son of witless

Are you saying that I am wrong ?

bggamers Loc: georgia

[quote=Songline][quote=victor doherty]I'm not sure what your thinking but your focused is on bull crap[/quote

Sorry I do agree with what he wrote an it is not Bull. We can add a book load on Joe, but he is correct in what he said.
I no I get a Democrat nor do I like the Republican Party THIS GOVERNMENT Has been going down hill for a lot of years now they all suck.[/quote]

Moved to China or perhaps Russia would be to your liking

victor doherty

[quote=Songline][quote=victor doherty]I'm not sure what your thinking but your focused is on bull crap[/quote

Sorry I do agree with what he wrote an it is not Bull. We can add a book load on Joe, but he is correct in what he said.
I no I get a Democrat nor do I like the Republican Party THIS GOVERNMENT Has been going down hill for a lot of years now they all suck.[/quote]

Well then it's time for the revolution write in Bernie i'm the mad protestor join me lets piss off the status quo

bggamers Loc: georgia

may not like your personal beliefs but love the humor

Songline Loc: NYC

Sorry I don’t know how old you are but government died with the murder of JFK
Johnson immediately changed immigration laws, Clinton the banking laws Bush propelled the NWO and on and on.
You are welcome to walk with eyes wide shut.

Capt-jack Loc: Home

LOL, so you thing " the issue of gay marriage is a religious concept, as is abortion" you think murdering an unborn baby is a religious concept? I see you belong to the Obama/Biden camp.

victor doherty

I have some more funny stuff go to the mad protestor and check out nothing trickle down mr chump and the state of obvious

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

You can laugh, but let me point out that for any other species on earth, an offspring is not considered "alive" until it is "born" ... i.e. breathing and suckling. In humans, the debate rages as to when the fetus is alive; be it at conception, at viability, or when the umbilical cord is cut. That definition is one that is not scientifically provable, and is dependent on what your religious views are. To claim otherwise is motivated by what sect you belong to. Therefore I put it into the religious/moral category.
Even after birth, in many cultures, infanticide is practiced because of religious belief about the ability of the child to contribute to the society (be it through physical or mental inability), or a belief that one sex or the other is more valuable to the culture. If you make the claim that humans are "exceptional", that again is a religious concept mainly of Mosaic roots. Many native American and Eastern religions do not share that viewpoint.
And by the way, as I have said before, I have to give the Catholic church credit for sticking to similar views on abortion and the death penalty. In my view, you can't be for one and not the other, and at least they are consistent in that regard.
And I'm not in anyone's "camp". I am a pragmatic realist ... or what you would probably call a libertarian (culturally liberal and fiscally conservative.) Many of you think that I am an anti-religious bigot, which I am not, since I criticize all religions for their rigidity, intolerance and oppression, be it Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, Shinto, Christian, Mosaic or any other.
End of sermon, your mileage may vary.

Capt-jack Loc: Home

Very twisted point of view. In marsupials, they come out as a fetus no hind legs, and little else, are they alive, or do you have to wait until they grow the rest of there body?

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

Beginning of human personhood
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For origins of humans as a species, see Human evolution.

Human embryo at 8-cell stage
The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields including science, religion, philosophy, and law, and is most acute in debates relating to abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.
Traditionally, the concept of personhood has entailed the concept of soul, a metaphysical concept referring to a non-corporeal or extra-corporeal dimension of human being. However, in modernity, the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, personhood, mind, and self have come to encompass a number of aspects of human being previously considered to be characteristics of the soul.[1][2] With regard to the beginning of human personhood, one historical question has been: when does the soul enter the body? In modern terms, the question could be put instead: at what point does the developing individual develop personhood or selfhood?[3]
Related issues attached to the question of the beginning of human personhood include both the legal status, bodily integrity, and subjectivity of mothers[4] and the philosophical concept of "natality" (i.e. "the distinctively human capacity to initiate a new beginning", which a new human life embodies).[5]

Contents
1 Fertilization
2 Philosophical and religious perspectives
3 Personhood in law
3.1 Ecclesiastical courts
3.2 Common law
3.3 Implantation
3.4 Segmentation
3.5 Brain function (brain birth)
3.6 Fetal viability
3.7 Birth
4 Other markers
4.1 Individuation
5 Ethical perspectives
6 Legal perspectives
6.1 Ireland
6.2 United States
7 See also
8 References
Fertilization[edit]
Fertilization is the fusing of the gametes, that is a sperm cell and an ovum (egg cell), to form a zygote. At this point, the zygote is genetically distinct from either of its parents.
Fertilization was not understood in ancient times. Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar were reputed to have been conceived without fertilization (virgin birth). Hippocrates believed that the embryo was the product of male semen and a female factor. But Aristotle held that only male semen gave rise to an embryo, while the female only provided a place for the embryo to develop,[6] (a concept he acquired from the preformationist Pythagoras). William Harvey refuted Aristotle's idea that menstrual blood could be involved in the formation of a fetus, asserting that eggs from the female were somehow caused to become a fetus as a result of sexual intercourse.[7] Sperm cells were discovered in 1677 by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, who believed that Aristotle had been proven correct.[8] Some observers believed they could see an entirely pre-formed little human body in the head of a sperm.[9] The human ova was first observed in 1827 by Karl Ernst von Baer.[8] Only in 1876 did Oscar Hertwig prove that fertilization is due to fusion of an egg and sperm cell.[6]
Some members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins. Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" beginning "a new individual life history." In the standard college text book Psychology and Life, Dr. Floyd L. Ruch wrote "At the time of conception, two living germ cells—the sperm from the father and the egg, or ovum, from the mother—unite to produce a new individual." Dr. Herbert Ratner wrote that "It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg." This certain knowledge, Ratner says, comes from the study of genetics. At fertilization, all of the genetic characteristics, such as the color of the eyes, "are laid down determinatively." James C. G. Conniff noted the prevalence of the above views in a study published by The New York Times Magazine in which he wrote, "At that moment conception takes place and, scientists generally agree, a new life begins—silent, secret, unknown."[10]
The view that life begins at fertilization reached acceptance from mainstream sources at one point. In 1967, New York City school officials launched a large sex education program. The fifth grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell." Similarly, a textbook used in Evanston, Illinois stated: "Life begins when a sperm cell and an ovum (egg cell) unite."[11] Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft goes so far as to say "This is widely accepted still today and has been verified by the scientific community".[12]
"To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization: the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte,usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


