Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
Risk is the keyword here. There are PLENTY of women who have abortions and are 100%, perfectly fine; even when they need to have surgery or need to stop it during fetal development.
A question I would like to pose to those who are AGAINST abortions, is this:
What (in life in general) do you consider living and sentient?
Also, at what point do you believe the development in pregnancy in which the "baby" is sentient, or "human?"
Explain your views and reasons and I'll chime my two cents in.
The risks, while very important, are only part of the issue, the other part being that children are being murdered.
Uh, well there's no argument that the child in the womb is alive. Sentience is a completely different and more complex issue, and may ultimately be philosophical in nature. At least that's my understanding of sentience, and thus why arguing about it is pointless since no one knows for certain when we develop it. It's the same issue with souls, which is ultimately a religious matter (and I know how most of you folk feel about that ;))
But scientifically, we can prove two things: the child is human and it is alive. That is the truth, right from fertilisation.
Congratulations, you just posted a (fake, by the way, read PS) picture of a child supposedly in the 5th month of development, nearing the 3rd trimester. Also, that image is suppose to be from an illegal "abortion mill," in which is a picture of "Baby Malachi," coined by fundie (extreme) religious groups.
Late abortions that take place after 5 months are EXTREMELY rare, and not only that, illegal. This is the point where abortion isn't even a possibility and you better be prepared for parenthood.
When people discuss abortion, they don't talk about babies 5 months in. They talk about recent pregnancies where you need to make a decision if you're going to have a child or not. At this point, the "baby" looks NOTHING like that image. That's WAY past the Embryo stage (Embryogenesis).
If that's the type of thing you picture when you think "abortion" then no wonder you're so against it. Unfortunately for you, me, and the rest of the world, that's not how abortions are performed, and not WHEN abortions are performed.
When people talk about the "Abortion" debate, and they're FOR abortion, that's totally NOT what they're talking about, at all, period.
However, certain fundamentalists and "shock value" groups would like you to believe that, to support their case. (Which is usually, but not always, based off a religious belief.)
I hope I cleared that up for you. So, now you'll show me a REAL image of a "baby's face" that occurs in the first 1-3 weeks of pregnancy, or during Embryogenesis, right?
PS. After you read this, or even if you have read it, I think I should point out and explain just how the picture is fake (and also misleading) and why I described the origins of something that's suppose to be fake. First off, note the ruler. The side you're seeing there is CM, not Inches. That was done on purpose by the aforementioned groups, to give the appearance of a larger fetus. Secondly, the source of this picture is real, but a slightly different image from what you just linked. The original image is of an aborted fetus with gray skin. It was aborted via laminaria through an intra-amniotic injection, something done on fetuses which will not survive a few days past birth; or was done in an instance to preserve the mother's life. If the procedure was done while the fetus was alive, its skin would be the pinkish color of its left leg.
In a nutshell, the fetus was dying during the child birth anyway, or was causing complications in which would kill the mother (and thus, the child.) A procedure was done, which is NOT part of standard "abortion" -- nor was it really an "abortion" under the term of the debate.
Again, I state, that abortions THAT LATE in the pregnancy rarely happen, aren't meant to happen, and is not what people are talking about when they talk about abortion. People use such images to "scare" and frighten people into changing their minds about abortions... But the same exact people are altering pictures and showing mutilated pictures of fetuses and babies that have nothing to do with standard abortion procedures. Why would these groups do this, I wonder? Couldn't be anything about hiding, scaring, or imposing certain religious views onto the general public, now could it?
Congratulations, you just posted a (fake, by the way) picture of a child supposedly in the 5th month of development, nearing the 3rd trimester. Also, that image is from an illegal "abortion mill," in which is a picture of "Baby Malachi," coined by fundie (extreme) religious groups.
Late abortions that take place after 5 months are EXTREMELY rare, and not only that, illegal. This is the point where abortion isn't even a possibility and you better be prepared for parenthood.
When people discuss abortion, they don't talk about babies 5 months in. They talk about recent pregnancies where you need to make a decision if you're going to have a child or not. At this point, the "baby" looks NOTHING like that image. That's WAY past the Embryo stage (Embryogenesis).
If that's the type of thing you picture when you think "abortion" then no wonder you're so against it. Unfortunately for you, me, and the rest of the world, that's not how abortions are performed, and not WHEN abortions are performed.
When people talk about the "Abortion" debate, and they're FOR abortion, that's totally NOT what they're talking about, at all, period.
However, certain fundamentalists and "shock value" groups would like you to believe that, to support their case. (Which is usually, but not always, based off a religious belief.)
I hope I cleared that up for you. So, now you'll show me a REAL image of a "baby's face" that occurs in the first 1-3 weeks of pregnancy, or during Embryogenesis, right?
Frozen Fetuses Found During Doctor's Office Raid
Regardless of the authenticity of the photo, your claims are false. Abortion is just as much an issue later on as it is at the start of the pregnancy, you do not speak for the rest of the world, and both should be discussed. "More than two dozen frozen fetuses" were found at this one clinic, demonstrating that it is not as rare as you would like it to be. Late-term abortions are legal in a number of US states and other countries, so you're wrong again about the legality of such abortions. Furthermore, what is the difference between a 20 week and a 21 week old baby besides a few days? Abortion is a slippery slope my friend.
It's nice you admit that these people actual support the murder of children rather than "choice" - political correctness has always bothered me.
Oh and to further demonstrate the risks associated with abortion, the woman in the article died during the procedure.
I myself don't approve of shock techniques - people don't learn that way. However, again while the image may be false, the circumstances that may lead to such an occurrence exist and are active even today.
So now that you know about just how grim an abortion can be, how do you feel?
Isn't that like saying if you support your relative having brain surgery, you need to know what the surgery looks like?
Just saying. I could really care less about the matter, but what makes me mad is when you get these retards who plaster images like the above one all over the side of a van and park it along the road during parade's/car cruises. Kids don't need to see that crap.
Frozen Fetuses Found During Doctor's Office Raid
Regardless of the authenticity of the photo, your claims are false. Abortion is just as much an issue later on as it is at the start of the pregnancy, you do not speak for the rest of the world, and both should be discussed. "More than two dozen frozen fetuses" were found at this one clinic, demonstrating that it is not as rare as you would like it to be.
2 dozen = 24. Also, this type of thing does go on in some places, yes. "Rare" is a term to compare the very small number of around 24, to the possibly millions of "regular" abortions that go on. The fact that it gets a specific story in the news, and you don't see this story popping up every day, every hour... Makes it rare.
Late-term abortions are legal in a number of US states and other countries, so you're wrong again about the legality of such abortions.
It was obviously considered illegal by this guy. Again, this isn't the type of abortion people are talking about when they talk about "pro-choice" or simply having an abortion. This is the type of thing, the thing you're talking about, is where shady doctors and misinformed victims, are conned and put in harms way.
Furthermore, what is the difference between a 20 week and a 21 week old baby besides a few days? Abortion is a slippery slope my friend.
No, they don't support the murder of children. People believe women should have a "choice" to abort an embryo, and in rare cases a fetus in it's early development.
There's no political correctness needed. It's called "abortion" for a reason. The process is aborted, before it can be considered "whole."
Oh and to further demonstrate the risks associated with abortion, the woman in the article died during the procedure.
Aside from reiterating the fact that you believe people who wish to stop pregnancy are MURDERing CHILDREN. You use those words a lot, to try to place shock value in those who are reading what you're attempting to convey.
people don't learn that way. However, again while the image may be false, the circumstances that may lead to such an occurrence exist and are active even today.
And in that particular case, of that particular image, depending on the backstory, is completely wrong. (Not sure if you read my PS before typing this.)
So now that you know about just how grim an abortion can be, how do you feel?
Just saying. I could really care less about the matter, but what makes me mad is when you get these retards who plaster images like the above one all over the side of a van and park it along the road during parade's/car cruises. Kids don't need to see that crap.
We're not in a van, you know. I have a heavy warning over the image and it's in a spoiler tag. So if a kid does look at it, I'm not at fault; they were warned. And I feel that people do need to see what this is. People need to see what they're allowing and what's really going on in that clinic.
Also, get your definitions straight. I'm not mentally retarded, and if people chose to plaster pictures around (which I have never even seen. I only posted one picture that you didn't even have to look at.) then that doesn't make them "retards". Derogatory terms aren't getting anyone anywhere.
