Posted on 01/11/2005 12:29:05 PM PST by beavus
Behaviorally speaking, there's little difference between a newborn baby and a32-week-old fetus. A new wave of research suggests that the fetus can feel, dream, even enjoy The Cat in the Hat. The abortion debate may never be the same.
The scene never fails to give goose bumps: the baby, just seconds old and still dewy from the womb, is lifted into the arms of its exhausted but blissful parents. They gaze adoringly as their new child stretches and squirms, scrunches its mouth and opens its eyes. To anyone watching this tender vignette, the message is unmistakable. Birth is the beginning of it all, ground zero, the moment from which the clock starts ticking.
Not so, declares Janet DiPietro. Birth may be a grand occasion, says the Johns Hopkins University psychologist, but "it is a trivial event in development. Nothing neurologically interesting happens."
Armed with highly sensitive and sophisticated monitoring gear, DiPietro and other researchers today are discovering that the real action starts weeks earlier. At 32 weeks of gestation--two months before a baby is considered fully prepared for the world, or "at term" --a fetus is behaving almost exactly as a newborn. And it continues to do so for the next 12 weeks.
As if overturning the common conception of infancy weren't enough, scientists are creating a startling new picture of intelligent life in the womb. Among the revelations:
o By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the second trimester it can hear.
o Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.
o The fetus savors its mother's meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb.
o Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
o Even a premature baby is aware, feels, responds, and adapts to its environment.
o Just because the fetus is responsive to certain stimuli doesn't mean that it should be the target of efforts to enhance development. Sensory stimulation of the fetus can in fact lead to bizarre patterns of adaptation later on.
The roots of human behavior, researchers now know, begin to develop early--just weeks after conception, in fact. Well before a woman typically knows she is pregnant, her embryo's brain has already begun to bulge. By five weeks, the organ that looks like a lumpy inchworm has already embarked on the most spectacular feat of human development: the creation of the deeply creased and convoluted cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that will eventually allow the growing person to move, think, speak, plan, and create in a human way.
At nine weeks, the embryo's ballooning brain allows it to bend its body, hiccup, and react to loud sounds. At week ten, it moves its arms, "breathes" amniotic fluid in and out, opens its jaw, and stretches. Before the first trimester is over, it yawns, sucks, and swallows as well as feels and smells. By the end of the second trimester, it can hear; toward the end of pregnancy, it can see.
FETAL ALERTNESS
Scientists who follow the fetus's daily life find that it spends most of its time not exercising these new abilities but sleeping. At 32 weeks, it drowses 90 to 95% of the day. Some of these hours are spent in deep sleep, some in REM sleep, and some in an indeterminate state, a product of the fetus's immature brain that is different from sleep in a baby, child, or adult. During REM sleep, the fetus's eyes move back and forth just as an adult's eyes do, and many researchers believe that it is dreaming. DiPietro speculates that fetuses dream about what they know--the sensations they feel in the womb.
Closer to birth, the fetus sleeps 85 or 90% of the time the same as a newborn. Between its frequent naps, the fetus seems to have "something like an awake alert period," according to developmental psychologist William Filer, who with his Columbia University colleagues is monitoring these sleep and wakefulness cycles in order to identify patterns of normal and abnormal brain development, including potential predictors of sudden infant death syndrome. Says Filer, "We are, in effect, asking the fetus: 'Are you paying attention? Is your nervous system behaving in the appropriate way?'"
FETAL MOVEMENT
Awake or asleep, the human fetus moves 50 times or more each hour, flexing and extending its body, moving its head, face, and limbs and exploring its warm wet compartment by touch. Heidelise Als, a developmental psychologist at Harvard Medical School, is fascinated by the amount of tactile stimulation a fetus gives itself. "It touches a hand to the face, one hand to the other hand, clasps its feet, touches its foot to its leg, its hand to its umbilical cord," she reports.
Als believes there is a mismatch between the environment given to preemies in hospitals and the environment they would have had in the womb. She has been working for years to change the care given to preemies so that they can curl up, bring their knees together, and touch things with their hands as they would have for weeks in the womb.
