HomeschoolrsRUs
11-11-2007, 05:58 PM
I'm not so certain there are any that are secular. The secular world (much like the Global Warming Mongers do valid scientific critiques) stifles any dissent regarding PASS. The medical community refuses to recognize it as a valid condition, and therefore there is very little effort made in the secular realm regarding PASS because of the pressure from NARAL, NOW, and the medical community that provide abortion services.
Anyone in the medical community that believes PASS to be a valid condition with real symptoms and consequences are afraid to speak up because of the pressure, and they have to be careful lest they are ostracized and publicly rebuked/refuted.
I recommend contacting a local Crisis Pregnancy Center or National Right To Life to see if they can direct you to the information you're looking for.
HomeschoolrsRUs
11-11-2007, 06:17 PM
If you have a little bit of time before it is due, you should try contacting a local Crisis Pregnancy Center or National Right To Life -- just because they are religious sources doesn't mean they don't have access to secular sources for information. Believe me, if there is secular information in support of a pro-PASS position, they will have it because it will do more for their cause, also, to have secular information available to pass on. It gives their position validity in a world that refuses to accept religious arguments or information.
You also might try your local library -- sometimes they have research materials available that are more up to date. I have found things at my library that I couldn't find on the internet, believe it or not!
Don't discount an original religious source because it's religious -- it is in their best interest to get secular sources for information because it strengthens their position when dealing with a secular world not willing to embrace religion, so they might be able to direct you on to a non-religious source and you can just skip references to going through the original (religious) source to find the secular source.
Suzie
11-12-2007, 05:22 PM
Hoyas, Eugene. “A brief, air-tight argument against abortion.” New Oxford Review, 68(8), (September 2001): 18-20, 22.A Brief, Air-Tight Argument Against Abortion
by
Eugene Hoyas
One of the most frequently asked questions in the abortion debate is: "When does life begin?" It's the wrong question. Life, as any biologist will tell you, never begins. It always ends, eventually — but it never begins. All living matter comes only from other living matter.
Let us narrow the scope of the question. "When does human life begin?" The answer is the same as above: Human life comes only from pre-existing human life. Living human cells come only from other living human cells.
Alright then, "When does human life become a human being?" That is the correct question. The answer lies in the definition of "human being." Biologically, a living human being is an organism, Homo sapiens.
What, then, is an organism? It is a living, corporeal entity that exists and functions of, by, and for itself. It may consist of a single cell, such as an amoeba, or of a group of cells, tissues, and organs that can achieve titanic size, such as a blue whale.
If an organism can consist of a single cell (such as an amoeba) can we say that a sperm cell from a frog is an organism? No. Nor can we make the same statement for a brain cell or a muscle cell. These are highly specialized cells and function only as part of a collective whole. Isolate a brain cell from its living matrix and it soon dies. The sperm cell has but one function: to fertilize the ovum or die. An organism, on the other hand, is self-sufficient. It ingests and metabolizes food; it grows; it is capable (usually) of locomotion; it is capable of reproduction. Most importantly, it is an independently functioning, living "machine," so to speak, existing of its own accord.
In order to establish the parameters necessary to define an organism, biologists utilize three criteria: morphology (the form of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism); physiology (the function of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism); and genetics (the DNA "blueprint" of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism). Of these three criteria, genetics establishes the identity of an individual organism with the greatest precision.
Every organism has its own unique genetic code. That code tells us precisely what the organism is. Thus, we can present the biologist with two apparently identical samples of tissue, one from the liver of a human and the other from that of a chimpanzee. After carefully examining the chromosomes in the nuclei of cells taken from each of the tissue samples, the biologist can tell us with absolute certainty which is human and which is simian. Living simian cells come only from other living simian cells. Living human cells come only from other living human cells. A simian cell can never become a human cell and vice versa. It's that simple.
Every organism has a definite lifecycle: There is a point in time at which the organism begins its existence as an organism, followed by a period of metabolism, growth, and reproduction, ending with the point in time at which the organism dies.
The human organism — like every organism — begins its existence as a single cell. As we have seen above, a sperm cell is not an organism. Neither is an ovum. Yet, when the two unite, they form a zygote. This zygote is a complete — though not completed — living, organized, unique, individual human life form with its own particular morphological and physiological destiny. It contains the entire genetic code sequence of an individual human being (with the informational equivalent of 1,000 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica).