Isn't that like saying if you support your relative having brain surgery, you need to know what the surgery looks like?
We're not in a van, you know. I have a heavy warning over the image and it's in a spoiler tag. So if a kid does look at it, I'm not at fault; they were warned. And I feel that people do need to see what this is. People need to see what they're allowing and what's really going on in that clinic.
Also, get your definitions straight. I'm not mentally retarded, and if people chose to plaster pictures around (which I have never even seen. I only posted one picture that you didn't even have to look at.) then that doesn't make them "retards". Derogatory terms aren't getting anyone anywhere.
You're confused - I wasn't referring to your post, or name calling anyone in this thread.
I was referring to one time when I saw a guy parked sideways on the side of the road during a car cruise (where lots of people were driving by) with gruesome images put on the side of the van, that any kid could see, even though they're too young to have an opinion.
We're not in a van, you know. I have a heavy warning over the image and it's in a spoiler tag. So if a kid does look at it, I'm not at fault; they were warned.
Did you read my direct reply to the image? It's above, I'm waiting for your response.
Also, get your definitions straight. I'm not mentally retarded, and if people chose to plaster pictures around (which I have never even seen. I only posted one picture that you didn't even have to look at.) then that doesn't make them "retards". Derogatory terms aren't getting anyone anywhere.
Again, I'm sure he was talking about those people who like to wear T-Shirts with the fetuses and shove them into people's faces, screaming "IT'S MURDER" when all you're trying to do is get a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts.
Edit:
You're confused - I wasn't referring to your post, or name calling anyone in this thread.
I was referring to one time when I saw a guy parked sideways on the side of the road during a car cruise (where lots of people were driving by) with gruesome images put on the side of the van, that any kid could see, even though they're too young to have an opinion.
2 dozen = 24. Also, this type of thing does go on in some places, yes. "Rare" is a term to compare the very small number of around 24, to the possibly millions of "regular" abortions that go on. The fact that it gets a specific story in the news, and you don't see this story popping up every day, every hour... Makes it rare.
Ok you're right, it is rare, but that still doesn't mean that children who could have survived being born at the time of abortion were instead killed. Heck, you even have children who survived a late term abortion and yet managed to survive such a procedure.
It was obviously considered illegal by this guy. Again, this isn't the type of abortion people are talking about when they talk about "pro-choice" or simply having an abortion. This is the type of thing, the thing you're talking about, is where shady doctors and misinformed victims, are conned and put in harms way.
Oh yeah, but the only difference is age. There's no difference between a baby and an elderly person besides their age, and it's the same with the child in the womb.
And again, it is a slippery slope. If there is very little difference between a 20 and 21 week old baby, then there isn't much difference between 21 and 22, 23 and 24, and so on. That's how late-term abortions come into practice - because abortion is permitted in the first place.
No, they don't support the murder of children. People believe women should have a "choice" to abort an embryo, and in rare cases a fetus in it's early development.
There's no political correctness needed. It's called "abortion" for a reason. The process is aborted, before it can be considered "whole."
How is it not already a "whole"? The child is alive and its human. Everything needed for its development is already there. All it needs is time to grow.
The woman died at the hands of an illegal procedure and a doctor performing poorly, yes.
You do understand that it is legal in some places, yeah?
Aside from reiterating the fact that you believe people who wish to stop pregnancy are MURDERing CHILDREN. You use those words a lot, to try to place shock value in those who are reading what you're attempting to convey.
Well I suppose it would be, since everyone seems to pussyfoot around the issue with nice words such as "abort" and "fetus" and "clump o' cells". You too use such words in order to desensitise the issue, to make it seem a bit more pleasant.
And in that particular case, of that particular image, depending on the backstory, is completely wrong. (Not sure if you read my PS before typing this.)
Yeah I know the story was fabricated (at least according to you, though I trust that you wouldn't lie). Still doesn't mean that such circumstances don't occur (admittedly without any horrifying regularity, though that isn't good enough). I shall post a video once again. It's a bit old, but still relevant.
The Silent Scream
[AGELIMIT]um... teenagers I guess? Don't watch it if you don't want to see a live abortion :/
[/AGELIMIT]
[jq]The Silent Scream Complete Version - Abortion as Infanticide
Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.
Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world. [/jq]Also, going back to your PS in a previous post,
Couldn't be anything about hiding, scaring, or imposing certain religious views onto the general public, now could it?
You mean like the view that killing is wrong? A position that almost every religion, culture and civilisation has ever had ever? What about going against discrimination? Is that so wrong as well?
Furthermore, both sides hide the truth and use scare tactics. An abortion clinic isn't going to tell the truth about a prospective client - they'll just let them know that it's only a bunch of cells (if they ask). They won't offer support for a pregnant woman - they'll scare them into believing that the child may very well ruin their life. For behaviours such as this I'm opposed to abortion as well.
I've always known how grim illegal, 5th month, almost 3rd trimester, unnecessary termination of almost fully developed fetuses is.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the choice of aborting an embryo after you get "knocked up."
Why are they separate? They are both abortions. As stated earlier, there is no change besides the age, abortion is a slippery slope, etc. etc.
But clearly we're thinking differently. You make a distinction between the stages of development, while I perceive them as all being the same and just as important as the other. I don't think I would be able to go against only some abortions, and so I treat them all the same, with the only circumstance I accept for an abortion being that the mother's life is in danger.
Also, sorry it took so long to reply. I had an assignment due yesterday (and another due by Thursday that I should be working on now, haha).
I believe that abortion is wrong but taking the right of getting an abortion is also wrong.
I mean think of the people who get raped and get pregnant.
Think of the pregnant mishaps.
If a person is not ready to give birth then abortion is a choice
Plus, we have people hungry out there and ppl in orphanages already, the world is heading through the stages of overpopulation :3
I say it's a rather cruel act.
Of course, some people may say that the child has no value until after birth. I heavily disagree.
Our God sees all of us equally, no matter how young or old we may be.
And I have to agree with some of you. If the mother doesn't want the child or thinks she can't take care of him or her, it would be far better to give it to an orphanage. Who knows, maybe the child will grow up to be a successful person.
...and if Jesus was aborted.........I don't know what the world would be like. But simply speaking, we...would...all...be...doomed.
I believe that abortion is wrong but taking the right of getting an abortion is also wrong.
I mean think of the people who get raped and get pregnant.
Think of the pregnant mishaps.
If a person is not ready to give birth then abortion is a choice
Plus, we have people hungry out there and ppl in orphanages already, the world is heading through the stages of overpopulation :3
While rape is a tougher issue, anyone that says abortion should 100% be outlawed isn't very nice. In the case of mother's health issues, definitely, in case of rape... tough call, should be LEGAL, but I would love it if everyone considered before getting it aborted, and abortion should be illegal for convenience. There IS an alternate to abortion: abstinence.
I say it's a rather cruel act.
Of course, some people may say that the child has no value until after birth. I heavily disagree.
Our God sees all of us equally, no matter how young or old we may be.
And I have to agree with some of you. If the mother doesn't want the child or thinks she can't take care of him or her, it would be far better to give it to an orphanage. Who knows, maybe the child will grow up to be a successful person.
...and if Jesus was aborted.........I don't know what the world would be like. But simply speaking, we...would...all...be...doomed.
Now my hand has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Therefore it is 'human', and keep in mind that I'm using the term as most pro-lifers do: very loosely. My hand is also 'alive'. Let me take you back to the seven signs of life:
I'm not going to go on a tangent to try and prove my hand fits into every single criteria. Many of them are debatable; the list itself is a horrible indicator of life. But contrast my hand's results with this test to the foetus' during the first and second trimesters. You'll find that the results of the latter and former are easily interchangable. I could go on a further dissection of this if you like.
Now you wonder: where exactly do my hand and the foetus differ? In truth, they don't. My hand is to my body as the foetus is to the mother. The first cannot survive when remove from the second. I could very well cut off my hand right now, and neither you nor anyone else can tell me otherwise.
Now this begs the question: if the foetus and my hand are so strikingly similar then what's the fuss about; why is no-one protest about self-mutilation the way they do about abortion. For the answer I'm going to have to go to where your arguments and your entire stance stems from. You're giving the foetus personhood, sentience, humanity, a 'soul', blah blah whatever you want to call it. Why? Don't know, don't care. Maybe it's because of your misguided sentimentality of the clump of cells.