Along with such common movements, DiPietro has also noted some odder fetal activities, including "licking the uterine wall and literally walking around the womb by pushing off with its feet." Laterborns may have more room in the womb for such maneuvers than first babies. After the initial pregnancy, a woman's uterus is bigger and the umbilical cord longer, allowing more freedom of movement. "Second and subsequent children may develop more motor experience in utero and so may become more active infants," DiPietro speculates.
Fetuses react sharply to their mother's actions. "When we're watching the fetus on ultrasound and the mother starts to laugh, we can see the fetus, floating upside down in the womb, bounce up and down on its head, bum-bum-bum, like it's bouncing on a trampoline," says DiPietro. "When mothers watch this on the screen, they laugh harder, and the fetus goes up and down even faster. We've wondered whether this is why people grow up liking roller coasters."
FETAL TASTE
Why people grow up liking hot chilies or spicy curries may also have something to do with the fetal environment. By 13 to 15 weeks a fetus' taste buds already look like a mature adult's, and doctors know that the amniotic fluid that surrounds it can smell strongly of curry, cumin, garlic, onion and other essences from a mother's diet. Whether fetuses can taste these flavors isn't yet known, but scientists have found that a 33-week-old preemie will suck harder on a sweetened nipple than on a plain rubber one.
"During the last trimester, the fetus is swallowing up to a liter a day" of amniotic fluid, notes Julie Mennella, a biopsychologist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. She thinks the fluid may act as a "flavor bridge" to breast milk, which also carries food flavors from the mother's diet.
FETAL HEARING
Whether or not a fetus can taste, there's little question that it can hear. A very premature baby entering the world at 24 or 25 weeks responds to the sounds around it, observes Als, so its auditory apparatus must already have been functioning in the womb. Many pregnant women report a fetal jerk or sudden kick just after a door slams or a car backfires.
Even without such intrusions, the womb is not a silent place. Researchers who have inserted a hydrophone into the uterus of a pregnant woman have picked up a noise level "akin to the background noise in an apartment," according to DiPietro. Sounds include the whooshing of blood in the mother's vessels, the gurgling and rumbling of her stomach and intestines, as well as the tones of her voice filtered through tissues, bones, and fluid, and the voices of other people coming through the amniotic wall. Fifer has found that fetal heart rate slows when the mother is speaking, suggesting that the fetus not only hears and recognizes the sound, but is calmed by it.
FETAL VISION
Vision is the last sense to develop. A very premature infant can see light and shape; researchers presume that a fetus has the same ability. Just as the womb isn't completely quiet, it isn't utterly dark, either. Says Filer: "There may be just enough visual stimulation filtered through the mother's tissues that a fetus can respond when the mother is in bright light," such as when she is sunbathing.
Japanese scientists have even reported a distinct fetal reaction to flashes of light shined on the mother's belly. However, other researchers warn that exposing fetuses (or premature infants) to bright light before they are ready can be dangerous. In fact, Harvard's Als believes that retinal damage in premature infants, which has long been ascribed to high concentrations of oxygen, may actually be due to overexposure to light at the wrong time in development.
A six-month fetus, born about 14 weeks too early, has a brain that is neither prepared for nor expecting signals from the eyes to be transmitted into the brain's visual cortex, and from there into the executive-branch frontal lobes, where information is integrated. When the fetus is forced to see too much too soon, says Als, the accelerated stimulation may lead to aberrations of brain development.
FETAL LEARNING
Along with the ability to feel, see, and hear comes the capacity to learn and remember. These activities can be rudimentary, automatic, even biochemical. For example, a fetus, after an initial reaction of alarm, eventually stops responding to a repeated loud noise. The fetus displays the same kind of primitive learning, known as habituation, in response to its mother's voice, Fifer has found.
But the fetus has shown itself capable of far more. In the 1980s, psychology professor Anthony James DeCasper and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro devised a feeding contraption that allows a baby to suck faster to hear one set of sounds through headphones and to suck slower to hear a different set. With this technique, DeCasper discovered that within hours of birth, a baby already prefers its mother's voice to a stranger's, suggesting it must have learned and remembered the voice, albeit not necessarily consciously, from its last months in the womb. More recently, he's found that a newborn prefers a story read to it repeatedly in the womb--in this case, The Cat in the Hat--over a new story introduced soon after birth.
