Quickening

[SPF]

The fact that I feel that if the baby could not live outside the womb any now you cannot kill something that is not living.

So a human being that has not reached viability is actually not living? Do you have anything other than your opinion to support that position?

 

[dogs4thewin]

So a human being that has not reached viability is actually not living? Do you have anything other than your opinion to support that position?

no

 

[SPF]

no

And you’re perfectly fine holding a belief based upon nothing other than your subjective, unsupported opinion? It doesn’t bother you that you are incapable of pointing to either Scripture or Scientific facts to support what you believe?

Should anyone actually take what you say seriously?

 

[fhansen]

At Common Law--the law that was in effect at the time America gained it's Independence--abortion was legal until the time of Quickening, approximately 15 to 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

Why not return to the law as it existed at the time of the Founding Fathers--abortion is legal until quickening, illegal there after unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman?

Thoughts?

BTW, for more on Quickening you might appreciate this article: The "Quickening": Another Way of Looking at the Abortion Debate. - Being Libertarian

If it makes sense to consider a fetus a non-human with no right to life or anything else at one moment in time, and then a human with full legal rights, worthy of protection by civil authority the next moment, then....

 

[Not David]

Our Jewish brothers and sisters would say that life begins at the first breath.



But we don't all agree on exactly when human life begins.

Oh, so Jesus became a person after birth?

 

[Not David]

Life starts at conception, so no.

 

[gideon123]

Lets look at a recent incident in the news. You have probably heard that a Chinese scientist did gene editing on human beings. This action brought great criticism from the scientific community. The man involved will probably lose his profession permanently, and it is possible that he could go to jail in China.

Now ... as part of the experiment he created 30 human embryos. Fertilized embryos, new living people, if you will. He analyzed them, chose 2 healthy embryos, and discarded the rest. What does that mean. It means that 28 embryos were killed. Two were implanted into human mothers. Why would he do this? Because he needed to check the results of his gene editing experiment, and he wanted to implant healthy embryos that will produce healthy children.

You can see that the ethical implications are quite big. Should a human embryo be treated the same as a frog embryo? Can human embryos simply be discarded? I am not sure about the ago of these embryos .. i am guessing they were a few days, or maybe a couple of weeks. They had multiple cells, but probably no development of organs or brains.

This was done. It is a fait accompli. And perhaps a small taste of what is coming in the 21st century, where our idea about the sanctity of life may be tossed out of the window entirely.

Finally, no-one knows yet if the children born in China from this experiment will be healthy, or not. It truly is an experiment, albeit an experiment on real human lives. Hence the great outcry about what was done.

 

[zelosravioli]

Lets look at a recent incident in the news. You have probably heard that a Chinese scientist did gene editing on human beings. This action brought great criticism from the scientific community. The man involved will probably lose his profession permanently, and it is possible that he could go to jail in China.

Now ... as part of the experiment he created 30 human embryos. Fertilized embryos, new living people, if you will. He analyzed them, chose 2 healthy embryos, and discarded the rest. What does that mean. It means that 28 embryos were killed. Two were implanted into human mothers. Why would he do this? Because he needed to check the results of his gene editing experiment, and he wanted to implant healthy embryos that will produce healthy children.

You can see that the ethical implications are quite big. Should a human embryo be treated the same as a frog embryo? Can human embryos simply be discarded? I am not sure about the ago of these embryos .. i am guessing they were a few days, or maybe a couple of weeks. They had multiple cells, but probably no development of organs or brains.

This was done. It is a fait accompli. And perhaps a small taste of what is coming in the 21st century, where our idea about the sanctity of life may be tossed out of the window entirely.

Finally, no-one knows yet if the children born in China from this experiment will be healthy, or not. It truly is an experiment, albeit an experiment on real human lives. Hence the great outcry about what was done.

The gene editing story is interesting, I heard one commentator say it may be the beginning of the end, maybe... but I think it really deserves a thread of its own, not this one. How about making a thread for it?
Update, see below: My mistake sorry, I 'assumed' the Chinese scientists baby embryos were not babies yet because they were single cells when genetically altered. I suppose I fell into the trap of a presupposition - that single cell human embryos are not 'people' yet. Also I didn't catch that the other cells/embryos in this experiment where thrown away or 'something' (being raised in a shed somewhere in China?)

 

[redleghunter]

I only find it to be murder really if at the time of the abortion the baby was developed enough to stand a shot at making it out of the wound. If not developed enough to live outside the wound then well I would neither encourage another woman to seek an abortion, nor would I seek one for myself, but legally if a woman chooses to that should be an option.

You are addressing two things here. The legality and moral nature.

Is it your view the secular law determines if abortion is moral or immoral?

 

[redleghunter]

The fact that I feel that if the baby could not live outside the womb any now you cannot kill something that is not living.

