When Does Life End?

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."


Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, "Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins."2

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, "The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception."3

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson's study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his "increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths."4

In his film, "The Silent Scream," Nathanson later stated, "Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6

The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill," summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8


Paper here
I like these people.
 
A better analogy would be that each time you get in the car to drive to the store doesn't mean that you will make it there. You might get in an accident (spontaneous abortion), your car may not start (residual body), you might break down (birth defect causing spontaneous abortion), you might be the victim of an insurance scam where somebody deliberately hits you (directed abortion)....

Each time you get in the car your original destination was the store, but sometimes things got in your way.

I hope that very good analogy was simple enough for apples attempt to use elementary logic....
 
People who die were still people when they were alive. is that what you're thinking of?

Eh, no. More along the lines of Christian Niccum and Dan Joye, the Olympic luge team. They were at the Olympics. They got in their sled. They went down the track but they did not win the Gold.

Until they crossed the finish line we did not know if they were a winner. Well, we had an idea while they were on their way but we still didn't know for sure.

Hope I cleared that up for you. :)
 
A better analogy would be that each time you get in the car to drive to the store doesn't mean that you will make it there. You might get in an accident (spontaneous abortion), your car may not start (residual body), you might break down (birth defect causing spontaneous abortion), you might be the victim of an insurance scam where somebody deliberately hits you (directed abortion)....

Each time you get in the car your original destination was the store, but sometimes things got in your way.

If your car did not start then neither did your trip. Not unless you are marking the start as some point prior (before conception).
 
If your car did not start then neither did your trip. Not unless you are marking the start as some point prior (before conception).
Right, thus "residual body"... Conception is the creation of a viable zygote, not a residual body. Everything necessary to start the trip happened, but the car just wouldn't start. This happens with fertilization sometimes, the egg is fertilized but for whatever reason the cell never "starts", thus life was never created, since it was not a viable zygote it is not "conception", as the definition shows that it creates something that actually started...
 
It seems to me that the residual bodies mott describes may likely be due to some problem in the egg. I would assume, that its life (in the way the word applies in this context for the idiots that are going to pull out a dictionary) ended at some point prior to fertilization. The fertilization occurs but since the egg was dead so is the resulting zygote. An individual appeared at conception but life may never have been present in it.
 
ah, but until they get out of the car, they are all driving.....you assume the essential element is getting to the store......would it be morally right to rip all drivers from their cars because you don't want them to get to the store.......

Analogy: Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. (Emphasis added)

In this case the "certain respect" is comparing fertilization to getting in ones car and birth to arriving at the store. Identical starts do not guarantee identical endings. That's the moral of the story. The lesson to be learned, if you will.
 
Right, thus "residual body"... Conception is the creation of a viable zygote, not a residual body. Everything necessary to start the trip happened, but the car just wouldn't start. This happens with fertilization sometimes, the egg is fertilized but for whatever reason the cell never "starts", thus life was never created, since it was not a viable zygote it is not "conception", as the definition shows that it creates something that actually started...

Fine, then conception does not mean fertilization and life cannot begin at fertilization if it begins at "conception." Now we get to argue over what viable means and at what point viability is achieved. And if we can now split hairs requiring that the zygote be viable before "life" begins why not require the entire being to be viable which will not occur until well after fertilization.
 
Fine, then conception does not mean fertilization and life cannot begin at fertilization if it begins at "conception." Now we get to argue over what viable means and at what point viability is achieved. And if we can now split hairs requiring that the zygote be viable before "life" begins why not require the entire being to be viable which will not occur until well after fertilization.
Basically, according to the definition posted, conception begins if the cell actually "starts"...

Of course, I more agree with conception being at the implantation stage like my old biology books, but in order to have a conversation about it, it is necessary to agree on a definition.
 
Count me with the idiots who use dictionaries.

If use them to provide clarity, great. That's all they are good for.

Words are just symbols. Definitions are just our attempt to attach a symbol to a concept. They are almost never perfect in identifying a concept, certainly not when context is dropped. Definitions reduce the number of symbols necessary to explain a concept and help us to get at the concept. But not when dumbasses trot out definitions as if they are more or even as important as the concept itself. Usually, these clowns ignore any definition that does not fit their meaning or that does not fit the meaning of someone with which they disagree.
 
Basically, according to the definition posted, conception begins if the cell actually "starts"...

Of course, I more agree with conception being at the implantation stage like my old biology books, but in order to have a conversation about it, it is necessary to agree on a definition.

Which is what I am doing. I did not argue your definition. I accepted it and commented on how it impacts the primary issue.
 
why do we need to know....no one is trying to kill a three day old cell.....

As I mentioned before all anti-abortionist's arguments ultimately rest on the fertilized cell being a human being and that is just not the case. Therefore, we need to know when a human being comes into existence.

The premise of their argument is null and void. They ran with the DNA without looking where they were going and hit the wall. We're back to "quickening" and males becoming people before females are people and all the silly definitions we'd had over the course of history.

There's a reason why birth was the universally recognized line in the sand.
 
Yup. This is what abortion discussions become.

Which is why I ignored your advice.

Definitions are useful in coming to an agreement on terms. Sometimes you must agree to disagree on terms in order to get at the concept intended by the user. Stopping at the definition and continuously arguing that is stupid and pointless, unless you are arguing what the definition SHOULD be not what it is.

I am perfectly agreeable in accepting whatever scientific definition you like in defining life, IF it works in the intended context. The many scientific definitions of life may work within their fields. They do not seem to work in the legal/medical context.
 
So YOU (the organism) die at 97 years old because you "did not have the ability to carry on the processes of life and that's a basic requirement" means you were never a human being.

If the above sounds stupid, its because it is...

If you logic was reasonable and sound, it would make as much sense at 97 years of age, as you think it makes at 97 seconds of age.... obviously its doesn't...


A HUMAN BEING IS A HUMAN BEING NO MATTER AT WHAT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT OR GROWTH IT IS...

Yes, a human being is a human being but not all fertilized cells are human beings.

Maybe you don't have any problem cheapening human beings to the point where it's considered normal for over half to come into existence and die within hours but I put a little more value on them than you. I also have no doubt our positions on capital punishment and war would further showcase our differences.
 
A better analogy would be that each time you get in the car to drive to the store doesn't mean that you will make it there. You might get in an accident (spontaneous abortion), your car may not start (residual body), you might break down (birth defect causing spontaneous abortion), you might be the victim of an insurance scam where somebody deliberately hits you (directed abortion)....

Each time you get in the car your original destination was the store, but sometimes things got in your way.

If over 50% of the time one never made it to the store it certainly wouldn't be prudent to state unequivocally one is going to make it to the store.
 
Analogy: Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. (Emphasis added)

In this case the "certain respect" is comparing fertilization to getting in ones car and birth to arriving at the store. Identical starts do not guarantee identical endings. That's the moral of the story. The lesson to be learned, if you will.

quite simply your analogy fails because it PRESUMES that arriving at the store (birth) is life......for those of us who believe life is turning on the ignition, it hold no value.....
 
Back
Top