DeCasper and others have uncovered more mental feats. Newborns can not only distinguish their mother from a stranger speaking, but would rather hear Mom's voice, especially the way it sounds filtered through amniotic fluid rather than through air. They're xenophobes, too: they prefer to hear Mom speaking in her native language than to hear her or someone else speaking in a foreign tongue.
By monitoring changes in fetal heart rate, psychologist JeanPierre Lecanuet and his colleagues in Paris have found that fetuses can even tell strangers' voices apart. They also seem to like certain stories more than others. The fetal heartbeat will slow down when a familiar French fairy tale such as "La Poulette" ("The Chick") or "Le Petit Crapaud" ("The Little Toad") is read near the mother's belly. When the same reader delivers another unfamiliar story, the fetal heartbeat stays steady
The fetus is likely responding to the cadence of voices and stories, not their actual words, observes Fifer, but the conclusion is the same: the fetus can listen, learn, and remember at some level, and, as with most babies and children, it likes the comfort and reassurance of the familiar.
FETAL PERSONALITY
It's no secret that babies are born with distinct differences and patterns of activity that suggest individual temperament. Just when and how the behavioral traits originate in the womb is now the subject of intense scrutiny.
In the first formal study of fetal temperament in 1996, DiPietro and her colleagues recorded the heart rate and movements of 31 fetuses six times before birth and compared them to readings taken twice after birth. (They've since extended their study to include 100 more fetuses.) Their findings: fetuses that are very active in the womb tend to be more irritable infants. Those with irregular sleep/wake patterns in the womb sleep more poorly as young infants. And fetuses with high heart rates become unpredictable, inactive babies.
"Behavior doesn't begin at birth," declares DiPietro. "It begins before and develops in predictable ways." One of the most important influences on development is the fetal environment. As Harvard's Als observes, "The fetus gets an enormous amount of 'hormonal bathing' through the mother, so its chronobiological rhythms are influenced by the mother's sleep/wake cycles, her eating patterns, her movements."
The hormones a mother puts out in response to stress also appear critical. DiPietro finds that highly pressured mothers-to-be tend to have more active fetuses--and more irritable infants. "The most stressed are working pregnant women," says DiPietro. "These days, women tend to work up to the day they deliver, even though the implications for pregnancy aren't entirely clear yet. That's our cultural norm, but I think it's insane."
Als agrees that working can be an enormous stress, but emphasizes that pregnancy hormones help to buffer both mother and fetus. Individual reactions to stress also matter. "The pregnant woman who chooses to work is a different woman already from the one who chooses not to work," she explains.
She's also different from the woman who has no choice but to work. DiPietro's studies show that the fetuses of poor women are distinct neurobehaviorally-less active, with a less variable heart rate--from the fetuses of middle-class women. Yet "poor women rate themselves as less stressed than do working middle-class women," she notes. DiPietro suspects that inadequate nutrition and exposure to pollutants may significantly affect the fetuses of poor women.
Stress, diet, and toxins may combine to have a harmful effect on intelligence. A recent study by biostatistician Bernie Devlin, of the University of Pittsburgh, suggests that genes may have less impact on IQ than previously thought and that the environment of the womb may account for much more. "Our old notion of nature influencing the fetus before birth and nurture after birth needs an update," DiPietro insists. "There is an antenatal environment, too, that is provided by the mother."
Parents-to-be who want to further their unborn child's mental development should start by assuring that the antenatal environment is wellnourished, low-stress, drug-free. Various authors and "experts" also have suggested poking the fetus at regular intervals, speaking to it through a paper tube or "pregaphone," piping in classical music, even flashing lights at the mother's abdomen.
Does such stimulation work? More importantly: Is it safe? Some who use these methods swear their children are smarter, more verbally and musically inclined, more physically coordinated and socially adept than average. Scientists, however, are skeptical.
"There has been no defended research anywhere that shows any enduring effect from these stimulations," asserts Filer. "Since no one can even say for certain when a fetus is awake, poking them or sticking speakers on the mother's abdomen may be changing their natural sleep patterns. No one would consider poking or prodding a newborn baby in her bassinet or putting a speaker next to her ear, so why would you do such a thing with a fetus?"
Als is more emphatic. "My bet is that poking, shaking, or otherwise deliberately stimulating the fetus might alter its developmental sequence, and anything that affects the development of the brain comes at a cost."
