Unique From Day One: Pro-life Is Pro-Science
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Each year the March for Life board and staff choose a theme that will best contribute to building a culture of life; and as they do so, they take into account cultural norms and current events to help make their message resonate with Americans. This year, March for Life leadership wanted to draw attention to the fact that science and technology continue to reveal the humanity and life of an unborn person even in its very earliest stages. That’s why the 2019 March for Life theme is “Unique From Day One: Pro-life Is Pro-Science.”
In 2008, President Obama was famously asked, “When does life begin?” He dodged the question by joking that was “above my pay grade.” While this response conveniently gives cover when advocating policies that are destructive of life in its earliest stages, the answer isn’t difficult. An organism is alive when it meets four criteria: metabolism, reaction to stimuli, growth and reproduction.
The zygote, the first cell formed at the moment of conception, is the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo. It is undeniably human in that it is composed of human DNA and totally different from any other human that has ever existed. DNA is present, whether it’s 23 pairs of chromosomes or 22. The fingerprint that each of us has – distinguishing us from any other human on the planet -- is determined by that DNA on day one.
Fetal development in its simplicity and depth is astonishing. Only three weeks after fertilization, a little one’s heart starts beating. At eight weeks of pregnancy the baby has started moving around (even though Mom can’t feel this quite yet). By the 10 th week of pregnancy, a baby’s fingers and toes are forming. By 13 weeks, right at the end of the first trimester, the baby has fingerprints. If the baby is female, she already has more than 2 million eggs!
During the second trimester, organs including kidneys begin to work, and expectant parents might even see their little one sucking his thumb on an ultrasound. At 19 weeks of development a baby’s senses are developing and she or he can likely recognize Mom’s voice at this stage.
One hundred years ago our understanding of embryonic development was very different from what it is now. Medical advancements continue to reaffirm the science behind the pro-life cause – that life begins when egg meets sperm and a new, unique, human embryo is created. Moreover, breakthroughs in science and ultrasound technology have provided a window into the womb allowing us to witness firsthand the development of life.
Pro-life is pro-science, and science should always be at the service of life. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Recently you might have read that the Department of Health and Human Services cancelled a contract related to acquisition of aborted fetal tissue between the Food and Drug Administration and an organization called Advanced Biosciences Research. ABR is a major supplier of aborted fetal tissue; the Trump administration’s ending of the contract was a very good thing. Unfortunately, millions of taxpayer dollars still flow to similar experimentations using human fetal tissue or human embryonic stem cells -- both of which rely on the destruction of human life.
To help counter this, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and his co-sponsor Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) introduced the Patients First Act – HR 2918 – which would prohibit tax dollars from going toward such needless destruction in the name of research. Instead, it would redirect federal support to alternative stem cell research, including the use of adult stem cells, which has proven to be much more successful in saving lives.
Science makes clear that human life -- and our uniqueness as individuals -- begins on day one, at fertilization. Life, in its most vulnerable form, should be protected, and we are grateful for HR 2918 and call on members of Congress to pass this and similar legislation preserving the dignity of the human person from its earliest moments.
It is for such reason that each January we march. We march to protect life in its earliest and most vulnerable stages, and we march to restore a vision of a world where the beauty, dignity, and uniqueness of every human life are valued and protected – from day one.
Tags
Who is online
219 visitors
This is emotional hogwash from a very biased source. If you don't like abortion then don't have one but keep your fantasies out of my body and I won't think in your church. I'll believe your lies about supporting human dignity when you care about the child's health and welfare after the end of the 3rd trimester by mandating new parent leave, better schools, and universal healthcare. Until then your claims are just partisan noise.
You're dismissing an argument, not by engaging with its content, but by accusing the author of being "emotional." The truth is the argument is full of factual scientific information and you have made no attempt to refute any of it.
Not that there is anything wrong with an appeal to emotion. You make it sound like a person should be ashamed or is stupid for having feelings.
Which part of the argument was fantasy? And nothing was said about your body or the body of any woman.
I see very little thinking behind your comment and no mention was made of church or religious beliefs.
Off-topic whataboutism. The argument is about abortion. The rightness or wrongness of abortion is not dependent on public policy vis-a-vis parental leave, education, or healthcare.
The science of pre-natal development is not partisan. It's just science.
Frankly, I see no rational argument at all in your comment. It seems entirely "emotional." Perhaps you are projecting when you accuse others of this.
Her entire argument is based on religious belief. I was raised Catholic and Ive seen this nonsense from most of my religious family for the past 40 years. This woman has no scientific training in Obstetrics or gynecology.
Please quote the religious belief cited in the argument.
Oh? Did she claim something that was incorrect?
Her arguments are an emotional spin of science.
Not your body, not your business, not your uterus, not your business, not your pregnancy, not your business.
When a man can birth a child through their pee hole then it's your business, otherwise go pound salt.
