JThunder, the human blastocyst does not implant until day 13. This is according to *Reproduction in Mammels: 2. Embryonic and Fetal Development * by Austin and Short. 2nd edition.
Well, you’re consistent and it makes sense in light of your other beliefs posited in this thread.
::shakes head, walks off muttering about how ‘it takes all kinds’ ::
You won’t get any argument from me about the persons directly involved treating a miscarriage or stillbirth as a death, but society as a whole?I’ve had both a miscarriage and a stillbirth and people around me certainly didn’t treat either event as they would the loss of a child only a few days old,much less as they would treat the death of an older child.I doubt social workers tell the parents “here are the two types of free burial” and ends the conversation, or doctors and others advise the mother to get pregnant again right away, or people are some combination of surprised and horrified that the parents have a photograph, or have a wake and a funeral,or ask a few weeks later “if you’ve gotten over it”, when an older child dies.
I would appreciate it if we looked at this particular context in a slightly different light: that of child consent.
Can the child consent to life? Can the child consent to how it lives? What seperates the two?
Is it wrong to then rape a child for the same reasons it is to rape an adult?
AHunter, the “umbilical cutting ceremony” is a very obvious and sufficiently arbitrary means of seperating “a human with rights” from “something without rights.” No bald man problems there! 
Very nice. I will definitely consider it.
And this means…what?
Is your measure of the “worthiness” of threads whether somebody is converted to a different position?
I assume you apply your same litmus test to ALL GD threads as well, correct? Even those threads that essentially repeat similar notions covered in recent threads…like the multitude of Sept 11th threads…or the multitude of Florida election count threads from last year…or the multitude of gun control threads…or evolution threads…or, well you get the idea. :rolleyes:
Well, it all is pretty masturbatory. The Anti-Lifers say their thing and the Anti-Choicers say their thing, and nobody actually ends up conceding even small points, such as whether or not it’s okay to rape children.
I, for one, learn by reading a variety of views expressed by others. Even if I don’t end up changing my fundamental stance on an issue, it’s nice to gain a better understanding of how others may regard the same issue in a very different, perfectly valid way.
Firstly, I’d like to point out that it is NOT “certainly alive” as it can not survive on its own. My definition of life seems to be somewhat more limited than yours I guess.
Secondly, isn’t it highly likely that it’s so rare that a baby threatens a mother’s life because we have legalized abortion? A non-terminated pregnancy would kill the woman I’m currently seeing. It would kill and/or debilitate most women suffering from Type I diabetes and/or women suffering from mid-advanced MS. If pregnancy sounds like a hassle, try doing it with a degenerative spinal disease. Not lethal perhaps, just 9 months of hell from which recovery is not expected. I’m not a doctor. Ask a doctor how many diseases or conditions there are that could make pregnancy potentially fatal or debilitating. I’ve known several myself. Oh, endometriosis (sp?) too. Tubal ligations (or ectopic pregnancies) of which I’ve had my share also.
In short, I don’t know where you get your information from, but it sounds like you may have read it off of the back of the church bulletin.
By the by, the value of human life is not intrinsic. Human life has a value because the person in question is expected to repay with interest what society affords him.
Probably not. I’m sure that there are a wide range of reactions to miscarriage, just as people have a wide range of reactions to poverty in the Third World.
The point, however, is that it’s wrong to say “we do not mourn a miscarriage.” Many people do, and it’s hardly an unusual phenomenon.
The source I consulted cited a range of days, averaging out to about a week. Individuals can progress differently, and naturally, different studies will produce slightly different results. Either way, the difference is merely a few days.
Besides which, the point remains – the embryo stops being mere tissue long before the overwhelming majority of abortions occur, and long before the mother is likely to know that she’s pregnant. That’s why pro-lifers AND pro-choicers should get upset whenever someone claims that the unborn is just “a lump of tissue.”
Neither can a newborn child. Neither can a two-year old. Neither can an advanced AIDS patient who’s relying on life support.
Besides which, the fetus is perfectly capable of surviving in its natural environment – the womb. Take it out of its natural environment, and it will eventually die, but so would any other organism.
I don’t necessarily find it upsetting if the misstatement is with regards to a days-old blastocyte.
If someone said that to a woman who had been maintaining a pregnancy of several months and who had lost it to a miscarriage, I’d find it upsetting that they’d said that.
If an OB/GYN screwed up and killed an embryo that the mother was intending to keep and give birth to, and said such a thing to her in response to her outrage and anger, I’d find that upsetting.
If the woman herself makes such a statement with reference to her recent or impending abortion, I don’t find that upsetting although philosophically and medically it does not reflect my views.