Gently talking to the fetus, however, seems to pose little risk. Fifer suggests that this kind of activity may help parents as much as the fetus. "Thinking about your fetus, talking to it, having your spouse talk to it, will all help prepare you for this new creature that's going to jump into your life and turn it upside down," he says--once it finally makes its anti-climactic entrance.
WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON ABORTION?
Though research in fetal psychology focuses on the last trimester, when most abortions are illegal, the thought of a fetus dreaming, listening and responding to its mother's voice is sure to add new complexity to the debate. The new findings undoubtedly will strengthen the convictions of right-to-lifers--and they may shake the certainty of pro-choice proponents who believe that mental life begins at birth.
Many of the scientists engaged in studying the fetus, however, remain detached from the abortion controversy, insisting that their work is completely irrelevant to the debate.
"I don't think that fetal research informs the issue at all," contends psychologist Janet DiPietro of Johns Hopkins University. "The essence of the abortion debate is: When does life begin? Some people believe it begins at conception, the other extreme believes that it begins after the baby is born, and there's a group in the middle that believes it begins at around 24 or 25 weeks, when a fetus can live outside of the womb, though it needs a lot of help to do so.
"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."
"Fetal research only changes the abortion debate for people who think that life starts at some magical point," maintains Heidelise AIs, a psychologist at Harvard University. "If you believe that life begins at conception, then you don't need the proof of fetal behavior." For others, however, abortion is a very complex issue and involves far more than whether research shows that a fetus is alive. "Your circumstances and personal beliefs have much more impact on the decision," she observes.
Like DiPietro, AIs realizes that "people may use this research as an emotional way to draw people to the pro-life side, but it should not be used by belligerent activists." Instead, she believes, it should be applied to helping mothers have the healthiest pregnancy possible and preparing them to best parent their child. Columbia University psychologist William Fifer agrees. "The research is much more relevant for issues regarding viable fetuses--preemies."
Simply put, say the three, their work is intended to help the babies that live--not to decide whether fetuses should.
I agree. That's why I speak of simple easily observed facts (such as the fact that there is no meaningful begin time for a person) rather than resorting to philosophy.
YOU: I would have to disagree with you. You seem hung up on the when -as if defining exactly the 'when' must be determined before attempting to intelligently act upon the matter. Simply put, we know the what -before the sperm there is no new life -after the sperm there is. We can measure and observe the before and after quite easily -the answer is obvious to all but those in denial...
How is this disagreeing with me?
I will say that I am specifically discussing the "when" precisely because a lot of people passionately hold a concept of the "when" that is factually in error. That is, I'm reacting to the emphasis other place on the "when". If you disagree that others are passionate about that false belief, just look at the angry responses I've received.
BTW, the "when" cannot be determined, because as a matter of physical laws, it does not exist.
Actually, it is the converse that is absurd. I don't think I'll ever stopped being amazed at how people don't see this plain truth. I keep thinking that a light bulb might go off and someone like you will yell, "Eureka!" I mean, of all the complex things you think about during a typical day, this ranks way up there with "where will this ball go if I toss it up?"
There is no such thing as a little pregnant, or sort of pregnant.
Label it as you wish, there are different stages of pregnancy, and they are ALL smooth, with no instantaneous jump from not pregnant to pregnant.
Using the example of the plucked hairs, conception is more a case where X hairs are plucked, causing the rest to fall out by themselves.
Compare the hairs to the individual chemical reactions taking place during conception. Then you will see that, since there are FAR more molecules involved in conception than there are hairs in a beard, that conception is actually a much smoother process than whisker plucking.
To put this nicely, you've constructed a false argument with the objective of creating controversy.
No, I'm pointing out a simple fact which I know creates controversy. You say my "argument" is false. Can you tell me what my argument is, and where it is false?
To put it bluntly, you're trolling.
It's true I'm looking for argument, but its for a very good cause. Imagine you took a world tour, then came home and merely said, "The world is not flat." Now if a bunch of angry people started screaming at you "The world is flat, idiot!", would you be a troll?
Trust me, that won't happen until people stop being so passionately committed to well-known falsehoods.
