Thursday, 30 July 2009

When does human life begin?


For years abortion proponents have raised the question of when human life begins. As a result terms like "potential human life" have been grabbed up by the media, abortion apologists and the like. But what is the truth about the beginings of life? Here is what experts across the medical and scientific spectrum are saying on the subject.

In a letter to the New York Times submitted February 14, 1973, noted fetologist, Dr. Landrum B. Shettles, accuses the Supreme Court of deny when human life begins. In the letter Dr, Landrum states:

"Concerning when life begins, a particular aggregate of hereditary tendencies (genes and chromosomes) is first assembled at the moment of fertilization when an ovum (egg) is invaded by a sperm cell. This restores the normal number of required
chromosomes, 46, for survival, growth, and reproduction of a new composite individual. "By this definition a new composite individual is started at the moment of fertilization. However, to survive, this individual needs a very specialized environment for nine months, just as it requires sustained care for an indefinite period after birth. But from the moment of union of the germ cells, there is under normal development a living, definite, going concern. To interrupt a pregnancy at any stage is like cutting the link of a chain; the chain is broken no matter where the link is cut. Naturally, the earlier a pregnancy is interrupted, the easier it is technically, the less the physical, objective encounter. To deny a truth should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

The immediate product of
fertilization is a human being
In a 1999 article entitled, When do human beings (normally) begin? "scientific" myths and scientific facts, Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. gives a scientific view on the beginning of life.

She begins with some basic facts about embryos:

"To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization--the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte--usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole humanbeing. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced."

She then looks at the early stages of the development of babies, pointing out that they have traits particular to themselves and to human beings:

"This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.) Finally, this new human being--the single-cell human zygote--is biologically an individual, a living organism--an individual member of the human species."

She is not alone in her observation. William J. Larsen, whose textbooks are used on college campuses across the country states in his book, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997 pg. 20):

"… [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual." (Emphasis added.)

The entire text of her article can be read here

Human life begins at conception—fertilization

The American College of Pediatriciansin an abstract titled, When Human Life Begins, states that it concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception—fertilization.

Further they say,

"that this definition (when human life begins) has been expounded since prior to Roe vs. 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."To read the entire abstract click here

Quick Quote

"Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of human embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being."

Dr. C. Ward Kischer ,Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology of the
University of Arizona School of Medicine, American College of Pediatricians

Is the fetus a Baby?

According to testimony published in the Report of South Dakota Task Force to study abortion completed in December 2005, Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a nationally celebrated molecular biologist who has patented various polymerase chain reaction techniques, observed that until the development of molecular biology and modern molecular biological techniques,

"Most scientific knowledge concerning human identity and human development prior to birth was based solely upon gross morphological observations and biochemical studies. Over the past twenty years there have been extraordinary scientific medical and technological advances and discoveries which expose the rather rudimentary level of knowledge and ignorance of science, errors of fact and judgment concerning past scientific understanding of the child's existence as a human being, the child's early development and ability to react to the child's environment and feel pain prior to birth. The new techniques developed through the exploding revolution over the past twenty years permits scientists to observe human existence and development at a molecular level, which is applicable in determining genetic uniqueness, genetic diseases and related information through the analysis of human genes well in advance of the old gross, anatomical observation."

He further states, "There can no longer any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization."

"A human being at an embryonic age and that human being at an adult age are naturally the same, the biological differences are due only to the differences in maturity. Changes in methylation of cytosine demonstrate that the human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age."

Modern molecular biology has discovered that by the third cell division (long before implantation) all control of growth and development are established by the child's DNA. This means that immediately after conception, all programming for growth of the human being is self-contained.

Quick Quote

"(it is) generally accepted in medical circles that a fetus or embryo is a separate human being . . .Because abortion is a unique procedure in that a physician is terminating the life of one of her patients, the utmost care must be taken to make sure the woman deciding to proceed with such a termination is fully informed of this."

Dr. Yvonne Seger
Chairs the obstetrics and gynecology wing
Avera McKennan Hospital

Fertilization not Implantation marks
the beginning of human life

Patrick Lee, professor of bioethics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, wrote an essay, The First Fourteen Days of Human Life, published in The New Atlantis that debates the use on non-implanted embryos for science.

From the very beginning of their article these men attack the shaky foundation of the ethics behind the use of embryos for science:

"Most people, who point to implantation as the beginning of an individual human life, offer not the slightest bit of evidence to support their claim, relying instead on an alleged intuition. But since such intuitions can be matched by contrary intuitions, and since the alleged intuitions contradict the evidence supplied by embryological science, they have no evidential weight whatsoever."

They go on to artfully walk through the developmental stages of the embryo from day one through day six. Pointing out the fact that the events that occur are only a matter of the embryo maturing rather than experiencing events that cause a radical change of direction or purpose.

In conclusion they state:

"Science has not solved every mystery of early human development. But human embryology has advanced sufficiently to enable us to dismiss certain fallacies about when a new human life comes to be. We do not doubt the good faith of those who believe that individual life begins at implantation or after the powers of twinning and fusion have passed. But arguments advanced to support these beliefs collapse under scrutiny. We must not let the desire to use human embryos in research obscure our grasp of what those embryos truly are from day 1: namely, nascent members of the human species, worthy of that fundamental respect and protection that justice demands for every member of the human family."

