If this so-called wad of cells is left alone, what will be the result 100% of the time?
INSANE. Life begins at conception. People can pretend that isn't so, but it is!
You WILL have this BABY!
Has Shane ever wondered where the baby gets its nutrients after it is born? Does he think they just pop out and head straight for McDonalds?
Shane, on that basis, a newborn is barely at a higher level than the first-trimester embryo/fetus. Would you support killing the newborn?
The mother deserves every right to make a decision to abort her fetus. The supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees Americans have the right to their property. Are pets not considered the property of a human? Humans provide pets with food, water and a habitat, just as a mother provides a fetus a habitat inside of the womb, along with food and oxygen.
Killing pets is generally considered a distasteful act in civilized society, even when it's merciful to the pet, let alone when it's not. Killing pets on general principles is more likely to get you in trouble with the law than aborting a child. Probably not the analogy you were looking for.
Good points.
It is not really about abortion; it is about growing Catholics.
Where are the funerals for the not-implanted-embryos?
Where are they?
Where are the last rights?
Where is the sympathy? One fourth of embryos are dying. Where is the outrage?
Bueler?
During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells.
unborn babies = pets = property = parasites??
* shudder *
Well, when you get right down to it, everybody is just a wad of cells. If this is supposed to be a pro-abortion argument, it is ill-conceived.
"That's right — a quarter of all 'humans' conceived end up 'dying.'"
LOL.
Actually, the percentage of human beings who are conceived and who will subsequently die is a lot closer to 100% than to 25%.
"A fetus is not a living human, and the mother has the right to decide to abort it"
You (Shane Krouse) sound like you're sorry your mother let you live.
Both egg and sperm contain DNA, but neither one is capable by itself of defining an individual. But the DNA of the fertilized egg would exactly match a DNA sample taken from the body of that individual at any point in life. To the best of human understanding, no other point in the process of life constitutes such a marvelous transition - or marks such a perilous time in life.
Only a fortunate few survive to the next milestone of the process, implantation in the uterine wall. Does that make those that do not less human? We speak of this frequent but generally unperceived loss as nature correcting itself, ridding itself of defects, or other rationalizations, but we don't really know if this is true - if there is some difference between those that implant and those that do not.
If these unformed bodies are also lost souls, I feel sure that G_d, in his infinite wisdom, has made provision for them. And if the thought of a soul offends you, think of it instead as simple human identity, entitled to the same respect that you expect for yourself, at the instant it becomes recognizably human. And by the way, we can distinguish it from a tapeworm while still no more than a single cell, with the possible exception of the author of this article.
We do not - can not, in this life - know the origin of the soul, so speculation about a physical event that marks its embodiment is mere prattle, not science. Some believe, some do not, and proof either way is meaningless to either opposite side.
We do know that IVF has produced perfectly normal babies who have become perfectly normal adults - and as far as we can tell, with perfectly normal souls. I believe that the time will come when someone, somewhere, will put a fertilized human egg into some contraption that will protect and nourish it for the necessary months to bring forth a fully normal human baby. When that happens, all arguments about the instant of transition from tissue blob to baby will be for naught.
Ironic, since "sophomore" is a combination of Greek word-stems meaning "worthless wad of cells."
Since the author of this piece is apparently alive, does that mean they skipped the stage of fetus? If they had been aborted as a fetus - does this person contend they'd still be around to write this column.
Reagan had it right in calling those who advocate abortion are hypocrites - "Abortion is advocated only by those who have themselves been born."
I was going to send this person an e-mail, but this part of the article proves this person is too sick and evil to be receptive to it. A human fetus is the same as a tapeworm? Disgusting, sick, and stupid.
I think he's probably had several children aborted. Abortion doesn't stop you from being parent, though - just the parent of a dead baby that you paid to have killed.
An interesting start. If it is not alive, what is there to abort? A non-living thing will not continue to grow, unless it's a cancer. Is that what you're claiming?
A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions.
Neither can an infant. Is an infant not a living human being?
A wad of cells doesn't have the capability to inhale or exhale with its lungs.
Neither can many people on artificial life support. Are they not living human beings?
A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment.
An infant cannot survive independently, neither can small children. They also depend completely on their mothers, or other external sources, for nutriment. Again, many people on artificial life support fit this description as well. Are they not living human beings?
So why would anyone provide a wad of cells with the outrageous status of a living human being?
It's "outrageous" to provide an unborn child with the "status" of a living human being? Would you be similarly "outraged" if I provide you with the status of "wad of cells"? That's what you are, after all. Heck, every living thing can be described as a "wad of cells"! But that description is really used to dodge the profound moral issues involved with the decision to end a life.
Besides, in legal terms, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade concluded that human life does not begin until life can be sustained outside of the womb.
Yes, that was the legal decision. It's hardly a carved-in-stone declaration of immutable truth. It's a very flawed legalistic decision based on the understanding and beliefs of a few flawed, mortal human beings.
Medically speaking, premature fetuses can very rarely be kept alive if they are born before the pregnancy's sixth month, or the end of the second trimester.
Medically speaking, there are lots of human beings who are in an unsurvivable position. This also does not give one license to terminate their lives at will. Imagine a triage center where those who have no hope of recovery are simply ripped limb from limb and thrown in the garbage. Would you be cool with that?
The mother deserves every right to make a decision to abort her fetus.
Would she have the same right to end the life of her infant child? After all, that child can't make its own decisions, provide for itself or survive long on its own. Since you seem to equate self-sufficiency with life, mom should be free to knock off any of her kids that cramp her style until they're living on their own, right?
If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.
Here we begin to sense the true thoughts and feelings of the author. It's a sad glimpse into the mind of a selfish, narrow minded kid.
Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?
The question is easily answered by considering the potential of each. Will a healthy tapeworm, if not eliminated, grow up into a human being? See, it's not really that hard if you use your brain.
Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy.
Sure it is! Have you ever actually witnessed a birth? According to your reasoning, even a child that has been born would be fair game, as long as the umbilical cord is intact. Then, at least mom could be witness to the abortion, as they tear her little body apart or plunge scissors into her skull.
"Shane Krouse is a..."self-righteous, pompous ass.
Apparently brain cells of the cortex begin to form at about day 30. Now, when there are brain cells there might be brain function. Human brain function. Since we are brain-centered now, thinking that the human brain is mainly what differentiates humans from animals, we ought to also think that presence of human brain neurons means the human is undoubtedly present in the foetus at that time. That is within the first trimester.
"A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment".
I propose an experiment for this brilliant young empericist. Take the strongest, fittest, intelligent newborn infant EVER and place that baby on a table in a room with enough food and water for 20 years, perfect climatic conditions and sanitation facilities and lock the door to any outside assistance. Come back in 10 days and tell me if that child is still alive.
The obvious answer does not occur to this moral cretin as he seeks to rationalize yet another vacuous justification to kill that which is so self evidently human.