I do find it hypocritical if someone is anti-abortion (because it takes a life) but gives an exception for rape or incest. If abortion takes a life, why do those children not have a right to life?

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

That is a different question. As spindoc stated above, science has not given us an answer as to when "life begin." You stated that it had.

 

The smallest unit of life is a cell.

 

Biology defines life at the cellular level.

 

At the point of fertilization, science tells us that a new single cell --zygote-- has been produced.

 

That cell is either living or not. You cannot be living without life or some degree of lifespan

 

If the cell is living, it must be capable of self-sustaining it's own biological processes.

 

And the cell is human if the genetic blueprint of the LIVING cell is human DNA.

 

Anti-lifers like Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards know this. They know they're losing the argument as well.

 

That's why she's recently stated the subject of when life begins shouldn't matter in the debate of abortion.

Edited July 30, 201412 yr by marvel

If we really wanted to take this further, we could ask if you believe that life and a person start at conception, does it make sense to be OK with embryonic stem cell research which some Pro Lifers are OK with embryonic stem cell research? Birdsfan and I went back and forth on this and just agreed to disagree. While I am fine with NON embryonic stem cell research, when you destroy an embryo for it cells, to me that is an abortion also.

With all due respect, it's semantics. Is it not "science" that displays a heartbeat on ultrasound? We, myself at the top of the list, often refer to science like its a panel of long bearded labcoat guys burdened with the responsibility of telling us all where all the black lines are. This is a moral issue. Never has been nor will be a science issue. There may be a panel of judges that make that determination, but there will never be a scientific stance on this one in my opinion.

 

While I appreciate your passion on the issue, I absolutely disagree that science will never be an issue regarding the issue of life.

 

My Christian beliefs certainly play a role, but science has allowed us to confirm it. Science and morality aren't mutually exclusive.

 

When women are on the fence about having an abortion and after they see the ultrasound, nearly 80% of them choose life.

 

Science has played a significant role in allowing those ultrasounds, sonograms to happen.

 

The smallest unit of life is a cell.

 

Biology defines life at the cellular level.

 

At the point of fertilization, science tells us that a new single cell --zygote-- has been produced.

 

That cell is either living or not. You cannot be living without life.

 

If the cell is living, it must be capable of self-sustaining it's own biological processes.

 

And the cell is human if the genetic blueprint of the LIVING cell is human DNA.

 

Anti-lifers like Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards know this. They know they're losing the argument as well.

 

That's why she's recently stated the subject of when life begins shouldn't matter in the debate of abortion.

 

I believe that shift in Planned Parenthoods method of arguing the debate is due to new technology with ultrasounds which provides a much clearer image of the embryo/fetus has changed many people's view that it is just a glob of tissue, not a person yet. I assume that is why many want a mother to at least look at the kid before making the decision to allow the abortion doctor to kill the kid. Another was a video released years ago showing an ultrasound during an abortion and during the process, it was obvious the kid was thrashing and trying to fight off the procedure until killed. That video shocked numerous people and caused some to rethink their position.

 

I am guessing that the argument now is that a women's choice to do with her body trumps that there is life in her body.

While I appreciate your passion on the issue, I absolutely disagree that science will never be an issue regarding the issue of life.

 

I never said it wasn't an issue, please re-read. I said that "science" will never be able to take that stance to say when life actually begins.

My Christian beliefs certainly play a role, but science has allowed us to confirm it. Science and morality aren't mutually exclusive.

 

No one ever said science and morality are mutually exclusive. I can quote scripture quite well also, and surely know all the ones regarding the womb. However, you'll be hard-pressed to ever see a book written for our students in today's PC world that will define when life begins without a court uproar. Therein lies my stance that "science" will never weigh in.

 

When women are on the fence about having an abortion and after they see the ultrasound, nearly 80% of them choose life.

You have a link for that or just tossing the idea around like it's fact?

 

Science has played a significant role in allowing those ultrasounds, sonograms to happen.

I don't think anyone is arguing that, and frankly that's the point I just made. However, being able to see a fetus on a screen is no more "science" than to be able to say "hey, it's life", IMO.

 

And for the record, again, I said earlier if you'll read that I believe life begins at fertilization.

While I appreciate your passion on the issue, I absolutely disagree that science will never be an issue regarding the issue of life.

 

My Christian beliefs certainly play a role, but science has allowed us to confirm it. Science and morality aren't mutually exclusive.

 

When women are on the fence about having an abortion and after they see the ultrasound, nearly 80% of them choose life.

 

Science has played a significant role in allowing those ultrasounds, sonograms to happen.

 

I don't think Spindoc is denying that science has allowed us to study early pregnancy and understand it better, I think his view is that science is not able to state black or white that this is life and that is not. I think Spindoc would say that whether something is life is ultimately an opinion but one can use science to support their opinion. Atleast I think that is what he is saying.

And for the record, again, I said earlier if you'll read that I believe life begins at fertilization.

 

You beat me to it, LOL.

And for the record, again, I said earlier if you'll read that I believe life begins at fertilization.

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted "Never has been nor will be a science issue," and "there will never be a scientific stance on this one in my opinion."

 

My apologies.

 

And the nearly 80% of women who choose life after seeing an ultrasounds are the estimated numbers from pregnancy centers.

 

Adam Cohen“The Next Abortion Battleground: Fetal Heartbeats” Time Ideas October 17, 2011

 

Jennifer Kabbany “Abortion vs. UltraSound,” Washington Times, October 29, 2003

We are back to where we started. Is a heartbeat life? Is a fertilized cell life? Is viability life? Science has not - and perhaps should not - make that determination.

We are back to where we started. Is a heartbeat life? Is a fertilized cell life? Is viability life? Science has not - and perhaps should not - make that determination.

 

Agreed. It's a moral/ethical question. How could science ever answer it? Experiments and studies can provide a bunch of information, but people are still going to have to make judgments according to their principles.

We are back to where we started. Is a heartbeat life? Is a fertilized cell life? Is viability life? Science has not - and perhaps should not - make that determination.

I wish there was a hard and fast answer. Really I do, but there would be a major upheaval in Roe v. Wade if there was a determination by the court that life started at conception. Do you agree?

I wish there was a hard and fast answer. Really I do, but there would be a major upheaval in Roe v. Wade if there was a determination by the court that life started at conception. Do you agree?

 

I think if the courts did determine that life began as conception, then the discussion would change to, does that trump a woman's choice to do with her body what she wishes? My opinion is that because it is life, yes. I know many would disagree with me.

Has science/biology defined a cell as a living organism?

Has science/biology defined a cell as a living organism?

Not for multicellular organisms. If it did, we probably couldn't remove tumors (which are cells) or organs such as an appendix (cellular system).

Has science/biology defined a cell as a living organism?

Yes but not sure how that applies here, unless you're simply saying that it's life once fertilization occurs.