Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

But from where on would you call an embryo human?

offcourse from the moment you are sure that from the embryo will not occur penguin or oak tree or tv box ;)

Not until very recently, mind.

until very recently noone thought something else. besides that several ethicists til today have not changed their opinion.

off course not.

I hope you do realise you just made yourself look very ignorant. Please, at least try to know a little bit about medicine first. With very basic methods can a lot be diagnosed with a 100% accuracy - human failure excepted.


we should eliminate everything what is dangerous and highly painfull.

Oh dear, is this the best you can come up with?

On second note: sometimes the women has to give birth, even though the baby is allready dead. As the only other option is an operation, which is not good for the uterus

True. But surgery is always a real consideration. Or so my fiancee says. She ought to know, having performed such surgery multiple times. It is very sad. It really is incredibly hard on the mother, either way.

Bien sûr :)

Your fiancée knows about it :p

I hope you do realise you just made yourself look very ignorant. Please, at least try to know a little bit about medicine first. With very basic methods can a lot be diagnosed with a 100% accuracy - human failure excepted.

i expect now that you find some reliable source, because you are the first person i ever "met" who claims that pre-natal test is 100% accurate. aside the fact that the most reliable tests are at the same time the most dangerous for both the woman and baby.

Oh dear, is this the best you can come up with?

yes. is some argument generally applicable or not shows is he good or bad. now you can see was your argument good or bad.

I already have one: she lives together with me. My fiancee is a doctor. As said, with very basic methods - like an echo scan, can most* things be spotted. Zero risk.

* The really bad stuff is very easily spotted. Of course, there is plenty that can't be spotted, but that is quite beside the point. I am referring to that which CAN be spotted.

Furthermore, my earlier post used examples. The catholic church has by and large realised that its morals are no longer acceptable to the vast majority of people out there. So it is changing. Adapting to reality. Slowly, and with much difficulty, but that is, all by itself, a very clear token of proof that ethics are dependant on time and place. Before you get really dug in - at an eminently indefensible position at that, you should realise that it really is about ethics. Don't get lost in the examples. They don't really matter.

I already have one: she lives together with me. My fiancee is a doctor. As said, with very basic methods - like an echo scan, can most* things be spotted. Zero risk.

it's nice that you trust your fiancee, but i expected really reliable source. don't forget that you wrote following: "With very basic methods can a lot be diagnosed with a 100% accuracy". so can you find some source or not?


The catholic church has by and large realised that its morals are no longer acceptable to the vast majority of people out there. So it is changing. Adapting to reality. Slowly, and with much difficulty, but that is, all by itself, a very clear token of proof that ethics are dependant on time and place. Before you get really dug in - at an eminently indefensible position at that, you should realise that it really is about ethics. Don't get lost in the examples. They don't really matter.

i don't really understand what you try to say. all ethics (not only "christian") who tend to be unchangeable are only dead letters.

but i'l never dare to say "that its (church's) morals are no longer acceptable to the vast majority of people out there." because there are so many wars or political conflicts on the brink of war at the moment in this world should we say that is ethically acceptable? it's all about principles, and principles are unchangeable.

so can you find some source or not?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21637361

prognosis was only changed in one out of 385.

I didn't even look good, as I'm sure there are better studies (more exactly following the question and bigger study)

100% accuracy?

read the text.

I read the abstract only, I'm not eager to do the searching for you, as I'm free now from working.
If you want a prove, just search that engine correctly and you'll find.

Accuracy is btw not a good word. It's sensitivity and specitivity.

I read the abstract only, I'm not eager to do the searching for you, as I'm free now from working.
If you want a prove, just search that engine correctly and you'll find.

not for me. i'm more than sure that 100% accuracy is impossible at the moment.

Look for "spina bifida" ;)

There are more examples. When the gynaecologist sees a clear defect, the defect is there.
The problem is there when the gynaecologist doesn't see a defect but the defect is there.

It's funny though, I know you will keep fighting.

Another example:
- when the gynaecologist sees a penis, it will be a boy. 100%
- when she or he sees labia, it will be a girl. 100%
- when she or he sees none of both, she or he can only say to return a week later or so :p

spina bifida is good example: less then 0,1% babies have spina bifida, and about 1,5% is mortality of babies during the invasive tests!!!

and about another example: why for god's sake to look at all is it m or f???

(edited)