Baby born at 21 weeks survives-should we revisit abortion laws?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

It is only a lie if one interprets any electrical activity as "brain waves", which was the point of the article I linked to. That is not the correct medical interpretation.

Any electrical activity is not considered by medical science to be brain waves as anti-abortionists claim, and neither does it indicating a functioning brain.

Bingo.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

This is the problem Im having too with this argument. How this elusive ndefinable term can be applied to determining what is human life.

It isn't particularly elusive nor is it particularly indefinable. Doctors have used criteria to assess brain death for years to determine when a person is brain dead. Only yourself and InFront seem to have a problem with this, why I'm not particularly sure. Do you not accept that a doctor can assess when a person is brain dead? If you do why then can the same criteria be used to assess when a foetus has developed a functioning brain?

metrovelvet wrote:

Also, Ive read they pick up brain waves at 20 days, which again, is technology dependant. NExt year they may have technology that picks it up at 5 days. Who knows.

I've never heard anything like that, not even from anti-abortionists.

Do you have any support for who identified a foetus with active brain waves after 20 days and when this was done?

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

Electrical signals do not a brain wave make. A brain dead someone still has higher levels of electrical signals detectable under EEG than a 40 day old foetus.

If you want to leave science and explore other fields you might as well start trying to defend abortion with aromatherapy textbooks. Please tell me how brain activity is measured in the infant without EEGs and MEGs, or how on earth you are differentiating "brain waves" from EEG impulses??? I'm sorry but that article is rubbish, complete unscientific rubbish to suit a particular point of view. EEG impulses of the brain are directly measurable at 8 weeks. I know by your signature and your posts elsewhere that you don't support unscientific viewpoints, but why not here also? These statements directly contradict your opinion in light of the EEG findings.

Basically as soon as a foetus has developed a functioning brain that is it, it is too risky to allow an abortion to go ahead because one cannot be sure that one is not destroying a being that possesses a consciousness.

If it cannot be determined if the foetus has a functioning brain, but it is known that such a fact is possible, one must air on the side of caution and not proceed with the abortion because one cannot be sure that they are not destroying a human being.

No brain, no consciousness.

"Consciousness" means nothing to a gynaecologist, an anatomist or any other scientist, it's hazy and ill-defined. Neither does "brain waves" really mean anything. Brain activity, measurable on MEGs and EEGs are scientifically meaningful, and activity has been established by the 8th week. If you want science to back up what you say, these are the necessary tools.

It is only a lie if one interprets any electrical activity as "brain waves", which was the point of the article I linked to. That is not the correct medical interpretation.

There is no direct medical interpretation of "brainwaves" in that if you want to be pedantic, I don't lnow about you but it is not a medical term that I for one have ever seen in a textbook, and neurological impulse is more accurate.

Any electrical activity is not considered by medical science to be brain waves as anti-abortionists claim, and neither does it indicating a functioning brain.

EEGs do not indicate a functioning brain? You must be joking. It means there is electrical activity, electrical activity is the way the brain operates, it is its function, therefore the brain is functioning. This could not be any simpler.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

If you want to leave science and explore other fields you might as well start trying to defend abortion with aromatherapy textbooks.

There is a big difference between an electrical signal and a brain wave (electrical signal from an active brain).

I'm not quite sure how to say that any clearer. Your heart produces electrical signals, they aren't brain waves either. So do your eye balls. What has been detected in foetus about 40 days were not electrical signals from a functioning brain, they were simply electrical signals produced naturally by the foetus. As I said, a brain dead person produces electrical signals in their brain simply by the fact that it is still operating at a very low level.

InFront wrote:

Brain activity, measurable on MEGs and EEGs are scientifically meaningful, and activity has been established by the 8th week.

That isn't true.

Electrical signals have been detected, that is not brain activity. Well it is activity, something some where is causing an electrical current, but not "brain activity" in the normal sense of that phrase (ie a functioning brain).

InFront wrote:

EEGs do not indicate a functioning brain? You must be joking.

EEGs detect electrical signals, often at low voltage. Any EEG reading from a normal person produces a large number of "artifacts" cause by electrical currents from a variety of external sources. Even something like a IV drip, or moving of eye balls will produce spikes in electrical activity. If these artifacts are not interpretated correctly they can be falsely interpreted as a form of brain activity and contaminate the results of the study. If you hook a EEG up to a toaster you will get electrical "activity" That does not indicate a functioning brain.

InFront wrote:

It means there is electrical activity, electrical activity is the way the brain operates, it is its function, therefore the brain is functioning.

That is very simplistic logic jumping. Electrical activity does not on its own indicate a functioning brain any more than electrical activity in a toaster, or electrical activity in a brain dead patient, indicates a functioning brain.

It is the type of electrical activity that is important, a fact that is largely ignored by anti-abortionists.