Fact of the matter is the foetus does not have any sense of individuality at its early stages of development simply because it does not have any organ to process its sentience. When pro-choicers revoke the foetus of any rights and call it 'not human' what they mean is this: my sixteen month old cousin cries when hungry, sleeps, gets up, laughs when I make a face; a foetus does not. It can't. It's basically a vegetable. It's in the third trimester that the foetus develops brain cells and starts developing its sentience about whose assumptions dictate your stance. And the third trimester is the period where even the most dedicated pro-choices stop condoning abortion.
Of course you could very well bring up the 'potential developed human' as nearly everyone does when I present them with the hand analogy, but as you or some other enlightened individual said during the course of this debate, 'we are not looking at what could be, we are looking at what is'.
And Amachi, stop spamming The Silent Scream. It's a video made by pro-lifers to specifically induce shock and appeal to emotion. Get a more unbiased source or get out of the thread and stop scaring the kids.
It's up to the mother. If she wants to get rid of her baby, then so be it. Sure, a chance at a new life is lost. But lives are being lost every minute of every day, whether intentionally or not, and it's not like people are getting any better.
Frankly, abortion debates just depress me, so I'm just going to post some information and then get out of here. I think this has been cited, but I'm going to post it now. Pro-life, by the way. Yes, it is really long, which is why I'm using spoiler tags, but I, personally, think that much of it is very interesting. Anyway, it's in question-and-answer form, so it should be easy enough to scan through, or at least easier than a big block of text. Ignore it or read it. Your choice. Only when you have certain knowledge can you truly make a stand on whether an unborn baby is a person or not. In regards to illegal abortions and such, I have another chapter, but unfortunately, there's not enough room.
Spoiler:
WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke CHAPTER 11 THE HUMAN EMBRYO
When and where does fertilization occur? Sperm enter the woman's vagina, swim through the cavity of her uterus and out through her Fallopian tubes. This can take as brief a time as five minutes to pass through the uterus and reach the tubes, and as brief as another 15 minutes to pass through the tubes and reach the ovaries. The egg, breaking out of the shell of her ovary, is penetrated by the head of one spermatozoa. Immediately the ovum creates a chemical or electrical charge or fence preventing other sperm from entering.
The pronucleus of the sperm, containing its 23 chromosomes, in about 12 hours migrates to meet the ovum's pronucleus with its 23 chromosomes. Their fusion takes about 2 hours.
Then in another 18 hours this 46 chromosome nucleus divides into two cells. Then into 3 cells at which time some new opinion believes the "decision" is made to stay single or pro-gram to divide into twins. Then to 4 cells, to 8, to 16 and on and on. Jones and Schraeder, "The Process of Human Fertilization," Fertility and Sterility, vol. 48, no. 2, Aug. 1987, p. 191 Word Wars, E. Diamond, Physician, Nov. 1992, Pp. 14-15 Personal Communication, J. Lejeune 1994
What is this "moment of conception" bit? Most use the moment of sperm penetration as the "moment of conception." Others wait until their pronuclei fuse at 12-14 hours to say conception is a completed process. In either case this new human life is complete at the first cell stage.
This is then only a single cell? Yes. But a remarkable and unique one. This single cell is now either male or female. This human is unique, i.e., never before in the history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another exactly like this human exist. This being is complete, i.e., nothing else — no bits or pieces — will be added from this time until the old man or woman dies — nothing but nutrition and oxy-gen. This being is programmed from within, moving for-ward in a self-controlled, ongoing process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells. This living being is dependent upon his or her mother for shelter and food, but in all other respects is a to-tally new, different, unique, and independent being.
How does it grow? This single celled human being divides into two cells, each containing the same total and identical DNA message, the same total contents. Two becomes three, three becomes four, then eight, sixteen, etc., as it moves down the Fallopian tube. Ultimately, each human being's body contains 30 million cells. When sufficient cells are present, organ formation, body structure, and function begins. Cell doubling occurs only 45 times. 8by implantation18%30by 8 weeks 66%41by birth91%44by kindergarten98%45by adulthood100%A. W. Liley, The Tiniest Humans CA: Sassone Press, p. 14
I've heard that another animal also has 46 chromosomes! True, but not 46 human chromosomes. Different species have different types of chromosomes.
But what of a human with 47 chromosomes, doesn't this disprove your "humans have 46" statement? Certain humans have 12 toes. Others are born with one arm. Are they human? They certainly are, but they are humans with an abnormality. A "Triple X" or a Down's Syndrome human has an extra chromosome. Are they human? Yes, but humans with an abnormal number of chromosomes.
This tiny human moves down the Fallopian tube? Yes, and at about one week of life, at the blastocyst stage of about 128 to 256 cells, it implants into the nutrient lining of the uterus. There, only three days later, this tiny male or female human sends a chemical-hormonal message into the mother's body, which stops her menstrual periods.
The new being controls her body? Yes, for the balance of pregnancy. It is the develop-ing baby who enlarges her breasts to prepare her for nursing and softens her pelvic bones in preparation for labor. It is even the baby who "determines his own birthday." A. Liley, A Case Against Abortion, Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, 1971
Isn't the fertilized ovum only a potential human being? No. This is not a potential human being; it is a human being with vast potential. One could say that the sperm and ovum, before their union, constitute a potential human being. Once their union is completed, however, they have become an actual human being.
What if this being dies soon after fertilization? Was it human then? Human death can occur at any time during our journey through life. This could be minutes after fertilization or 95 years after fertilization. Human death is merely the end of human life. There are those who claim that about 20% are lost in the first week. If this is so, it would mean that there is a mortality rate of almost 20% in the first week of life. This is not relevant to the question of whether or not this is human life — anymore than infant mortality is a justification for infanticide, or death in old age justifies euthanasia. All it means is that the mortality rate in the first week of life may be 20%. Of very early pregnancies, "22% ended before pregnancy was detected clinically." "The total rate of pregnancy loss after implantation, including clinically recognized spontaneous abortions, was 31%." The testing used was able to detect pregnancy accurately by day seven or eight. Wilcox, et al., "Incidence of Early Loss of Pregnancy" New Eng. J. Med., vol 319, no. 4, July 28, 1988, p. 189 One reason for the apparent high percent of pre- or immediate post-implantation loss may be due to chromosome abnormalities. Wramsby et al., "Chromosome Analysis of Human Oocytes . . ." New Eng. J. Med., vol. 316, no. 3, Jan. 15, 1987, p. 121
I've heard the fertilized ovum described as only a blueprint. What of this comparison? The blueprint of your home is merely the plan for your home. After using this instruction sheet to build your house, you can throw the blueprint away. It has not become the house. The fertilized ovum is not the blueprint, but is, in fact, the house in miniature. It, it-self, will grow into the house in time. It is the house already. Your home was built piece by piece until it ultimately assumed a shape which could be identified as a house. The tiny human, who you once were, developed into the adult you now are, but you were there totally at conception. All you needed to become the adult you now are was nutrition, oxygen, and time.
But it is so small. How can it be human yet? If the only scientific instruments you use are your own unaided eyes, then a common judgment that you might make would be that "it isn't human until it looks human." We do have microscopes, ultrasonic movies, stethoscopes, and genetic knowledge now, all of which go far beyond the limited knowledge obtained by sight alone. To base your opinion solely on what you see, rather than upon what science is capable of telling you, isn't very rational.
What of a cell from some part of a person's body which can be kept alive in a tissue culture, either separated from his living body or maintained after that person has died. Does this not upset the concept of the fertilized ovum as a human life? No. Those cells were a part of a complete human body and can only reproduce themselves as a specific type of cell. The fertilized ovum is not a part of another body, but is a whole body him or herself. It (he or she) will not merely reproduce, but is, in totality, a complete human being and will grow into a full adult if given time. Any one of hundreds of millions or billions of these cells in a human's body can die and we do not say that human has died. When a single fertilized ovum cell dies, however, the entire new human being dies. The other important difference is that the fertilized ovum, which subdivides and multiplies into many cells, moves immediately in the direction of specialized and differing parts, which are organized as a single unified complex being. Cells from parts of an adult human body in a tissue culture can only reproduce their own kind and cannot go on to develop differing specialized parts.
