Great TED Talks vid: Human life from conception to birth

_{News
November 15, 2011

Biology, News, Video}_{Categories
Biology
News
Video}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

Yes, and BD obviously missed the point that when we witness something that is fighting to live, even an animal, we can discern WHAT it is that is doing the fighting.StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Bruce I was not quoting scripture for you. And yes you have on numerous times shown me that Bruce is a dogmatist, who ultimately turns out to be a god unto himself who could care less what the actual evidence, or anyone else, says!bornagain77_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Next time you meet a woman who doesn't want to go through the massive inconvenience of carrying a child and the agony of labor, tell her that you think the man who impregnated her has the right to tell her she must do so. See how far you get.Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Bornagain: I have explained to you more than once that I do not regard Christian scripture as an authority, so please don't go quoting scripture to me like it should mean anything. Secondly, your quote is a perfect example of one of the reasons I regard scripture in that light. It is SO open to interpretation. You can interpret that passage in many ways. A vegetarian, for example could use it to support her position that we cannot kill animals. You could also interpret it to mean an affirmation to support all life, meaning be an environmentalist above all else. There is nothing in it that explicitly states that a fertilized human egg is included in "life". YOU make that interpretation.Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Bruse David:
Any animal will fight to stay alive.
Watch out for all of those fighting cows!!!!Joseph_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Bruce David:
Rather, I am against the attempt to deny each individual woman the right to make that decision for herself, on the basis of religious views which in many cases she does not share.
So men don't have any reproductive rights, is that your position? Or is your vision too narrow to grasp that?Joseph_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Bruce as you have left the readers with a decision to decide what is more rational; pro-abortion or pro-life, God has also left us each with a decision:
Deuteronomy 30:19-20 ,,,I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days."
music:
George Strait - I Saw God Today - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q06AvQF5NOw
bornagain77_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

So DrREC, from a purely biological, scientific, point of view, when does a human life begin???bornagain77_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

StephenB and Bornagain: Well, I think we have reached the point where further discussion will be fruitless. I have made my points, and you two just keep repeating your objections, which I find less than convincing. I now rest my case. I will leave it to the readers of this thread to each decide for him or herself who has made more sense.Bruce David_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

"magnetic resource imaging" That is "magnetic resonance imaging." At least you're consistant in your lack of scientific or medical knowledge. Also, the images you're thinking of are ultrasounds or direct imaging. MRIs are less cute looking to use in propaganda, as the result is a 2D slice of tissue. One point not made here is that a fertilized egg has a CHANCE of becoming a human. That is, if it implants, doesn't spontaneously abort, and develops normally. Anyone want to google the odds of those things happening? Or maybe do a google image search for hydroenchepaly, etc?DrREC_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: "Your description of the fetus trying to avoid being killed, while definitely emotion stirring, doesn’t prove that the fetus is a human being. Any animal will fight to stay alive. That doesn’t make it human." Well, let's see, your response to rational arguments on behalf of the humanity of the fetus is this: you reject common sense, you reject the DNA evidence, you reject the fact that like produces like, you reject the vision of a baby sucking its thumb, you reject the history of the pro-choice moment, you reject the testimony of geneticsts, you reject the testimony of fetologists, You reject the testimony of biologists, You reject the testimony of doctors, and your only argument against all this overwhelming evidence is -- you think than an acorn grows into an oak, which, as I pointed out, is false. An acorn grows AS an oak INTO an oak tree. By the way, just for fun, what arguments or evidence for the humanity of the baby would you accept?StephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: "For the record, I do not support abortion. Rather, I am against the attempt to deny each individual woman the right to make that decision for herself, on the basis of religious views which in many cases she does not share. I find it quite frankly abhorrent and a contradiction of the religious freedom upon which this country was founded." I get it. You don't support abortion unless somebody wants one. LOLStephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

BA, thanks for the kind words.StephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