You are correct that "brain wave" is a rather inaccurate term that is discouraged by neurologists, but they still know the difference between an electrical current produced by a functioning brain and one that isn't. A 40 day old foetus does not produce electrical currents from a functioning brain. It takes about 13 weeks before that starts happening, and then another 8 before these electrical currents get close to the level of functionality of a normal human brain.

InFront wrote:

This could not be any simpler.

Actually it is quite complicated. Bring it down to rather inaccurate and simplistic terms (electrical activity = functioning brain) does a disservice to the science behind devices such as the EEG.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

It isn't particularly elusive nor is it particularly indefinable. Doctors have used criteria to assess brain death for years to determine when a person is brain dead. Only yourself and InFront seem to have a problem with this, why I'm not particularly sure. Do you not accept that a doctor can assess when a person is brain dead? If you do why then can the same criteria be used to assess when a foetus has developed a functioning brain??

It sounds like a secularised version of the word SOUL.

Wicknight wrote:

I've never heard anything like that, not even from anti-abortionists.

Do you have any support for who identified a foetus with active brain waves after 20 days and when this was done?

Sorry, I made a mistake. At 20 days the foundations of the brain are there, at 40 days brain waves can be detected.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

It sounds like a secularised version of the word SOUL.

Isn't a secularised version of a soul an oxymoron?

metrovelvet wrote:

Sorry, I made a mistake. At 20 days the foundations of the brain are there, at 40 days brain waves can be detected.

Well that isn't correct either.

At 40 days some electrical current has be detected in the foetus's developing "brain". But as i pointed out to InFront electrical current can be detected from your eye balls using an EEG, it isn't a evidence of a functioning brain. Doctors know what types of electrical readings indicate a functioning brain, over other artifacts or "noise", and they are not found in a 40 day old foetuses.

If they were I wouldn't have absolutely no trouble saying no abortions after 40 days.

Some people seem to think they are going to some how trip me up and make me abandon my position. But my position was never simply an excuse to justify abortions. If my position ruled out abortion completely then so be it. Once a foetus has a functioning brain then no abortion. Its that simple. For me it doesn't matter if it happens at the moment of conception, at 40 days or 8 months.

But the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't happen at 40 days. That is simply not true. That fact doesn't bother me, and I'm not sure why it would bother "life begins at conception" anti-abortionists either, since brain activity has never been a measure for them in the first place.

JC 2K3

Dontico wrote:

in my opinion, producing children is apart of evolution. by aborting babies, isnt slowing down the evolutionary process. we should keep producing children until we get the human spieces right.

Well:
1. Why should we care about the rate at which we evolve? It's not going to affect us personally.

2. Evolution is about adapting to situations, not necessarily about breeding loads. You could argue that not allowing abortions is a hinderance to evolution. In truth neither opinion would be right because there is no goal in evolution, therefore there is no way of measuring the "speed of evolution".

There is no way evolution can be used as an argument to keep abortion illegal.

Dontico wrote:

also the non-national population in ireland is probably going to increase to the point that by 2050, there will be more of 'them ' than 'us'. i'm saying completely close the borders, but we should try to out breed them.

OMG racist!!11

Seriously though. There's no reason bar religion that non nationals wouldn't have abortions at the same rate Irish people would. In any case, if that is the reason for abortions being illegal, then abortion is technically illegal on racist grounds.

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

Well:
1. Why should we care about the rate at which we evolve? It's not going to affect us personally.

2. Evolution is about adapting to situations, not necessarily about breeding loads. You could argue that not allowing abortions is a hinderance to evolution. In truth neither opinion would be right because there is no goal in evolution, therefore there is no way of measuring the "speed of evolution".

There is no way evolution can be used as an argument to keep abortion illegal.


OMG racist!!11

Seriously though. There's no reason bar religion that non nationals wouldn't have abortions at the same rate Irish people would. In any case, if that is the reason for abortions being illegal, then abortion is technically illegal on racist grounds.

some have ideas where evoution is taking us. maybe a topic for a different forum.

sorry ment to say "i'm not saying we should close borders".
i dont like the idea of 'them' having a stronger voting power thus may lead to the disruption of 'our' culture. i just prefere the irish of doing things compared to other cultures. dont care much about other peoples religions. its our values i want to maintain. which is why i prefere the "islamic import" compared to other christian religions.

JC 2K3

Dontico wrote:

some have ideas where evoution is taking us. maybe a topic for a different forum.

That's a personal belief though, no belief or religion should be honoured in our laws.

Dontico wrote:

sorry ment to say "i'm not saying we should close borders".
i dont like the idea of 'them' having a stronger voting power thus may lead to the disruption of 'our' culture. i just prefere the irish of doing things compared to other cultures. dont care much about other peoples religions. its our values i want to maintain. which is why i prefere the "islamic import" compared to other christian religions.