Wouldn't a successful human clone upset this reasoning? First, there has never been a human clone. It may well be that man, the highest species, can never be successfully cloned. However, even granting that possibility, the clone, at the first moment of his or her existence, would be an intact and complete human life. He or she would be, in effect, the identical twin of the donor human, but of a different age. Being a total human, this living human would, in justice, be due the same protection of the law as the older donor human. R. McKinnelly, Professor of Genetics and Cell Biology at the University of Minnesota, who does frog cloning, has said, "I never expect to witness the construction of carbon copy humans. I do not believe that nuclear [the cell nucleus] transplantation for the purpose of producing human beings will ever routinely occur." R. McKinnelly, Cloning, University of Minnesota Press, 1979, p. 102
Can't we consider the developing embryo a form of plant or animal life which only becomes human at some later state of development? Definitely not! The fertilized seed or ovum of a plant, or an animal, or of a human, at the time of fertilization and beginning growth, already is, in totality, that plant, animal, or human. Because of our present scientific knowledge of chromosome and gene structure and because of the intricate genetic programming that we are now aware of, we know that a plant can only develop into what it already is — that is, a plant. An animal, a dog, for instance, can only develop into a dog and a specific species of that dog. All this is predetermined and already exists in totality when fertilization occurs. The same is true of a human.
But can you then call an acorn an oak tree? That is like saying "can you call an infant an adult?" Rather, you must ask "are they both complete oaks?" Yes they are, all the acorn needs to develop into an adult tree is time and nutrition.
What of twins? Non-identical twins are two separate individuals created by the union of two eggs and two sperm. Identical twins, however, occur when one fertilized ovum or zygote apparently splits into two, after which each of the two divided parts (each now a zygote in itself) grows independently in the very same manner toward full development and maturity as the average single zygote will. This occurs sometime between fertilization and implantation, but never after implantation.
Can we say, then, that one living human being (zygote) can split into two living human beings (identical twins)? Scientific opinion is far from unanimous about how to consider this. One way of considering it is that the original human zygote, in splitting in half (whatever exactly happens, we don't know), can be considered, in effect, the parent of the new human being. This might be a form of parthenogenesis, or non-sexual reproduction. We know that this does occur in certain forms of plant and animal life. We could postulate this type of process to explain identical twinning in a human. The other possibility is that the existing human being, in splitting, dies, to give new life to two new identical human beings like himself (herself). What is crucial to either of these explanations is that, at the time when a total human being exists, he or she should be recognized as such and given all rights due other living human beings.
But the sperm has life. The ovum has life. Why is either of these lives any different than when the two join and become a fertilized ovum? The sperm has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the father. The sperm is genetically identified as a cell of the father's body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. It is destined to fertilize an ovum or to die. It is at the end of the line. The ovum has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the mother. The ovum is genetically identified as a cell of the mother's body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. Its destiny? To be fertilized or die. It, too, is at the end of the line. But when sperm and ovum join, there is created at that time a new living being; a being who has never be-fore existed in the history of the world and never again will exist; a being not at the end of the line, but at the dawn of existence; a being completely intact and containing within himself or herself the totality of every-thing that this being will ever be; a being moving for-ward in an orderly process of growth and maturation,destined to live inside the mother for almost nine months and for as many as a hundred years outside.
Will you cite some scientific authorities as to human life beginning at fertilization? In 1981 the U.S. Senate considered Senate Bill #158, the "Human Life Bill." Extensive hearings (eight days, 57 witnesses) were conducted by Senator John East. National and international authorities testified. We quote from the official Senate report, 97th Congress, S-158: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 On pages 7-9, the report lists a "limited sample" of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception. Then, on pages 9-10, the report quotes several out-standing authorities who testified personally: - Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." - Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Be-ginning of human life? — "at conception." - Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception." - Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception."
But Dr. Leon Rosenberg, from Yale University, and others said otherwise! Dr. Rosenberg did state that he knew of no scientific evidence showing when actual human life begins. But, he then defined human life in a philosophic way, and spoke to a value judgment. To quote the Senate report (on page 11): "Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species." Even though Dr. Rosenberg and others used the word, "science," they did not mean biologic science. Rather, they were speaking of their philosophic beliefs such as what Dr. Rosenberg called, "the complex quality of humanness."Hearings, S-158, 24 April at 25
This confusion of provable natural biologic science with value judgments based upon non-provable theories and beliefs must be shown at every opportunity to be two entirely different ways of reasoning.
How about other proof? See the First International Symposium on Abortion, which concluded: "The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six-months fetus, a one-week- old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. "The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life." Willke & Willke, Handbook on Abortion, (1971, 1975, 1979 Editions), Ch. 3, Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co.
What is a pre-embryo? It is a million sperm swimming after an ovum. When one penetrates it, the "pre" is over and this now be-comes a zygote (a fertilized egg) which on dividing is called an embryo.
But the term "pre-embryo" is used for the first week or two. This is an arbitrary term recently introduced by pro-abortion people in an attempt to dehumanize this early human. "In rigorous ethical debate such arbitrary terminology, particularly if used to assign moral values, should be avoided." Arbitrary Partitions of Prenatal Life, Biggers, Human Reproduction, Oxford U-Press, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-6, 1990
Spoiler:
WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke CHAPTER 12 FETAL DEVELOPMENT
When does implantation occur? The tiny human implants himself or herself in the nutrient lining the womb at one week of life.
And then? At ten days, this tiny living human male or female sends a chemical hormonal message out into the mother's body, which stops her menstrual periods. Later, it is this tiny passenger who causes her breasts to enlarge in preparation for nursing, softens her pelvic bones to prepare for labor, and, without question, sets his or her birthday. The onset of labor is a unilateral fetal decision (see chapter 10).
Why is the primitive streak important? It really isn't. Much is made of the fact that identical twinning cannot occur after the 14th day when this early spinal cord can be seen. Actually, identical twinning probably happens in the first 2-4 days of life. Use of the primitive streak is a thinly veiled attempt to dehumanize the early human embryo, so that destructive embryo experimentation can proceed and that I.V.F. embryos can be killed.
When does the heart begin to beat? At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.
When is the brain functioning? Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120 Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564 Only several generations ago, doctors used the ending of respiration to measure the end of human life. This is no longer true, for the use of artificial ventilators is common. Only one generation ago, doctors were using the ending of the heartbeat to measure the end of human life. This is no longer true, for now the heart can be stopped and restarted for different operations. It also may stop during a heart attack and sometimes can be restarted. Today, the definitive and final measure of the end of human life is brain death. This happens when there is irreversible cessation of total brain function. The final scientific measurement of this is the permanent ending of brain waves. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual's life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?
Early on, this being has gill slits and a tail. Isn't this proof that it is not human then? The "gill slits" are not slits but folds of skin much like an infant's "double chin." These stretch out as he grows. The tail isn't a tail either. The central nervous system consists of brain and spinal cord. It is the most important part of the early body and grows the fastest. The tail is really the end of the spinal cord which grows faster than the torso. The torso catches up with it, and its tip then becomes your adult "tail bone." "The body of the unborn baby is more complex than ours. The preborn baby has several extra parts to his body which he needs only so long as he lives inside his mother. He has his own space capsule, the amniotic sac. He has his own lifeline, the umbilical cord, and he has his own root system, the placenta. These all belong to the baby himself, not to his mother. They are all developed from his original cell." Day & Liley, The Secret World of a Baby, Random House, 1968, p. 13
How early do some organs form? The eye, ear and respiratory systems begin to form four weeks after fertilization. K. Moore, Before We Were Born, 3rd ed., 1989, p. 278
And function? Very early, e.g., glucagon, a blood sugar hormone, has been demonstrated in the fetal pancreas 6 weeks after fertilization, and insulin by 7 to 8. F. Cunningham, "Pancreas," William's Obstet., 19th ed., 1993, p. 183-4 Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization. W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17
When does the developing baby first move? "In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a 'total pattern response' because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954 At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26 Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over." J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. '91, pg. 16
But pregnant women don't "feel life" until four or five months! The inside of the uterus has no feeling. The baby has to be almost a foot long (30 cm.) and weigh about one pound (454 gm.) before he or she is large enough to brace a shoulder against one wall and kick hard enough against the opposite wall to dent it outward. Then the mother feels it because the outside of the uterus is covered by a sensitive peritoneal surface.
