Is "Pro-Choice" the right "choice" for a Christian to make? Why or why not?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

reporting sexual harassment is the new fad. how is that different than reporting those that abort babies ?

Sexual harassment is often a ridiculous change, just like charging someone who aborts would be a ridiculous charge.

Latest example of harassment that got Canadian Member of Parliament in trouble is that he, when standing beside a female member and another (posing for a picture), made a little quip about a "threesum." Big hot water. TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

Just like any harassing of someone about an abortion is totally ridiculous.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated: “...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.”

Thanks SPF,
This great professor (or so the story goes), simply stated something. That does not make it true, nor doth it prove anything!

The disqualification of what he said being useful at all is found when he talks about "human life."

Of course what is in a womb is life, and of course it is human, so this usage gives the impression he is stating something obviously true. That is, his statement is true, but tells us virtually nothing that anyone would dispute, if they understand it for what it says. (What I have just here indicated.)

Then he talks about "human being" as though it were the same thing, the same as "human life," and it most certainly is not.
Just to refresh memories, any cancer in a human body is human life. So it being "human life" is no reason not to kill it.

To jump from talk of "human life" to "human being," pretending (or not even noticing otherwise), that they are not the same thing, is totally illegitimate.

Then after mislabeling "human life" as "human being," illegitimately without any argument that they might somehow be the same thing (which of course would be false since they very definitely and obviously, if anyone cares to figure out what they really mean, are not the same thing), talks of various stages which he concludes: "This is human life at every stage."
Well that last bit is true too, but it is not about any "human being."

Note he is correct to claim, "any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life," but that is not the false claim that it is a human being that is terminated. It simply means the fetus is alive and becomes dead if interrupted - everyone knows it is alive unless dead. (I won't quibble about whether "any interruption" would indeed be a termination - depends on what he means by interruption I suppose.)

So it is a shoddy shoddy false false "argument."
And certainly should never be presented as anything of value toward the issue.

 

[SPF]

What you're missing here Douglas is that the reason every single person that I quoted above speaks of a human being beginning at conception is because that is what science has revealed to us as factually true. What you'll find in all biological textbooks is an understanding that a human being begins its unique life at conception.

Thus, basically your response to all of these educated people is "I disagree with them, so they're wrong"

Next, I'll post some actual publications for you.

 

[SPF]

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

There's three for you to chew on. Here's a summary for you as to where science stands:
1) New life begins at conception
2) Fertilization creates a new and distinct individual
3) At fertilization we have a new organism

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What you're missing here Douglas is that the reason every single person that I quoted above speaks of a human being beginning at conception is because that is what science has revealed to us as factually true. What you'll find in all biological textbooks is an understanding that a human being begins its unique life at conception.

Thus, basically your response to all of these educated people is "I disagree with them, so they're wrong"

Oh yah that's what I said, (and all I said, of course), that I disagree with them so they are wrong. WHAT A FALSE REPRESENTATION.

 

[SPF]

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

Here's three more for you to consider:
1) birth is only 1 step in the development of a human being.
2) prior to birth the zygote and embryo are living human organisms.

 

[SPF]

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.” Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

Finally:
1) Human beings begin their existence as a single cell

The bottom line Douglas, is that while I am able to sit here all day long and provide textbook after textbook, publication after publication, expert opinion after expert opinion on when a new human being comes into existence - you are incapable of providing anything other than your own opinion. You bring nothing to the table except your immature (lack of life experiences) and uneducated (both scientifically and theologically) opinion to the table. And I'm sorry, but you've never even come close to convincing me that your opinion trumps the past hundred years of scientific discovery.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

There's three for you to chew on. Here's a summary for you as to where science stands:
1) New life begins at conception
2) Fertilization creates a new and distinct individual
3) At fertilization we have a new organism

Your "science stands" is just garbage.

I am fairly sure I pointed out to you there is no new life at conception, but I guess you didn't get it. Should I try again?
Will you actually read my comment?
I doubt you try to follow what I say, but only have to see it is not agreeing with you so your "tried and true reply," is "Douglas there you go again." Obviously shoddy shoddy arguing.

Simply,
1. The sperm is alive.
2. The ovum is alive.
It is their life, the life they bring with them, the life they are, that becomes the zygote. NO NEW LIFE.

Because for one thing, there is no need for new life.
The life they bring and that came from the prospective parents is the life in the zygote.

Here of course, somewhat like the previous example where "human life" is confused with "human being," here the confusion is to identify "life" itself with "human being life," or maybe "human life." In either case it is a great falsity; these are NOT the same things!

Now shall we see if it is possible for you to even try to contest any of these points, or will your response only be your usual condemnation of Douglas?

 

[SPF]

I am fairly sure I pointed out to you there is no new life at conception, but I guess you didn't get it.

No, I have definitely heard you point that opinion out over and over. The problem is that this is the precise opinion that is unsupported and refuted by every single resource that I have cited. There is not one scientific or medical resource you can provide to support this claim, not one. You can make that claim all day long, the problem is that it's universally disagreed with by the entirety of the scientific and medical community.

There is no confusion in the scientific and educated world about when a new human being comes into existence - it is at fertilization. I've have provided you with multiple textbook references above. I don't think there is anything more I can do for you. You are welcome to live on your island of one with no supporting evidence for your opinion.