The programming in this genetic code will cause the zygote to divide and differentiate, to form hormones and tissues. In the absence of disease, accident, or incident, this single cell will, in the course of 36 to 39 weeks, become a newborn baby. From the time it begins its existence it is never anything but alive (living cells can come only from other living cells) and never anything but human (only human cells come from other human cells). The human zygote is therefore a living, human organism. But is it a human being?
Most people understand that a frog never becomes an elephant. A frog is a frog. Then again, a tadpole is a tadpole. But is a tadpole a frog? Some folks would argue not: The tadpole has no lungs; it has gills. It has no legs; it has a tail. It looks and acts just like a fish. It can't be a frog, can it? Well, it depends upon your definition of the frog organism. May we identify an organism as a frog purely on the basis of its morphology (physical form)? The biologist will say no. Three criteria are necessary for identification, morphology being only one of them. Physiology and genetics are the other two.
The biologist will not hesitate to affirm that the tadpole is indeed a frog. The living organism we call "frog" (Rana catabiensis) undergoes profound morphological and physiological changes in the course of its lifecycle. Although these changes are radical, the genetic code — the DNA blueprint that defines this particular organism — never changes. For this reason, no biologist ever confuses form with substance when establishing the identity of an organism.
The biologist will say that a frog is a frog from the instant it first functions as an independent organism, regardless of the form it takes during the course of its development. It will be nothing other than a frog when it dies a natural death. An organism is never identified purely on the basis of its morphological or physiological state at any given point in its lifecycle. That would be like saying the benchmark of life for the butterfly organism is the presence of wings and antennae and then, after examining the caterpillar, pronouncing that, because it has neither wings nor antennae, it is neither living nor a butterfly, despite the fact that it is a living organism with the precise genetic code of the butterfly and, if it is not killed before it completes its metamorphosis, will become nothing other than a butterfly.
Nevertheless, there are some people who will persist in their belief that an unborn baby is not a human being: "But I just don't feel that it's human. It doesn't look or act human. Wouldn't a better criterion be heartbeat, brain waves, arms, legs, viability outside the womb, etc.?" The list is long and could be extended indefinitely, but all such criteria are vague, arbitrary, or scientifically insupportable. While fetal viability, for example, may be a convenient benchmark for consensus politicians, it is irrelevant with regard to the biological humanity of the developing fetus. The intrauterine development of an organism is simply one phase of its living existence, and is immaterial to its biological identity.
The operative word is "feel" and that approach is as old as it is dangerous: Plantation owners didn't feel that African slaves were fully human; Nazis didn't feel that Jews and Gypsies were fully human and concocted outrageous pseudo-scientific proof that they were subhuman. From time immemorial, man's inhumanity to man has been rooted in the fact that one particular family, clan, tribe, or nation did not feel that another was truly human, and on countless tragic occasions this has become the twisted rationale behind persecutions, lynchings, slavery, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
Biological science demonstrates with geometric force that every human being begins his existence as a zygote and that every living human zygote is a human being at the first stage of development in his lifecycle. This determination has nothing to do with feeling or emotion and is no more a matter of religion or opinion than the statement that 1+1=2 or E=mc<sup>2</sup>.
Having established through logic and science that every human being begins his existence as a zygote, we must now address two more questions:
1. Are all human beings human persons?
2. Do all innocent human persons have an inalienable right to life?
Are all human beings human persons? We now enter the realm of political philosophy and the theory of personhood and rights. Generally, "personhood" is a term that is used in the context of rights and obligations. In this context, a human person may be defined as a human being possessing certain rights and obligations.
Is Joe Doakes a human being because he is a human person or is he a human person because he is a human being? This is a critical question with two possible answers.
A. If we state that Joe Doakes is a human being only because he is a human person, we must conclude that the defining source of "personhood" lies apart from his existence as a human organism. In the absence of anarchy and solipsism, the only defining source of personhood becomes the government. The existing political authority defines personhood and establishes who and what are persons, as well as who and what are not persons. "Personhood" is defined according to the prevailing political agenda. If government becomes the source of personhood (and therefore what is and is not human), it logically follows that political power becomes the only source of human rights and a government with this degree of power is nothing less than totalitarian, and Nazi Germany is the perfect example. In effect, Hitler's Reich said: "You are a human being only if you are a person. We will decide who is and who is not a person. You Jews and Gypsies are not persons and therefore are not humans."
But the Nazis would argue that it was the reverse, that Hitler said: "According to our best scientific minds, you Jews and Gypsies are not humans and therefore are not persons." In this case we must reiterate the biological facts outlined earlier. The denial of their humanity had nothing whatsoever to do with biological fact; it had everything to do with "feeling" and egregious pseudo-science. If the Nazis were really honest they would have said, "We just don't feel that you are human."
We are thus faced with the defining question: Is the human fetus a human being only because it is a human person? In effect that was the question addressed by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. For that matter, we could have posed a similar question in 1857: "Is the Negro a human being only because he is a human person?" We all know the answer of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. If we accept that personhood derives from the state and not from the fact that one is a human being, we have made the inalienable right to life (and any other civil right) an empty, meaningless concept.
B. If Joe Doakes is a human person precisely because he is a human being, everything changes. Personhood — and the rights that accompany it — derive exclusively from the fact that he is a human being. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence: "All human beings are created equal and endowed by the very nature of their humanity with certain inalienable rights, among these, life.…" An inalienable right is one that is intrinsic to human nature. From time to time these rights may be abridged or even deprived with due process of law (e.g., imprisonment for committing a felony, or execution for capital crimes). But, as natural endowments, they possess a moral authority that imposes upon the state the obligation to respect and uphold them. Therefore, by his very nature as a human being, Joe Doakes is a person, and no political power on earth can take his personhood away from him.
Biological science tells us that African slaves were human beings (even if ignorant bigots said they were not). The Declaration of Independence tells us that, as human beings, they were therefore human persons (even if a feckless Supreme Court said they were not). The U.S. Constitution tells us that, as human persons, they possessed the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (even if these rights were systematically denied to them for centuries).
The conclusion is unavoidable: The human fetus is a human being; all human beings are human persons; all human persons possess an inalienable right to life which, according to the U.S. Constitution, may not be deprived without due process of law.
In order to conform itself to biological reality, its own foundational documents, and the intent of the Founding Fathers, the U.S. government would have to establish as a matter of law that one's very existence as an unborn human being — if undesired by the mother — is a capital crime punishable by death. To fulfill the constitutional requirement of due process, a mother who chooses to abort her child would have to file criminal charges. This in itself would be an extraordinary legal feat since the commission of a crime requires criminal intent — a capacity the unborn human lacks. Moreover, the abortion would have to be preceded by a trial in a court of law. By the time the trial ends and subsequent appeals are exhausted, the child would be at least 10 years old. To circumvent this, the government would have to selectively deny due process to an entire class of persons known as prenatal human beings. This is no more rational than a Supreme Court affirming that blacks are chattel or a Nazi regime denying that Jews are human.
Abortion denies a particular group of human beings the inalienable right to life. Opposition to abortion commonly derives from religious or political inclinations, or from vague feelings of right and wrong. My opposition has nothing to do with politics, the Bible, or the Church; it is based squarely upon biological science and the political principles upon which our government was founded. I will continue to oppose abortion on the grounds that it violates the civil rights of the unborn human person.
CONSERVATIVE HERO
11-13-2007, 12:11 AM
Hoyas, Eugene. “A brief, air-tight argument against abortion.” New Oxford Review, 68(8), (September 2001): 18-20, 22.
Thanks for posting that. It's probably the best article I've ever read on the matter. I've argued that life beginning at conception is the only logical concluson for some time. Never have I been able to ariculate it so well as that author however.
HomeschoolrsRUs
11-13-2007, 07:41 AM
EXCELLENT article Suzie! THANK YOU so much for posting that! A perfect addition to my arsenal. I participate in youth and parent conferences and other events to share my testimony, and as ConservatveHero said, in all my research I've never seen the arguement for Life presented so precisely! Thanks again!
mkafrica
11-13-2007, 08:01 AM
Excellent article... I'm going to have to reference that in some debates I've been having with pro-choicers, as they keep telling me that I can't let my 'religion' interfere with my political opinions. (I still don't understand what abortion has to do with my political opinions... that was sarcasm, btw)
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.