Immigration reform (for Byblos)

[PaulSacramento]

Science:
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientifi ... fe-begins/

A Scientific View of When Life Begins



The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.



The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.



Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.



Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.



What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]



An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.



Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”



Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.



In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.



The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

[PaulSacramento]

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

[edwardmurphy]

I can't contest her scientific chops, because what do I know, but I can point out two places where she's lying.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

The first lie is that there's a universally accepted that life begins at conception. Different scientists from different fields see the matter differently. Here's an example - just one of many - which destroys Dr. Condic's claim of universal agreement among scientists. She wanted to make a dramatic rhetorical point, but to do so she had to lie. Bad form, Doc.

The second lie is that Dr. Condic - devoutly Catholic, staunchly pro-life, and a member of the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute - is making a purely scientific argument that's entirely independent of political or religious views. If she was speaking as an unbiased scientist then she wouldn't have lied and said that her position was universally accepted.

The other lady made the same claim in the other article, so I won't bother to get into details. You are stating your beliefs and supporting them with other people's statements of belief. You're entitled to your beliefs, but they're just beliefs, not uncontested facts.

[PaulSacramento]

ALL the scientists at NASA would disagree with Dr. Paulson.
And it matters NOT Dr. Condic's believes since she basked everything she said with facts, as did the Princeton University article.
And, of course, every NASA scientist looking for life on other planets.

[PaulSacramento]

By the way, no one is talking about "personhood", or when anything becomes a "person".

[edwardmurphy]

And it matters NOT Dr. Condic's believes since she basked everything she said with facts.

No, she didn't. That's the point.

Her position is based on her interpretation of the evidence. I just provided you with a completely different interpretation from a person who is just as knowledgeable as Condic and who looked at the exact same evidence. Therefore her position is not universally accepted by scientists, her position is not objectively correct, and the discussion is not over. There is no scientific consensus on when a fetus becomes a human being, and talking about whether or not the fetus qualifies as "life" is just a way of brushing past that point.

Your argument is basically that a fetus is alive so aborting it is "taking a life," by which you clearly mean a human life. From there it's a short hop to "abortion is murder." The thing is you're using "alive" and "human" as synonyms and acting as if there's some sort of universal agreement among scientists, philosophers, theologians, or anyone else that that's the case. There is no such universal agreement.

Personally, I think that "life begins at conception" is meaningless. What matters is when that life can be said to be a human being. As I've said, at this point I have two positions:

1) A fetus becomes a human being when it reaches viability - the point that it could survive outside the womb. At that point - which is different for every pregnancy - abortion should only be permitted to prevent harm to the mother. What constitutes harm should be between a woman and her doctor. So should any decisions about how to proceed.

2) Whether or not to abort a pregnancy prior to viability is an extremely difficult, extremely personal decision that should be made by a woman, her doctor, a counselor, and anyone else she chooses to involve. Government should stay out of it. Forcing the doctor to stick to a script or forcing the woman to go through procedures that her doctor regards as medically unnecessary is inappropriate bordering on evil. Strangers shouldn't get a say either, because it's none of their business.

[PaulSacramento]

Again, NASA would disagree with you.
A singled cell organism is a live, hence it is life.
YOU don't get to decide when a human life becomes a human "being", that IS subjective.
It being a human LIFE, is NOT.
If the embryo or the fetus is not a HUMAN life, what is it then?
FACT: it is alive.
FACT: it is genetically human, with BOTH the DNA or mother and father, not just the mother like an organ or such. It is already distinctive.
Ergo: it is a human life.

As for this:
2) Whether or not to abort a pregnancy prior to viability is an extremely difficult, extremely personal decision that should be made by a woman, her doctor, a counselor, and anyone else she chooses to involve. Government should stay out of it. Forcing the doctor to stick to a script or forcing the woman to go through procedures that her doctor regards as medically unnecessary is inappropriate bordering on evil. Strangers shouldn't get a say either, because it's none of their business.

I agree, Government should stay out of this UNLESS it is to make a law or to enforce a law.
That is not the issue.
The issue is this:
The taking of a life can NOT simply be a matter of choice.

[Byblos]

And it matters NOT Dr. Condic's believes since she basked everything she said with facts.

No, she didn't. That's the point.

Her position is based on her interpretation of the evidence. I just provided you with a completely different interpretation from a person who is just as knowledgeable as Condic and who looked at the exact same evidence. Therefore her position is not universally accepted by scientists, her position is not objectively correct, and the discussion is not over. There is no scientific consensus on when a fetus becomes a human being, and talking about whether or not the fetus qualifies as "life" is just a way of brushing past that point.

Your argument is basically that a fetus is alive so aborting it is "taking a life," by which you clearly mean a human life. From there it's a short hop to "abortion is murder." The thing is you're using "alive" and "human" as synonyms and acting as if there's some sort of universal agreement among scientists, philosophers, theologians, or anyone else that that's the case. There is no such universal agreement.