Our ultimate goal is to have abortion completely illegalized, but we know that in a democratic society that is never going to happen (without extreme intervention from above). Therefore, we call for at least restrictions that can be passed with a majority of voters. For this to happen we have to make public such research as this. All we want are sane restrictions at this point in time. When abortions are legal until the baby pops out, when minors can have abortions without their parents being informed yet cannot get their ears pierced, and when any question of viability is met with condemnation about trying to govern women's bodies, our priorities have been skewed.
This all sounds very reasonable to me.
No sanity exists in the abortion debate at this point - when sane restrictions have been made, then we can talk about narrowing things down to a consensus on when life starts.
But there is ****NO**** specific 'start'!!!! Surely that clear fact has some use in the debate!
I haven't tried it yet on pro-choice folks. I wonder if they too embrace some sort of poofism.
Nobody would mistake you for a proud grandparent. :-}
AWGGGGHH!
If a mother thinks that her baby "began" at some infinitessimally precise time point, then she is simply factually in error. How she, or you, could make this error really amazes me.
She should be pondering the universal applicability of the space-time continuum to her perception of seemingly related events in her biological life and concluding that the extra sixty pounds she's carrying and the movements she feels inside her are just a phase in that continuum with no causation nor beginning.
Close, if you take out the "causation" word you snuck in.
I suspect the mother is more concerned with her baby's *existence* and its future. However, if she wanted to become part of the debate on "when life begins" as you have by posting here, then she would be well advised to not contradict the laws of physics.
Ever hear the term "can't see the forest for the trees"?
The issue IS the trees!! I posted the thread, I chose the issue. If you wan't a discussion about the forest, by all means post your own thread. However, it is quite clear that a lot of people are totally wrong about the trees. I would think you would care about that.
If you view life looking only through a microscope, you're bound to miss some of the larger trends and events occurring around you.
If your view of life EXCLUDES looking through a microscope, you're bound to miss some very important fundamentals. If the issue matters to you, I would think you'd want to look at it from all angles.
I suppose you could describe the terrorist act of sawing a man's head off with a sharp knife in similarly benign, molecular terms such that nobody could discern that a murder had occurred.
I can't image how I could do that. This appears to be a nonsensical analogy. Do you want to elaborate?
Hmmm... Let's try a few "meaningful instants":
* Sperm meets egg, fertilizes it
This does not occur in an instant, but over a period of time and involve millions of chemical reactions in serial and in parallel.
* Cells begin dividing
This does not occur in an instant, but over a period of time and involve millions of chemical reactions in serial and in parallel. There is no meaningful specific "begin" time.
* Heart cells begin beating
This does not occur in an instant, but over a period of time and involve millions of chemical reactions in serial and in parallel. There is no meaningful specific "begin" time.
* Measurable brain activity begins
Measure is technology dependent. Surely you don't think that universal truths regarding life are as changing as technology? Also, the brain is a very complex multicellular organ involve trillions of chemical reactions, so this is even smoother than the prior non-instances to mentioned.
* Fetus begins independent movement
Ditto times an order of magnitude. There is no instant.
You've failed to identify any meaningful instant. And if you understood how the universe worked, you wouldn't have even tried.
The same holds true with all the nonhuman examples you gave. Continua are the rule in biology, as it is with the universe in general.
or you have an inexplicable difficulty comprehending the meaning of the word "beginning".
If by "beginning", you refer to some time point in which the nearest states before and after are signficantly different, then there is no beginning.
It certainly has to do with the laws of physics. Its only by your assertion that "the laws of physics" equates to "no beginning nor end".
Do you really think that *I* coined the term "space-time continuum"?
The laws of physics at work on the Hindenburg certainly didn't get in the way of its end. ...nor did they for the Titanic. Both of these vehicles began voyages and continued their intended motion until each ended their respective voyages due to unintended events; the laws of physics themselves directly contributing to their ends.
Sigh. How can I get through to you? I've been perfectly clear, repeatedly, what *I* mean by "begin" and "end". If that is how you mean it in the above paragraph, then those events too truly did not have meaningful beginnings or endings.
If instead you mean "begin" and "end" as some arbitrary line drawn by some person to cover some interval of interest, then I would ask you--is your defense of human life just as arbitrary?
You keep referring to "factually incorrect statements". Do you have some examples? Other than your space-time continuum fetish when addressing the concept of a human life beginning or ending, to what "factually incorrect statements" are you referring?