That's also a question for another topic, it doesn't really make this a valid argument against abortion, however.

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

There is a big difference between an electrical signal and a brain wave (electrical signal from an active brain).

Can you link to a scientific summary of brainwaves (as opposed to neurological (electrical) impulses) or put this ridiculous concept of a "brain wave" as opposed to an electrical impulse to bed?

Electrical signals have been detected... that is not brain activity. Well it is activity, something some where is causing an electrical current, but not "brain activity"

Rubbish. You are talking complete and utter rubbish. I think you should stop bringing "facts" from that stupid website you're quoting from and look at some genuine science.
It is an accepted fact that there is brain activity from eight weeks - there is just no doubt about that and for you to come here and suggest otherwise is quite honestly pathetic.

Link 1

THE universally accepted medical and legal definition of the end of life is the irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain, as measured by a fiat electroencephalogram (EEG). Conversely, the presence of brain-wave activity is a "vital sign" of life. Brain-wave activity is consistently present by eight weeks after conception. (The heart has already been beating since three weeks after conception.) The eightweek-old fetus is undeniably alive, according to the most widely accepted definition of life.

Link 2

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

Link 3

This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable organ in the human body, as the orchestrator of all organ systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death. At any point human tissue or organ systems may be present, but without the presence of a functional human brain, these do not constitute a 'human being', at least in a medical sense. The implications of this theory for various ethical concerns such as in vitro fertilisation and abortion are discussed. This theory is the most consistent possible for the definition of a human being with no contradictions inherent. However, having a good theory of definition of a 'human being' does not necessarily solve the ethical problems discussed herein.

KIE: The unsettled question of when human life begins is a key issue in the abortion debate, and often figures in discussions of birth control, treatment of rape victims, fetal research, in vitro fertilization, and disposal of fetal remains. Goldenring proposes a brain-life theory, which maintains that a fetus becomes a biological human being when its brain begins to function at about eight weeks, and argues that this definition of humanness can be determined medically and scientifically, and has relevance for ethical, legal, and public policy decision making. He examines the problems created by other theories of humanness, such as "at conception" and "at viability," and discusses the implications of the brain-life theory for abortion and other bioethical issues such as fetal research.

PIP: The author advocates a brain-life theory of humanness, which asserts that the fetus is biologically a human being at the point at which its brain begins to function. Human life is thus viewed as a continous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero at 8 weeks' gestation and the occurrence of brain death. This working definition is the converse of the medical definition of what constitutes death. It has important implications for areas other than abortion, including birth control, treatment of rape victims, fetal research, in vitro fertilization, and the disposal of fetal remains. As the seat of consciousness, emotion, and an individual's unique personality, the brain is the central human organ. Before the brain begins to function at about 8 weeks' gestation, there is just a set of tissues or a series of organ systems. The brain-life theory represents an intermediate stance between the at-conception theory of humanness and the viability theory. It has the advantage of being based on relatively objective rather than heavily evaluative criteria. This approach suggests that an abortion before 8 weeks' gestation kills potential human life, whereas abortion at a later point terminates actual human life. It further offers a clear choice point for contending with the ethics of fetal research: prior to brain function, expermentation on cultured, aborted, or about to be aborted embryonic tissue need not be subject to any special rules unless potential is valued as much as actuality. It must be recognized that social answers to ethical questions lie not in facts but in the value assigned to these facts. Although no biologic theory of humanness can define such values, it can clarify decisions and facilitate societal compromise.

Look at what you've posted earlier:

Originally posted by Wicknight
as the brain is functioning the foetus has the ability to form, and probably is forming, consciousness. Whether or not it is awake or not has little to do with that.

When I earlier pointed out that your definitions are shoddy and that a functioning brain does not equal a conscious brain you wanted to know how I could tell.

Well now I'm asking you, if you're not going by EEG results, then excluding Eileen's telepathy, how do you determine when consciousness is reached???

I think I've come of the opinion that you're not even sure what you're talking about, I don't believe you are aware of the most widely accepted facts that underlie embryology or physiology of the foetus and there is a certain amount of goalshifting going on here.

Another article here in relation to what metrovelvet is speaking about i.e. early neural development after gastrulation

Most scientists do not believe that a new human life can be defined as beginning at any particular moment, but see it as evolving gradually during embryonic development. This is particularly true if the Darwinist view of evolution is taken into account, because human development in utero encapsulates the processes of development for many other species.