What is the development at seven to eight weeks? The baby's stomach secretes gastric juice by eight weeks. Now we can listen to the tiny one's heartbeat on an ultrasonic stethoscope. These are now common in doctors' offices and on hospital wards. They are never used in abortion facilities, however, as this information is universally withheld from mothers prior to abortion. Abortionists know that if they tell women there already is a heartbeat — and certainly if they would let her listen to the heartbeat — some mothers would change their minds. The actual sounds of an six-week-old baby's heartbeat are available on tape from Cincinnati Right to Life, 1802 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45239 ($3.00). "Eleven years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months), I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny (one-third inch) human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers. "The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second with a natural swimmers stroke. This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have seen, nor did it look like the few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously because this one was alive. "When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage (blunt extremities, etc.)." P.E. Rockwell, M.D., Director of Anesthesiology, Leonard Hospital, Troy, New York, U.S. Supreme Court., Markle vs. Abele, 72-56, 72-730, p. 11, 1972
When are all his body systems present? By eight weeks (two months). Hooker & Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952
When do teeth form? All 20 milk-teeth buds are present at six and a half weeks."Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 10 And include dental lamina at 8 weeks. Med. Embryology, Longman, 3rd Ed., 1975, p. 406
How about nine weeks? At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist. By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
When does he start to breathe? "By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid with-in his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13 "Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy decreases the frequency of fetal breathing by 20%. The 'well documented' higher incidence of prematurity, stillbirth, and slower development of reading skill may be related to this decrease." 80 F. Manning, "Meeting of Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons," Family Practice News, March 15, 1976 "In the 11th week of gestation fetal breathing is irregular and episodic. As gestation continues, the breathing movements become more vigorous and rapid." C. Dawes, "Fetal Breathing: Indication of Well Being," Family Practice News, Mar. 16, 1976, p. 6 Episodic spontaneous breathing movement have been observed in the healthy human fetus as early as ten weeks gestational age. Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April '89, p. 932 And 11 weeks (9 weeks post-fertilization). Cunningham, Wm. Obstetrics, 1993, p. 193
When can he swallow? At 11 weeks. Valman & Pearson, British Med. Jour., "What the Fetus Feels," 26 Jan. 1980, p. 233
What of detailed development, like fingernails and eyelashes? Fingernails are present by 11 to 12 weeks; eyelashes by 16 weeks. Fingerprints are completely established during the fourth month of gestation. Hamilton et al., Human Embryology, Fourth Ed., 1972, p. 567
At what point are all his body systems working? By 11 weeks. "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13
How does the size of the baby increase in weight? At 12 weeks (three months) she weighs about 30 gm (1.0 ounce); at 16 weeks about 170 gm (6 ounces); and at 20 weeks (four months), approximately 454 gm (one pound).
When is taste present? "Taste buds are working between 13 and 15 weeks gestation" (11 to 13 weeks after conception). Mistretta & Bradley, Taste in Utero, 1977, p. 62 Bradley et al., "Dev. Taste Buds . . . ," J. Anat. 101 (4) 1967, p. 743-752
How about hearing? "Auditory sense is present in the infant 24 weeks before birth [14 weeks after conception]. This involves brain functioning and memory patterns." M. Clemens, "5th International Congress Psychosomatic," OB & GYN, Rome: Medical Tribune, Mar. 22, 1978, p. 7 Recent technology allowed a tiny microphone to be placed by the fetus's head and "We heard almost everything, from people talking 12 feet away, to a door opening in the room, to a cart going down the hall with the door closed. The clarity was incredible. It was easy to tell who was talking." The results showed the fetus hears everything we do, only 10 decibels less. Their earliest response to sound was at 26 weeks. Is Noise an Intrauterine Threat, Phelan & Satt, by R. McGuire, Med. Tribune, Nov. 30, 1989
He certainly can't cry! Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor ". . . injected an air bubble into the baby's amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby's face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby's head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself up-right with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby's head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus." Day & Liley, Modern Motherhood, Random House, 1969, pp. 50-51
Does the unborn baby dream? Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks. J. Birnhaltz, "The Development of Human Fetal Eye Movement Patterns," Science, 1981, vol. 213, pp. 679-681 REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception. S. Levi, Brugman University of Brussels, American Medical Association News, February 1, 1983 Since REM are characteristic of dream states after birth, researchers are asking if the unborn child also dreams?
Does he/she think? In adults, when we contemplate a physical move or action from a resting state, our heart rate accelerates several seconds before the motion. Similarly, the fetal baby's heart rate speeds up six to ten seconds prior to fetal movement. Is this conscious thought and planning? 83 N. Lauerson & H. Hochberg, "Does the Fetus Think?" JAMA, vol. 247, no. 23, July 18, 1982 "We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life." The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero. "Whether he ultimately sees himself and, hence, acts as a sad or happy, aggressive or meek, secure or anxiety-ridden person depends, in part, on the messages he gets about himself in the womb." T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 12 "At eight weeks of life a tapping stimulus on the amniotic sac results in arm movements . . . the primitive brain receives the stimulus, selects a response and transmits the response as a signal to the arm." M. Rosen, "Learning Before Birth," Harpers Magazine, April 1978
You mean that the unborn baby's emotions can be affected? This is probably true. "We know already that even embryonic nervous tissue is 'open' to maternal communication via brain chemicals called 'neurotransmitters.' This is a finding with enormous implications. It means that the mother's emotional state can affect the unborn almost from conception onward. Even before the baby can hear in the womb, or think consciously, it is capable of sensing discord between its parents. If the mother is in constant turmoil, its own environment will be tainted by the biochemistry of fear and hostility, grief, and anger." Shettles & Varick, Rites of Life, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, pp. 87-89 At four and one-half months, a very bright light on a woman's abdomen will cause the baby to slowly move its hand to a position shielding the eyes. Loud music will cause the baby to cover its ears. A woman in an unhappy marriage has a 237% greater risk of bearing a child with physical and psychological problems than a woman in a secure relationship. T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 49 Agreeing with Dr. Liley, Dr. W. Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud), observed 10,000 ultrasound visualizations and reported, "It looks as if the fetus has a lot of intentionality." He also once saw unborn twins fighting. 1st International Congress, Pre & Peri Natal Psychology, Toronto, July 8-10, 1983
So the fetus is really the Second Patient? Can he or she be treated? "The status of the fetus has been elevated to that of a patient who, in large measure, can be given the same meticulous care that obstetricians have long given the pregnant woman." Cunningham, F.G., et. al, Williams Obstetrics, 19th ed. (Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1993), 165. Diaphragmatic hernia and obstructive hydrocephalus can be corrected while still in the womb. In addition: "Medical treatment of the fetus includes exchange transfusion, thyroid hormone replacement and administration of steroids for surfactant induction. Correction of obstructive uropathy with urinary diversion has proved successful in decreasing fetal morbidity and mortality, while other procedures are still in the experimental stage. Extrauterine fetal surgery is performed only rarely but represents an exciting new direction in the treatment of medicine's youngest patients." Camosy, P., "Fetal Medicine: Treating the Unborn Patient," Am. Fam. Physician, 52 (5)(October 1995): 1385-92
How many weeks are there in a pregnancy and how do you measure them? There are 40 weeks. We measure a pregnancy from the time the ovum begins to grow, that is, at the start of a woman's menstrual period. After about two weeks of growth, the egg is released from the ovary. Fertilization can then occur. This is about two weeks before her next period is due. Four of the 40 weeks have already elapsed at the time she misses her first period. Gestational age dates from the first day of the mother's last menstrual period. Actual age of the baby dates from conception.
What is birth? Birth is the emergence of the infant from the mother's womb, the severing of the umbilical cord, and the beginning of the child's existence physically detached from the mother's body. The only change that occurs at birth is a change in the external life support system of the child. The child is no different before birth than after, except that he has changed his method of feeding and obtaining oxygen. Before birth, nutrition and oxygen were obtained from the mother through the baby's umbilical cord. After birth, oxygen is obtained from his own lungs and nutrition through his own stomach, if he is mature enough to be nourished that way. If he is quite premature, nourishment would continue through our present reasonably sophisticated external life support systems in the form of intravenous feeding, which is similar to the umbilical cord feeding from the mother. Did you "come from" a fertilized ovum? No, you once were a fertilized ovum who grew and developed into the child or adult you are today. Nothing has been added to the fertilized ovum who you once were except nutrition.
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke CHAPTER 11 THE HUMAN EMBRYO
When and where does fertilization occur? Sperm enter the woman's vagina, swim through the cavity of her uterus and out through her Fallopian tubes. This can take as brief a time as five minutes to pass through the uterus and reach the tubes, and as brief as another 15 minutes to pass through the tubes and reach the ovaries. The egg, breaking out of the shell of her ovary, is penetrated by the head of one spermatozoa. Immediately the ovum creates a chemical or electrical charge or fence preventing other sperm from entering.
The pronucleus of the sperm, containing its 23 chromosomes, in about 12 hours migrates to meet the ovum's pronucleus with its 23 chromosomes. Their fusion takes about 2 hours.
Then in another 18 hours this 46 chromosome nucleus divides into two cells. Then into 3 cells at which time some new opinion believes the "decision" is made to stay single or pro-gram to divide into twins. Then to 4 cells, to 8, to 16 and on and on. Jones and Schraeder, "The Process of Human Fertilization," Fertility and Sterility, vol. 48, no. 2, Aug. 1987, p. 191 Word Wars, E. Diamond, Physician, Nov. 1992, Pp. 14-15 Personal Communication, J. Lejeune 1994
What is this "moment of conception" bit? Most use the moment of sperm penetration as the "moment of conception." Others wait until their pronuclei fuse at 12-14 hours to say conception is a completed process. In either case this new human life is complete at the first cell stage.
This is then only a single cell? Yes. But a remarkable and unique one. This single cell is now either male or female. This human is unique, i.e., never before in the history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another exactly like this human exist. This being is complete, i.e., nothing else — no bits or pieces — will be added from this time until the old man or woman dies — nothing but nutrition and oxy-gen. This being is programmed from within, moving for-ward in a self-controlled, ongoing process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells. This living being is dependent upon his or her mother for shelter and food, but in all other respects is a to-tally new, different, unique, and independent being.
How does it grow? This single celled human being divides into two cells, each containing the same total and identical DNA message, the same total contents. Two becomes three, three becomes four, then eight, sixteen, etc., as it moves down the Fallopian tube. Ultimately, each human being's body contains 30 million cells. When sufficient cells are present, organ formation, body structure, and function begins. Cell doubling occurs only 45 times. 8by implantation18%30by 8 weeks 66%41by birth91%44by kindergarten98%45by adulthood100%A. W. Liley, The Tiniest Humans CA: Sassone Press, p. 14
I've heard that another animal also has 46 chromosomes! True, but not 46 human chromosomes. Different species have different types of chromosomes.
But what of a human with 47 chromosomes, doesn't this disprove your "humans have 46" statement? Certain humans have 12 toes. Others are born with one arm. Are they human? They certainly are, but they are humans with an abnormality. A "Triple X" or a Down's Syndrome human has an extra chromosome. Are they human? Yes, but humans with an abnormal number of chromosomes.
This tiny human moves down the Fallopian tube? Yes, and at about one week of life, at the blastocyst stage of about 128 to 256 cells, it implants into the nutrient lining of the uterus. There, only three days later, this tiny male or female human sends a chemical-hormonal message into the mother's body, which stops her menstrual periods.
The new being controls her body? Yes, for the balance of pregnancy. It is the develop-ing baby who enlarges her breasts to prepare her for nursing and softens her pelvic bones in preparation for labor. It is even the baby who "determines his own birthday." A. Liley, A Case Against Abortion, Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, 1971
Isn't the fertilized ovum only a potential human being? No. This is not a potential human being; it is a human being with vast potential. One could say that the sperm and ovum, before their union, constitute a potential human being. Once their union is completed, however, they have become an actual human being.
What if this being dies soon after fertilization? Was it human then? Human death can occur at any time during our journey through life. This could be minutes after fertilization or 95 years after fertilization. Human death is merely the end of human life. There are those who claim that about 20% are lost in the first week. If this is so, it would mean that there is a mortality rate of almost 20% in the first week of life. This is not relevant to the question of whether or not this is human life — anymore than infant mortality is a justification for infanticide, or death in old age justifies euthanasia. All it means is that the mortality rate in the first week of life may be 20%. Of very early pregnancies, "22% ended before pregnancy was detected clinically." "The total rate of pregnancy loss after implantation, including clinically recognized spontaneous abortions, was 31%." The testing used was able to detect pregnancy accurately by day seven or eight. Wilcox, et al., "Incidence of Early Loss of Pregnancy" New Eng. J. Med., vol 319, no. 4, July 28, 1988, p. 189 One reason for the apparent high percent of pre- or immediate post-implantation loss may be due to chromosome abnormalities. Wramsby et al., "Chromosome Analysis of Human Oocytes . . ." New Eng. J. Med., vol. 316, no. 3, Jan. 15, 1987, p. 121
I've heard the fertilized ovum described as only a blueprint. What of this comparison? The blueprint of your home is merely the plan for your home. After using this instruction sheet to build your house, you can throw the blueprint away. It has not become the house. The fertilized ovum is not the blueprint, but is, in fact, the house in miniature. It, it-self, will grow into the house in time. It is the house already. Your home was built piece by piece until it ultimately assumed a shape which could be identified as a house. The tiny human, who you once were, developed into the adult you now are, but you were there totally at conception. All you needed to become the adult you now are was nutrition, oxygen, and time.
But it is so small. How can it be human yet? If the only scientific instruments you use are your own unaided eyes, then a common judgment that you might make would be that "it isn't human until it looks human." We do have microscopes, ultrasonic movies, stethoscopes, and genetic knowledge now, all of which go far beyond the limited knowledge obtained by sight alone. To base your opinion solely on what you see, rather than upon what science is capable of telling you, isn't very rational.
What of a cell from some part of a person's body which can be kept alive in a tissue culture, either separated from his living body or maintained after that person has died. Does this not upset the concept of the fertilized ovum as a human life? No. Those cells were a part of a complete human body and can only reproduce themselves as a specific type of cell. The fertilized ovum is not a part of another body, but is a whole body him or herself. It (he or she) will not merely reproduce, but is, in totality, a complete human being and will grow into a full adult if given time. Any one of hundreds of millions or billions of these cells in a human's body can die and we do not say that human has died. When a single fertilized ovum cell dies, however, the entire new human being dies. The other important difference is that the fertilized ovum, which subdivides and multiplies into many cells, moves immediately in the direction of specialized and differing parts, which are organized as a single unified complex being. Cells from parts of an adult human body in a tissue culture can only reproduce their own kind and cannot go on to develop differing specialized parts.
Wouldn't a successful human clone upset this reasoning? First, there has never been a human clone. It may well be that man, the highest species, can never be successfully cloned. However, even granting that possibility, the clone, at the first moment of his or her existence, would be an intact and complete human life. He or she would be, in effect, the identical twin of the donor human, but of a different age. Being a total human, this living human would, in justice, be due the same protection of the law as the older donor human. R. McKinnelly, Professor of Genetics and Cell Biology at the University of Minnesota, who does frog cloning, has said, "I never expect to witness the construction of carbon copy humans. I do not believe that nuclear [the cell nucleus] transplantation for the purpose of producing human beings will ever routinely occur." R. McKinnelly, Cloning, University of Minnesota Press, 1979, p. 102
Can't we consider the developing embryo a form of plant or animal life which only becomes human at some later state of development? Definitely not! The fertilized seed or ovum of a plant, or an animal, or of a human, at the time of fertilization and beginning growth, already is, in totality, that plant, animal, or human. Because of our present scientific knowledge of chromosome and gene structure and because of the intricate genetic programming that we are now aware of, we know that a plant can only develop into what it already is — that is, a plant. An animal, a dog, for instance, can only develop into a dog and a specific species of that dog. All this is predetermined and already exists in totality when fertilization occurs. The same is true of a human.
But can you then call an acorn an oak tree? That is like saying "can you call an infant an adult?" Rather, you must ask "are they both complete oaks?" Yes they are, all the acorn needs to develop into an adult tree is time and nutrition.
