This is best explained by considering three people who might state their respective beliefs as follows:

a) I believe in god. I believe he creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that human life begins at conception.

B) I also believe in god and a soul but I don’t believe the soul is created until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life begins at birth (or some other time).

C) I don’t believe in god or a soul.

Comment
- the above are statements of religious faith or its absence.
- none of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.
- each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.

Human life can be defined by using a wide variety of philosophic beliefs and theories.
These use social or psychological rationale which can involve biologic mileposts. Examples of philosophic definitions of when human life begins include the following:

when there is consciousness; when there is movement; when there is brain function, or a heartbeat; when viable; at birth; when wanted; when there has been an exchange of love; when "humanized"; when this is a person (how-ever "person" is defined); if mentally or physically normal, etc.

Comment

while admittedly arrived at through a certain reasoning process, all of the above remain theories. None can be proven factually by science.
Each individual has a right to hold his own philosophic beliefs.
People of good will can and do differ completely on the correctness of any or all of the philosophic beliefs and theories mentioned.

Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school.

The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." this is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

Comment

- the above is not a religious faith belief.
- the above is not a philosophic theory.
- the above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact.

If there is one absolutely essential function of a nation or state, it is to protect the lives of those who live within its boundaries. In order to carry out this solemn duty it must first ask and answer when the life of its people begins.

What intellectual discipline, what method of measurement can we (should we) use in making this fateful definition?

The question of when human life begins is a scientific question. Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or religious beliefs for the answer. We must conclude then that each individual human life begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that time until death

Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.

Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.

Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.

Even if a person did doubt the presence of actual human life in the uterus at a particular time, what would be the fully human way to go?

Perhaps a guide would be how we have always treated other human life when there has been a doubt that it exists. Would we not resolve a doubt in favor of life?

We do not bury those who are doubtfully dead. We work frantically to help rescue entombed miners, a child lost in the mountains, or a person under a collapsed building.

Does a hunter shoot until he knows that it is a deer and not another man? I suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.

The charter of the united states, the declaration of independence and european bill of rights, is guiding here.

"all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

the first right is "life," for without it there are no other rights.

But there are conflicting rights; who is to judge?

The ethical principle is that there is a hierarchy of rights, but that the right to life itself is supreme. There is a right to free speech, but not to shout "fire" in a theater. A man has a right to swing his fist, but that right stops at your nose. We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but we cannot achieve it by discriminating against, stealing from, injuring or killing others.
Laws enforcing civil rights are of this nature.

Every government has the right and duty to protect the lives of all living humans in that nation regardless of degree of dependency, degree of perfection, age, sex, or place of residence (living in or out of the womb). This protection should be guaranteed by its constitution or the united nations bill of human rights and should be enforced through due process of law.

The alternative to this is to allow, legislate or adjudicate a system in which there is discrimination against certain classes of living humans. In the case of abortion there is discrimination against an entire class of living humans, on the basis of age (too young) and place of residence (still living in the womb).

Such laws created by the u.S. Supreme court and by other nations’ parliaments have granted to one living human (the woman) the legal right to kill another (her developing baby) in order to solve her own personal social problem. Should this fatal discrimination against an entire class of living humans continue?

That is a question still before each nation and each individual, and one that will simply not go away.

A civilization will ultimately be judged by how it treats the smallest, the most dependent, the most innocent among its members. Did that nation cherish, protect, love and nourish them — or kill them?

It should be obvious to everyone that there are two living humans involved: the unborn child and his mother. For this nation to once again protect its unborn babies, but not to do everything humanly possible to help the mother would be immoral.

The woman with a problem pregnancy must, at the same time, be offered aid in solving her problems, to help her through that distressing time.
If in fact, her very life is threatened physically, then, the ideal is to save both.

But if, in treating her, the fetal baby is lost, such may be an unfortunate result. Your authors have traveled nationally for 30 years lecturing on this subject, and we have yet to hear of a directly induced abortion needed to prevent her death.

There are, of course, good reasons to deliver the baby and end her pregnancy in its late months, but here hopefully the baby is saved. Never in late pregnancy is it necessary to directly kill the baby by abortion. If her problem is something less than a threat to her life itself, then we cannot solve it by the ghastly violence of killing another innocent human life.

The solutions for helping any individual woman are often many and complex, but they must be found and they must be used. Why can’t we love them both?

Samie, it sounds like you are really anti- the us constitution. There are countries you could go and live in that are more in tune with your way of thinking like ireland, malta and some other catholic countries. I'm sure you would be very happy there!

In the meantime thank you for a very informative discussion. I would be very interested to know where it was quoted from, it is much better written than most of the things you post. It still doesn't convince me, and comes from the usual point of view, but at least its mostly coherant

Replying to myself was so I dont take over the board with numerous threads!


As the us constitution dosnt state we can health question innocent human beings therefore the abortion laws and you are against the us constitiution not i

You are against liberty and the pursuit of happiness, though.

Yes if it means being against the right to life which preceeds both.. But those can still exist under the right to life, actually can only exist under it

Fortunately, you have the right not to have an abortion. You should have exercised that at the time instead of trying to condemn other people who have the right.

My personal life dosnt change facts!

And the fact is that abortion is legal under certain circumstances, most women who have them believe they are right to do it, most people agree that abortion should be available under certain circumstances, and your personal experience doesn't chnage the facts.

It health question children - if you think thats right thats your choice but you cant make laws against the constitution and against the un bill of rights

I think you'll find the laws have been made. Abortion is legal in most places.

I know that! The laws are against human rights and us human rights activists wont let it lie!