Abortion discussion: When does life begin?

Thank you for finally being open and honest about the fact that now & then you fuck Ms MFAS for fun. So as it turns out, restricting sex to purposes of procreation only isn't for either one of us - bueno!

 

Yep and I know a couple with 13 kids - because they didn't practice b/c. Now Feebs, is this the norm where you live? Out of every 100 couples you know, how many do NOT practice birth control? Or - how many have 10 kids or more (out of 100)?

 

I know many too with very large families. But I think in even Catholic families the number of kids is dwindling with each generation. The young generation catholics use birth control, I know many of them.
I have a family memeber who is 45 with a 12 year old brother.

 

I know many in our and our parents generation who have families with many kids. But the younger generation Catholics-- 20 and 30 yrs-- are using birth control, the family sizes are getting smaller with each generation. I think the younger generation follows there own catholic rules.

 

I knew he was human and you brought it out

 

I am just curious, does the Unitarian church take up a collection basket during the sermon? The church seems to teach a very nice philosophy.

 

Just can't take it when you have been called out.

 

I did no such things-there was no meltdown on my part-just because I defended MFAS and pointed out what a jackass is I melted down? And admitted what role? I went back and voted after you mentioned the counts. Did you vote recently Vag? Hmmmmm? Hell I don't know if I voted or not back then, and I surely didn't admit to cheating.

 

When does science say Human Life begins?



Pro-lifers are often criticized for their position that a new, human life begins at conception. Many incorrectly think that this belief is based on some blind religious dogma, a scripture passage somewhere, or some stubborn need to tell women what to do with their bodies. All the while, this same opposition likes to pretend that they are the scientific, logical ones – obviously not blinded by religion or some judgmental God.
Of course, this is exactly backwards from reality. The entire basis for a new, human life beginning at conception stems from well documented, universally recognized scientific fact. The only ones who deny this are those blinded by their own religious dogma of so-called “choice” who have a stubborn need to deny scientific fact in order to stay faithful to their own ideology.
If science had proven that human life actually began at implantation or at nine weeks or whenever, then that’s precisely when we (Catholics and any other reasonable belief system) would believe that human life began. Simple. And, logically, it would be from that moment when this human being should be treated with the rights and dignities that come with being a human being.
But that’s not what science has told us. Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that a new, human life begins at conception (i.e. fertilization. AKA the moment sperm and ovum meet and form an entirely new, self-directing living organism of the human species with its own individual DNA distinct from both mother and father.).
At this point in the debate, some try and introduce a separate distinction and question of “personhood.” Aside from this usually being a convoluted way to try and create classes of human beings and that it doesn’t hold up to any consistently logical scrutiny, it’s also not at all a scientific argument. It’s a philosophical one. So it is totally irrelevant to the scientific question of when human life begins.
Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo (I’m in the middle of reading it right now). In his words:

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
​

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George
​

Did we catch that? Human embryos only need a suitable environment and nutrition to become more mature human beings. Hey, that’s kind of like humans at any stage – at least for our biological maturity. Unfortunately, the culture outside of the womb is seemingly a less and less “suitable environment” for bringing about other kinds of maturity. But that’s another issue entirely.

 

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showpost.php?p=3137000&postcount=8

Hey Vag, apparently back then you believed at conception.what happened?

 

The post was 3 years old I don't remember it verbatim but if I were answering it today, I'd have elaborated: 1) she says, "which is what I believe," which is a lot different than the pontification of a certain other RP here. And 2) That being said, I AM pro-choice and always have been. The harsh realities of raising children in a loving environment should allow a 'choice' to be made by a woman...if they can and want to do so.


That's what I was referring to - no matter when it begins, the harsh realities lead her to a pro-choice (vs no abortion allowed) position.
In other words, it's a moot point.

 

So why is this topic even discussed? We've already established a pretty even division of opinion. It's being discussed so that 'pro-lifers' (who believe life begins at conception) can segue to their argument on outlawing abortion based on that.

But I'm saying it really is a moot point becase there are 2 other groups: 1) those who believe life begins at conception yet remain pro-choice and 2) those who do NOT believe life begins at conception and thus are pro-choice. So all this arguing is just pissing in the wind and I'm dropping out of the argument on when life begins. I don't agree with Scarlett and SPN on when it begins but I DO agree with them on their conclusion that women should have the right to be pro-choice.

What I liked and respected about Scarlett's post was the way she said, "I believe," instead of propping herself up with 3rd party support (ie, the bible). The woman can clearly think for herself and I respect that. That was the reason I replied to her the way I did.

 

Sorry for not answering. As I mentioned, we took our daughters there which was 20 years ago and to be honest, I can't remember how they collected tithes. I seem to recollect some sort of container, maybe in the welcome line outside or maybe it was a plate. There cetrtainly was never any pressure though, we were just starting out and didn't have a lot of money.

 

Could this book answer the ongoing debate?

17th-Century 'Aristotle' Sex Manual Goes Up For Auction

In a section of one edition of the book explaining "what conception is," the author writes, "The first day after the conception she feels a slight quivering or illness running through the whole body; a tickling in the womb, a little pain in the lower parts of the belly." That passage goes on to describe the "giddiness" felt and "pimples in the face" that apparently were thought to occur days after conception.

http://news.yahoo.com/17th-century-aristotle-sex-manual-goes-auction-164444364.html