Many scientists see the appearance of the primitive streak in the embryo at 14 days as an important stage in development. "Before fourteen days the embryo, or pre-embryo as it was scientifically known, was a loose cluster of first two, then four, then sixteen cells, undifferentiated. An undifferentiated cell could develop into any of the types of cell that go to make up the human body, and some of them would not become part of the embryo at all, but would form the placenta."11 After 14 days, the primitive streak appears, twinning is no longer a possibility, and the cells develop into particular lineages.
From this stage it is no longer legally possible to carry out research on human embryos, either in the UK or Australia.12 Because the appearance of the primitive streak corresponds to the beginning of neural (brain) function, many scientists will not carry out experiments on embryos older than 14 days. Although scientists regard development as a continuum, many argue that there is an increment of respect due to a human embryo at 14 days, and progressively after that time.

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

That's a personal belief though, no belief or religion should be honoured in our laws.


That's also a question for another topic, it doesn't really make this a valid argument against abortion, however.

religion i agree on. but i dont get what you mean by belief. all laws are based on belief. most belief rape should be illegal, thus it is.

if my agruement cant be desputed against then it is valid.

StephenC_IRL

Rock Climber wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6377639.stm

Tiny little thing and she lives In my opinion hoovering a baby like that out of it's mothers body would be murder.

It's time abortion wasn't allowed beyond 10 weeks as you now run the risk of killing a viable human being.

your putting abortion in very simplistic terms in my opinion, and calling it murder, i just dont think thats a fair argument

JC 2K3

Dontico wrote:

religion i agree on. but i dont get what you mean by belief. all laws are based on belief. most belief rape should be illegal, thus it is.

Nah, IMO rape is illegal because it causes harm to people and society. Nothing to do with a belief.

Dontico wrote:

if my agruement cant be desputed against then it is valid.

Abortion should be illegal so the majority of Irish people are caucausion, Catholic and of Celtic descent?

...

hot chick

surely "viable" should mean able to survive when given every chance to do so.
i.e. medical care/a womb/food/a hug.

You wouldn't leave a new born healthy "viable" infant on a table and expect them to fend for themselves.
I think life starts at conception. There are many things that we couldn't survive without assistance, both as adults and in the womb. Our entire lives (from conception) are just journeys where we're helped along the way.

The only reason we're having a discussion about abortion is because pregnancy is the one part of the journey where one person's (the mother) rights can come into conflict with that of the child.

Personally I'm of the opinion that Abortion is a mother's decision to make, and a mother's desicion to live with. Viability is neither here nor there.

hot chick

I'm not sure how many countries still practise this, but when a woman is given a stay of execution to have her baby, if she was seeking to terminate the pregnancy anyway, would she be permitted to be executed while pregnant?

I suppose this could be applied in the United States. I'd imagine that the sentence woiuld be commuted to life imprisonment to avoid a sticky political issue

metrovelvet

hot chick wrote:

I'm not sure how many countries still practise this, but when a woman is given a stay of execution to have her baby, if she was seeking to terminate the pregnancy anyway, would she be permitted to be executed while pregnant?

I suppose this could be applied in the United States. I'd imagine that the sentence woiuld be commuted to life imprisonment to avoid a sticky political issue

Im not sure but I know in the US if you kill a pregnant woman you will be charged with double homicide.

BostonB

hot chick wrote:

surely "viable" should mean able to survive when given every chance to do so.
i.e. medical care/a womb/food/a hug.

You wouldn't leave a new born healthy "viable" infant on a table and expect them to fend for themselves.
I think life starts at conception. There are many things that we couldn't survive without assistance, both as adults and in the womb. Our entire lives (from conception) are just journeys where we're helped along the way.

The only reason we're having a discussion about abortion is because pregnancy is the one part of the journey where one person's (the mother) rights can come into conflict with that of the child.

Personally I'm of the opinion that Abortion is a mother's decision to make, and a mother's desicion to live with. Viability is neither here nor there.

Viable in medical terms revolves around Capable of life. For example, a viable premature baby is one who is able to survive outside the womb.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11556

Medical staff of indeed everyone needs some form of legality to work within. Otherwise the system couldn't function.

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

Nah, IMO rape is illegal because it causes harm to people and society. Nothing to do with a belief.

this arguement is silly.

do you believe rape causes harm to people? if you have an opinon then you have a belief.

Dontico

metrovelvet wrote:

Im not sure but I know in the US if you kill a pregnant woman you will be charged with double homicide.

thats good.

metrovelvet

I dont think there is a time jurisdiction in the case of killing a pregnant woman. It doesnt matter how far along she is.

http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?breve851

http://allphilosophy.com/topic/889

Hrududu

also the non-national population in ireland is probably going to increase to the point that by 2050, there will be more of 'them ' than 'us'. i'm NOT saying completely close the borders, but we should try to out breed them.

I cannot believe in this day and age somebody would voice an opinion like this. You do realise 1 generation down the line 'they' would also be Irish and would be a part of 'our' culture. Or would the colour of their skin mean none of their descendents could call themselves Irish?

