You guys are coming at me to fast I am trying to work too 
Beans I never said it wasn’t a human in the uterus. Obviously genetically it is a human, I am saying human life (being alive). A human is medically dead once brain activity has ceased can we agree on that? By that then a human would medically be alive inside the womb when brain activity starts.
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
By that then a human would medically be alive inside the womb when brain activity starts.[/quote]
By that you’d still be wrong as fuck and every single doctor on the face of the planet with any sort of scientific integrity will tell you that you are, in fact, 100% wrong.
It is a unique human life at the moment of conception, and very much alive.
Man, even back when I was a pro-abort I didn’t bother with this pretending and mental gymnastics bullshit. I have always known it was murdering an innocent child. I just didn’t care, and thought the ends justified the means. I’ve grown up since then, thank god.
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
That hitman thing is completely irrelevant. One is murder and hiring a hitman would be conspiracy to commit murder. We are talking about abortion, which is not murder, if after brain activity would then be considered murder. In those cases it would be a late term abortion and only be done in extreme circumstances. [/quote]
Of course it is relevant. You used an appeal to emotion to try and say abortion should be legal because women will do it anyway and they might hurt themselves in the process. The point of my hitman post was to point out the flaw in your logic. If we didn’t make laws because people would just circumvent them then we wouldn’t have any laws. Ie murder law would not exist because people still commit murder. It’s 100% relevant whether you see it or not.
Abortion may not be murder now, but it should be in most cases.
[quote]
How is it short sighted? You can’t have 2 different definitions because its your opinion. [/quote]
Life and death are two different things… It isn’t my opinion it is scientific fact.
[quote]
I am arguing an abortion should be legal until brain function. [/quote]
I disagree, but at least you have an some what logical stance unlike some people on here.
[quote]
I am not claiming that the fetus doesn’t have the possibility to be a unique human.[/quote]
Dude, get this, a fetus IS a unique human life. The word “possibility” does not belong in that sentence.
300+ people have been murdered in Baltimore City this year. Murder laws have accomplished nothing per your logic, should we abolish murder law?
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
You guys are coming at me to fast I am trying to work too
Beans I never said it wasn’t a human in the uterus. Obviously genetically it is a human, I am saying human life (being alive). A human is medically dead once brain activity has ceased can we agree on that? By that then a human would medically be alive inside the womb when brain activity starts.[/quote]
That doesn’t make sense. So it’s dead in the womb until brain function begins? Or it’s just not alive? Is this Schrödinger’s fetus?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I am not claiming that the fetus doesn’t have the possibility to be a unique human.[/quote]
Dude, get this, a fetus IS a unique human life. The word “possibility” does not belong in that sentence.
[/quote]
That’s pretty much the rub here. Ol’ DoubleZero here doesn’t see people as people until he/she wants to. Which is the opposite of science. So Ol’DZ ignores science for his/her emotional preservation, because deep down, like most rational people, the thought of slicing up and vacuuming out babies is horrible and unsupportable. So he/she pretends they aren’t what they are… To sleep at night.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I am not claiming that the fetus doesn’t have the possibility to be a unique human.[/quote]
Dude, get this, a fetus IS a unique human life. The word “possibility” does not belong in that sentence.
[/quote]
That’s pretty much the rub here. Ol’ DoubleZero here doesn’t see people as people until he/she wants to. Which is the opposite of science. So Ol’DZ ignores science for his/her emotional preservation, because deep down, like most rational people, the thought of slicing up and vacuuming out babies is horrible and unsupportable. So he/she pretends they aren’t what they are… To sleep at night. [/quote]
I guess. I don’t understand how you can pretend your way through something so awful.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I am not claiming that the fetus doesn’t have the possibility to be a unique human.[/quote]
Dude, get this, a fetus IS a unique human life. The word “possibility” does not belong in that sentence.
[/quote]
That’s pretty much the rub here. Ol’ DoubleZero here doesn’t see people as people until he/she wants to. Which is the opposite of science. So Ol’DZ ignores science for his/her emotional preservation, because deep down, like most rational people, the thought of slicing up and vacuuming out babies is horrible and unsupportable. So he/she pretends they aren’t what they are… To sleep at night. [/quote]
I guess. I don’t understand how you can pretend your way through something so awful. [/quote]
Because a bunch of women will get mad at you if you don’t think whole sale genocide in the name of convenience is a “human right”.
That and we’ve been brainwashed by media, movies and music to ignore the truth of the matter.
Look people have been doing this forever. People killed & still kill over religion, skin color, for being different. Humans used ot keep other humans as slaves and used the same justifications of “they aren’t people” as they do for abortion.
Just like slavery, in a few short decades, abortion for convenience will be no more, and it will be illegal. Pro-Aborts will be looked back upon just like slavers are today. It will be a wonderful day, but we’ll inevitably still be involved in some sort of immoral and disgusting practice justified through bullshit…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I am not claiming that the fetus doesn’t have the possibility to be a unique human.[/quote]
Dude, get this, a fetus IS a unique human life. The word “possibility” does not belong in that sentence.
[/quote]
That’s pretty much the rub here. Ol’ DoubleZero here doesn’t see people as people until he/she wants to. Which is the opposite of science. So Ol’DZ ignores science for his/her emotional preservation, because deep down, like most rational people, the thought of slicing up and vacuuming out babies is horrible and unsupportable. So he/she pretends they aren’t what they are… To sleep at night. [/quote]
I guess. I don’t understand how you can pretend your way through something so awful. [/quote]
Because a bunch of women will get mad at you if you don’t think whole sale genocide in the name of convenience is a “human right”.
That and we’ve been brainwashed by media, movies and music to ignore the truth of the matter.
Look people have been doing this forever. People killed & still kill over religion, skin color, for being different. Humans used ot keep other humans as slaves and used the same justifications of “they aren’t people” as they do for abortion.
Just like slavery, in a few short decades, abortion for convenience will be no more, and it will be illegal. Pro-Aborts will be looked back upon just like slavers are today. It will be a wonderful day, but we’ll inevitably still be involved in some sort of immoral and disgusting practice justified through bullshit… [/quote]
Ya, I completely agree.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, regarding the argument, “Well, they’re going to die anyway so we might as well harvest the body parts for the ‘good’ of science,” I have this analogy:
Circa 1939, “Well, these Jews, Gypsies, and Poles are going to die anyway so we might as well allow Mengele and Co. to perform medical experiments for the ‘good’ of science.”[/quote]
Your equating torture to how the body is handled after its dead?
Its not a scientific paper, but puts in perspective where you guys are with re guard to human life at conception and where I am.
You guys are in the Genetic category of when life begins and I am in the Neurology category.
Hopefully I can post links.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception
By Randy Alcorn
Some of the world?s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
?I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception?. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life?.
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty?is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.?
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, ?after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.?He stated that this ?is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,? and ?not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.? He added, ?Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.?
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: ?By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.?
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: ?It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive?. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception?. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.?
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: ?The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter?the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.?
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, ?Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.?2
Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, ?The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.?3
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.
Dr. Nathanson?s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his ?increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.?4
In his film, ?The Silent Scream,? Nathanson later stated, ?Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.? Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.
Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states, I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest?that human life commences at the time of conception?and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6
The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:
The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7
The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the ?Human Life Bill,? summarized the issue this way:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being?a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8
Footnotes:
1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.
2Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113.
3 Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977), vi.
4Bernard N. Nathanson, ?Deeper into Abortion,? New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ã?90.
5Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).
6Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.
7John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42.
8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.
Permissions: Feel free to reproduce and distribute any articles written by Randy Alcorn, in part or in whole, in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way or charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. It is our desire to spread this information, not protect or restrict it.
[/quote]
That is a completely biased slanted article. They are a pro life organization. Not to also mention it is very dated.
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception
By Randy Alcorn
Some of the world?s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
?I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception?. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life?.
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty?is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.?
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, ?after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.?He stated that this ?is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,? and ?not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.? He added, ?Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.?
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: ?By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.?
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: ?It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive?. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception?. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.?
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: ?The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter?the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.?
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, ?Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.?2
Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, ?The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.?3
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.
Dr. Nathanson?s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his ?increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.?4
In his film, ?The Silent Scream,? Nathanson later stated, ?Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.? Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.
Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states, I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest?that human life commences at the time of conception?and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6
The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:
The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7
The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the ?Human Life Bill,? summarized the issue this way:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being?a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8
Footnotes:
1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.
2Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113.
3 Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977), vi.
4Bernard N. Nathanson, ?Deeper into Abortion,? New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ã???90.
5Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).
6Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.
7John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42.
8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.
Permissions: Feel free to reproduce and distribute any articles written by Randy Alcorn, in part or in whole, in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way or charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. It is our desire to spread this information, not protect or restrict it.
[/quote]
That is a completely biased slanted article. They are a pro life organization. Not to also mention it is very dated.[/quote]
It’s a transcript from a Congressional hearing…
Edit:
“A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1”
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
That is a completely biased slanted article. They are a pro life organization. Not to also mention it is very dated.[/quote]
You posted a wikipedia article…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…
[/quote]
Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]
I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.
Matter of factly posts this:
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
To get some perspective, the death of a human being is determined by the lack of brain activity. Thus medically and scientifically speaking the life a human being would happen when there is measured brain waves.
[/quote]
Then posts this:
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
Its not a scientific paper, but puts in perspective where you guys are with re guard to human life at conception and where I am.
You guys are in the Genetic category of when life begins and I am in the Neurology category.
Hopefully I can post links.[/quote]
Which says this:
"Conclusion
When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical issues surrounding the start of life, the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give."
Your back-up isn’t exactly backing you up…
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…
[/quote]
Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]
I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]
You are trying to defining “personhood” is what you are doing, which we’ve covered like 10 times at this point. In a nutshell it is semantics used to justify whole sale genocide.
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Voluminous wrote:
For such an aficionado of performing the act of potentially creating children; your stated opinion within the thread is odd. I wonder do you also advocate the non-usage of birth control & condoms; as they both also prevent a human being brought into being. I hazard a guess that you do not; nor does anyone else shouting from the rooftops about PP being so vile & disgusting for offering choice.
[/quote]
Absolutely no rational person in this thread is advocating the prevention of creation of life. We are however advocating the cessation of ending that life once it is created.
I am all for people being allowed to choose if they want a child. However once they create a human being, which is what that fetus is, they have already made their choice. I believe people should have the choice to prevent a pregnancy same as you. I do not believe anyone has the right to end a human life which is what that “thing” with the beating heart that writhes in pain (because its nervous system has developed) when burned or tries to pull away when grasped before being torn from its mother and ripped apart is.[/quote]
Long time lurker on the site first time posting.
To get some perspective, the death of a human being is determined by the lack of brain activity. Thus medically and scientifically speaking the life a human being would happen when there is measured brain waves. Roughly around 8 weeks there is a heart beat, but that is not the definition of life if that is not the determination of death. At around 14 weeks the fetus starts moving to environmental stimuli, but these are reflexes. [/quote]
You might could make a case for the 14 week mark at the latest, as clinical death is not only the cessation of brain activity as measured by an EEG. Clinical death is actually the IRREVERSIBLE cessation of all functions of the brain. As long as their is enough of a brain in the infants body to tell its heart to beat or to react to external stimuli, which it does as early as 7 weeks by some sources, indicates that the lack of brain activity is not irreversible, in fact science tells us that lack of brain activity in a fetus is the farthest thing from irreversible. Your Thalmus connections argument is interesting but also not quite the absolute fact you seem to think. In Essential Reproduction Barry Everitt and Martin Johnson state that fetal pain is something that is “impossible to determine at any fetal age”.
The language of the UDDA makes using the clinical definition of death very problematic for those who would apply it to defining life. Also, most of what we know about fetal brain development and activity is speculation and hasn’t been proven.
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]
I’m going to translate your post as if a Democrat from 1855 wrote it:
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “a person”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying these slaves aren’t human or that they aren’t living. Obviously the negro is a human and is a living human. I am basing my “a person” on the fact that they aren’t white and were born slaves, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “a person” would be when they are white and not born a slave. I am in no dispute that the negro is a genetic human and that the negro is living. I am defining “a person” as you and I, white people born free from bondage.
Therefore these Negro’s aren’t people like you and I, and don’t have rights like you and I. They are my property.[/quote]