Heck, I’m a lump of tissue, but I am more than merely that. I suppose if it is your intention to dispose of rather than keep the pregnancy, then that is all it is to you. (The potential for being more than that isn’t of much relevance to you).
If it is your intention to keep the pregnancy, you are most likely making an emotional investment alongside of the investment in calcium and protein and fluids and whatnot, and someone else dismissing your misery after an unintended miscarriage by saying “Hey, it was just a lump of tissue, you can get pregnant again” is being a complete and utter jerk.
So your response to a claim of “rarity” for maternal life indicated abortions is to produce anecdotal accounts?
How about this then…according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (you know, the research arm of Planned Parenthood)…less than 6-7% of all abortions done in the United States are done for what are referred to as “hard cases” This would INCLUDE rape, incest and severe fetal abnormality. Threat to the health/life of the mother made up 3% of all cases.
Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988
(I did not find a direct link to the article…it is sourced on multiple web sites including here
[/quote]
Well I provided stats…you provided anecdotal evidence from your life.
Hard to respond to this kind of unsupported statement.
Stopped being simply tissue by your standards, yes. However, the formation of cells into rudimentary organs, in the absence of sentient thought, more than qualifies as simple tissue in my opinion. Which is the point–you keep stating your posts as absolute fact, and the rest of this thread–in addition to plenty of literature-- demonstrates that there’s plenty of room for individual interpretation. Lots of things have beating hearts–that doesn’t make them a person in the eyes of a large part of the world.
OK, after this I will reply to the above reply to my medical view on the subject. But first, I would like to forward a pragmatic definition:
Medical science cannot define when a human life begins. Technically all cells constitute human life, as we can get most to grow in cell culture. This fits in the broadest definition of life as a state associated with a capability to grow and reproduce, with metabolism and reaction to stimuli. This paraphrases a Webster’s definition. When we begin limiting this definition, we move out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy. Medical books which claim that “life begins at conception” are either overstating, misinterpreted, or just plain wrong.
So, we have to draw a line somewhere in the sand. IMHO, the best time to do this is in the mid second trimester, at 23 weeks, before which the fetus is totally inviable outside of the womb. Before that, while a potential human life may exist, we don’t base our legal system on potential life. If we did, we would have harsh sentences for pregnant mothers who drank and smoked, and different punishments for murder if committed on a sterile versus fertile person.
Before this, we start running into a ton of legal, ethical, and medical issues. I will try to present a few of these pragmatic needs. A woman may not know she is pregnant until the second month – what if she is on heavy duty antipsychotics or antiacne medicine even which may cause severe birth defects? It is becoming quite clear that research on embryonic stem cells (each of which is a “potential human life”) is a good thing that can lead us to many medical advances. Full rights cannot be accorded to each fetus, simply because the legal system has no precedence with dealing with assault issues on the fetus (that I am aware of). Fertility clinics often create dozens of embryos, which are frozen for future use. If not used, these are discarded. To toss these would constitute mass murder of untold proportions. The list goes on and on. Furthermore, we need a safety net for the incests, rapes, and congenital tragedies that the medical profession encounters every day. As a doctor, I would have to counsel against bringing an anencephalic child into the world. I would at least present abortion as an option in any cases of neural tube defects, aneuploidy, Tay Sachs, adrenoleukodystrophy, cystic fibrosis, even sickle cell disease. To ignore these tragedies, which lead to shortened and painful lives, is in fact IMHO medically unethical.
Once again though, bear in mind that abortion is almost NEVER performed on a days-old blastocyte. Also bear in mind that this slogan is routinely used to justify abortion in general – not just extremely early abortions.
If it has organs, then it’s more than mere tissue. If it has a beating heart and a circulatory system, then it’s more than mere tissue. If it has a rudimentary nervous system, then it’s more than mere tissue.
Dismiss this as simply “my standards,” if you wish, but to say that it’s mere tissue is eminently unreasonable.
Granted, but that’s a topic for another day. Besides, pro-lifers don’t claim that a beating heart ALONE makes something human, as I’m sure you know full well.
Remember, I was objecting to the specific tatement that the unborn is just a LUMP OF TISSUE. It isn’t. Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Not for most embryos, and certainly not for the overwhelming majority of abortions, since these occur well after the embryonic stage.
When my girlfriend and I got an abortion we had to wait until she was 8 weeks pregnant. They wouldn’t perform it before then.
That is a very interesting question. Once again though, it’s irrelevant to the issue of whether absolute morals do exist.
In other words, even if one demonstrates that crack dealing is the more serious offense, that does nothing to demonstrate that seeking sexual pleasure through child rape can at all be justified.