Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Politics Mstr wrote: I say we make it illegal. If it becomes a "back of the alley thing", so be it. With today's technologies, abortion should be an immoral, much avoided last resort. There will always be people doing illegal things in society, we can't stop it. I guess the pro-choice members live by the unreasonable phrase "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

Complately ignoring your blatent lack of concern for the life of other individuals...

How does the phrase "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" apply here?

[Gilbert1908]

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I ask again for any opposing science by ANY medical text book that human life does not begin at conception.

Just one.

One.

But you won't offer any, you will just continue your empty denials and nitwit name calling. Rather, science does not identify ione unique moment. here are xamples of articles in peer-reviewed sources dealing with that issue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9609026&query_hl=33&itool=pubmed_docsum
...The question about the identification of the exact moment when human life begins has a special ethic transcendence. Elements afforded by science are insufficient for this objective,...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7361883&query_hl=33&itool=pubmed_DocSum
...Causation theory is applied to the question of the point at which human life begins. It is concluded that the potential human being becomes actualized through the cessation of an exclusive in-utero dependency upon the material, formal, and efficient causes of its being, and the beginning of a nonexclusive ex-utero dependency upon nurturing and care-giving sources....

Both of these articles are based upon philosophy not science or medicine.

The second article you have listed is written by JF Crosby who is a professor of Philosophy at Franciscan University of Steubenville and a friend of mine.

Since you probably don't know, Franciscans are a Catholic Holy Order so guess what a University called Franciscan University would be??????

I suggest you read John's article on "The Personhood of the Human Embryo," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 18 (1993), 399-417.


Or one of his several articles on the philosophy of Pope John Paul II.

You just don't have a clue do you?

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Both of these articles are based upon philosophy not science or medicine. These were in peer-reviewed, scientific sources. Your sources were not. Case closed.

[The Grandmaster]

Gilbert1908 wrote: steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Pernaud & Moore Pg.2 (common textbook in Embryology courses) Which edition? What year is this?

Quote: Larsen Pg 1 (Human Embryology Textbook) Which edition? What year is this?

Quote: "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed" O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York. And so? How does that prove your claim?

Quote: "Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25." Moore and Persaud, p. 2; Which edition? What year is this? And this also shows no evidence of your claim.

Quote: Bradley M. Patten, M.D. Foundations of Embryology (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill. Vastly outdated.

Quote: J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23. Which edition? What year is this?

Quote: Leslie Arey. Developmental Anatomy (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Vastly outdated.

Quote: K.L. Moore. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12. Vastly outdated. Using old sources like that doesn't prove nothing about now. It only showed what some text book authors thought 30-50 years ago. And BTW, text books are not peer-reviewed. So these snippets are only evidence of the vocabulary used in general intro textbooks back then. It shows nothing about scientific consensus. It shows nothing about what the authors views are specifically to the question posed. All you are doing is quote-mining outdated textbooks.

Quote: Alfred M. Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania Medical Professor, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 24, 1981. Ah, a pro-lifer talking politics. How not relevant to professional, scientific views.

Quote: J.H. Otto and A. Towle. Modern Biology. New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1969. Vastly outdated.

Quote: Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, M.D., Harvard Medical School, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981. More political sophistry.

Quote: E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant. 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii. Vastly outdated.

I ask again for any opposing science by ANY medical text book that human life does not begin at conception.

Just one.

One.

But you won't offer any, you will just continue your empty denials and nitwit name calling.

:sigh1: Are you serious Gilbert?

Are you still going on and on with this same junk? I've left abortion for about two months now, just because it's all the same regurgitated mess.

Gilbert, don't you remember the dozens, perhaps even hundreds of arguments we've had in the past. Me, you, Sailor, Prole and Anarchist? For Months we went over this. It doesn't matter what we give you. You simply ignore it and post the same question over and over again in a new thread, despite it's having been rebutted over a dozen times. We go through the appeal to authority. We go over the fact that Anarchist and Steen have provided you many references that claim a life does not begin at conception. I have provided you with scientists as well. Your continue with your circular argument again and again that embryologists alone are have the final say on when a life begins, despite the dispute in the scientific community over this issue. Why the intellectual dishonesty. Why do you ignore the evidence we've provided for you? If I scanned a "Medical textbook" for you that said life doesn't begin as conception, would you even acknowledge it? (As if medical textbooks are infallible.) Anyway, continue with your ceaseless ignoring the the counter evidence for your position. I will merely sit back and watch the same arguments fall over again and again.

[Gilbert1908]

The Grandmaster wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Pernaud & Moore Pg.2 (common textbook in Embryology courses) Which edition? What year is this?

Quote: Larsen Pg 1 (Human Embryology Textbook) Which edition? What year is this?