How is the human fetus not alive. He or she is alive that’s biologically a fact but still in the womb right where it belongs until birth. That’s the natural process.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh, so Jesus became a person after birth?

Good point. Sometimes the abortion debate truly confronts the humanity of the Divine Logos. Gabriel did announce to Blessed Mary she would conceive.

I find it inconceivable our Lord was at some point not human or alive in the womb of Mary.

 

[blackribbon]

The fact that I feel that if the baby could not live outside the womb any now you cannot kill something that is not living.

The point that a baby can survive outside the womb keeps getting younger and younger. I believe that using this is more a measure of technology than the point of living. A baby is fully human at conception. Everything else is just a measure of developmental stage. And to say that a baby isn't alive unless it can live outside the womb is basically the same as saying that anyone who needs any form of life support is not alive either. The fact that we continue to have ICU units in hospital says we still consider these people alive. A baby breathes long before he uses his lungs. The oxygen crosses from the mothers lungs to the baby's blood system.

As for the quickening...I never was able to tell what was gas and what was baby movement until close to delivery. It isn't really a measurable moment.

 

[CitizenD]

Whether that is when life begins is really the point of the abortion debate.

I disagree. I don't know anyone on the pro-choice side who frames it as "when life begins." My understanding is that it is about when a fetus has properties deserving of protection: a chance at life outside the womb, components of consciousness etc.

 

[gideon123]

I dont think you folks understood what I said. So let me try to slow down and say this clearly.

When the Chinese geneticist made 30 embryos, he didn't 'mix them up in the kitchen'. He got sperm from human fathers. He got eggs from human mothers. He created test-tube bsbies. So unless you believe that a test-tube baby is "not a person" ... then the argument is directly relevant to the discussion here.

The Chinese geneticist discarded 28 of these embryos. He tossed them in the trash. Done deal.

And the world does not care. He is not in trouble for doing this. The strenuous objections of scientists are not related to the fact that 28 human embryos were tossed away. The scientists are concerned about other issues.

There is no difference between growing a foetus in a test tube, or growing one in a mother's womb. Either way, after 2 weeks of life, you have the same result. Therefore, 28 of these foetuses were tossed in the junk pile. And the world never even blinked.

So if your personal viewpoint is that life begins at conception, then your viewpoint just got punted. The world of the 21st century just kicked that idea aside. I'm not saying it is wrong ... just pointing out the reality of where we are today.

Blessings!

 

[dogs4thewin]

The point that a baby can survive outside the womb keeps getting younger and younger. I believe that using this is more a measure of technology than the point of living. A baby is fully human at conception. Everything else is just a measure of developmental stage. And to say that a baby isn't alive unless it can live outside the womb is basically the same as saying that anyone who needs any form of life support is not alive either. The fact that we continue to have ICU units in hospital says we still consider these people alive. A baby breathes long before he uses his lungs. The oxygen crosses from the mothers lungs to the baby's blood system.

As for the quickening...I never was able to tell what was gas and what was baby movement until close to delivery. It isn't really a measurable moment.

It is getting younger and younger, but that is not the same thing as saying conception. There are nine months between conception and a full term baby. The second a child is conceived is not when they can live outside the mother.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You are addressing two things here. The legality and moral nature.

Is it your view the secular law determines if abortion is moral or immoral?

Secular law is what gets someone incarcerated. That is the one enforceable on this Earth and so that is the one I tend to go with.

 

[blackribbon]

It is getting younger and younger, but that is not the same thing as saying conception. There are nine months between conception and a full term baby. The second a child is conceived is not when they can live outside the mother.

Right now, babies born at 23-24 weeks (less than 6 months in the mother) are surviving. The primary problem at this age is that the lungs are not yet developed enough to breath. They are now developing artificial wombs that allow a baby to live and develop before their lungs are ready to function. When they can do this, who knows how young a fetus will be able to live independent of a mother's womb.

The ability to breath independently does not define "life". There are many babies who are living in NICUs on ventilators who are not breathing independently. To intentionally kill a baby on a ventilator is considered murder. So why wouldn't killing a baby in the mother's womb (it's temporary life support) be killing a baby.

I have cared for a mother who miscarried her baby at 12 weeks. She brought her baby in the hospital with her in a paper cup because she loved that baby and wanted to have a funeral for her. Both her and the father wept for that perfect tiny little baby. The difference between a baby and an aborted baby is only how much the mother wanted it. Otherwise, the aborted baby is exactly like the baby that will eventually be born, live a long life, and grow into an old man or old woman.

An egg or a sperm is a potential human being. An embryo and fetus are actual human beings......just a different developmental stage from a human baby and a human toddler and a human adolescent and a human elderly person. However, all stages are completely human and alive. And a completely dependent fetus is no less valuable as a completely dependent elderly grandparent. Sadly, the value of a human is often determined by if they are loved by anyone. However, we can not just kill an elderly person that no one wants ... we can only kill a baby that no one wants.