The entire essay can be read by clicking here


For those of you who have had an abortion in the past or are considering one now, PLEASE know that forgiveness can be found by getting right with your Creator. Visit here for more details.

see also should a woman have an abortion if raped? -
Should'nt a woman whose baby is going to die anyway have an abortion.
- is abortion safer than childbirth? and having an abortion is the toughest descision, you have no right to interfere

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

The Miracle Of Life

Abortion: What about ectopic pregnancies and other diseases?

see also should a woman have an abortion if raped? -
Should'nt a woman whose baby is going to die anyway have an abortion. - is abortion safer than childbirth? and having an abortion is the toughest descision, you have no right to interfere.

When putting together this website, I feel its important to research a standpoint before commenting on it or enforcing it.

Some of the hottest issues to come at us from the launch of this website is that of diseases that a child has, both in the womb and after birth. Where the standpoint is justifying abortion on the issues of such things as ectopic pregnancies and disease such as anencephaly.

While tackling this subject I have had the joy to find that Abortion is in NO way justified in the cases of anencephaly and ectopic pregnancies.

There are many stories out there of experiences and survival of both mother and child where such conditions are found.

For example: here we find five cases where a child and mother have survived an ectopic pregnancy.

Here we see where a child has survived having anencephaly. Also there are preventative methods that have a high success rate: such as here. Even if the child is diagnosed with anencephaly, there are plenty of great stories where the parent(s) have opted to allow the child to die naturally and in doing so have enjoyed the childs relatively short life (see here for such stories).

To summerise, we MUST search out such things before making rash choices. One wonders how many more amazing stories like the above would be testified, had the choice to abort not been made. We have no idea what will happen to a child, we cannot play guessing games when the life of a child is at stake.

For those of you who have had an abortion in the past, PLEASE know that forgiveness can be found by getting right with your Creator. Visit here for more details.

Friday, 17 July 2009

"Having an abortion is a tough decision, you have no right to interfere"

see also should a woman have an abortion if raped?
Should'nt a woman whose baby is going to die anyway have an abortion. and is abortion safer than childbirth?

Murdering your child should be a tough decision. Just imagine how cold-blooded a woman would have to be to say it was no big deal. But simply because a decision is tough, does not mean it is either morally defensible or beyond the legitimate interest of the law. If a man is thinking about killing his 10-year-old daughter to collect on an insurance policy, it may be the toughest decision he ever had to make but that doesn’t mean it should be legal.

Of course, the real question is, why is abortion the toughest decision a woman will ever make? Perhaps it’s because within every woman who submits to an abortion, is the realization she is murdering her own baby.

Abortion safer than childbirth?

see also should a woman have an abortion if raped? and Should'nt a woman whose baby is going to die anyway have an abortion.

To begin with, abortion is certainly not safer for the baby. As for the mom, if we buy into this myth that abortion is safer than childbirth, and if our goal is to protect women, why aren’t we encouraging women to abort all of their pregnancies? Obviously, that would save the most women. Also, if we’re trying to protect women from their children, we should allow women to legally kill their born children as well. After all, children sometimes cause the death of a parent through an accident, and some will even grow up to one day abuse or murder their parents.


Tuesday, 14 July 2009

shouldn’t a woman whose baby is going to die anyway have an abortion?

Doctors are not always right when they make this diagnosis, but even when they are, there is an enormous moral distinction between the natural death of a child and the intentional killing of one. It is the same as the distinction between a man dying from a heart attack or being killed in a holdup.

The question is, once we have adopted this “going-to-die-anyway” standard, why apply it only to the unborn? If a man is charged with murder, shouldn’t we drop the charges if we discover that the victim already had a fatal disease? Or when certain medical experiments are too dangerous to be attempted under normal circumstances, why shouldn’t we force prisoners on death row to participate since they’re going to die anyway?

see also should a woman have an abortion if raped?

Sunday, 12 July 2009

A 12 year old on abortion

Should a woman have an abortion if raped?

Why should a woman who was the victim of rape or incest have to bear a child?

When pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest, the baby is not only the child of the rapist but of the woman as well. Today, it is not unusual for rape victims who aborted their children to say they have come to grips with having been the victim of someone else’s violence, but cannot accept that they inflicted violence on their own baby. On the other hand, you never hear a rape victim who did not have an abortion later say she wished she had. In fact, they often see the baby as the only good thing that came from the situation.

There are those who argue that this baby would be a constant reminder of the rape. When adoption is suggested, the response is that many women are not emotionally able to carry a child for nine months and then give it to someone else to raise. In other words, we’re asked to believe that the kind of woman who would be traumatized by placing her child with a loving family, would be happier if her baby was brutally ripped to shreds, thrown in a dumpster and hauled off to a landfill.

Even if we bought into that, let’s imagine that a woman was kidnapped and held for two years during which time she gave birth to her captor’s son. When rescued, the woman says the baby is a constant reminder of her ordeal but that she could not stand to give him up to someone else to raise. Would we allow her to have him killed? After all, the dynamics used to justify abortion also exist in this situation.

Other people rationalize abortion for rape and incest because the pregnancy was beyond the woman’s control. That too is illogical. Allowing a victim of violence and brutality to inflict violence and brutality upon her own child will not return the control that the rapist stole from her, nor will it address the physical or psychological damage that was done to her.

Finally, we must never forget that the unborn child created through an act of violence is no less a living human being than the one created through an act of love. And just as we would not discriminate against a five-year-old who was conceived in rape or incest, neither should we discriminate against an unborn child who was so conceived.

from with permission

Saturday, 4 July 2009

happy birthday?

if this has touched you or you relate to it in any way, please click here