Abortion Unfiltered

bquinn

Nerin wrote: »

can you hold a group of cells? You are taking what is said and twisting it trying to make it cute. You held your baby when it was born. Not when it was inside you

Do you have any idea what was being said here?? She was saying she was 9 wks pregnant, and her child had all her fingers and toes. Nine weeks from conceptiion, not nine weeks after birth. This was a miscarriage. Are you seriously going to tell a woman who has miscarried her child, which she held and saw with her own eyes, that it was just a bunch of cells?? This is a heartrending time for most mothers. Losing a child through miscarriage may be the most difficult thing a woman will ever face.

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

While this might be true at a certain stage prior to birth it CERTAINLY isnt true for a good few weeks after conception. Try and take a 6 week old foetus out of a womb and see how it does. Similarly would you consider a sperm to be a baby? It is the same sperm that went to create said child after all no?It just has to be sheltered and given the right conditions yeah?

No a sperm will not grow into a human under any conditions!! Where did you learn biology?? The sperm must unite with an egg to become a new human being. This is called conception.

Virgil°

bquinn wrote: »

Do you have any idea what was being said here?? She was saying she was 9 wks pregnant, and her child had all her fingers and toes. Nine weeks from conceptiion, not nine weeks after birth. This was a miscarriage. Are you seriously going to tell a woman who has miscarried her child, which she held and saw with her own eyes, that it was just a bunch of cells?? This is a heartrending time for most mothers. Losing a child through miscarriage may be the most difficult thing a woman will ever face.

Which, with all things considered , does what to prove a developing clump of cells is the same and should be afforded the same rights as a fully grown human? The fact that the mother would be outraged to hear that from someone makes no difference.

Virgil°

bquinn wrote: »

No a sperm will not grow into a human under any conditions!! Where did you learn biology?? The sperm must unite with an egg to become a new human being. This is called conception.

Yeah, except do you not see the folly of your statement? NO sperm will turn into a human except under the condition of being united with an egg.So there is a condition after all yeah? The fact that it creates a new form is abitrary.
Just like a 6 week old foetus under no other condition but to sit in a womb will turn into a fully grown human.

carlybabe1

Ultravid wrote: »

human individual from conception, with strong scientific evidence to support this conclusion, and therefore to kill him/her is gravely wrong and an obvious injustice. Would you like to try and justify it for us?

Ultravid wrote: »

If we aren't sure (I believe I have shown that we are through science) that it is a human person, wouldn't it be best to err on the side of caution and give this life, this human life, the protection afforded to all other human life?

This is relevant to what you've just said:

from: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

Can I ask you to refute the science I have presented showing human life starts at conception?

Ultravid wrote: »

Can you prove, using science, that human life does not begin at conception? Can you refute the science I have presented in my links and in my posts?

Ultravid wrote: »

Sorry to double post, but here is more evidence of the fact that science tells us life begins at conception:

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

Just one of the quotes there:

Ultravid wrote: »

If you reject science what do you base your opinion on?

The moment egg and sperm unite, you have a new individual human being who begins to grow and develop at that moment. By 18-21 days the heart will begin to beat. By 6 wks, they will move on their own, and respond (draw away from) a needle if stuck during an amniocentesis. Solomen and Berg, as well as Curtis are leading college Biology texts. Both say conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. You can argue the rights of the person all you want, but facts are facts, human life begins at conception.

This is just a small example of twisting things to suit ones argument. O.P. why dont you look up the biological definition of life?? better yet, I'll post it

life (lif) the aggregate of vital phenomena; the quality or principle by which living things are distinguished from inorganic matter, as manifested by such phenomena as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, etc.

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

metabolism:is the set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments

A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere on Earth. Properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. They undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.


Life, as characterised by scientists is defined above, so to say life begins at conception is muddying the water deliberately. I doubt the founder of modern genetics thought for one minute his words would be mutilated in the manner they were

bquinn

Clair Robinson wrote: »

And i completely agree with you. How many weeks roughly is this point in time?

This is from Solomen, Berg and Martin Biology 8th edition, which is used for most College level biology courses.

-The central nervous system begins to develop between 8 and 14 days from conception.
-Heart begins to beat between 18-21 days from conception.
-By the third week, the cells which will form the egg or sperm cells are set aside. (Meaning the eggs and sperm which will eventually be used to produce that 'embryo's child)
-skeleton begins to form during 3rd week
-4th week arms, legs, hands, feet and eyes begin to form
- 5th wk Nervous system is fined tuned and working!! Fingers and toes are forming.
-6th wk Liver is already replenishing blood of 'embryo'. Movement includes swimming, kicking, making facial expressions. Evidence that it can respond to pain includes brain waves, facial expressions, movement away from source of pain, and increased heart rate.
8th wk - Organ systems complete called fetus, which in latin means 'little one'

By the way, most abortions occur between the 8th and 10th wk. The brain is formed, the heart is beating and pain is felt. Abortion is legal through the 9th month. Most of the arguments say abortion just gets rid of a blob of cells. Maybe you can't visually see that the result of pregnancy is a human being until the 6th week after conception, but can you concede that after that the person should be protected??

carlybabe1

bquinn wrote: »

This is from Solomen, Berg and Martin Biology 8th edition, which is used for most College level biology courses.