As you can see from this article, there are those that believe that life at conception has been proven scientifically. Religion had absolutely nothing to do with the decisions of Dr. Bradley Patten, Dr. Floyd Ruch, Dr. Albert Katherine or James C G Conniff! Once again, your opinion is not a fact.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

I would dispute these people from this standpoint. A fetus is totally dependent on its mother (host) for all nutrition, excretion and oxygenation through what is called an 'osmotic' organ (the placenta). Those functions, while not directly connected to the host, are entirely dependent on the host through that organ, and it is not capable of becoming an independent life form until the umbilical cord is cut.

"Some members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins." Some does not mean that it has been widely accepted as scientific fact. Is it just these four, or is there a consensus of all the medical profession and researchers that this is true? I suspect that there is still a major divide on the issue. In this respect, I maintain that it is a religious concept that is being applied to the scientific process, which biases it to that particular outcome. "The outcome determines the means and facts applied."

'that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" beginning "a new individual life history."'

That means that we have to define "life" for a human being, which involves all the parts of an existence including reproduction and sentience and the potential for this. This brings us back to the issue of human exceptionalism, which would take up another complete thread.

Is it, at the point of conception, capable of performing all the functions of a human being? Of course not. It may be 'alive' as applied to any 'living organism" but it is not a "life". Was Terry Schiavo having a life? She was technically alive, by artificial means, but she certainly didn't have a life and would never be able to do so.
Yes, comatose patients do wake up and resume their lives, but it is always possible for them to wake up and resume all the functions of a life from the comatose state. A fetus until the point of viability is not capable of this, and thus doesn't meet the qualifications of a "life". Even after viability, it requires extraordinary measures to allow this fetus to achieve "babyhood".
Taken to a logical conclusion, you would have to apply this definition of life to all living things, and thus would mean that killing any living thing would be wrong. This is obviously impossible, since we as human beings cannot take raw materials as intake and survive. We have to eat organic material (plants and animals) to maintain life as we know it. Again, the issue of human exceptionalism comes into play.
This also has legal aspects, as I'm sure you are painfully aware. The argument is that since a fetus is technically a part of the mother's body until the umbilical is cut, that the mother has the right and privilege of eliminating that part of her body, regardless of the definitions and feelings of either religion or government. This is also the legal argument that the Supreme Court applied in Roe. The right of the woman to control her own body, until the fetus is either born naturally or through Cesarean Section has been legally established, regardless of all the attempts to restrict that right.
'Nuff said. As usual, I'm sure your mileage will vary.

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

IMO! Whether it is an independent life or a dependent life, it is LIFE!

Of course there is a major divide ! Where is your proof that religion had anything to do with the decision of the four in this article? There was none! That’s just your opinion!

Again, my whole point is that your beliefs are based on your opinion. This whole subject of when life begins has two different sides and is continually debated by very learned renown men with different opinions of what truth is! You and I will never agree on this.....abortion is murder! Life begins at inception...the soul enters a body at this point...... There are those that present their proof of this! And then there’s your side! They do the same !

Terry’s story was a very sad and passionate story! Christians were even divided on this one! I think that if a body is incapable of surviving without life support......that is not being alive. Now, I’m not a doctor, and there are probably exceptions to this statement! In Terry’s case, I think it was a blessing to disconnect her. Life and death had been taken out of God’s hands and placed into a machine. IMHO.

son of witless

"
You can laugh, but let me point out that for any other species on earth, an offspring is not considered "alive" until it is "born" ... i.e. breathing and suckling. "

I find that to be the most amazing thing I have heard this week. May I humbly ask, how you know that ? How many animal dialects are you fluent in ? How do you know what a pregnant animal thinks about the babies inside of it's body ?

Even with that, I can cite an example and prove you wrong. Technically any animal that comes from an egg out side of it's mother's body, is not " born " until it hatches. A bird or an alligator will defend it's eggs aggressively against predators. So it must believe the unborn offspring inside of the eggs are alive.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

We all agree to disagree. There are equal viewpoints on both sides and none of our opinions will probably be changed. Enuf.

Comment Loc: California

Mr. Smith: Have U travelled in the countryside in Mexico, or central America? Prison is a better environment, better housing, free food, free medical, and many other food bank give aways. They will still come for the better living even if it is prison. Another benefit for their families is they get welfare. What are the costs to taxpayers of your proposal? Prisons are being emptied already, releasing thousands of felons onto society. The costs of incarceration of each inmate is in excess of $34,247 on average. In some states more than $67,000.