By the way StephenB, that was a excellent post!bornagain77_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Oh goodie, Bruce David gets to arbitrarily, by his own personal preference, decide when human life begins and when it doesn't begin. It would be funny save for the fact that you actually think you are being rational.,,, By the StephenB, that was a excellent post!bornagain77_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

The history of the pro-choice movement, even were your characterization accurate, which I doubt, is irrelevant. Nothing in my argument depends in any way on the history. Your description of the fetus trying to avoid being killed, while definitely emotion stirring, doesn't prove that the fetus is a human being. Any animal will fight to stay alive. That doesn't make it human.Bruce David_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

You don't seem to be aware of the history of this debate. Decades ago, abortion supporters justified their grisly act on the grounds that they didn't know if the embryo's were really alive. Having been refuted by science, and after being dragged in kicking and screaming by the evidence, they immediately moved the goalposts and said,"well, it may be alive, but is it human?" A decade later, new DNA evidence forced them to say, "well, OK, it is clearly alive and human, but is it a person?" Following that, they made another shift, asking if it was a "quality person." You seem to have missed all the action. The fact of the fetus'"humanity" has long been settled. In fact, we can look inside a mother's womb via magnetic resource imaging and see the human unborn baby sucking it's thumb. As far as I know, no one has even participated in this exercise and went away thinking that they had just witnessed an underdeveloped giraffe mimicking the behavior of a human. With the same technology, by the way, we can also witness that same human baby fighting for its life against almost impossible odds. When you are only two or three inches long and weigh only a couple of pounds, it isn't easy to defend yourself against a 175 pound abortionist armed with knives and chemicals. As you might imagine, the action is brutal with all the writing, twisting, and silent screaming, but the little guy doesn't give up easily, fighting long, hard, and heroically. You can almost sense him saying, "just give me a few more years and a few more pounds and I will take you on." But, alas, that will not happen in this life.StephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Bruce you have not refuted anything except in your own imagination!!! All you have really done, once again, is severely twist a simple scientific truth so as to arrive at your pre-desired philosophical conclusion, i.e. pro-abortion/pro-choice!! ,,, Does it not bother you in the least that this blatant 'dehumanization' tactic, i.e. propoganda, that you are using, in saying that human life in the womb is not really a human life, is the same type of deceptive tactic that NAZI's used to achieve their desired end to murder Jews??? i.e. the NAZI's portrayed Jews as sub-human, as inferior human beings, just so as to justify passing laws denying them basic human rights, so as to eventually 'legally' exterminate them. The parallel of abortion to that NAZI 'culture of death' is striking, chilling, and sobering. This following award winning documentary clearly illustrates the 'culture of death' parallel:
"180" Movie - Hitler, Holocaust, Abortion - Award winning documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
further notes
Born Alive – Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen http://www.faithandfacts.com/abortion/born-alive-abortion-survivor-gianna-jessen/
fn: the body count for abortion is now over 50 million in America since it was legalized, by judicial fiat not by public decree, in 1973: of related interest: The SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court (not by public decree) in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:
The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930
You can see that dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site;
Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html
further note:
How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
It is also very interesting to point out that the materialistic/atheistic philosophy, which undergirds neo-Darwinism, has an extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans in the first place, i.e. Just how do you derive value for a person from a philosophy that maintains transcendent values are illusory?:
How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp
Whereas Theism, particularly Christianity, has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are worth, since infinite almighty God has proved we are infinitely valuable to Him by dying on the cross for us so that we might be reunited with Him:
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Music:
Creed - Bullet http://www.youtube.com/v/KtCHFLMRX78&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1 Kingdom Of God Vs. Kingdom Of Darkness http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060606 Flyleaf - Chasm (Living Water) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-BvOuE7wfw
bornagain77_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Yeah, well, a whole lot of people, including many, many biologists, regard the neo-Darwinian synthesis as a fact also. That doesn't make it so.Bruce David_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

--"All you are doing, Stephen, is giving me your opinion. I got it that you regard a fertilized egg as a human being. You are entitled to your opinion. Nothing you have said in any way imposes that belief on anyone who doesn’t already share it, however. It is not simply my opinion. It is a scientific fact.StephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