Quote: "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed" O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York. And so? How does that prove your claim?

Quote: "Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25." Moore and Persaud, p. 2; Which edition? What year is this? And this also shows no evidence of your claim.

Quote: Bradley M. Patten, M.D. Foundations of Embryology (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill. Vastly outdated.

Quote: J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23. Which edition? What year is this?

Quote: Leslie Arey. Developmental Anatomy (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Vastly outdated.

Quote: K.L. Moore. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12. Vastly outdated. Using old sources like that doesn't prove nothing about now. It only showed what some text book authors thought 30-50 years ago. And BTW, text books are not peer-reviewed. So these snippets are only evidence of the vocabulary used in general intro textbooks back then. It shows nothing about scientific consensus. It shows nothing about what the authors views are specifically to the question posed. All you are doing is quote-mining outdated textbooks.

Quote: Alfred M. Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania Medical Professor, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 24, 1981. Ah, a pro-lifer talking politics. How not relevant to professional, scientific views.

Quote: J.H. Otto and A. Towle. Modern Biology. New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1969. Vastly outdated.

Quote: Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, M.D., Harvard Medical School, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981. More political sophistry.

Quote: E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant. 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii. Vastly outdated.

I ask again for any opposing science by ANY medical text book that human life does not begin at conception.

Just one.

One.

But you won't offer any, you will just continue your empty denials and nitwit name calling.

:sigh1: Are you serious Gilbert?

Are you still going on and on with this same junk? I've left abortion for about two months now, just because it's all the same regurgitated mess.

Gilbert, don't you remember the dozens, perhaps even hundreds of arguments we've had in the past. Me, you, Sailor, Prole and Anarchist? For Months we went over this. It doesn't matter what we give you. You simply ignore it and post the same question over and over again in a new thread, despite it's having been rebutted over a dozen times. We go through the appeal to authority. We go over the fact that Anarchist and Steen have provided you many references that claim a life does not begin at conception. I have provided you with scientists as well. Your continue with your circular argument again and again that embryologists alone are have the final say on when a life begins, despite the dispute in the scientific community over this issue. Why the intellectual dishonesty. Why do you ignore the evidence we've provided for you? If I scanned a "Medical textbook" for you that said life doesn't begin as conception, would you even acknowledge it? (As if medical textbooks are infallible.) Anyway, continue with your ceaseless ignoring the the counter evidence for your position. I will merely sit back and watch the same arguments fall over again and again.

I do so because all that has ever been delivered has been philosophical arguments not scientific arguements, as was once again done in another thread.

I can only disgree with someone's philosophy and explain why. I have more respect for the people who do not pretend or delude themselves that human life DOES NOT begin at conception, they acknowledge that human life does begin at conception or a few days later but that is no matter since they make the "personhood" argument, that human life has little or no value until some point in developemnt that life becomes a "person" and they define "person" in various ways.

One can argue that a human life is not a human person that is at least logical even though it requires an arbitrary standard, it is a worthy philosophical debate.

But to deny what is both common sense and generally accepted science (NOT PHILOSOPHY) the the human individual is created at conception eliminates any possible credibility on the subject.

Again you and others have posted PHILOSOPHICAL arguements resting on what is termed either "personhood" or "humaness" neither of which is a scientific term but apply to philosophy.

I can't remember if it was you or someone else listed "proof" the Scott Gilbert article listing of the 5 or 6 various definitions of human life. Gilbert lists as references the writing of Richard McCormick a Catholic Priest, Thomas Shannon a well know Catholic Philosopher Professor of Philosophy and Social Ethics, Allan B. Wolter O.F.M. a member of the Catholic Fanciscan Order and Norman Ford a Catholic priest and Bio Ethicist.

Now I believe that all of the gentleman listed above subscribe to the belief that ensoulment is the beginning of human life and they argue ensoulment can not occur until a point a few days after conception, But NONE of them supports abortion and NONE of them are either scientists or doctors.

Now I doubt seriously that you want to make this a religious discussion do you?

Here are the footnotes from the Scott Gilbert article

References:

Ford, N. M. 1988. When Did I Begin? Conception of the Human Individual in History. Cambridge University Press, NY.

Grobstein, C. 1988. Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures. Basic Books, NY.

McCormick, R. 1991. Who or what is a pre-embryo? Kennedy Inst. Bioethics J. 1: 1 - 15.

Morowitz, H. J. and Trefil, J. S. 1992. The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy. Oxford University Press, New York.

Renfree, M. B. 1982. Implantation and placentation. In Austin, C. R. and Short, R. V. (eds.) Reproduction in Mammals 2. Embryonic and Fetal Development (Second edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 26 - 69.

Shannon, T. A. and Wolter, A. B. 1990. Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo. Theol. Stud. 51: 603 - 626.


http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html