Science Backs Up Humanity of the Unborn

[Pharmboy]

Thanks for the ping. Bookmarked for later read...but I scanned a bit of it and it looks right on.

[freeangel]

"the verifiable suffering of the human fetus poses serious reflections for doctors and researchers"

I beg to differ. Abortionists take great delight in maimimg and murdering babies in the name of choice.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"Attention, John Kerry ! Attention, John Kerry! Call your office!"

[DesertDreamer]

Ping for Life!

[syriacus]

This is a great article! Thanks for posting it, Coleus.

[Wilhelm Tell]

"Up to about 25 weeks, whether or not it's sucking its thumb or has personality or all that, the fetus cannot survive outside of its mother. So is that life, or not? That is a moral, ethical, and religious question, not one for science. Things can behave and not be alive. Right-to-lifers may say that this research proves that a fetus is alive, but it does not. It cannot."

Well, if you leave a 1 year old child outside and never attend to it, it will eventually die, so by that standard a 1 year old child is not "viable." If "a fetus is not alive," then why are there those determined to kill it? I forgot -- abortion is big bu$ine$$.

[fortunecookie]

"the verifiable suffering of the human fetus poses serious reflections for doctors and researchers"

I beg to differ. Abortionists take great delight in maimimg and murdering babies in the name of choice.

It should pose problems. Sadly, Planned Avoidance-of Parenthood is probably hot on the trail of this important study - but only to try to discredit or silence it or both.

And this little blurb in the article points out just where their thinking is headed:

Simply put, say the three, their work is intended to help the babies that live--not to decide whether fetuses should.

Babies that live. Funny how they are fetuses who may or may not be given the same respect and care 'we' give other non-humans like whales and spotted owls and trees, but if, and only if, the 'mother' decides it should live, then, pre-born or not, it's now a baby worthy of being saved. Well, unless it has serious defects...even surgically correctable things like cleft-palate.

[cpforlife.org]

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[Coleus]

Partial-Birth Abortion Trial: Babies Feel Pain

[Salvation]

**As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother's voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?**

Wonderful article on the Feast of the Visitation!

[Paulus Invictus]

Send this to Planned Parenhood and other feminazi organizations. They will reject it, but need to read something besides the interminable "it's my body and my choice" tripe they memorize. Abortion is murder and we continue to see millions of babies die needlessly due to liberals and the liberal courts.

[hocndoc]

The psychologists evidently never took a biology course. If they did, it's not evident from their comments.

"Alive" is well defined in the biological sciences, and the zygote qualifies as being alive in that he or she maintains homeostasis, grows, and functions according to the nature of a member of the species at that stage of development.

What these last 2 women are discussing is the "moral status" of the embryo: not his or her biological life, but whether he or she is a legal person. It is true that science cannot determine the personhood of any of us.

However, if there is to be any equality of protection of the right not to be killed, there must be an acknowledgement of all of us who qualify as members of the species. If we were not human persons at conception, then we are faced with the dilemma of naming some other, arbitrary moment when we became persons who have the right to be killed. And that is where we as a society have found ourselves for the last 30 years.

And the delineating moment of personhood varies with geography, the local technology, and the wishes of the very people that the helpless most depend upon.


The next logical question is that if we can become a person because we aquire a certain function, a certain size, or a certain age, then can we become not a person if we no longer measure up? How long must we possess or lack a certain quality before our status changes from non-person to person and back again?

Als raises an interesting question with her assertion that there are many factors to consider when naming another member of our species as a person. How many factors, what weight shall we give each factor, and who will make the decision?

Tell me psychologists, do you measure up to my idea of the qualities of a person? If I'm not convinced - and with logic like this, you probably won't be able to pass the test I design with my own purposes in mind - may I act to enslave or kill you? Why should I even test you, if there's a chance that you aren't a person, why not go ahead and do what ever I want, all the while preventing you from expressing your personhood?


Don't worry, my personal test is human species - not whether your logic matches mine.

[hocndoc]

Sorry about the spelling mistakes. But, I don't think I deserve to lose my status as a person over mispelling "acquire."

[megatherium]

You know, it really bugs me when people call this procedure a "partial birth abortion". That's a politically loaded term invented by anti-abortion activists. We should refer to it by its proper medical term: Dilation and Intact Extraction, or D.I.E. No, wait a minute...

[megatherium]

Just to be on the safe side: my previous post was an attempt at acid humor. I'm certainly pro-life.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Clearly a tool of the prolifer nazis. This man must be reeducated. /sarcasm

[Lunatic Fringe]

"If the debate is whether or not the fetus feels pain, we lose."

-Kathryn Kohlbert, National Abortion Federation, 1996