--Bruce: "No one would hold an acorn in their hand and say, “This is an oak tree,” or even, “This is an oak.” It doesn't matter what they would say. The fact is that an acorn IS a member of the oak family. But it doesn't matter, because an Oak or an acorn, or an oak tree, for that matter, does not have the intrinsic value of a human. Only someone who promotes abortion would even try to make such an analogy. Chopping down an oak tree is not like murdering a human being, and destroying an acorn is not like aborting a baby.StephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

See 5.2.1 above.Bruce David_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

All you are doing, Stephen, is giving me your opinion. I got it that you regard a fertilized egg as a human being. You are entitled to your opinion. Nothing you have said in any way imposes that belief on anyone who doesn't already share it, however.Bruce David_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

[obvious fact of the humanity of the embryo] ---Bruce: "I’ve already answered this three times. Your response seems to be simply to keep repeating what I’ve already refuted." But your attempted refutation was based on an erroneous analysis: An acorn does not develop into an oak, it develops AS an oak, INTO a tree, just as an embryo does not develop into a human, it develops AS a human INTO an adult.StephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

StephenBL Nice try. It won't cut it though. You are deliberately attempting to blur the clear distinctions I have made. No one would hold an acorn in their hand and say, "This is an oak tree," or even, "This is an oak." And very many people, myself included, would not look at a fertilized human ovum and say, "This is a human being," or even, "This is a human." They might say, "This will become a human being," but that very statement implies that it is NOT a human being in its present state, as I pointed out above. I get it that you, Bornagain, and many others would, but that makes it your opinion, not fact. My only point is that it is a matter of individual belief and individual conscience, and neither you nor Bornagain have said anything to refute that.Bruce David_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

--Bruce: "The question is not when does the individual life begin, the question at issues is when does the HUMAN BEING begin, and I can think of two other perfectly defensible answers" The Human being's life begins when the already Human parents transmit their humanity at the moment of conception. They are not simply transmitting life, they are transmitting human life. ---"My own answer: a human being begins when the incoming soul merges with the body and brain of the fetus, some time during the third trimester when the brain is sufficiently developed for this to occur." Your answer is pure speculation. Life and death matters should not be decided on that basis. There is, however, no speculation about the humanity of the human embryo. It is a scientific fact. ---"The US Supreme Court’s answer: a human being begins when the fetus is capable of surviving on its own, outside of the womb, again some time during the third trimester." The US Supreme Court is not qualified to comment on the matter.StephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Scott: Many people do remember these events quite well, although usually only under hypnosis. I refer you again to "Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls" by Michael Newton. Some people remember them on their own without hypnosis however, as Yogananda reports in "Autobiography of a Yogi". To answer your other question, a soul needs a body in order to participate in earthly existence. Otherwise they don't need (and indeed don't have) a human body at all.Bruce David_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Your analysis is incorrect: An Acorn is an oak that is not yet a tree. An Embryo is a human that is not yet an adult An Acorn develops AS an oak, not INTO an oak An Embryo develops AS a human, not INTO a human A fully-grown oak is a oak tree. A fully-grown human is an human adult.StephenB_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Bruce David,
My own answer: a human being begins when the incoming soul merges with the body and brain of the fetus, some time during the third trimester when the brain is sufficiently developed for this to occur.
Why don't we remember that incoming part, anything before it, or anything before a certain age? A related question - why does a soul need a body? It sounds like two unrelated questions, but I suspect that they are connected.ScottAndrews2_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Regarding "the obvious biological fact that human embryos are human beings", I've already answered this three times. Your response seems to be simply to keep repeating what I've already refuted. For the record, I do not support abortion. Rather, I am against the attempt to deny each individual woman the right to make that decision for herself, on the basis of religious views which in many cases she does not share. I find it quite frankly abhorrent and a contradiction of the religious freedom upon which this country was founded.Bruce David_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply