Science and Pro Life

  • Thread starter Thread starter whisper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whisper

Guest
What are some scientific findings that back up the Pro Life movement? Any information and/or findings that are not based in theology, but science?
 
Science alone can’t answer bioethical questions, such as those addressed by the pro-life-movement - it can only clarify the facts behind them. Science dictates that a separate human being lives inside of the mother during pregnancy. Bioethics tackles the question of when and/or whether it is acceptable to kill that human being.

Our Catholic faith would obviously deem it unacceptable, but it is not unique this way. Other religions and, indeed, a significant number of non-religious people argue the same.
 
Last edited:
When a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s spermatozoid a new human being is created with his/her own DNA which differs from both the parents.
Science has proven that this new life at a very early age starts feeling pain and emotions. We have images of tiny fetuses suckling their fingers which is known as a calming action on babies for axample.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The photo was taken from this website which I encourage to visit for information on the subject of the unborn.
http://www.drricksams.com/2019/02/new-york-love-fetus.html

Science can only shed more light on the murder of innocent human beings. It is hard to counter facts…
 
There are plenty, which have been discussed in this topic, on this forum and online in general.
Most notably, the fact that human life begins when conception occurs, which makes prochoice arguments such as “fetus is just a clump of cells like a growth”, “it’s a potential human”, “it’s my body” etc. null and void.
 
Last edited:
I find the “clump of cells” argument preposterous, we’re all clumps of cells, and we’re all human and we’re all living

same thing with the “my body, my choice” argument. Science says that’s another human being, not your body.
 
FaithRuir said:
I find the “clump of cells” argument preposterous, we’re all clumps of cells, and we’re all human and we’re all living

same thing with the “my body, my choice” argument. Science says that’s another human being, not your body.
Click to expand...
It’s an attempt to dehumanize the unborn child by equating them to a tumor or a growth in order to justify abortion. Science does not back that up at all. Science says a growth of cells happens through mitosis not conception, it is not a human being, it has no inherent ability to grow into an adult human being and never will. An unborn child (fetus) is and does. I’ll go with science. 🙂
 
Last edited:
How do you think that science debunks the ProLife position?

Give three examples.

B.N. Nathanson was one of the founders of NARAL in 1969 and served as its medical adviser. About six months afterwards, he saw his first ultrasound, in 1970. He wrestled with the ethics of it for the next seven or eight years, and eventually spent the next several decades working to undo what he had fought for.

From his NYT obituary—
In a widely reported 1974 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, “Deeper into Abortion,” Dr. Nathanson described his growing moral and medical qualms about abortion. “I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

His unease was intensified by the images made available by the new technologies of fetoscopy and ultrasound.

“For the first time, we could really see the human fetus, measure it, observe it, watch it, and indeed bond with it and love it,” he later wrote in “The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind” (Regnery Publishing, 1996). “I began to do that.”

Despite his misgivings, and his conviction that abortion on demand was wrong, he continued to perform abortions for reasons he deemed medically necessary.

“On a gut, emotional level, I still favored abortion,” he told New York magazine in 1987. “It represented all the things we had fought for and won. It seemed eminently more civilized than the carnage that had gone on before.”

But, he added, “it was making less and less sense to me intellectually.”

In addition to the 60,000 abortions performed at the clinic, which he ran from 1970 to 1972, he took responsibility for 5,000 abortions he performed himself, and 10,000 abortions performed by residents under his supervision when he was the chief of obstetrical services at St. Luke’s Hospital in Manhattan from 1972 to 1978.

He did his last procedure in late 1978 or early 1979 on a longtime patient suffering from cancer and soon embarked on a new career lecturing and writing against abortion.
Click to expand...
So, that’s an example of a scientist (an obstetrician-gynecologist) whose heart was changed as more and more science became available.

How far has the science and technology come from 1970?

It’s not the ProLifers who are stuck in 1969… 😉
 
Last edited:
It’s also scientifically inaccurate. A “clump” is an amorphous shape with no real rhyme or reason to it. Tumors are “clumps” in that they grow in various shapes wherever cells randomly decide to reproduce.

In the zygotic, embryonic, and fetal phases of development, cells are forming and differentiating in a very specific way for very specific purposes.
 
blackforest said:
Science alone can’t answer bioethical questions, such as those addressed by the pro-life-movement…
Click to expand...
What science CAN do is rebut the claims of the abortion-on-demand lobby.

Eg. Embryos don’t feel pain. That is empirically false.

Eg. Embryos aren’t humans. Science clearly defines what species they are.

Eg. “It’s my body - my choice.” Science clearly shows that a male embryo has a penis. How can a penis be part of a woman’s body?

Eg. Embryos aren’t ‘viable’ prior to X number of weeks. It is medical science which keeps breaking previous records for younger and younger premature births.

And we can thank science for the increasingly detailed ultrasound images which allow us to see in fine detail, the beautiful person living inside the womb. It is speculated that new mothers posting these amazing pictures on Facebook and Instagram have contributed to the gradual increase in anti-abortion sentiment this decade.
 
Last edited:
I find it very odd that many of those who pretend to value reason above “religious superstitions”, are in fact, science deniers when it comes to pet issues.

How can you expect a just and sane society when you are in fact unjust, and patently insane?
 
Last edited:
Asking for scientific evidence to support the pro-life ideology reminds me of a common argument used by the faithless along the lines of “It’s up to you to prove God exists, not me to prove God does not exist.”

This logic applies here. It’s on the pro-choice advocate to prove the unborn child is not alive, not the pro-life advocate to prove the unborn child is alive.
 
Lion_IRC said:
Embryos don’t feel pain. That is empirically false.
Click to expand...
A foetus doesnt develop a pain response until approximately 27wks
Lion_IRC said:
Embryos aren’t humans. Science clearly defines what species they are.
Click to expand...
Never heard anyone ague that a foetus isn’t a potential human before. I think the word you’re missing is “potential”
Lion_IRC said:
“It’s my body - my choice.” Science clearly shows that a male embryo has a penis. How can a penis be part of a woman’s body?
Click to expand...
A foetus is inside someone’s body, this is an argument about continuing consent. Essentially you’re wanting someone to be forced to keep someone else alive using their body to do so.
Lion_IRC said:
Embryos aren’t ‘viable’ prior to X number of weeks.
Click to expand...
In the UK the current point of viability is accepted as 23wk+0, even with advances in medical science there will still be a viability point, prior to which a foetus that is ex-utero will not survive
 
I’m not against the idea of a fertilized embryo being a individual human. I do have to ask though, then shouldn’t you be willing to extend social aid for this unborn baby if the mother is living in relative poverty? Some abortions occur because the mother has no way of paying for the birth due to insurance issues. The average (no complications) birth is somewhere around $11,000. Adding proper before and after birth care we’re getting to around $30,000. If these babies are worth protecting, we need to find a way to properly give birth to all of them no matter the social status they are born into.
 
We now live in a country where in parts of it, consent is needed to use a corpse’s organs, but, consent is not needed to use a woman’s organs.
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Never heard anyone ague that a foetus isn’t a potential human before. I think the word you’re missing is “potential”
Click to expand...
This is impossible. No organism can be a potential different-organism. If you consider a fetus a “potential” human being, then what organism is s/he before becoming said human being?
 
“We’re expecting in December, but we’re not quite sure if it’s going to grow into an elephant, a zebra, a chair, or a rock. We’re hoping for a baby, though, but you can never be quite sure how their potential will develop…”
 
The fetus is human at conception. To murder a human is wrong. Abortion murders a human. Abortion is wrong. Bottom line. Bringing up consent and viability and pain at so many weeks to argue for abortion doesn’t change a thing. Murder is murder inside the womb just as much as it is outside the womb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top