Mrs_Doyle

I'm sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, although I see it has veered slightly off topic.
In response to the original Post, the UK Abortion Law states:

Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, if there is a substantial risk to the woman's life or if there are foetal abnormalities there is no time limit.

My little sister was born at 24 weeks, and if you could see her now I believe you would be in favour of laws, such as the above, being changed.

She is so healthy, so fit and so intelligent. I just cannot understand how a child, as developed as she was at birth, could legally be aborted.

JC 2K3

Mrs_Doyle wrote:

I'm sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, although I see it has veered slightly off topic.
In response to the original Post, the UK Abortion Law states:


My little sister was born at 24 weeks, and if you could see her now I believe you would be in favour of laws, such as the above, being changed.

She is so healthy, so fit and so intelligent. I just cannot understand how a child, as developed as she was at birth, could legally be aborted.

You love her now, this love has developed due to her being born. If your parents didn't want her and she was aborted you would not have developed this love for her and you would be unaffected by her lack of existance.

If you want to believe that life is sacred and can't be destroyed etc. that's fine, it's your personal belief. However, I don't care about an unborn child who's termination will have zero effect on the world, and since there's no societal impact, there's no reason for it to be illegal.

metrovelvet

Mrs_Doyle wrote:

My little sister was born at 24 weeks, and if you could see her now I believe you would be in favour of laws, such as the above, being changed.

She is so healthy, so fit and so intelligent. I just cannot understand how a child, as developed as she was at birth, could legally be aborted.

Why because at 24 weeks they LOOK like babies? They have some fat on them that helps identify the form? So when there's no fat there and they still look like aliens or lima beans with heartbeats then aborting them should be legally endorsed and this is all based on fat?

Dontico

Hrududu wrote:

I cannot believe in this day and age somebody would voice an opinion like this. You do realise 1 generation down the line 'they' would also be Irish and would be a part of 'our' culture. Or would the colour of their skin mean none of their descendents could call themselves Irish?

never said anything about the colour of peoples skin. anyone born in this country is able to call themselves irish. its cultures that mix well with ours i dont like.

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

You love her now, this love has developed due to her being born. If your parents didn't want her and she was aborted you would not have developed this love for her and you would be unaffected by her lack of existance.

If you want to believe that life is sacred and can't be destroyed etc. that's fine, it's your personal belief. However, I don't care about an unborn child who's termination will have zero effect on the world, and since there's no societal impact, there's no reason for it to be illegal.

i dont know if ms doyle is going to responed to this, i would imagine she would find this post offensive.

"i dont care if your sister was killed".
saying "terminated" is just away of distancing our selves from other, weaker, denfenseless, life forms.

JC 2K3

Offensive how?

I wasn't referring to her sister when I said "terminated" I was refferring to babies in general. And replace "termination" with "murder" or "killing" if you like, I've no qualms about using any of those words.

I don't care how weak or defenceless they are, just because they exist doesn't mean we have to care for them, and considering that killing them doesn't affect us or society what's so wrong with it?

metrovelvet

So how to you justify that?

How for example would killing you off be of any negative effect to society?

JC 2K3

My parents, relatives and friends would be negatively emotionally affected by my loss, ie. people care about me.

metrovelvet

Well, so would the mother and her family be affected by the loss of the baby.

Jesus Wept

Dontico wrote:

the problem with abortion laws in other countries is that irish people can go over thier and murder OUR children.

since irish and british doctors share medical info allready, it make sence to me that the gov should informed when an irish person gets an abortion. sentance should 18years community service. or jail.

wow, lol, you really need a grip, in my view.

My personal view is that anyone who wants an abortion should have one and that it is a bigger injustice to bring a child into the world that isn't 100% wanted and will be cherished and given a great shot at life (its a tough auld world).

I also think that no one should have a baby that was conceived due to a rape, I think this would be incredibly cruel on the child.

Dontico wrote:

when an Irish person gets an abortion. sentence should 18years community service. or jail.

Too bizarre for words.

Dontico wrote:

irish people can go over thier and murder OUR children.

They are not 'our children', they are their parents, and they are a feutus. Some random person's child/children/feutus in Timbuktu/Kerry/etc are not your child or 'our children'.

Dontico wrote:

it make sense to me that the gov should informed when an Irish person gets an abortion. sentence should 18years community service. or jail.

It would make sense if we pulled our country out of the dark ages.

Mrs_Doyle

JC 2K3 wrote:

I don't care how weak or defenceless they are, just because they exist doesn't mean we have to care for them, and considering that killing them doesn't affect us or society what's so wrong with it?

I don't now you, your existence does not affect me, or the majority of society, so if someone was to hurt or murder you, should we not care if they be brought to justice? Seeing as how your life is of no real importance to most of us, as we have never met you, killing you wont affect society.

