Life starts after 14 days, say Anglicans

The Age (Australia) ^ | November 5, 2003 | Peta Rasdien

[trad_anglican]

According to the Anglicans, go ahead as long as you do it within the first 14 days.

What, exactly, leads you to believe that he speaks for "the Anglicans?"

[hocndoc]

As I wrote in post 100, the sperm cell is not capable of any more division, differentiation or development. It is not "a life," simply a motile cell.

On the other hand, reproducible observation gives evidence of the fact that healthy human zygotes do divide, the resulting cells are a cohesive unit which differentiate and develop and grow. Each zygote *is* "a life" at fertilization because he or she possesses these qualities -- even when that one life becomes 2, 3, or 4 in his or her development and growth.

[hocndoc]

The AMA hasn't redefined the word, the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and many pro-abortion researchers and abortionists have attempted to do so. But, there are obstacles, such as prior literature and common usage.

However, I don't believe that contraceptives were the motive. History will show that the need to justify the ethics of the destruction of embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization and pre-implantation manipulation of the embryo led to an attempt to find new uses for old words.

There's no actual evidence that the embryo within a woman who has has ovulated while on exogenous hormones is treated any differently than the embryo of a woman who has not been on contraceptives, except that passage through the fallopian tubes may be slowed with the use of progesterone-only pills. No one has done the experiments to show that oral combination contraceptives cause abortions or that the effect of OCP hormones can over-ride the hormones from the corpus luteum after ovulation.

[Diamond]

That certain human beings at very early stages of their lives can make phenocopies of themselves does not affect their inherent status and dignity as human beings.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Following is one of the best answers to this "potential human" garbage that I've ever seen:

"The case in point, is whether the offspring of human parents, at any stage of its existence, could be only a "potential human being"."

POTENTIALITIES (CAPABILITIES) ARE LIMITED TO THE KIND OF THING TO WHICH THEY BELONG. A turnip could never have the capability of reasoning, simply because its parents are never able to bestow such an ability upon their offspring. And they can't bestow it, because they don't possess it themselves. The only abilities possessed by turnips is to do turnip-things. The capability to perform uniquely human actions, such as reasoning, whether at this moment, or only years from now, demands a human subject as its possessor. If the offspring of human parentage, at any time, even in the zygote-stage, possesses the "potentiality to act as a human being," he or she is already a human being. Nothing else could possess that capability. As for the "potentiality to be a human" it would be a contradiction of terms, since the potential and the actual cannot exist simultaneously in anything." [emphasis mine]

From: Link

Cordially,

[MHGinTN]

Your offered reasoning does work to dehumanize the earliest ages of the individual human being's life. Why you reason that way is your problem, and I haven't accused you of drinking the Devil's koolaid ... but the Archbissect has and continues to, in my opinion.

I'm curious to know just what you are expecting from God to you that will establish your certain knowledge of how God sees life at conception?

[syriacus]

What I'm saying is that the difference between a conceptus---which is arguably worthy of all protection as a full human life---and a stem cell---is purely chemical.

It'll be interesting to see just how chemists apply their knowledge to this question.

The 100 wooden building blocks in a child's toybox can be used to make many different structures.

If we are going to use chemical building blocks to determine humanness, we've got a much larger number of building blocks to consider. (It's true that some of the blocks will be duplicates, but their placement will be just as important as their content.)

There are chemical similarities and differences among all cells, even among cells of the same species or the same individual.

Chemistry may hold a key to recognizing humanness, but it seems to me that scientists can already recognize cells that are capable of developing the same way as humans ordinarily develop.

[Aquinasfan]

No one has done the experiments to show that oral combination contraceptives cause abortions

It's my understanding that "the pill" thins the uterine lining which in some cases serves to prevent implantation, thus causing an abortion.

[MHGinTN]

"... but FWIU the cells that develop prior to implantation ultimately become the amniotic sac and do not form part of the actual baby that will develop." I think you are mistaken because the cells of the blastomere are stem cells that will cascade into many lines of cells as the individual embryo continues to live through its lifetime, developing.

