of the primitive streak at around 14 days.

~~~

As I said, a matter of science, not faith, not belief, not wishful thinking nor political affiliation.

Amicus

edited to add: key word search: science, human life, moment of conception....the first of 825,000 entries, no cherry picking I chose the first entry.

well if you add the words moment of conception they you will get a prolife website at the top of the page. try 'science human life begins'

you may get a less simplistic 'non-cherrypicked' first hit

 

[sereneone4u]

"Trying to sacrifice someone else is where it gets repulsive."

And sacrificing a baby is sacrificing someone else and yes, it is repulsive.

I don't believe there are that many birth control failures for each individual person....five abortions? That is pure laziness. Those situations just really anger me.

It astounds me that women scream about rights, but yet they expect special rules when it comes to being responsible when they get pregnant. If a woman choses to have the baby, the man does not get to chose whether or not he wants to be a father. And yes, it can destroy a man's life if the women he impregnates turns out to be a psycho bitch from hell and drains him financially, emotionally and mentally using the child as a pawn....what is a man told? You should have thought about that before you had sex. I say the same for a woman, you should have thought about that before you had sex.

What is that saying?

A woman is like a man, but take away reasoning and accountability.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Your argument depends on something crucial, sereneone.

Babies are breathing, crying, tit-suckling, diapers-need-changing, beloved little people.
A fetus is none of those things, although it can become such, if the mother so desires. Until she does desire, she has the means to do something else with it.

Five abortions are a lot-- but so what? Humans do a lot of things a lot. And it should be more obvious in that case than ever-- there is always another egg to be fertilised, like buses on a city street.

And your saying is simply disgusting, untrue, and self-hating. Don't be a self-hater.

 

[LaRocha]

Babies are formed from mud and placed into the womb by Anjea. Human life begins when Anjea places the spirit of the afterbirth of another baby into the newborn infant, whereas that newborn's afterbirth, and part of its new soul, is buried in the sand for Anjea to find to give human status to another newly formed mud baby. So it's all mud babies and not human babies until Anjea finds some hidden piece of afterbirth/soul to enrich the newly born.