They've been repeated throughout the thread, but I'll repeat again.
The statement "There exists a specific meaningful time point at which an individual human life begins" is factually false.
Usually people say things like "Life begins at conception" or "We don't know the precise moment when life begins." You might think that people who say these are not referring to specific time points, but are merely referring to interesting short intervals along a continuum. If you think that, you are wrong, as this thread demonstrates.
What does faith have to do with this basic fact? I don't understand why you have to take a rather obvious observational truth, deny it, and then make a religious issue out of it. I don't know your religion, but I know of no religion where this should even be interesting.
What I am saying is quite compatible with the possibility of twinning and chimeras.
-A8
I think you are beginning to understand how I feel.
I state a simple mundane fact and suddenly people start invoking religion, philosophy, Zeno's paradox, and decapitation!
Continua do exist. Either-or does not do away with them.
The claim "when they cease being a part of another" is incoherent, as I explained earlier. No part can be a whole of the same sort as the whole of which it is a part. Hence, no person (i.e. whole) can ever be part of a person. A sperm can cease to be a part of a man. And an egg can cease to be a part of a woman. But a person can never cease to be part of a person *precisely* because a person can never be part of a person. Hence no sperm is a person, and no egg is a person.
A sperm is a living thing, but it is not an organism, only part of an organism. An egg likewise, is a living thing, but it is not an organism, only part of an organism. When the sperm and egg unite, a new thing (i.e. an organism) comes into existence. I already showed (in a previous post above) that this takes place at a certain instant. Furthermore, a human being is a human organism. Therefore, when the sperm and egg unite, a human being comes into existence at a certain instant.
-A8
Ok. Here is your problem. You are a Heraclitean. Your position does not allow for change, because, as Aristotle shows in his _Physics_, all change requires that something stays the same through the change. Your position does not allow that anything stays the same. Therefore, your position does not allow change.
Such a claim (that there is no change) is completely contrary to common sense; we all observe and experience change. Those who deny change, are, like those who deny the reality of the external world, deeply misguided. They have, like Parmenides and Heraclitus, allowed their reasoning to overturn that which is more evident by that which is less evident. Nothing in any of the special sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) shows that there is no substance that endures changes. The special sciences do not address this question. But philosophy does. And philosophy begins with the truths of common sense, including the truth that things change.
-A8
The only similarity is that I and Heralitus (and almost everyone else) understand continua and see that continua exist.
Your position does not allow for change, because, as Aristotle shows in his _Physics_, all change requires that something stays the same through the change. Your position does not allow that anything stays the same. Therefore, your position does not allow change.
My position isn't, and doesn't need to be, that specific. If you like, you can think of time like a stairstep, consisting of tiny discrete intervals during which things are "the same". Those steps are incredibly short, though, so that different things on adjacent steps are different, but insignificantly different. (This isn't my philosophy, just a way for you to understand things with your philosophy.)
So no, you haven't understood me.
Really, it isn't a complicated philosophical issue. Do you understand what a continuum is? I will define it again if you like. That is all you need to know to understand the facts that I speak of.
Beavus, you work so hard to talk down to us, yet you're just another scoffer trying to be subtle in your insult to conservatives and those who desire individual life be protected from conception to grave.
Reasonable place to start? Positivism is self-contradictory. It falls by its own blade, as has been known for the last 40 years. Positivism requires that every truth-claim be in principle verifiable by scientific instruments. But positivism itself is not in principle verifiable by scientific instruments, and so it falls by its own sword. You are right that "what we know is ultimately founded upon what we observe". Aristotle said as much. But positivism is not the same as empiricism. Positivism is a philosopy that denies the very possibility of philosophy. As Aristotle said, if you say that we should not philosophize, in so claiming (and defending such a claim), you must philosophize.
-A8
Have you straightened all these 'silly right to lifers' out yet beavus ... that is your self-proclaimed mission?
What is the actual basis for your argument that there is no begin time for a person? Do you mean we began in the very beginning all those generations ago; that we are all really one being; or that life has never truly begun for any of us?
Give us your definition of life. Then give us the basis for your theory. And tell us when and where you observed these facts, please. Thank you kindly, beavus
-A8
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.