Evidence for God from Science

I was referring to your interpretation of that passage. Comparing adam with a fetus is downright stupid. Adam was unique because he was created fully grown, and as such cannot be used to "prove" we're not alive until we breathe.

vajaradakini wrote:
Do you watch csi? There's an episode called bloodlines where there is a chimeric man who rapes and kills women and they don't catch him at first because the dna in his sex organs and blood is different from the dna in his mouth.

No. And even if I did, it's still merely make believe/tv, no factual evidence that this sort of thing would occur naturally in humans in this case.

vajaradakini wrote:There was a woman in england a while back who upon needing a kidney donation found out that she was not actually directly related to three of her four children.

I'd need quite a bit more info on this case. Maybe she adopted children and never told any of them, and was still not wanting, or physically unable, to tell them. That would be the logical conclusion to me right now.

vajaradakini wrote:I am referring to fertilized ovum which are naturally flushed through a woman's system without implantation (pregnancy does not begin until implantation) Often this has to do with the woman's life (say she works at a stressful job or drinks) so really, if you put the beginning of life at conception, then every sexually active woman is potentially guilty of manslaughter many times over without ever being pregnant.

Key words: "naturally flushed" means natural selection was at work. It's probable that the fertilized ovum of that pregnancy was damaged, or the environment or conditions were not suitable for implantation for that woman (stress, drinks). The womans' body not the womans' mind rejected the implantation so manslaughter is a bit of a stretch.

vajaradakini wrote:Or in teh cases of women who are pregnant without knowledge of it and miscarry because say, they had to move and spent a whole day lifting boxes and furniture.

Again natural selection at work. A different pregnancy with the same circumstances likely would result in full term birth. I was still jogging regularly at 6 mos with one child and with another daily moved cases of vegies, meats, etc and also had to replace the occasional beer keg at work til 2 weeks before the due date. Some womens' bodies are a bit tougher and hardier than others - hence natural selection.

Some people also regret getting their hair cut or taking a job they realized later they didn't like or buying a car they end up hating... People regret lots of things they do.

Hair grows back, jobs can be changed again, cars sold -- However, a life ended is a life ended, ipso facto. No chance to ever bring it back. And none of the aforementioned, other than the profound realization of a life purposefully taken, causes the despair, grief, depression, alcoholism, and/or suicide that commonly occurs in a woman when she finally one day comes face to face with her abortion. Inside information coming from first hand knowledge from the 33 years and 45 million legal abortions on demand is bubbling up from the depths of the hearts of the women who have kept silent due to shame.

salt wrote:No. And even if I did, it's still merely make believe/tv, no factual evidence that this sort of thing would occur naturally in humans in this case.

*slaps hand on forehead*

Must I do all the medical research around here?

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... lekey=8905

Human chimeras do exist and do exist naturally in the world. CSI may be a fictional show, but that doesn't mean that they make up medical conditions.

I'd need quite a bit more info on this case. Maybe she adopted children and never told any of them, and was still not wanting, or physically unable, to tell them. That would be the logical conclusion to me right now.

Again, no. This actually happened to a woman in england. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3264467.stm

Key words: "naturally flushed" means natural selection was at work. It's probable that the fertilized ovum of that pregnancy was damaged, or the environment or conditions were not suitable for implantation for that woman (stress, drinks). The womans' body not the womans' mind rejected the implantation so manslaughter is a bit of a stretch.

However, given that this tends to happen becacuse the woman neglected to know that had conceived and thus did not take care to protect her fertilized egg and give it the proper environment... well, since by your definition, a fertilized ovum is a human life, which she caused to die... well. isn't that manslaughter?

salt wrote:Hair grows back, jobs can be changed again, cars sold -- However, a life ended is a life ended, ipso facto. No chance to ever bring it back. And none of the aforementioned, other than the profound realization of a life purposefully taken, causes the despair, grief, depression, alcoholism, and/or suicide that commonly occurs in a woman when she finally one day comes face to face with her abortion. Inside information coming from first hand knowledge from the 33 years and 45 million legal abortions on demand is bubbling up from the depths of the hearts of the women who have kept silent due to shame.

No life is ended. It is not yet an organism, not yet a life.

She can always get pregnant again when she's ready for it.

Also, women become suicidal while pregnant and after giving birth as well. Pregnancy brings with it wild hormone fluctuations and thus mood swings...

No life is ended. It is not yet an organism, not yet a life.