All you can do, and all you have done in response to the published material that I've provided is say, "I disagree, therefore they're wrong". Anything you "point out" is nothing more than an unsupported assertion by you. No evidence, no support.

You said you would engage with the published material. Your idea of engaging with it is well, something not even a middle schooler would get a passing grade on.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Here's three more for you to consider:
1) birth is only 1 step in the development of a human being.
2) prior to birth the zygote and embryo are living human organisms.

Looks like two to me, but who's counting? Probably even you realized the falsity of your third point?

1) That is true, birth is one step in the development of a human being. But your imputation of "only" is rather false, unless you are getting it more right than I suspect, and are saying "It is the one step" or "the first step."

2) Your saying it is so doth not make it so. Neither doth the fact of some professor sloppily saying such a thing make it so.
If someone reasonable trying to teach biology said such a thing, it would possibly be corrected by a student saying, but professor, is it not misleading to call such an "organism," since the precise biological meaning of that term is that it is a member of the species, an actual animal. And a zygote is no animal of any kind, (though it may sound like some kind of goat.)

 

[SPF]

Looks like two to me, but who's counting? Probably even you realized the falsity of your third point?

The "three" was referencing the cited material. You have become nothing more than a worthless troll.

You didn't engage the cited material. I'll trust the textbooks over you.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The "three" was referencing the cited material. You have become nothing more than a worthless troll.

You didn't engage the cited material. I'll trust the textbooks over you.

Oh, how dare I contest what you say!

When you say "Here's three more:"
and then go,
1)
2)
I'm supposed to know, with the colon and all, you were referring to something previous?
ANYTHING TO AVOID ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO ACTUAL POINTS!

 

[SPF]

I'm still waiting to see a supported point to any of the cited material I've provided. So far all I see are naked, unsupported assertions. Sorry champ, but I'll take the past hundred years of science over your whacked out notions.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I'm still waiting to see a supported point to any of the cited material I've provided. So far all I see are naked, unsupported assertions. Sorry champ, but I'll take the past hundred years of science over your whacked out notions.

I'm not going to try to support crap !

 

[SPF]

I'm not going to try to support crap !

lol, I know, I've never seen you able to support your crap yet!

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

lol, I know, I've never seen you able to support your crap yet!

Well I agree, you've never seen,
we know that by now.

 

[SPF]

I'm still waiting for you to engage the cited material beyond naked, unsupported assertions. But I'll probably be waiting for all eternity since you've never once in all the pages on all the threads actually supported your refutations of established science with anything beyond "because I said so."

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.” Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

Conclusion: Science and hundreds of years of medical knowledge > Douglas' subjective thoughts

 

[SkyWriting]

Well hi Sky, haven't seen you for a bit

You know, respecting each other's privacy is an awesome thing to do, but I'd hope you'd agree that "respect" is just a tad overrated when it means that the person you're "respecting" is either going to die (on the one hand), or burn in Hell for eternity on the other if you don't say something. So I think may be a FAR better remake of Matthew 7:12, "treat others to the Bible's warning against murder, and to its warning about God's wrath and eternal Hell that you wish they'd give you if you in their shoes and were considering killing your unborn child".

Of course, where abortion is concerned, two lives are in view, so Matthew 7:12 must be applied in this manner as well, "do whatever you can to save the life of another person, just like you hope they'd do for you ".

If you wish. But I really love my mother and respect her authority over my birth decision.
So I would never interfere with another woman's authority over her own situation.

But you may wish to hog tie every pregnant woman to a bed for 9 months,
assuming that is what you would want for yourself and for your mother.

I have seen quadriplegic disabled women getting abortions who did not wish to test their ability to carry a child, and I have seen 12 year olds raped by their step father who mother had them carry the child full term. So mom decided for the 12 year old and then had a 13 yo and a newborn from her boyfriend in jail to raise. I would not interfere with their decisions. So no, I do not agree on deciding the fate of the child for others carrying the child to term.

I agree that the correct pro-life position is to adopt every child possible and raise them,
to reduce the murder rate.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the
discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He said:
“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.

Well this is actually true - it is after fertilization that a new human being comes into being.
Because it is true it can seem true even when misinterpreted.
Misinterpreted to mean "at" conception, I am sure in your case.

Even “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception," is somewhat true. There is a beginning of the construction of the human beings that we are at conception, it can be seen we "come from there." Like a house has it's beginning with the digging of a foundation, for instance. But at that point it is most certainly not a house, just like there is no human being until one is built.
Whether your esteemed professor understands that or not, I do not know. He does not say it here, but of course you take what you quote to mean what cannot possibly be true.

The dna code established at conception is like a blueprint instructing how the human being will be constructed. It is certainly not itself the construction. THERE IS NO SENSE TO "ONE CELLED HUMAN BEINGS." Whether he thinks there is and you think there is, or not.
I would think he knows what a being, an actual animal member of a species is, but his ideology is probably too warped to be consistent about that.

So this professor's quote is a shoddy shoddy false false "argument."
And certainly should never be presented as anything of value toward the issue.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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"

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.”

Like I said in my just previous post,
“Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception," is somewhat true. There is a beginning of the construction of the human beings that we are at conception, it can be seen we "come from there." Like a house has it's beginning with the digging of a foundation, for instance. But at that point it is most certainly not a house, just like there is no human being until one is built.

So these quotes are likewise shoddy shoddy false false "arguments."
And certainly should never be presented as anything of value toward the issue.