Personally, I think that "life begins at conception" is meaningless. What matters is when that life can be said to be a human being. As I've said, at this point I have two positions:

1) A fetus becomes a human being when it reaches viability - the point that it could survive outside the womb. At that point - which is different for every pregnancy - abortion should only be permitted to prevent harm to the mother. What constitutes harm should be between a woman and her doctor. So should any decisions about how to proceed.

2) Whether or not to abort a pregnancy prior to viability is an extremely difficult, extremely personal decision that should be made by a woman, her doctor, a counselor, and anyone else she chooses to involve. Government should stay out of it. Forcing the doctor to stick to a script or forcing the woman to go through procedures that her doctor regards as medically unnecessary is inappropriate bordering on evil. Strangers shouldn't get a say either, because it's none of their business.

If viability is determined by the fetus' ability to survive outside the womb then viability ought to also be the ability to survive independently outside the womb, since otherwise it is entirely and utterly dependent on external care. So let's make it somewhere around the age of reason, or puberty. Heck let's be on the safe side and make it adulthood. While you're at it let's also declare all older people unable to care for themselves in-viable and just get rid of them.

This line of argument is vacuous at best.

[DBowling]

FACT: it is alive.
FACT: it is genetically human, with BOTH the DNA or mother and father, not just the mother like an organ or such. It is already distinctive.
Ergo: it is a human life.

That said...
There are legal and moral reasons for taking human life.
self defense for example

[edwardmurphy]

If the embryo or the fetus is not a HUMAN life, what is it then?

This is just semantics. A fetus has potential to become a human, but as long as it's a partially developed extension of the mother it's still just potential.

And again, almost all abortions - 99% - take place well before the fetus is anywhere close to viable.

I agree, Government should stay out of this UNLESS it is to make a law or to enforce a law.

What? Once the government makes and enforces a law that's the whole ballgame.

If viability is determined by the fetus' ability to survive outside the womb then viability ought to also be the ability to survive independently outside the womb, since otherwise it is entirely and utterly dependent on external care.

Careful with the mental gymnastics. You're going to pull something.

Prior to viability a fetus is an extension of its mother. It cannot exist without her. After it reaches viability the mother is no longer a necessity. Sure, it still needs food, water, and air, but anyone can provide those things. That's the difference between a potential human and a human.

[Kurieuo]

The debate has really moved beyond the category of "human life" imo, at least with extremists left types which really "all of the above" in what is pretty much every potential leader in the Democratic party. Given the extremity of abortion right up until birth, and then not even allowing a baby born alive the medical care and protection afforded to "human beings".... very extreme. It's not even abortion, but really a debate on infanticide.

[PaulSacramento]

FACT: it is alive.
FACT: it is genetically human, with BOTH the DNA or mother and father, not just the mother like an organ or such. It is already distinctive.
Ergo: it is a human life.

That said...
There are legal and moral reasons for taking human life.
self defense for example

Of course, the taking of a life MUST be justified and that has been my whole point AND the point of the whole legal system in the west.
Choice is NOT a justification for killing.

[edwardmurphy]

Wow.

It's really frustrating that it's impossible to discuss this topic without having to play whack-a-mole with an endless series of mischaracterizations and bold faced lies...

The debate has really moved beyond the category of "human life" imo, at least with extremists left types which really "all of the above" in what is pretty much every potential leader in the Democratic party.

A few things...

First off, as the Obama and Trump presidencies have clearly shown us, the President is much more able to break things than to build them. Sanders, and to a lesser extent Biden, want to build things - a better healthcare system, a response to climate change, a reformed post secondary education system, and so forth.

Between Republican obstructionism in the Senate - Democratic Presidents don't get to appoint judges, spirit of the Constitution be damned - and the new conservative judiciary it's going to be extremely hard for any Democratic President to build anything at all, period, no matter whether the majority want it or not. So the idea that Bernie Sanders would just declare an abortion free-for-all is specious. That's not how it works.

Second, your characterization of liberal "extremists" as wanting an abortion free-for-all is dishonest. The most extreme pro-choice position is that abortion is a personal matter that should be entirely between a woman and her doctor. And I'm not sure why you guys are choosing to overlook this, but doctors are bound by ethical standards, and aborting a healthy fetus at 27 weeks just for [poops] and giggles is not ethical. The other thing you guys seem to be overlooking is that women, as a general rule, aren't monsters and that any of them who are pregnant into the third trimester want to be pregnant (or at least made the conscious choice to stay that way).

And finally, calling pro-choice advocates "extreme" while withholding judgement on the American right is some extreme hypocrisy. Alabama passed a law making it a Class 1 felony to provide an abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest. Rick strongly supports that law, and I don't recall anyone here disagreeing with it. That position is way, way outside the mainstream, which would seem to make it "extreme." It's damned sure more extreme than the idea that American abortion law should be more like current Canadian law.

Given the extremity of abortion right up until birth,

That's not a given at all. It's actually a lie told by anti-abortion activists. Can't blame them, I guess, since the President says stuff like this:

The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.

See, that's a lie too. Sideshow Don knows it's a lie, but he thinks that anti-abortion activists are more interested in scoring points than having an honest discussion so he figures they'll take it at face value. And he's right. Again.

