Skip to comments.
When Human Life Begins
American College of Pediatricians ^
| March 2004
| American College of Pediatricians
Posted on 03/18/2004 6:47:40 PM PST by hocndoc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
This statement of "Where We Stand" is a position paper of a group of Pediatricians who have spintered off from the American Academy of Pediatrics due to basic ethical differences. You may want to look at their other position statements, as well.
1
posted on
03/18/2004 6:47:40 PM PST
by
hocndoc
To: Coleus; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback; MHGinTN; Alamo-Girl
Take a look at this!
2
posted on
03/18/2004 6:49:38 PM PST
by
hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
To: hocndoc; jocon307; firebrand
So true. I look forward to the day when doctors and scientists are again considered the authorities on the issue rather than a group of arrogant judges legislating from the bench.
3
posted on
03/18/2004 7:17:21 PM PST
by
Tabi Katz
To: hocndoc
"The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development." ... And that is why I continue to assert that exploiting human embryos for their body parts--their stem cells--is cannibalism. Of course, the cannibals in Hollywood see nothing amiss in living off of the body parts of other, younger humans. Apparently, the DNC is in agreement with the fine cannibals who donate so much money and face time to the Democrat's power lusts.
4
posted on
03/18/2004 7:51:29 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: hocndoc
Oh! And thank you for the ping, Doctor.
5
posted on
03/18/2004 7:52:18 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: hocndoc; backhoe; Woahhs; Victoria Delsoul; William Wallace; Bryan; aristeides; Bella_Bru; ...
PING))))))
6
posted on
03/18/2004 8:22:57 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: MHGinTN
Thanks for the ping, Marvin.
Bump!
7
posted on
03/18/2004 8:53:40 PM PST
by
Victoria Delsoul
(Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts are: 2 for minor arm and thigh injury and 1 for killing a semi-dead VietCong)
To: hocndoc
Thanks for the ping!
To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
When Human Life Begins - PING
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
9
posted on
03/18/2004 9:17:59 PM PST
by
cpforlife.org
(The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
To: hocndoc
SPOTREP - LIFE - ORIGIN
To: MHGinTN; hocndoc
Thanks for the ping, post.
11
posted on
03/18/2004 9:41:12 PM PST
by
PGalt
To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
DO NO HARM, ping
12
posted on
03/18/2004 9:49:40 PM PST
by
Coleus
(Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
To: Mrs Zip; BOBWADE
ping
13
posted on
03/18/2004 10:12:40 PM PST
by
zip
To: Mrs Zip; BOBWADE
ping
14
posted on
03/18/2004 10:12:42 PM PST
by
zip
To: MHGinTN
BTTT!!!!!!
15
posted on
03/19/2004 5:23:52 AM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: hocndoc
You dont have to convince me! At 6 weeks, 2 days ago, we saw through an ultrasound our grand baby's heartbeat!!!!
Gunnrmike (aka Gunnrgramps)
16
posted on
03/19/2004 5:27:34 AM PST
by
gunnrmike
(Initial success or total failure (Class 2B77))
To: hocndoc
ABSTRACT. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conceptionfertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.
Sounds as though they've been reading the following.
September 16, 1985
Dear Editor,
snip
Genetically speaking, there is a time before which an individual of a sexually reproducing species does not exist and after which it does, be it ever so humble. From that moment to the moment of its dissolution it passes through definable stages of development and degeneration. Here are some that apply to us: zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, pre-adolescent, young adult, mature adult, old-aged. Upon this continuum of development place an asterisk where it becomes human and perhaps another where its humanity ceases as far as the empirical world is concerned. Many would place the asterisks at conception and death (death defined as the irreversible disruption of the continuum). I do. It is this creature appearing at conception and disappearing at death that is human. Against this, talk about seeds not being trees and fertilized eggs not being chickens shows itself for the silly ontogenocentrism that it is-- the full-grown chicken is not a fertilized egg, but both are developmental stages of the same being. An acorn is not a tree, but both are equally oak.
If human being is a later stage of an individuals existence, then what is the name for the being started at conception and ended at death? On the individual level the first view calls it human whether conscious or not, crippled, retarded, senile, diseased, sinful, intelligent, female, or male. The second view permits quality of life and value to society to define the parameters of being human and those who have the power to do so to define those terms, whether a woman and her physician, N.A.R.A.L, or Big Brother.
The bottom line is that there is a struggle between equality under law (metaphysics) and power as the law (empiricism), between doing what we ought and doing whatever we can get away with, between submitting our desires to a higher moral law or enshrining our desires as the only moral law.
One will never find the answers in the charts and tables of science. And for the modern man thats scary.
17
posted on
03/19/2004 5:31:39 AM PST
by
aruanan
To: hocndoc; cpforlife.org
Good post, and thanks for the ping
To: MHGinTN; Alamo-Girl; marron; unspun; xzins; logos; restornu; PatrickHenry
There are many forces driving a desire to redefine humanity. There are many apparent goods to be obtained, from the elimination of genetic defects to the cure of a whole host of diseases through embryonic stem cell manipulation. However, in all of our discussion about human nature, we must never succumb to the objectification or commodification of persons. We cannot allow the cold calculus of utilitarianism [to] influence our inherent, intrinsic understanding of who and what we are
This age of moral confusion cries out for a reaffirmation of that which makes human beings unique and worthy. Such metaphysical pretensions are not preposterous, as Ayn Rand would have us believe, but are the only basis for human dignity. A redefinition of humanity, in order to facilitate utilitarian purposes??? Why, yes -- we see that going on all around us these days, courtesy of the progressive Left and their epigones. They argue we can't let little things like human dignity and sanctity stand in the way of Progress, dontcha know!!! And some people are more "equal" than others -- as Napoleon (as I recall) pointed out in George Orwell's Animal Farm.
Translation: To progressive leftists and many secularists, a pregnant woman has unlimited rights, and her preborn child exactly none. This is what passes for justice these days....
Yet, to "commodify" a child, or any other person for that matter, at any stage of life, is to sin against both God and nature. Human beings are ends in themselves, not means to ends that serve the interests of the powerful.
Justice and truth stand eternally; they are not of human origin. Man can try to displace or redefine them; but all his efforts will be in vain. Who does not stand for Life runs the risk of the second death.... Or so it seems to me. Pace, Ms. Rand.
Thanks so much, Marvin, for the ping to this excellent article.
19
posted on
03/19/2004 10:19:55 AM PST
by
betty boop
(The purpose of marriage is to civilize men, protect women, and raise children. -- William Bennett)
To: betty boop
So very true and so very beautifully written! Thank you, my sister in Christ!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson