Science and Pro Life

  • Thread starter Thread starter whisper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My husband and I always waited until birth to learn the sex of our babies. Lots of people would small talk and ask me, “Do you know what you’re having?” I’m not good at small talk, so I resorted to cheap snark: “A baby, I hope.”
 
Thanks! I really liked those examples. I’m pro-life myself. I asked because unfortunately when talking about this subject to others that disagree with the pro life movement I get too emotionally attached to the topic that i can’t back myself up with any facts.
 
What I mean by potential is that there are no guarantees that foetus will complete gestation, prior to birth it’s a human zygote, human embryo, human foetus only at birth does it become a human being.
 
Honestly, there’s no guarantee that a lot of us will make it out of younger adulthood into our golden senior years. (Lots of hope, but sadly no guarantees).

My point is that phases of development aren’t the same as species. A human being begins as a zygote and moves to embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, etc. There are different levels of development, but the organism is the same species for the duration, a human being the during the entire growth process.
 
A foetus doesnt develop a pain response until approximately 27wks
I thought 20 weeks was the generally accepted time.

Regardless some born humans don’t feel pain. Is it all right to kill them? Is it all right to kill anyone if the method is painless?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

BORN AT 21 WEEKS, the youngest person ever born, she is now 4
But Abortion kills children in the womb older than this child and say they do not live as children but as cells clumped together, funny they say the same nonsense about the formation of the planet,?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
born at 21 weeks old the youngest person ever born… proves your point.
 
According to ACOG and BPAS pain response is first reported in the third trimester or 27 weeks.
 
BORN AT 21 WEEKS, the youngest person ever born, she is now 4
But Abortion kills children in the womb older than this child and say they do not live as children but as cells clumped together, funny they say the same nonsense about the formation of the planet,?
The best data I can find shows a 0% survival rate for foetuses born prior to 21wks gestation, 1 outlier does not change the overall picture.

As for your comment about planetary formation I’m at a loss to see how that relates to abortion.
 
What is viability? And how does it determine whether we have a human being or not?

When you are 92 and gasping for air (as my mom is currently doing), are you viable?
How about when you are stuck in a burning building and really need just a little help? How viable are you?
How about when you were spit out your mom’s womb, squirming for some sustenance? Were you viable then.

viability… something we’d all like to have
 
The photo was taken from this website which I encourage to visit for information on the subject of the unborn.
how does one even take a photo like that? Surely it would be a huge risk to mother and baby to insert some sort of a camera into her womb?

I can’t help but suspect it is somehow either fake or heavily edited from scans and x-ray photos if not worse.
 
Last edited:
how does one even take a photo like that? Surely it would be a huge risk to mother and baby to insert some sort of a camera into her womb?

I can’t help but suspect it is somehow either fake or heavily edited from scans and x-ray photos if not worse.
Science. Technology. Is how.
Marvelous advances in imaging etc… I’m surprised this is the first time you’ve seen one of these.
Maybe the moon landings are fake too. (sorry, couldn’t resist the obvious analogies to skepticism)
 
Science. Technology. Is how.
Marvelous advances in imaging etc… I’m surprised this is the first time you’ve seen one of these.
Maybe the moon landings are fake too. (sorry, couldn’t resist the obvious analogies to skepticism)
It’s not the first time I’ve seen one of these (obviously) but usually they are passed off as what they are, pretty illustruations created by some creative person on a computer. To pass them off as an actual real photograph is actually less common.

The moon landing analogy is totally useful by the way. So many parallels. Marvelous advances in imaging ay?
 
Last edited:
So you think it’s a drawing not a real image? Or that it’s colorized?
Not sure how colorizing or whatever would make it “fake”. You don’t think that’s what preborn humans look like?
Not sure where you’re coming from here. I think it is a beautiful and real image.
 
Last edited:
Here’s two articles about the same photographer who did a famous spread for Life Magazine in 1965…


In the PBS/NOVA article, it mentions—
LENNART NILSSON: In the spring of '65, Life Magazine published a story about human reproduction—a cover and sixteen pages. I worked for twelve years on this story. One of the pictures was the face of an embryo inside the uterus taken with an endoscope with an electronic flash. And I remember that the editors wanted to have a witness to say that this was really the case, because it was a very sharp picture of the just the face, the head of the fetus inside the womb. But this was not my very first endoscopic picture. The very first, we took it in 1957—but in that case I didn’t get the face. I just got the legs, hands, feet, sex organs and so on. But I was trying to get just the face. And I remember we did have very special lighting with a strobe at the front of the endoscope—it was an American endoscope. And when I saw the fetus, I remember it was a fetus about 15 weeks old—sucking the thumb—and when I tried to press the button of the camera, the flash strobe didn’t work. There was something wrong with it! It took many years before I got the next chance.
Nilsson died in 2017. Here’s the NC Register article about the same work—
Stunningly displayed in its pages, and in an ethereal color, were images of embryos apparently still in the womb. For the first time, the camera had captured something of their mysterious translucent presence.

In the half-century that followed, a global audience came to admire what many considered to be some of the most astonishing photographs of the late 20th century. What was not known, however, was that many of the images in the book, especially of the older embryos, were of the aborted.

It took over a decade to produce the book that would come to be known as A Child is Born. A pioneer of the electron microscope, from the start Nilsson was in the vanguard of photographing the unborn. In the 12 years he worked on this book project, he was assisted by five hospitals that had agreed to collaborate with him. Some of the photographs were of fetuses from the earliest stages of pregnancy; often the subjects were obtained through miscarriage or ectopic pregnancies. During this journalistic assignment, however, Nilsson also turned to medical facilities carrying out abortions to help him find pictorial material. Abortion had been legal in Sweden since 1938. After the Second World War, the law was liberalized further; by 1965, in that country there were over 6,000 abortions per year. After having discovered suitable specimens, it is claimed, Nilsson would clean, frame and then light the aborted, before, finally, beginning to photograph.
Fetal photography in the womb is, like, 60-year-old technology. But not all fetal photography is of live babies. 😦 But it’s disingenuous to say that it’s all 'shopped, and you can tell by the pixels… it’s been around longer than NASA.
 
Last edited:
In terms of what the discussion is about, I’d take as the point at which a foetus can survive (with appropriate medical intervention) ex-utero. That number is typically expressed as a percentage.
 
In terms of what the discussion is about, I’d take as the point at which a foetus can survive (with appropriate medical intervention) ex-utero. That number is typically expressed as a percentage.
Again what is viability then?
Note: an infant can’t survive ex-utero. Why would we discriminate against a human being in utero when your standard of viability applies to all ranges of human existence?
That standard makes many people unviable and subject to termination.
 
Last edited:
According to ACOG and BPAS pain response is first reported in the third trimester or 27 weeks.
I’ll accept that. Now please address the rest of my post.

Is it OK to kill a born person if they won’t feel pain?
 
Every human being in existence started out as a zygote. Regardless of what it is called it is still a human being, as it cannot be anything else. Scientific fact, taught in medical schools, is that life begins at conception.
Here is a link to the American College of Pediatricians that says the same thing:
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

From the first paragraph:

**ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top