Can you imagine allowing adult children to be able to decide that their parents are a bother and inconvenient and be able to put a high sodium IV fluid into their bodies that makes the organs fail and the body to literally fall apart, then remove the limbs of granny so that she is easier to carry out of the nursing home and drop in a trash can?

 

[blackribbon]

I dont think you folks understood what I said. So let me try to slow down and say this clearly.

When the Chinese geneticist made 30 embryos, he didn't 'mix them up in the kitchen'. He got sperm from human fathers. He got eggs from human mothers. He created test-tube bsbies. So unless you believe that a test-tube baby is "not a person" ... then the argument is directly relevant to the discussion here.

The Chinese geneticist discarded 28 of these embryos. He tossed them in the trash. Done deal.

And the world does not care. He is not in trouble for doing this. The strenuous objections of scientists are not related to the fact that 28 human embryos were tossed away. The scientists are concerned about other issues.

There is no difference between growing a foetus in a test tube, or growing one in a mother's womb. Either way, after 2 weeks of life, you have the same result. Therefore, 28 of these foetuses were tossed in the junk pile. And the world never even blinked.

So if your personal viewpoint is that life begins at conception, then your viewpoint just got punted. The world of the 21st century just kicked that idea aside. I'm not saying it is wrong ... just pointing out the reality of where we are today.

Blessings!

Actually that is a main issue for those who have issues with IVF...what should happen to the little babies and little souls that don't get implanted? However, there is a difference with these babies not living because they never were in an environment that was viable for life and development (the same way an ectopic pregnancy isn't viable)...and killing a baby that IS alive, growing, and developing in a viable environment.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Right now, babies born at 23-24 weeks (less than 6 months in the mother) are surviving. The primary problem at this age is that the lungs are not yet developed enough to breath. They are now developing artificial wombs that allow a baby to live and develop before their lungs are ready to function. When they can do this, who knows how young a fetus will be able to live independent of a mother's womb.

The ability to breath independently does not define "life". There are many babies who are living in NICUs on ventilators who are not breathing independently. To intentionally kill a baby on a ventilator is considered murder. So why wouldn't killing a baby in the mother's womb (it's temporary life support) be killing a baby.

I have cared for a mother who miscarried her baby at 12 weeks. She brought her baby in the hospital with her in a paper cup because she loved that baby and wanted to have a funeral for her. Both her and the father wept for that perfect tiny little baby. The difference between a baby and an aborted baby is only how much the mother wanted it. Otherwise, the aborted baby is exactly like the baby that will eventually be born, live a long life, and grow into an old man or old woman.

An egg or a sperm is a potential human being. An embryo and fetus are actual human beings......just a different developmental stage from a human baby and a human toddler and a human adolescent and a human elderly person. However, all stages are completely human and alive. And a completely dependent fetus is no less valuable as a completely dependent elderly grandparent. Sadly, the value of a human is often determined by if they are loved by anyone. However, we can not just kill an elderly person that no one wants ... we can only kill a baby that no one wants.

Can you imagine allowing adult children to be able to decide that their parents are a bother and inconvenient and be able to put a high sodium IV fluid into their bodies that makes the organs fail and the body to literally fall apart, then remove the limbs of granny so that she is easier to carry out of the nursing home and drop in a trash can?

no, that would not be good and in fact that one could get you incarcerated for years.

 

[SPF]

I disagree. I don't know anyone on the pro-choice side who frames it as "when life begins." My understanding is that it is about when a fetus has properties deserving of protection: a chance at life outside the womb, components of consciousness etc.

You are correct. The debate over the morality of abortion is not about when human life begins. We already know when a new human being comes into existence, that is settled science. A new individual human being with its own unique DNA comes into existence at fertilization.

The debate over whether or not it’s morally acceptable to kill the innocent human is based upon an arbitrary and made up term known as personhood.

The argument goes that human persons are morally valuable and worthy of protection, but human beings are not. As demonstrated earlier, this line at which a human being becomes a human person is 100% arbitrary, subjective, and made up based upon whatever the person putting forth the argument “feels” is the right criteria. It’s an indefensible position.

The only people who try to make a distinction between a human being and a human person are those who are attempting to allow an action to be committed against the human being that would otherwise be considered immoral.

As Christians who look to Scripture as our authority, we can see that God declares that all humans are created in His image and possess inherent moral worth and value. Our moral worth is rooted in what God says, not our age, location in which we live, or even the how in which we came into existence.

So if your personal viewpoint is that life begins at conception, then your viewpoint just got punted. The world of the 21st century just kicked that idea aside. I'm not saying it is wrong ... just pointing out the reality of where we are today.

No, what it shows is that this singular doctor committed a terribly immoral action. And it looks as if he will on some level be held accountable.