When Democrats pass laws permitting late term abortion if the mother's health is at risk or there is an absence of fetal viability you guys reframe it as liberals going all in on infanticide. That's [nonsense].

Are you opposed to late term abortion if carrying the pregnancy to term is likely to kill the mother?

If it was my wife I'd want her to have the right to sit with a doctor and discuss her options. Wouldn't you want the same?

Are you of the position that a fetus that shows irrefutable evidence that it cannot survive outside the womb must be carried to term no matter what?

If it was my wife I'd do everything I could to safeguard her physical and mental wellbeing, and that doesn't include forcing her to carry a doomed pregnancy to term. Wouldn't you want the same?

Are you of the position that if a baby is born too early or with too many health problems to have a chance at survival doctors should be required to go to "heroic measures" to extend her life by a few hours or days, even if it's both painful and futile?

If it was my baby I'd want her to spend her last hours being held and comforted by her mother and me rather than in an incubator, stuck full of needles and tubes, alone and terrified. If it was my baby I'd much want her to be safe from pain and fear. I'd want to hold her, and love her, and say goodbye. I'd want the knowledge that although her life was brief she never suffered. Wouldn't you want the same?

and then not even allowing a baby born alive the medical care and protection afforded to "human beings"....

[nonsense].

In rare cases a pregnancy must be ended to save the life of the pregnant woman. And those cases sometimes involve a delivery in which the fetus can’t survive outside the uterus or would suffer severe disabilities if it did, Grossman added. Conditions can include preeclampsia, a deadly condition that can occur as early as 20 weeks into pregnancy characterized by high blood pressure and organ damage in the woman. It can only be treated by delivering the fetus.

Those cases result in painful decisions that the parents and their medical care team must make — either take what’s known as “heroic measures” to intervene aggressively in an effort to save the baby’s life, or to instead provide comfort care as the baby’s life ends naturally. “That’s a very difficult and personal decision that family has to make with their care team,” Grossman said.

It’s also important to note that “heroic measures” in these cases can be painful, not just futile, as they involve starting intravenous (IV) lines in tiny, fragile blood vessels to push drugs; multiple blood draws’ and sticking a breathing tube down the baby’s windpipe to force air into the lungs. “These are really severe cases involving severe malformation [and/or] extreme prematurity, where really the chance [of survival] is close to zero if not zero, and it just doesn’t make sense to put both the baby and the family through that,” Grossman added.

What you describe as "not even allowing a baby born alive the medical care and protection afforded to 'human beings'" is actually allowing a doctor to use their judgement about whether to or not a baby has any chance to survive. Is your position that doctors must use painful "heroic measures" no matter what, even if it's clear to everyone in the room that doing so would be completely futile? Why would you want that? What would be the point?

very extreme. It's not even abortion, but really a debate on infanticide.

Nope, it's really not. Anti-abortion activists are just lying to make it seem that way. They're doing that because the reality is that they're the extremists and if they permitted honest, open discussion that would be apparent to everyone. They know they can't get their way without lying so they lie.

[Byblos]

If viability is determined by the fetus' ability to survive outside the womb then viability ought to also be the ability to survive independently outside the womb, since otherwise it is entirely and utterly dependent on external care.

Careful with the mental gymnastics. You're going to pull something.

If, by mental gymnastics, you mean the only logical and inescapable conclusion of an argument having its central tenet, i.e. viability, as a moving target tethered to the whims and opinions of the many, then color me mentally gymnatized.

Prior to viability ...

Who defines viability and what happens when no consensus emerges as to when it begins or what it even means?

... a fetus is an extension of its mother.

Says who, you?

It cannot exist without her.

Says who, you? And what if science advances to a point where it can exist without her, at any point after conception? Then what? If we move the viability target once again, we'd end up exactly with existing independently outside the womb. See how logic works? But you'd have to have a fit mental capacity to reach that conclusion and gymnastics tend to do that.

After it reaches viability the mother is no longer a necessity. Sure, it still needs food, water, and air, but anyone can provide those things.

And your alternative is what, let's get rid of it before it becomes a real burden? I go back to my earlier comment then, what's the difference between that and declaring all human beings who are unable to care for themselves inviable? The answer is there is no difference at all, according to your own definition of viability.

That's the difference between a potential human and a human.

At any point after conception a fetus has all that it needs to develop. All it needs is the proper environment. Whether that environment is inside the womb or outside it is simply a matter of location, nothing more.

[Byblos]

very extreme. It's not even abortion, but really a debate on infanticide.

Nope, it's really not. Anti-abortion activists are just lying to make it seem that way. They're doing that because the reality is that they're the extremists and if they permitted honest, open discussion that would be apparent to everyone. They know they can't get their way without lying so they lie.

Sometimes I wonder if you believe what you say out of invincible ignorance or a deliberate one. Are you not familiar with New York State's RHA (Reproductive Health Act) newly enacted into law by our esteemed governor Andrew Cuomo? I suggest you get familiar with it and what it allows (and who is now able to make those decisions) then come back here and tell us it's a lie and that we're just peddling extremist misinformation.