What of twins? Non-identical twins are two separate individuals created by the union of two eggs and two sperm. Identical twins, however, occur when one fertilized ovum or zygote apparently splits into two, after which each of the two divided parts (each now a zygote in itself) grows independently in the very same manner toward full development and maturity as the average single zygote will. This occurs sometime between fertilization and implantation, but never after implantation.
Can we say, then, that one living human being (zygote) can split into two living human beings (identical twins)? Scientific opinion is far from unanimous about how to consider this. One way of considering it is that the original human zygote, in splitting in half (whatever exactly happens, we don't know), can be considered, in effect, the parent of the new human being. This might be a form of parthenogenesis, or non-sexual reproduction. We know that this does occur in certain forms of plant and animal life. We could postulate this type of process to explain identical twinning in a human. The other possibility is that the existing human being, in splitting, dies, to give new life to two new identical human beings like himself (herself). What is crucial to either of these explanations is that, at the time when a total human being exists, he or she should be recognized as such and given all rights due other living human beings.
But the sperm has life. The ovum has life. Why is either of these lives any different than when the two join and become a fertilized ovum? The sperm has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the father. The sperm is genetically identified as a cell of the father's body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. It is destined to fertilize an ovum or to die. It is at the end of the line. The ovum has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the mother. The ovum is genetically identified as a cell of the mother's body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. Its destiny? To be fertilized or die. It, too, is at the end of the line. But when sperm and ovum join, there is created at that time a new living being; a being who has never be-fore existed in the history of the world and never again will exist; a being not at the end of the line, but at the dawn of existence; a being completely intact and containing within himself or herself the totality of every-thing that this being will ever be; a being moving for-ward in an orderly process of growth and maturation,destined to live inside the mother for almost nine months and for as many as a hundred years outside.
Will you cite some scientific authorities as to human life beginning at fertilization? In 1981 the U.S. Senate considered Senate Bill #158, the "Human Life Bill." Extensive hearings (eight days, 57 witnesses) were conducted by Senator John East. National and international authorities testified. We quote from the official Senate report, 97th Congress, S-158: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 On pages 7-9, the report lists a "limited sample" of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception. Then, on pages 9-10, the report quotes several out-standing authorities who testified personally: - Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." - Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Be-ginning of human life? — "at conception." - Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception." - Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception."
But Dr. Leon Rosenberg, from Yale University, and others said otherwise! Dr. Rosenberg did state that he knew of no scientific evidence showing when actual human life begins. But, he then defined human life in a philosophic way, and spoke to a value judgment. To quote the Senate report (on page 11): "Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species." Even though Dr. Rosenberg and others used the word, "science," they did not mean biologic science. Rather, they were speaking of their philosophic beliefs such as what Dr. Rosenberg called, "the complex quality of humanness."Hearings, S-158, 24 April at 25
This confusion of provable natural biologic science with value judgments based upon non-provable theories and beliefs must be shown at every opportunity to be two entirely different ways of reasoning.
How about other proof? See the First International Symposium on Abortion, which concluded: "The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six-months fetus, a one-week- old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. "The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life." Willke & Willke, Handbook on Abortion, (1971, 1975, 1979 Editions), Ch. 3, Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co.
What is a pre-embryo? It is a million sperm swimming after an ovum. When one penetrates it, the "pre" is over and this now be-comes a zygote (a fertilized egg) which on dividing is called an embryo.
But the term "pre-embryo" is used for the first week or two. This is an arbitrary term recently introduced by pro-abortion people in an attempt to dehumanize this early human. "In rigorous ethical debate such arbitrary terminology, particularly if used to assign moral values, should be avoided." Arbitrary Partitions of Prenatal Life, Biggers, Human Reproduction, Oxford U-Press, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-6, 1990
Spoiler:
WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke CHAPTER 12 FETAL DEVELOPMENT
When does implantation occur? The tiny human implants himself or herself in the nutrient lining the womb at one week of life.
And then? At ten days, this tiny living human male or female sends a chemical hormonal message out into the mother's body, which stops her menstrual periods. Later, it is this tiny passenger who causes her breasts to enlarge in preparation for nursing, softens her pelvic bones to prepare for labor, and, without question, sets his or her birthday. The onset of labor is a unilateral fetal decision (see chapter 10).
Why is the primitive streak important? It really isn't. Much is made of the fact that identical twinning cannot occur after the 14th day when this early spinal cord can be seen. Actually, identical twinning probably happens in the first 2-4 days of life. Use of the primitive streak is a thinly veiled attempt to dehumanize the early human embryo, so that destructive embryo experimentation can proceed and that I.V.F. embryos can be killed.
When does the heart begin to beat? At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.
When is the brain functioning? Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120 Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564 Only several generations ago, doctors used the ending of respiration to measure the end of human life. This is no longer true, for the use of artificial ventilators is common. Only one generation ago, doctors were using the ending of the heartbeat to measure the end of human life. This is no longer true, for now the heart can be stopped and restarted for different operations. It also may stop during a heart attack and sometimes can be restarted. Today, the definitive and final measure of the end of human life is brain death. This happens when there is irreversible cessation of total brain function. The final scientific measurement of this is the permanent ending of brain waves. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual's life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?
Early on, this being has gill slits and a tail. Isn't this proof that it is not human then? The "gill slits" are not slits but folds of skin much like an infant's "double chin." These stretch out as he grows. The tail isn't a tail either. The central nervous system consists of brain and spinal cord. It is the most important part of the early body and grows the fastest. The tail is really the end of the spinal cord which grows faster than the torso. The torso catches up with it, and its tip then becomes your adult "tail bone." "The body of the unborn baby is more complex than ours. The preborn baby has several extra parts to his body which he needs only so long as he lives inside his mother. He has his own space capsule, the amniotic sac. He has his own lifeline, the umbilical cord, and he has his own root system, the placenta. These all belong to the baby himself, not to his mother. They are all developed from his original cell." Day & Liley, The Secret World of a Baby, Random House, 1968, p. 13
How early do some organs form? The eye, ear and respiratory systems begin to form four weeks after fertilization. K. Moore, Before We Were Born, 3rd ed., 1989, p. 278
And function? Very early, e.g., glucagon, a blood sugar hormone, has been demonstrated in the fetal pancreas 6 weeks after fertilization, and insulin by 7 to 8. F. Cunningham, "Pancreas," William's Obstet., 19th ed., 1993, p. 183-4 Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization. W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17
When does the developing baby first move? "In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a 'total pattern response' because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954 At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26 Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over." J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. '91, pg. 16
But pregnant women don't "feel life" until four or five months! The inside of the uterus has no feeling. The baby has to be almost a foot long (30 cm.) and weigh about one pound (454 gm.) before he or she is large enough to brace a shoulder against one wall and kick hard enough against the opposite wall to dent it outward. Then the mother feels it because the outside of the uterus is covered by a sensitive peritoneal surface.
What is the development at seven to eight weeks? The baby's stomach secretes gastric juice by eight weeks. Now we can listen to the tiny one's heartbeat on an ultrasonic stethoscope. These are now common in doctors' offices and on hospital wards. They are never used in abortion facilities, however, as this information is universally withheld from mothers prior to abortion. Abortionists know that if they tell women there already is a heartbeat — and certainly if they would let her listen to the heartbeat — some mothers would change their minds. The actual sounds of an six-week-old baby's heartbeat are available on tape from Cincinnati Right to Life, 1802 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45239 ($3.00). "Eleven years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months), I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny (one-third inch) human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers. "The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second with a natural swimmers stroke. This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have seen, nor did it look like the few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously because this one was alive. "When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage (blunt extremities, etc.)." P.E. Rockwell, M.D., Director of Anesthesiology, Leonard Hospital, Troy, New York, U.S. Supreme Court., Markle vs. Abele, 72-56, 72-730, p. 11, 1972
When are all his body systems present? By eight weeks (two months). Hooker & Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952
When do teeth form? All 20 milk-teeth buds are present at six and a half weeks."Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 10 And include dental lamina at 8 weeks. Med. Embryology, Longman, 3rd Ed., 1975, p. 406
How about nine weeks? At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist. By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
When does he start to breathe? "By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid with-in his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13 "Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy decreases the frequency of fetal breathing by 20%. The 'well documented' higher incidence of prematurity, stillbirth, and slower development of reading skill may be related to this decrease." 80 F. Manning, "Meeting of Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons," Family Practice News, March 15, 1976 "In the 11th week of gestation fetal breathing is irregular and episodic. As gestation continues, the breathing movements become more vigorous and rapid." C. Dawes, "Fetal Breathing: Indication of Well Being," Family Practice News, Mar. 16, 1976, p. 6 Episodic spontaneous breathing movement have been observed in the healthy human fetus as early as ten weeks gestational age. Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April '89, p. 932 And 11 weeks (9 weeks post-fertilization). Cunningham, Wm. Obstetrics, 1993, p. 193
When can he swallow? At 11 weeks. Valman & Pearson, British Med. Jour., "What the Fetus Feels," 26 Jan. 1980, p. 233
What of detailed development, like fingernails and eyelashes? Fingernails are present by 11 to 12 weeks; eyelashes by 16 weeks. Fingerprints are completely established during the fourth month of gestation. Hamilton et al., Human Embryology, Fourth Ed., 1972, p. 567
At what point are all his body systems working? By 11 weeks. "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13
How does the size of the baby increase in weight? At 12 weeks (three months) she weighs about 30 gm (1.0 ounce); at 16 weeks about 170 gm (6 ounces); and at 20 weeks (four months), approximately 454 gm (one pound).
When is taste present? "Taste buds are working between 13 and 15 weeks gestation" (11 to 13 weeks after conception). Mistretta & Bradley, Taste in Utero, 1977, p. 62 Bradley et al., "Dev. Taste Buds . . . ," J. Anat. 101 (4) 1967, p. 743-752
How about hearing? "Auditory sense is present in the infant 24 weeks before birth [14 weeks after conception]. This involves brain functioning and memory patterns." M. Clemens, "5th International Congress Psychosomatic," OB & GYN, Rome: Medical Tribune, Mar. 22, 1978, p. 7 Recent technology allowed a tiny microphone to be placed by the fetus's head and "We heard almost everything, from people talking 12 feet away, to a door opening in the room, to a cart going down the hall with the door closed. The clarity was incredible. It was easy to tell who was talking." The results showed the fetus hears everything we do, only 10 decibels less. Their earliest response to sound was at 26 weeks. Is Noise an Intrauterine Threat, Phelan & Satt, by R. McGuire, Med. Tribune, Nov. 30, 1989
He certainly can't cry! Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor ". . . injected an air bubble into the baby's amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby's face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby's head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself up-right with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby's head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus." Day & Liley, Modern Motherhood, Random House, 1969, pp. 50-51
Does the unborn baby dream? Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks. J. Birnhaltz, "The Development of Human Fetal Eye Movement Patterns," Science, 1981, vol. 213, pp. 679-681 REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception. S. Levi, Brugman University of Brussels, American Medical Association News, February 1, 1983 Since REM are characteristic of dream states after birth, researchers are asking if the unborn child also dreams?
Does he/she think? In adults, when we contemplate a physical move or action from a resting state, our heart rate accelerates several seconds before the motion. Similarly, the fetal baby's heart rate speeds up six to ten seconds prior to fetal movement. Is this conscious thought and planning? 83 N. Lauerson & H. Hochberg, "Does the Fetus Think?" JAMA, vol. 247, no. 23, July 18, 1982 "We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life." The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero. "Whether he ultimately sees himself and, hence, acts as a sad or happy, aggressive or meek, secure or anxiety-ridden person depends, in part, on the messages he gets about himself in the womb." T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 12 "At eight weeks of life a tapping stimulus on the amniotic sac results in arm movements . . . the primitive brain receives the stimulus, selects a response and transmits the response as a signal to the arm." M. Rosen, "Learning Before Birth," Harpers Magazine, April 1978
You mean that the unborn baby's emotions can be affected? This is probably true. "We know already that even embryonic nervous tissue is 'open' to maternal communication via brain chemicals called 'neurotransmitters.' This is a finding with enormous implications. It means that the mother's emotional state can affect the unborn almost from conception onward. Even before the baby can hear in the womb, or think consciously, it is capable of sensing discord between its parents. If the mother is in constant turmoil, its own environment will be tainted by the biochemistry of fear and hostility, grief, and anger." Shettles & Varick, Rites of Life, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, pp. 87-89 At four and one-half months, a very bright light on a woman's abdomen will cause the baby to slowly move its hand to a position shielding the eyes. Loud music will cause the baby to cover its ears. A woman in an unhappy marriage has a 237% greater risk of bearing a child with physical and psychological problems than a woman in a secure relationship. T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 49 Agreeing with Dr. Liley, Dr. W. Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud), observed 10,000 ultrasound visualizations and reported, "It looks as if the fetus has a lot of intentionality." He also once saw unborn twins fighting. 1st International Congress, Pre & Peri Natal Psychology, Toronto, July 8-10, 1983
So the fetus is really the Second Patient? Can he or she be treated? "The status of the fetus has been elevated to that of a patient who, in large measure, can be given the same meticulous care that obstetricians have long given the pregnant woman." Cunningham, F.G., et. al, Williams Obstetrics, 19th ed. (Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1993), 165. Diaphragmatic hernia and obstructive hydrocephalus can be corrected while still in the womb. In addition: "Medical treatment of the fetus includes exchange transfusion, thyroid hormone replacement and administration of steroids for surfactant induction. Correction of obstructive uropathy with urinary diversion has proved successful in decreasing fetal morbidity and mortality, while other procedures are still in the experimental stage. Extrauterine fetal surgery is performed only rarely but represents an exciting new direction in the treatment of medicine's youngest patients." Camosy, P., "Fetal Medicine: Treating the Unborn Patient," Am. Fam. Physician, 52 (5)(October 1995): 1385-92
How many weeks are there in a pregnancy and how do you measure them? There are 40 weeks. We measure a pregnancy from the time the ovum begins to grow, that is, at the start of a woman's menstrual period. After about two weeks of growth, the egg is released from the ovary. Fertilization can then occur. This is about two weeks before her next period is due. Four of the 40 weeks have already elapsed at the time she misses her first period. Gestational age dates from the first day of the mother's last menstrual period. Actual age of the baby dates from conception.
What is birth? Birth is the emergence of the infant from the mother's womb, the severing of the umbilical cord, and the beginning of the child's existence physically detached from the mother's body. The only change that occurs at birth is a change in the external life support system of the child. The child is no different before birth than after, except that he has changed his method of feeding and obtaining oxygen. Before birth, nutrition and oxygen were obtained from the mother through the baby's umbilical cord. After birth, oxygen is obtained from his own lungs and nutrition through his own stomach, if he is mature enough to be nourished that way. If he is quite premature, nourishment would continue through our present reasonably sophisticated external life support systems in the form of intravenous feeding, which is similar to the umbilical cord feeding from the mother. Did you "come from" a fertilized ovum? No, you once were a fertilized ovum who grew and developed into the child or adult you are today. Nothing has been added to the fertilized ovum who you once were except nutrition.
Whoa. I have a sudden urge to watch Discovery Health. That was very intriguing.
But, my original opinion still stands: It's up to the mother whether or not that being lives. Yes, that isn't very fair to the baby. But since when is life fair?
...And now I'm going to go back to just reading this debate.
In cases of rape or incest I think it's perfectly permissable, but there is otherwise no reason to kill a baby.
I just recently found out I was pregnant.. almost 7 weeks in at this point, and my baby already has a developing brain and a beating heart. Sure it hasn't had any experiences yet, it hasn't developed any emotions.. but it's still alive. If I were to kill it now it would be murder. I can't imagine killing my baby. Sure.. I didn't plan for one, but it's my own mistake and I will live with it and love it and take care of it the best I can.
Women who use abortion as a form of birth control should all be killed.
In cases of rape or incest I think it's perfectly permissable, but there is otherwise no reason to kill a baby.
I just recently found out I was pregnant.. almost 7 weeks in at this point, and my baby already has a developing brain and a beating heart. Sure it hasn't had any experiences yet, it hasn't developed any emotions.. but it's still alive. If I were to kill it now it would be murder. I can't imagine killing my baby. Sure.. I didn't plan for one, but it's my own mistake and I will live with it and love it and take care of it the best I can.
Women who use abortion as a form of birth control should all be killed.