No one is interested in your uterus and no mention was made of it in the seed.
If you're discussing an abortion you're discussing a uterus.
I know that word makes some uncomfortable. Too bad.
And the republican war on women marches on.
Yeah, you know . . . in spite of the actual words used.
I know you think other people are so primitive that they're afraid of your words, but the reality is that we're not. What you seem to be afraid of is discussing the actual words used.
How can you be discussing banning abortion if you aren't seeking to legislate a woman's medical care and her uterus.
That might be the most asinine sentence in this seed, which is about controlling a women's fertility (uterus).
Wow! What a detailed and compelling argument! You have entirely changed my mind with your insightful analysis. /s
Where did I say we should ban abortion?
I'm not interested in women's medical care or anyone's uterus. I'm interested in what's inside the uterus. What's inside the uterus is a life form that is distinct from the woman.
The stated goal of the RtL is to ban abortion. They also want to ban assisted suicide/euthanasia.
Don't be obtuse. You can't possibly accomplish that goal without legislating her medical decisions and controlling a woman's uterus.
Yeah? I'm not the RtL. How about we stick to holding me responsible for the positions I actually express? I want to discuss what our approach should be as a society, not cling religiously to what it currently is.
My concerns about abortion are not - and never have been - based on some religious passage, unless you want to cite scripture that puts a value on human life. However, you certainly don't need to be a religious person to hold that view. Valuing human life is hardly some fringe or fundamentalist religious position.
Furthermore, why is there no requirement for justifying the matter of choice? You like to say that those who question the status quo on abortion are being emotional (as opposed to scientific or factual, I suppose), but this assertion that a woman's choice trumps all is offered, without support, as axiomatic and with no limits allowed.
It is our body and only our choice, until the fetus is viable without heroic medical measures(27+ weeks). Your beliefs do not trump our rights as independent people. Conservatives don't give a damn about that baby once it is born because you oppose mandating ideas such as universal healthcare, parental leave, food subsidies and better schools, among many others. You just blame the mother in your conservative zeal. The typical argument is that the mother wanted the child so it's her fault, while you try to ignore the fact that you want to force her to carry that child to term. You also confuse the idea of having sex and seeking to conceive, because that difference doesn't support your religious stance on abortion.
The question is, why do YOUR beliefs, or the RCC's beliefs, or Mike Pence's beliefs trump MY BELIEFS? I do not believe abortion is any different than other ways pregnancies don't go to term. I don't believe the soul enters the body and its known if a mother is going to continue the pregnancy or not. I don't care if you believe me or not because I don't believe what you do, and its not your damn body or choice! How dare anybody try to force what they believe on women or anybody else. Live your own damn values and let everybody else live theirs.
Sing it, sister. Get these old men out of our business.
Breed them out of the gene pool by saying no to sex with pro-lifers.
no amount of hot-ness overcomes the ugly contained in the words: liberal/progressive.
the left can't deny sex to those who would never "touch that with a ten-foot pole
no conservative worth their salt would have sex with a baby killing progressive liberal.
hell, I won't even let one ride on the back of my motorcycle...
I say, pro murder? or liberal progressive?? call a cab or walk.
Your reply contains multiple personal attacks. When you choose to attack the person and not the argument you have capitulated the debate.
Is this a game with you or are you so very obtuse that you can't see the obvious personal attacks? Liberals are murderers according to his reply.
nah...
but conservative women are gods gift to me.
cheers
and conservatives are nazi"s
sing it sister
To be more accurate, conservatives have merely welcomes Nazis and white supremacists into their fold. And also, virtually every neo-nazi considers themselves "conservative".
As for claiming liberals are "murderers", that's like PETA members calling the leather clothing manufacturers "Murderers!". Killing a cow and using its leather for clothing isn't "murder" and neither is legal abortion.
On the X-Y graph of communist/socialist/capitalist economics and the vertical scale of personal freedom vs. state power, the Nazis and the current GOP both occupy the same top right corner. Trump is farther right than Hitler was.
I'm in the bottom left, if you are wondering. Look for Noam Chomsky.
:puke:
Signs point to yes.
I never said that I was offended.
What personal attack have I invoked?
What cross did I nail myself to, and why did I do it?
This is intended to everyone in this thread:
This thread is all bordering on the personal. Knock it off. Only warning.
Science is not about putting a human face on anything. The goal of science is to add to the knowledge of the human race. Nobody is saying that a fetus is not unique. That is understood because of the effects of DNA.
Science doesn't do any such thing. Science simply provides the facts and knowledge. You're the one "putting a face" on it, as it were. And seemingly sounding emotional about it too.
Good, because we already know their position. Many people simply use a religious stance when arguing about abortion.
The current standards of viability build upon a centuries' old standard of prohibiting abortion once a "quick fetus" is present. Of course, we have learned a lot about pre-natal development in recent decades and we no longer are limited in our knowledge of that development by whether or not a baby is kicking. Therefore, new techniques and knowledge invite a revisiting of public policy that has been based on outdated information. We do this all the time with other issues from highway speed limits to LGBT rights. There is no reason abortion should be immune to this process.