JC 2K3

Mrs_Doyle wrote:

I don't now you, your existence does not affect me, or the majority of society, so if someone was to hurt or murder you, should we not care if they be brought to justice? Seeing as how your life is of no real importance to most of us, as we have never met you, killing you wont affect society.

Aha, key phrase here being "most of us" as opposed to "none of us". If nobody cared about me and I had absolutely no connections with any people or had any impact on society whatsoever then I could be killed, sure. However, that is an unfeasable situation as there is no possible way someone would not have at least a few hundred people they are associated with and would care about their death, which would account for a small effect on a small section of society. Besides, there's no reason to kill me, and if you permitted killing me then you could kill anyone, and people who are already members of society killing each other would be disastorous. In the case of a foetus the only person that "knows" it is the mother and possibly the father, and it's her/their decision to kill it or not, and no matter how many babies are aborted there is no direct effect on society.

Dontico

The-Rigger wrote:

wow, lol, you really need a grip, in my view.

My personal view is that anyone who wants an abortion should have one and that it is a bigger injustice to bring a child into the world that isn't 100% wanted and will be cherished and given a great shot at life (its a tough auld world).

one cannot know if some leses life is going to be crap.
why not murder all handicaped peopple? i think hitler would agree with you.

The-Rigger wrote:

I also think that no one should have a baby that was conceived due to a rape, I think this would be incredibly cruel on the child.

one shouldnt be punished for someone elses crimes.

The-Rigger wrote:

They are not 'our children', they are their parents, and they are a feutus. Some random person's child/children/feutus in Timbuktu/Kerry/etc are not your child or 'our children'.

i think it makes sence, for the country to run better, that the child is property of the state and the parents have an obligation to do whats best for the child. please not that the state is democratically elected.

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Aha, key phrase here being "most of us" as opposed to "none of us". If nobody cared about me and I had absolutely no connections with any people or had any impact on society whatsoever then I could be killed, sure. However, that is an unfeasable situation as there is no possible way someone would not have at least a few hundred people they are associated with and would care about their death, which would account for a small effect on a small section of society. Besides, there's no reason to kill me, and if you permitted killing me then you could kill anyone, and people who are already members of society killing each other would be disastorous. In the case of a foetus the only person that "knows" it is the mother and possibly the father, and it's her/their decision to kill it or not, and no matter how many babies are aborted there is no direct effect on society.

The mother, at the very least, knows. She is part of society, and therefore society suffers (not to mention the years of post-abortion counselling and trauma that the woman must endure, which must be dealt with by society). Imagine how a woman's future husband would feel, knowing that his grilfriend/fiancee underwent an abortion.

May I ask you a simple question? Do you have sympathy for women who suffer still births?

Cantab.

Dontico wrote:

...i think hitler would agree with you...

It appears to me that Godwin's Law is more prevalent in abortion debates.

Jesus Wept

Dontico wrote:

one cannot know if some leses life is going to be crap.
why not murder all handicaped peopple? i think hitler would agree with you.

Clearly you are an idiot, I think you should get banned for this type of crap, though I'm probably not arsed contacting a mod.

Hitler would agree with me? murder all handicapped people? Aligning me with Hitler? This is an outrageous and stupid comment to post, I did not say anything of this nature or even anything that could be misconstrued as this! You are a clown.

Dontico wrote:

one shouldnt be punished for someone elses crimes.

Having a baby that was conceived because of a rape is punishment to the baby in my opinion.

Dontico wrote:

i think it makes sence, for the country to run better, that the child is property of the state and the parents have an obligation to do whats best for the child. please not that the state is democratically elected.

I really don't even know if anything your posting you are serious about or if you are just trying to stir up conversation, because the comments you are making are so ridiculous.

JC 2K3

Cantab. wrote:

The mother, at the very least, knows. She is part of society, and therefore society suffers (not to mention the years of post-abortion counselling and trauma that the woman must endure, which must be dealt with by society). Imagine how a woman's future husband would feel, knowing that his grilfriend/fiancee underwent an abortion.

The woman is the one who makes the decision to have the abortion, therefore she must be able to handle it. Years of post-abortion counselling? Please, that's extreme generalising, saying every woman will need it. It's all societal guilt in any case, if abortion was accepted as a standard procedure there'd be no guilt and no need for counselling. And forgive me for not understanding your logic, but why would a woman's future husband care?

Cantab. wrote:

May I ask you a simple question? Do you have sympathy for women who suffer still births?

Yes, for any trauma the women may suffer, not for the foetuses.

Jesus Wept

Cantab. wrote:

It appears to me that Godwin's Law is more prevalent in abortion debates.

lol, great post ,post of the day!

Hadn't heard of this.


Who guessed Post #139?! Come up to the front and collect your prize!

