Hi Cutten, Not bad. One problem though: "Somewhere in between there will be a grey area where the foetus goes from obviously not being a separate living individual, to becoming one." + "This appears to be largely an issue for biologists and the medical profession." To explain what is "life" and the stronger "living individual" appears to elude this category of professionals. Perhaps you have to look elsewhere, certainly not at the politicians as you indicated. Be good, nononsense
>To explain what is "life" and the stronger >"living individual" appears to elude this category >of professionals. Not sure I follow...care to elaborate? JB
If I could, I certainly would. I think my statement is a fair one. In the sciences of biology and medicine, many have advanced divergent ideas on this, but no clearcut definition of life can be found. The confusion is obvious: a few posts back, somebody talks of "living" sperm and "living" egg cells. Clearly a different kind of "living" is meant when we talk about a feotus at -1 min before birth and at +1 min after birth, like Cutten says. ...care to elaborate? I love to learn something on this JB.
It wasn't a loaded question. I was truly trying to determine whether you were saying those professions were having trouble defining it or whether you were asserting that they had come to the wrong conclusions. Often a statement such as "don't expect them to answer that for you..." simply means one disagrees with their conclusion. I have nothing to add. JB
May I point out that my post did have nothing in it that resembles your "don't expect them to answer that for you..."
No Turok, no offense occurred in my eyes because again, you are talking about a situation where life is not possible yet. Once you plant the seed of life in a woman, be it naturally, or a surrogate mother through artificial semination, you now have set the stage for life to begin. Any termination after that point in my mind is playing God with a life of another human being. Keep in mind this is my view of things and certainly may not represent the view of others on the pro life side. I believe life should be preserved at all costs and there should be a very wide margin of error granted in terms of when that life begins.
I agree...your statement was perfectly benign. I simply wanted to ensure that I didn't misinterpret it. JB
Ok, that is a perfectly fine position, but it IS inconsistent with a "life begins at conception" position. In my crude example conception takes place on the counter in the petri dish (this is not a purely theoretical discussion, these out of womb fertilizations happen regularly) Again, there are no "wrong" answers...you questioned where I drew my line and now I'm getting you back. So, let's then move the process one step further... You are a medical professional and you have on your counter an egg you fertilized outside the womb -- a "non-life" we shall say from your previous response. Using a turkey baster (or other appropriate tool) you "plant" this egg in the womb of the woman. Exactly 10 seconds later and before you remove the baster she screams..."I don't want to be pregnant" and asks you to simply flush the offending egg out of her womb using a saline wand (or other appropriate tool). Remember, 10 seconds ago the entity was a non-life and you could do with it as you wish without offense You comply. Murder? Guilt ridden to the grave? JB
Mav: >Any termination after that point in my mind is >playing God with a life of another human being. Another question here. I'm wondering if you really mean "playing God" in the semi-literal sense of "only God should decide who lives and dies", or if you are simply using the term as a figure of speach? JB