The Pro-Life Conspiracy

[CLee421]

But the brain is undeveloped. No offense intended, but I can't take you seriously if you think that a recently united sperm and egg is as sentient as a newborn baby.

It's not about what I think. Sentient or not we cannot speak on the nature of the soul. Scientifically we ARE alive at that moment. Regardless of level of development. Unfortunately the advances in medical technology allowing us to see the process appears to have made us numb to the miracle of how we all begin our lives.

The sperm and egg cease to exist at conception. That is where we began life.

 

[CLee421]

It's not about what I think. Sentient or not we cannot speak on the nature of the soul. Scientifically we ARE alive at that moment. Regardless of level of development. Unfortunately the advances in medical technology allowing us to see the process appears to have made us numb to the miracle of how we all begin our lives.

The sperm and egg cease to exist at conception. That is where we began life.

Our brains aren't fully developed until age 25... hehe.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It's not about what I think. Sentient or not we cannot speak on the nature of the soul. Scientifically we ARE alive at that moment. Regardless of level of development. Unfortunately the advances in medical technology allowing us to see the process appears to have made us numb to the miracle of how we all begin our lives.

The sperm and egg cease to exist at conception. That is where we began life.

How do you know that that's where "life" begins, and why should you be able to impose your arbitrary idea of when life begins on everyone else?

 

[Sunstone]

The sperm and egg cease to exist at conception. That is where we began life.

There is ample reason to state that life began once (that we know of), billions of years ago, and has been continuous since then. .

 

[CLee421]

There is ample reason to state that life began once (that we know of), billions of years ago, and has been continuous since then. .

Not everyone adheres to that belief. Science = knowledge which comes from the scientific process which requires observation. My arguments come from a place of - we can have knowledge of the beginning from the Beginner. The Cause of the beginning. So do the Jewish people. It is their book that not only explains where they came from as a people but much more.

 

[Sunstone]

Not everyone adheres to that belief.

I used to think science was for everyone. I now admit that the significance of its methods cannot be fully grasped by many of us. That's not a criticism, however. Some of us are no more born to see the significance of scientific methods than others of us are born to see the significance of faith.

 

[CLee421]

How do you know that that's where "life" begins, and why should you be able to impose your arbitrary idea of when life begins on everyone else?

It's very simple. Life is scientifically defined by certain signs. All those signs are present at conception. I named a few above.

I find it humorous when people, talking in a forum, a place where free thought is the point, get accused of trying to impose things on others

And it is certainly not just "my" belief.

The father of medicine said he would never give an abortive drug. Because that was a form of harm to human life. The guy we base the Hippocratic oath on... the oath that says never to do harm - that tries to say that saving life is the purpose. Just a side note there, I suppose.

 

[CLee421]

I used to think science was for everyone. I now admit that the significance of its methods cannot be fully grasped by many of us. That's not a criticism, however. Some of us are no more born to see the significance of scientific methods than others of us are born to see the significance of faith.

Why not both

I see your point but we also can't really verify that statement.

 

[columbus]

There is ample reason to state that life began once (that we know of), billions of years ago, and has been continuous since then. .

Nevertheless, that's where individual human beings begin.
That's elementary biology. Google "life cycle of primates" for more information.
Tom

 

[CLee421]

Also regarding sentience --

Definition of sentient
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

• sentientbeings

2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

... we know that babies in the womb can hear, respond to stimuli, feel pain and more. They are taking in more information than they are putting out at that moment. But by definition they are sentient. Does stopping someone's heartbeat count as murder? Because the heartbeat is present not long after women can even determine pregnancy.

Do the signs of life matter? If we found these signs on another planet - it would be considered another living being. But in my womb? Pish posh...

Playing around with WHEN we can kill our offspring is an issue on top of the bigger issue. Which is why conception is important. There is no other moment in human development like conception. A new life is present and you don't undergo any other drastic changes. Just growth.

 

[DrTCH]

I went to through a pro-life phase where I thought the millions and millions of babies slain legally by abortion was the greatest abomination against God...then I saw repeated examples of lives that are chronic agony, and people who are a thorn in everyone's side, and realized abortion is the best thing for countless people... seriously, there are so many countless millions of miserable, tortured souls, or sick people who harm others, it is obvious that their mother would have done a great deed to have them put out of their misery in the womb... I feel like a bad Catholic for saying that, but it just seems to be common sense at work.

Well said...yet I would take issue with your use of the word "babies." Much of the time these were not babies but embryos or fetuses...and, at that--often very-- stage, these forms of life had very little to distinguish them from the equivalent forms of fishes, canines, felines...and the like.

 

[CLee421]

Well said...yet I would take issue with your use of the word "babies." Much of the time these were not babies but embryos or fetuses...and, at that--often very-- stage, these forms of life had very little to distinguish them from the equivalent forms of fishes, canines, felines...and the like.

When did you "turn into" a human??

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The father of medicine said he would never give an abortive drug. Because that was a form of harm to human life. The guy we base the Hippocratic oath on... the oath that says never to do harm - that tries to say that saving

Boy I hope he never ran into anyone with an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[CLee421]

Boy I hope he never ran into anyone with an ectopic pregnancy.

Ectopic pregnancies were only really starting to be understood in the 1800s. Until then treatment was not feasible.

Hippocrates was 450 BC yet we still use his ideas today.

Using the tragedy of ectopic pregnancy (that literally cannot be successful) to argue for abortion of a healthy pregnancy is like bringing a gun to a fist fight.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think most people assume it talks about the woman but it's talking about the baby as it says "child comes out -- no harm" .. "but if there is harm" he pays accordingly.

Based on what? Have you read any of the appropriate Torah commentary?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ectopic pregnancies were only really starting to be understood in the 1800s. Until then treatment was not feasible.

Hippocrates was 450 BC yet we still use his ideas today.

Using the tragedy of ectopic pregnancy (that literally cannot be successful) to argue for abortion of a healthy pregnancy is like bringing a gun to a fist fight.

Cool, so the father of medicine isnt really a good source for medical cues in the modern world because our understanding of situations have improved. Due to things like not ever giving abortive drugs is bad policy which will cause harm.

I don't consider any unwanted pregnancy to be healthy. And forced continuance thereof to be abusing the party with the clear body autonomy, too. And I personally don't bother with personhood or 'new life' arguments because I wouldn't care if it was a fully adult human in there, I would still support ending the pregnancy at will. If the fetus is viable I would recommend ending with live extraction. If it isn't viable, I wouldn't.

 

[CLee421]

Based on what? Have you read any of the appropriate Torah commentary?

What specific commentary?

And based on the language of the passage. The issue is not the woman, childbirth to a premature baby is more dangerous for the baby than the mother.

If anything I am more inclined to say it means if harm befalls the mother or child, because it does not specify who the harm must come to. But it dies say her CHILD implying, a human life.

 

[CLee421]

Cool, so the father of medicine isnt really a good source for medical cues in the modern world because our understanding of situations have improved. Due to things like not ever giving abortive drugs is bad policy which will cause harm.

I don't consider any unwanted pregnancy to be healthy. And forced continuance thereof to be abusing the party with the clear body autonomy, too. And I personally don't bother with personhood or 'new life' arguments because I wouldn't care if it was a fully adult human in there, I would still support ending the pregnancy at will. If the fetus is viable I would recommend ending with live extraction. If it isn't viable, I wouldn't.

Rape accounts for the smallest percentage (about 2%) of abortions. Unwanted pregnancy from "wanted" sex is just revealing that we want no responsibility for our actions and we are willing to kill the baby to avoid it.

Location or level of development doesn't determine personhood. Yet... people fight to make it seem that way when basic scientific observation proves otherwise. I'm not interested in going over and over this. Especially with someone who for whatever reason places so little value on a human life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What specific commentary?

Well, gee gosh o golly, since you references Exodus 21:20, you might have actually looked at Torah commentary on Exodus 21:20.

So, for example, from the JPS Torah Commentary Exodus (Nahum Sarna) re damage ...

Hebrew 'ason elsewhere always signifies a major calamity, therefore, the most likely issue here is whether or not death ensues. Rabbinic tradition construes the phrase in this way and understands it a referring to the mother.​

 

[CLee421]

Well, gee gosh o golly, since you references Exodus 21:20, you might have actually looked at Torah commentary on Exodus 21:20.

So, for example, from the JPS Torah Commentary Exodus (Nahum Sarna) re damage ...

Hebrew 'ason elsewhere always signifies a major calamity, therefore, the most likely issue here is whether or not death ensues. Rabbinic tradition construes the phrase in this way and understands it a referring to the mother.​

I understand you're older than I am - and you've heard and seen more - but your lack of tact or self control in your messages make it less than pleasant to communicate with you.

I don't believe that just because something is tradition that it is valid. First of all.. second - the commentaries/Talmud are filled with unnecessary laws and traditions written by men, not of God.

I would be interested in learning more regarding their commentaries, but I do trust God, not people, to tell me what is said.

People can help. Maybe you could but presenting your arguments with more class might help. Sounds like you're not having a pleasant experience anyway so what are you accomplishing?