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

The woman is the one who makes the decision to have the abortion, therefore she must be able to handle it. Years of post-abortion counselling? Please, that's extreme generalising, saying every woman will need it. It's all societal guilt in any case, if abortion was accepted as a standard procedure there'd be no guilt and no need for counselling. And forgive me for not understanding your logic, but why would a woman's future husband care?

I would never marry a woman who knowingly had an abortion. Our moral stance would just be completely incompatible.

And why should society accept abortion? I (and many others like me) are part of society too you conveniently seem to have forgotten, and I for one, will not just roll over and allow the destruction of life in its most vunerable form to happen willy-nilly under some neo-feminist banner of "a woman's right to choose".

JC 2K3 wrote:

Yes, for any trauma the women may suffer, not for the foetuses.

But why would she feel trauma at all if the foetus is just a blob of cells? I assume you'd feel sorry for a woman who just got her hair cut then as well?

Bradidup

Rock Climber wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6377639.stm

Tiny little thing and she lives In my opinion hoovering a baby like that out of it's mothers body would be murder.

It's time abortion wasn't allowed beyond 10 weeks as you now run the risk of killing a viable human being.

All abortion is murder. Theres absolutly no difference between what was carried out in the Nazi death camps to the Jews than to what is going on in any of todays abortion clinics.

The following link are very disturbing.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/death_camp.htm

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

The woman is the one who makes the decision to have the abortion, therefore...

Therefore nothing, because it's not her sole decision. The child has a father too you know. In adittion, society are duty-bound to protect life. Or maybe you're advocating that because the female physically supports life, the father/society have no say until it's geographical position changes to that of outside the womb???

JC 2K3

Cantab. wrote:

I would never marry a woman who knowingly had an abortion. Our moral stance would just be completely incompatible.

That's you, your personal outlook. Avoid women who've had abortions like I might avoid women with characteristics I dislike.

Cantab. wrote:

And why should society accept abortion? I (and many others like me) are part of society too you conveniently seem to have forgotten, and I for one, will not just roll over and allow the destruction of life in its most vunerable form to happen willy-nilly under some neo-feminist banner of "a woman's right to choose".

This has NOTHING to do with feminism. It's to do with allowing people to make a choice regarding a procedure which some may find morally wrong but many others don't have a problem with and would like it to be available.

Cantab. wrote:

But why would she feel trauma at all if the foetus is just a blob of cells? I assume you'd feel sorry for a woman who just got her hair cut then as well?

She feels trauma due to the fact she's lost a baby she wanted. If you read my posts you'll see I never once have used the "it's not a real human" or "it's just a blob of cells" argument. It's the convenient killing of a young human before they've integrated into society.

Cantab. wrote:

Therefore nothing, because it's not her sole decision. The child has a father too you know. In adittion, society are duty-bound to protect life. Or maybe you're advocating that because the female physically supports life, the father/society have no say until it's geographical position changes to that of outside the womb???

Society are duty bound to protect society, not life, well perhaps life within society, but a baby inside a woman has not yet integrated into society. And again, stop jumping to conclusions and read my other posts where I almost aways write "mother/father's choice".

InFront

Have been a bit busy just saw your reply...

bluewolf wrote:

Infront:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,54944,00.html

That SARA system is some sort of new invention (apparently) whose relevance to the topic is questionable. If you’re asking whether that particular machine is reliable or not I’d have to say that based on that artickle, I don’t know, do you?

You're not denying that brain activity can be measured from eight weeks, are you? There really is no doubt about that tbh, I don't see how it's up for debate.

EM field not the same as a functioning brain.

Of course it's not. However, electrical activity within neurons of the brain indicates a brain that is functioning.

As I said earlier, brain activity does not mean the child is conscious. I'm not convinced that the child is ever conscious before birth. But conscious is such a non-specific term, I'm not sure how it can even be gauged, whether you're for abortion or against it. That's why I have a problem with people who say that abortion is out once the brain is functioning, if they think that the functioning brain puts the child on a higher plateau of value compared to one that is not yet functioning, but will be if left alone.

As for your last link - I'm confused - are you suggesting teenagers have no capacity for sentience?

Your argument was

So, to be safe, I say once its brain is fully formed - which I'm sure we can certainly verify - that's the cut off point

My response was an article demonstrating that even in teenagers the brain is not fully formed. In fact I think I could dig out a paper somewhere where new neural development had been detected in a seventy year old male some years ago. The brain is just not fully formed at birth, but yet you say abortion is ok until the brain is fully formed. That's my point.

Zombrex

Bradidup wrote:

All abortion is murder. Theres absolutly no difference between what was carried out in the Nazi death camps to the Jews than to what is going on in any of todays abortion clinics

Or in the dirty tissues of teenage boys up and down the country.

Millions die each night in bedrooms around the world.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

You're not denying that brain activity can be measured from eight weeks, are you? There really is no doubt about that tbh, I don't see how it's up for debate.