What is "quick fetus"?
I am wondering that myself.
It means that the mother (or anyone who puts her hand on her belly, I suppose) can feel the movement of the developing fetus inside her.
The proper term is quickening. in the 1600's and most of the 1700s, abortion was legal in the British colonies until the baby started kicking,
which somehow was referred to as the quickening.
There can be only one.
Actually either terminology is fine. It means the same thing. Both are in Roe V. Wade. Interesting that so many people with such a strong opinion on the topic don't know the reference.
Why didn't you just say that? It's approximately 15 weeks of development. You cannot feel that movement externally. Trust me on this.
Why didn't you just Google it? (that's rhetorical)
I used the quickening term because that was the legal standard. My point was that the viability standard is based on an extremely primitive assessment of the developing life in the womb. It dates to at least as far back as the 16th century. There's very little else in this world where we make critical public policy based on a 16th century conceptualization.
Now if went with your experience, that would mean no abortions after 15 weeks. That would be pretty controversial.
The age of viability is more than 25 weeks and the current limit of voluntarily abortion is about 22 weeks. Where do you get off trying to make the medical decisions of others? Is this idea part of your Y chromosome, or did you pray about it? Women are not your pets, so keep your opinions to yourself.
Thank you for clarifying.
And you like to accuse me of being emotional. That was so non-sensical, I can't even respond.
The whole issue of abortion is rapidly becoming a moot point. As pharmaceutical remedies become more and more available we won't be discussing this. The OTC medications currently work for only the first few days but newer versions will work up until 9 weeks after conception and will be available by mail.
"Science makes clear that human life -- and our uniqueness as individuals -- begins on day one, at fertilization. Life, in its most vulnerable form, should be protected, and we are grateful for HR 2918 and call on members of Congress to pass this and similar legislation preserving the dignity of the human person from its earliest moments."
Is it DNA uniqueness that makes us different then? Does that mean something extra, we're "unique" thus you shouldn't terminate a "unique" mass of cells? Well, did the bacon I ate this morning have "unique" DNA? I bet it did, I'm pretty sure it wasn't cloned. So being "unique" doesn't actually make us "human", animals have "unique" DNA as well.
At the moment the courts set the limit at viability, but 92% of all abortions occur at 12 weeks or earlier, months before viability. Its not my body, its not my decision. Lets focus our time and effort on taking care of the kids who are born instead of trying to incarcerate women and doctors who terminate "unique" DNA carrying kidney bean sized zygotes in their own bodies.
Abortion doesn't do anything to a woman's body. However you want to conceptualize what's developing inside her, it's definitely not part of her body.
Lets focus our time and effort on taking care of the kids who are born
I agree, but I think we are capable of doing more than one thing at a time.
I'm not interested in incarcerating anyone, but I would like a world with zero abortions.
It stops the gestational process within her body.
Actually, it is. it's attached to her body and feeding directly from it.
Good idea. But that doesn't negate the need for abortion.
As long as women get pregnant, abortion should be an option.
I would love a world with zero abortions too. There is no such thing as being "pro-abortion", I wish none ever had to chose that very difficult option. But I am pro-choice which means I understand that it's not up to me, I have no right to take away someone else's choices just because that's not the choice I would make. With our first child my wife and I had a pregnancy scare where the doctor thought it might be a cluster pregnancy. The doctor said within the next few weeks we'd have to decide whether to terminate or carry the clustered mass of cells to term if they didn't start to form properly. We chose to wait and were happy to see the cluster start the change and form a healthy baby, but it could have easily gone the other way and I'm thankful we had that option to terminate if we wished, it would have been torture to force her to carry a dead cluster of baby cells to term just to appease some other random persons religious beliefs.
So while I love a world where every pregnancy was at the right time and to the right stable couple who are ready to raise a child, but I know that world doesn't exist, so taking away a woman's choice would simply punish those who are already suffering extreme hardships, all to coddle someone else's conscience whose never walked a millimeter in the woman's shoes let alone a mile. Until you've gone through every possible scenario that could lead a woman to make such a difficult decision, you have no right to question their choices. You go get raped by a sibling or someone else and find out you're pregnant, you get pregnant and find out you're almost certainly carrying a stillborn fetus, you find out your pregnant right at a critical point in your career or education that would cause your whole life trajectory to come to a halt, to possibly never be resumed.
Once you've experienced every possible reason why a woman might want to terminate a pregnancy, then you can start to council other women on their choices. Until then I recommend simply supporting women and helping them with more options, not taking them away. Offer them day care to take care of that child while they finish school or have to work, that's a choice you can offer that might actually save some babies, just banning abortions not going to save babies, it's just going to put more women at risk.