You're kidding, right? Even pro choice fanatics who are half-ass educated gave up on this. It is biologically both human and alive, unless you have extensive proof that it is either dead, or its DNA magically changes to that of a human upon birth.

vajaradakini wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And I believe the entity formed after conception, qualifies under any biological definition as life, and not just life but "human" life. Science appears to me on my side here:

Science is not dogmatic, there are disagreements on various issues in the scientific community. It is silly to say that "science" is on your side when what you mean is that some scientists are on your side.

True, but the majority here are behind me, and last time I checked, dead things don't grow. For example, "In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins... At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins." (http://www.godandscience.org/abortion/sld009.html)

vaj wrote:

K wrote:Infact, a dictionary definition of an abortion is "An aborted organism." A definition of organism is "An individual form of life." But you already understand the latter is life, so I perhaps needed not have stated that.

The dictionary also defines marriage as being between two consenting adult persons and life as being from birth to death.

You said elsewhere your father was a scientist. Is he a biologist? Perhaps you could ask your father for a definition on life, then whether "life" exists within a newly conceived baby?

vaj wrote:

Actually I'm just performing a little philosophy, and taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion. If "humanness" is based on intellect, than those who have lower IQ or are mentally challenged are infact less human. If you disagree with this, then I encourage you to rethink why brain activity matters. To me such a statement is on par to blacks not being persons due to the colour of their skin, which is what some once said. I see no reason to discriminate against certain forms of human life in the way you have.

When did I ever say that humanness was based on intellect? lol. That is ludicrous. Any human that surves for a significant amount of time outside the womb has more than a brain stem, which is what the brainwaves you refer to are from so early on. There is no stimulus response as an organism, thus no organism, no matter what your dictionary says...

Well then... what is significant about these other "brain waves" if not some sort of additional intelligence?

Additionally, from as early as twelve weeks after conception the fetus can be seen moving, slow rhythmic flexing of its muscles. Its hands and feet respond to gentle stroking by clenching its fingers or toes. Even at this stage it can sometimes be seen with its thumb in its mouth, a complicated action for such a tiny organism.
—http://www.gender.org.uk/about/07neur/75_cortx.htm—

I also found an interesting that I thought I'd reference—http://www.wintersteel.com/Life_Without_Brain.html. Though related, it doesn't have too much bearing on our discussion, but I just reference it in passing for the interest factor.

MOTION -- does it seem to move under its own power? Does it move
with some discernible purpose? (Toward food, away from heat, etc)

REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself,
either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in
some way?

CONSUMPTION -- does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients
in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually
multiply?

GROWTH -- does the organism develop over time, increase in
complexity, until it reaches a mature stage?

STIMULUS RESPONSE -- does the organism respond to external
stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect
external conditions?

Thanks for the unreferenced quote, but according to such criteria, I guess those in late stages of parkinson's diseases don't have life. I'm also guess that an infertile woman or man is not alive. I guess if I don't take another bite or sip of something from now until I day, I didn't have life after my last sip or bite. I'm all for the growth part of your response. I guess someone born without any functioning senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) wouldn't be alive.

Kurieuo.

Where did my last post go?

Kurieuo wrote:You said elsewhere your father was a scientist. Is he a biologist? Perhaps you could ask your father for a definition on life, then whether "life" exists within a newly conceived baby?

Considering that it's not even a baby until it exits the womb...

Well then... what is significant about these other "brain waves" if not some sort of additional intelligence?

Considering that the brain waves in question are similar to brain waves that everyone experiences while asleep rather than simple brain stem function.

And when you consider that death is now defined by brain death, rather than cessation of pulse and the like as before... it seems to make sense to define the beginnings of human life as the beginning of actual brain activity, rather than basic brain stem function.

I also found an interesting that I thought I'd reference—http://www.wintersteel.com/Life_Without_Brain.html. Though related, it doesn't have too much bearing on our discussion, but I just reference it in passing for the interest factor.

Will look at it later....

Thanks for the unreferenced quote, but according to such criteria, I guess those in late stages of parkinson's diseases don't have life. I'm also guess that an infertile woman or man is not alive. I guess if I don't take another bite or sip of something from now until I day, I didn't have life after my last sip or bite. I'm all for the growth part of your response. I guess someone born without any functioning senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) wouldn't be alive.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone born without any funcitoning senses... if only senses that function enough to detect hunger in which case, food would produce a response.

Furthermore, reproduction is defined as any time during the lifespan, though it does get iffy for those with genetic disorders...

and excuse me, you don't have to be rude, I forgot to refrence one quote... oOo...

vajaradakini wrote:Where did my last post go?

It was removed as I considered a portion of it wrongly provocative.

vajaradakini wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You said elsewhere your father was a scientist. Is he a biologist? Perhaps you could ask your father for a definition on life, then whether "life" exists within a newly conceived baby?

Considering that it's not even a baby until it exits the womb...

Ask a pregnant woman how the baby is going, and I'm sure she won't correct you. Infact, you really need to get a hold on definitions. Do you know what fetus means? It means "little one." Additionally, one definition of "baby" is "an unborn child; a fetus."

Vaj wrote:

K wrote:Well then... what is significant about these other "brain waves" if not some sort of additional intelligence?

Considering that the brain waves in question are similar to brain waves that everyone experiences while asleep rather than simple brain stem function.

So you are now telling me that people who are asleep aren't alive? You seem to know what your talking about, so I'm wondering if you are able to define for me the different parts of the brain, what purpose they serve, and when they become active?

Additionally, you still haven't explained why whatever absense of brain waves you feel make the unborn baby "non-life" are significant?

vaj wrote:And when you consider that death is now defined by brain death, rather than cessation of pulse and the like as before... it seems to make sense to define the beginnings of human life as the beginning of actual brain activity, rather than basic brain stem function.

Though I disagree that brain activity should define "human life" (and you've provided no reason why this should be the case), brain activity begins at about 8 weeks when the unborn is finally designated a human fetus (or human "little one").

Additionally, have you looked into the definition for "brain death"? One is not declared brain dead until both cortex and brainstem functions cease, and there is no possibility of them regaining function. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death)

vajaradakini wrote:

Thanks for the unreferenced quote, but according to such criteria, I guess those in late stages of parkinson's diseases don't have life. I'm also guess that an infertile woman or man is not alive. I guess if I don't take another bite or sip of something from now until I day, I didn't have life after my last sip or bite. I'm all for the growth part of your response. I guess someone born without any functioning senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) wouldn't be alive.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone born without any funcitoning senses... if only senses that function enough to detect hunger in which case, food would produce a response.

Furthermore, reproduction is defined as any time during the lifespan, though it does get iffy for those with genetic disorders...

I'm sure those who read my last words above have seen your definition of life is grossly inadequate, and so I don't see any further need to respond here.

Kurieuo.

Well, "Ask a Rabbi" didn't respond to my question about abortion. But I went to aish.com to find what the official position is. There was one article:



ABORTION - YES OR NO?
From: - anonymous@hotmail.com 2/5/2000


Well, I never thought it would happen to me. I'm pregnant. And now I don't know what to do. I realize this is an important decision -- not only for my own emotional well-being, but the heavy moral implications as well. I'm turning to a rabbi because I am wary of the "fashionable" opinions of today, which can flip-flop from one decade to the next. I'd like to hear what Judaism says simply because its ideas have stood the test of time. Does Judaism take the liberal "choice" approach, or does it take the hard-line position of the religious right?

THE AISH RABBI REPLIES:

First let me say I commend you for struggling with this.

Nobody disputes a woman's "free choice" over her body - to cut her hair, or to undergo lyposuction if she chooses. On the other hand, everybody agrees that there are limits to "choice" - i.e. a woman does not have the right to commit murder.

So the abortion debate really comes down to one basic question: Does abortion constitutes murder? In other words, does a fetus have the status of human life?

The Jewish position is a rational, middle ground, taking into account both the quest for spiritual greatness and the realities of everyday life.

In Jewish law, a baby attains becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial life."

So is it permitted to destroy this partial life?

Generally, no. This is illustrated by a case in the Talmud whereby a building collapsed on Shabbat. The rescue crew does not know if anyone is trapped under the rubble or not. And even if someone is trapped, they may already be dead. Despite these doubts, we push aside the restrictions of Shabbat in order to dig out the rubble - on the chance that it may result in the prolonging of human life. Why? Because every part of human life - even a doubtful, partial human life - has infinite value.

This applies to a fetus as well.

However, there can be certain factors which may create an exception. For example, when partial life threatens a full life. The Talmud discusses a case where doctors say that if the mother continues with the pregnancy, she will die. In such a case, we kill the fetus in order to save the mother. Why? Because when the partial life of the fetus is weighed against the full life of the mother, we give precedence to saving the full life.

Our question now is where to draw the line? What constitutes a "threat to the mother?"

As a general guideline, if the fetus poses a real danger to the mother - i.e. the pregnancy will aggravate a heart condition or will cause the mother to go blind - then there is room for discussion.

What about danger to emotional health? There are certain circumstances where this, too, may be grounds for abortion. For example, if the mother became pregnant through rape, and the thought of bearing this child will cause her a nervous breakdown or severe emotional trauma.

There are other factors as well, including whether the pregnancy is in the first 40 days or not. But the bottom line is that each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

* * *

Western society has slipped far from this Torah value. Of the approximately 2 million abortions performed annually in the United States, about 75 percent are attributed to matters of convenience (i.e. having a baby would interfere with the mother's school or work), or to financial considerations (i.e. a baby is not affordable at this time).

In Judaism, these constitute unacceptable reasons. When one's parents become old and require costly medication, should we then kill them also for financial considerations?!

Or how about when a fetus is diagnosed as having birth defects? Some argue that abortion of a handicapped fetus spares the child a "poor quality of life." Yet who said that having one arm constitutes a poor quality of life?! Should the mother of Stephen Hawking (the world's leading astrophysicist who is near-fully paralyzed) have made a decision that his was a life not worth living? Every time someone loses a limb in an accident, should we kill them?!

Or how about mental retardation? If a set of highly intelligent parents are appalled to discover that their fetus has an IQ of "only" 100, is abortion justified?

Judaism says that this type of selection process is evil. It hearkens to the Nazi program called "T-4," which systematically set out to kill all physically and mentally disabled persons.

By contrast, the Torah teaches that the true value of a person is his soul. The great 20th century sage the Chazon Ish used to stand up in respect when a person with Downs Syndrome came into the room. He explained that to have been given such limitations, the soul of this person must be very great, having come into this world to complete the process of perfection in this unique way.

Ask any parents of a handicapped child and they will tell you that their child is precious - irrespective of "performance."

* * *

If the issue of abortion seems morally clear, so why is there such a bitter public debate?

Often it is difficult to accept responsibility for the consequences of actions. When you get behind the wheel of a car, there are a variety of risks involved. Even if you are careful, you might accidentally run somebody over and kill them. And you'd have to live with that consequence.

So too, when a man and woman engage in intercourse, there are a variety of risks involved - among them transmitted diseases, emotional attachment, and pregnancy. It is not a question of being careful. It's a question of taking responsibility for one's actions.

So what's the right thing to do? In the absence of severe health danger, a woman must carry the fetus to full term. And with 1-in-6 American couples infertile, giving up the baby for adoption is an obvious option. Human life is precious.

I do not wish to minimize how difficult and agonizing this decision must be for you. "Doing the right thing" in this case will surely test your fortitude.

May the Almighty give you clarity and strength to do the right thing.

Just my two cents on the subject. I have never felt abortion was right. Wasn't quite sure why. And plus, I was a Christian, and fell into agreement with the Christian stance on this issue. But when I really got solidified in my belief that abortion is just wrong was after I read the first chapter of a book called "Unweaving the Rainbow" by Richard Dawkins. He is a biologist. And I think an atheist. The way he describes the uniqueness of every combination of two strands of DNA blew my mind. Just read the first chapter of the book, it's incredible. Supposedly there is NEVER a repeat. The combinations are endless. So ... I believe that two strands of DNA coming together at the moment of conception is equal to half the human being we are going to be. Our looks, personality, everything is contained in this genetic code. The other half is our experiences in life. So ... at the very second of conception, I believe you basically have half a human being in there.

I have heard that there are T-shirts out there that say "As a former fetus, I am opposed to abortion" or something like that. I want one that says "As a former helix of DNA, I am opposed to abortion."

Or more correctly I should say "As a former double helix of DNA, I am opposed to abortion." Am I right?

C'mon all you scientists out there, help a layperson out!

Jeremiah 1: 4-5

Now the word of the LORD came to me saying

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

It is not only murder, it is destroying something God is creating.

I find it ironic that a bunch of MEN can decide when a baby is truly alive or not. Shouldn't that be left up to the mother who is actually carrying this being inside her?

Darwin_Rocks wrote:I find it ironic that a bunch of MEN can decide when a baby is truly alive or not. Shouldn't that be left up to the mother who is actually carrying this being inside her?

Should a country be able to decide to kill someone with no reason other than convenience that dwells within it? You can't own human life, the life of the fetus does not belong to the mother, it belongs to God and the unborn child.