The problem is that you define "brain activity" as a detectable electric field inside the foetus brain. You can certainly detect an electrical field in the foetus's brain by 40 days. Is that brain activity? All most certainly not. You can detect an electrical field inside the foetus's heart and eye balls too. A human foetus generates an electrical field because it is alive and growing.

InFront wrote:

Of course it's not. However, electrical activity within neurons of the brain indicates a brain that is functioning.

As I said not necessarily. All areas of the human body generate electrical activity simply by being alive. The cells in the human brain are no different.

InFront wrote:

As I said earlier, brain activity does not mean the child is conscious. I'm not convinced that the child is ever conscious before birth. But conscious is such a non-specific term, I'm not sure how it can even be gauged, whether you're for abortion or against it.

Why then can you say that you don't think the child is ever conscious before birth? On what criteria do you gauge to make that assessment if as you say consciousness itself is so hard to assess?

InFront wrote:

That's why I have a problem with people who say that abortion is out once the brain is functioning, if they think that the functioning brain puts the child on a higher plateau of value compared to one that is not yet functioning, but will be if left alone.

Its called the "better safe than sorry" theory.

If your assessment that the foetus has not formed higher brain functions (sentience, consciousness, personality etc) until it is born then I would have absolutely no trouble saying that you can abort a foetus at any stage during pregnancy.

But I don't think that is true, and I would rather air on the side of caution than protect foetuses that are not yet "beings" rather than destroy ones that have become beings.

InFront wrote:

My response was an article demonstrating that even in teenagers the brain is not fully formed.

As far as I know teenagers have developed the necessary higher brain functions that distiguish humans for other animals.

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

That's you, your personal outlook. Avoid women who've had abortions like I might avoid women with characteristics I dislike.

I have little respect for a woman knowingly who undergoes an abortion.

JC 2K3 wrote:

This has NOTHING to do with feminism. It's to do with allowing people to make a choice regarding a procedure which some may find morally wrong but many others don't have a problem with and would like it to be available.

How many pro-life feminists are there out there do you think? Also how many homosexual pro-lifers are there out there do you think? It's all part of a liberal grand social plan to undermine the Catholic Church and fool people into a false utopian dream that ultimately leads in misery.

JC 2K3 wrote:

She feels trauma due to the fact she's lost a baby she wanted. If you read my posts you'll see I never once have used the "it's not a real human" or "it's just a blob of cells" argument. It's the convenient killing of a young human before they've integrated into society.

You are hung up on this notion of "integrated into society". Since when is integration into society the sole criteria required to asess whether someone is worthy of living or not? Should we just kill all murderers and child rapists and retards then? Your integration theory is a pathetic attempt at defining the criteria for worthiness of life.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Society are duty bound to protect society, not life, well perhaps life within society, but a baby inside a woman has not yet integrated into society. And again, stop jumping to conclusions and read my other posts where I almost aways write "mother/father's choice".

Ok so it is all down to geographical positioning then. Mmm.

Nevyn

Do you really think there was no abortion before feminism ?

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

You can certainly detect an electrical field in the foetus's brain by 40 days. Is that brain activity? All most certainly not..

I'm just not having this argument with you. There is neurolgical activity, can you just post whatever scientific proof you seem to believe there is to the contrary? Or where you are getting the idea from? I mean, the heart is beting wicknight - what do you think is making it beat?? blood cells? It is neurological activity. The neurons are functioning, they fire on the heart, the heart engages is systole and diastole - it beats in rhythmic pattern. It's not magic, it's neurology.

Why then can you say that you don't think the child is ever conscious before birth?

where did I say that? I said I'm not convinced that the child is ever conscious before birth, I have no reason to presume it is depending on what consciousness actually means from person to person. And as I already said, consciousness is some completely abstract quasi scientific term that has no precise meaning for th purposes of an abortion debate.

I'm not the one saying that the child needs to be conscious to deserve life.

On what criteria do you gauge to make that assessment if as you say consciousness itself is so hard to assess?

Again, i don't bring consciousness into it or try to assess it. You seem to.

As far as I know teenagers have developed the necessary higher brain functions that distiguish humans for other animals

That's true, and it's not being argued. As I explained in the point you're quoting from, I was simply pointing out that the brain has not yet fully formed either at birth or in early childhood - a fully formed brain is the cutoff point that one poster was using.

JC 2K3

Cantab. wrote:

How many pro-life feminists are there out there do you think? Also how many homosexual pro-lifers are there out there do you think? It's all part of a liberal grand social plan to undermine the Catholic Church and fool people into a false utopian dream that ultimately leads in misery.

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid I can't continue to argue with you due to A)You bringing religion into it, and B)You're laughable idea that Liberalism is a conspiracy.