Christine Carrie Fien's statement that "no one knows when life begins" flies in the face of reality ("George Bush Wants to Get You Pregnant," July 23). She states further that "philosophers, scientists, philosophers, and religious thinkers have always struggled with the question of when life begins, at conception or at birth."
The Roman Catholic Church, which is over one billion strong and replete with doctors of all sorts, has issued a statement that life begins at conception. The Catholic clergy warn against sex outside the confines marriage and the abuses that can ensue.
Several years ago, the Buffalo News ran a special section on sex and abortion. In it, one female was quoted as stating, "I love the feeling of being pregnant, but it is impractical to bring the fetus to term so I abort it (them)." She was on her sixth at the time.
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, the renowned Nobel winner for literature, immigrated to the US and but later returned to the Soviet Union. The reason he gave was this: "America has lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong."
EUGENE B. HALECKI, IRONDEQUOIT
Comments for "ABORTION: Life begins at conception" (4)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
icecucumber73 said on Aug. 07, 2008 at 6:26pm
If life does begin at conception...if life is just a cluster of cells...then how can pro-lifers stand by while medical science wages a war on cancer?
Ted Christopher said on Aug. 11, 2008 at 12:07am
(To save space this rebuts the 3-some of anti-abortion letters). Two points here - ethical and then "scientific". Ethics: 1. What would China look like now without their aggressive fertility control efforts over the last 40 years or so? What do you think the life expectancy there would be? 2. Is their any country that doesn't use abortion to significantly reduce fertility? Perhaps a very poor country with a fertility rates in the 6 plus neighborhood. Maybe Somalia? 3. What would you suggest in the case of an underaged female who has been raped?
Ted Christopher said on Aug. 11, 2008 at 12:09am
"Scientific": (where great confidence was expressed) 1. The essential point is that life begins at conception (and you are defined in a very basic way via the resulting strip of DNA). The problem with this reasoning is that empirical evidence is clobbering it. Take the monozygotic twin case. First there is one conceptus(-child), then viola mysteriously there are two. Replicas (same DNA) right? Not even close. In NYT's "Live long? Die young? Answer isn't just in genes?" Aug. 31 2006 looks at the profound health disconnect between such twins leading to a resulting estimate of DNA's contribution to human longevity. It could be as low as 3 percent. The personality disconnect is also profound and has been known for much longer. Judith R. Harris' "No Two Alike" discusses this mystery and opens with a profound (and sad) example - comments from one conjoined monozygotic twin on why she and her sister want to get surgically separated. Conception may define a person's DNA but it doesn't define a person and thus the logic of "life-begins-at-conception" fails.
Louis Richards said on Aug. 26, 2008 at 1:25pm
Until the umbilical chord is severed, a fetus is a parasite; not unlike a tapeworm. During a relationship with its host, any parasite exists at the whim of that host. This fact is no different whether the parasite is human or otherwise.
There is no logical reason why a parasite's needs should, by law, supersede the needs of the host; there is nowhere in the natural realm, which operates under God's Natural Law, where this holds true.
Ergo, the fetus must defer to the host, as any parasite should. However,cut the umbilical chord and - Voila! - you have an human being endowed with Unalienable Rights!
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.