In simplified terms, when the blastocele (the inner chamber within the morula) forms, as new cells form within that chamber, they flatten out at the perimeter and some collect in two layers as a mass at one end (to become the yolk sac and embryo body). The blastomeres on the inner surface of the amniotic chamber will combine in tasking with some of the trophoblasts outside the blastocele to generate the exchanges of nutrients and gases. Also, the blastomeres helping to form the inner chamber will be involve in development of the gut and skin of the embryo body developing inside the amniotic chamber. The trophoblasts outside the blastocele chamber are tasked with protection and 'foraging', but they are linked with the inner balstomeres in a way that allows the blood cells formed by the embryoblasts to exchange gases and nutrients for the inner embryo body and yolk sac.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Just what kind of life is it to be a sperm? I think you have watched too much Woody Allen to not understand the difference between being alive and being a living creature. A sperm is not a living creature, it is merely the half of what is required to make a living creature. It is alive but not a creature. So are fish eggs, and other than Roe v Wade, we don't make many laws in reference to them.

If you are going to make a law to protect every sperm, you will have to have only women and eunuchs as guards.

[ArGee]

I will grant Dr. Cannibal one thing - he at least has come up with a scientific point in time with a testable distinction between the before and the after. That is a new one for me.

On the other hand, his statement that it is not a person until it is implanted smacks of discrimination based on location. Since the uterine lining isn't part of the being, how can becoming attached to that lining create a change in the being from non-person to person? That's like saying you're not a person if you live in a slum, but once you move into your own house you become a person.

The one about twinning is interesting and deserves very careful scientific analysis - of the sort lacking in this short article. I have heard that when a zygote is at the 2 cell stage you can replace one of the two cells with a cell from another individual and the zygote will continue to grow. But if you try the same trick with one cell of a 3 cell zygote it will die. I would suggest it's that 3 cell stage that makes the zygote a person. But if someone can prove that any zygote can twin up to 14 days, not just specially formed ones, that might change the equation.

I have no idea when G-d infuses the embryo with a soul. Until there is scientific reason to go with another point, I'll stick with sperm injection or at the 3 cell stage.

Shalom.

[MHGinTN]

You asked, "First, wouldn't culturing of an animal cell be sufficient to demonstrate that the cell is 'an individual form of life'?" Is the cell as it exists naturally an organism or a sub-unit of an organ of an organism? For your direction of argument to make sense, each human organism would have to be considered as a sub-unit of an 'individual' called human race. I'm not interested in going down that obfuscational road.

[MHGinTN]

Selah!

[syriacus]

The cells of these people are coveted by researchers who desire to use the toti- and pleuri-potency of the cells that make up the human body at this stage of development

Do you happen to know if the "manufacture" of Epogen or Procrit depends on fetal stem cells?

[ArGee]

You're right, animists do have a point.

Idiots rarely do.

Shalom.

[syriacus]

You said earlier that a sperm is not a life. Now you say that a sperm is alive. Make up your mind, please. a·live ( …-lºv“) adj. 1. Having life.

"Having life" does not equal "having a life".

Music please....

What a difference an "a" makes.

[mcg1969]

I'm curious to know just what you are expecting from God to you that will establish your certain knowledge of how God sees life at conception?

I am not expecting Him ever to make it certain, MHGinTN. Had he chosen to make everything certain, He could have directed the authors of His Word to do so, but He did not. Indeed it seems to me that Scripture even muddies the pro-life waters somewhat (e.g., Ex. 21:22), but not insurmountably.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that he expects us to treat human life with appropriate dignity even without that complete knowledge. The last time I checked, God did not say we could obey Him only if we fully understood why first.

[mcg1969]

Your offered reasoning does work to dehumanize the earliest ages of the individual human being's life.

Not if it serves to correct the anthropomorphism of the zygote/blastocyst, it doesn't. In other words I can't dehumanize something if it is not human.

And since we don't know God's opinion on the issue, I repeat again I would expect a bit more respect from a fellow pro-lifer.