No its not, Campbells biology is used for most college biology courses, throughout the four year course, and is held onto/updated with new editions as a referral guide

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

This is just a small example of twisting things to suit ones argument. O.P. why dont you look up the biological definition of life?? better yet, I'll post it

life (lif) the aggregate of vital phenomena; the quality or principle by which living things are distinguished from inorganic matter, as manifested by such phenomena as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, etc.

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

metabolism:is the set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments

A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere on Earth. Properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. They undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.


Life, as characterised by scientists is defined above, so to say life begins at conception is muddying the water deliberately. I doubt the founder of modern genetics thought for one minute his words would be mutilated in the manner they were

umm, the founder of modern day genetics was Gregor Mendel, who was a Catholic monk, and very much believed the teachings of the Catholic Church, so I'd say he would have believed life begins at conception...

Now let's go through your definition:
life (lif) the aggregate of vital phenomena; the quality or principle by which living things are distinguished from inorganic matter, as manifested by such phenomena as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, etc. From the moment of conception the new being is chemically distinguished from inorganic matter, At the moment of conception, reactions occur with in the fertilized egg causing growth, reproduction of itself, adaptation to it's environment ( it responds to the position in the fallopian tubes, as well as differences in pH, etc.) these unique chemical reactions are themselves defined as metabolism.. So you have shown that from conception we have life. It is genetically unique from both the mom and the father, so it is a unique life...

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

metabolism:is the set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments

A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere on Earth. Properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. They undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. Which of these do you disagree with??

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

No its not, Campbells biology is used for most college biology courses, throughout the four year course, and is held onto/updated with new editions as a referral guide

Actually as someone who has taught College level biology for 22 years, Solomen, Berg and Martin is one of the most popular texts today. Campbell has been very popular, and you will find the same info there. Curtis was also very popular and again, has the same facts.

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

Yeah, except do you not see the folly of your statement? NO sperm will turn into a human except under the condition of being united with an egg.So there is a condition after all yeah? The fact that it creates a new form is abitrary.
Just like a 6 week old foetus under no other condition but to sit in a womb will turn into a fully grown human.

Years ago, they never thought a fetus would survivie outside the womb at 22 wks gestation, but now they can. Is a 22 week old fetus more human now than it was 30 yrs ago??

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

Which, with all things considered , does what to prove a developing clump of cells is the same and should be afforded the same rights as a fully grown human? The fact that the mother would be outraged to hear that from someone makes no difference.

You can see no difference between the mother holding her child with fingers, toes, etc...and a bunch of cells?

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

Yes something that looks human is not inherently human. Thats kinda common sense.
When it was an "embryo" without a brain it was human cells but not a person. I dont agree with abortion once the brain has formed or is in the process of forming.

You say you don't believe in abortion once the brain is formed or is in the process of being formed. Go to a college library. Find the college text and go to the developmental chapter. The brain begins to form the 2nd week of pregnancy. Nervous system complete by end of 5th wk. It will continue to develop until we die, whatever age that may be...

bquinn

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Ultravid I wanted to address some points you made previously.



Well it is a life cycle. So technically there is no beginning. Just like Mitosis has no beginning, wow never thought i could use that word in a relevant analogy. And if you think that human life begins at conception (which is absurd because that means a single cell is a human life, so what we are comprised of billions of human lives?) Hi Claire, The life cycle is zygote, embryo, fetus, neonate (newborn), toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, middle age adult, and old adult. (Granted not very creative terms, but that's how they are listed in College texts...) It is called a cyle, because two adults come together to create a new individual. But obviously for a single individual, we wouldn't start at child and work our way back around to toddler, right?? Hence the beginning of an individual's life is at conception. Where else could it be??
well you also think that nature is the biggest abortionist of all (god if you believe in god), after all many conceived eggs are actually aborted naturally by the women, this prevents alot of future miscarriages. Using that logic, then you would also call God or nature, whichever you trust, a murderer as well, because don't they determine when you will die?? So does nature (or God) have the right to determine when someone dies? This is natural law. If we equate ourselves to nature (or God) and say we can determine whether someone should be allowed to live, then doesn't that lead us to determine whether we can kill our spouse or neighbor. Who is the one to judge which life is more valuable than another??

Actually, From your argument, I can see what ultravid was saying about abortion being the greatest evil in our day. It has allowed people to decide who is 'better', who is stronger, who should live, who should die. This mentality would obviously lead to who should eat, who should starve... Who's right, what country should have power... When we can no longer respect human life, we can no longer respect our neighbor...

Scarey thought, don't you think??


On a personal note, the doctors told my mother to abort me I was a health risk and she could have died. I think my mother should have aborted me, I would have been okay with it, I as her child and the child of a father and two brothers would rather have died than killed my mother. Did you ever think the fetus would prefer to be aborted?

Love always puts the other first. I'm assuming you say this out of love for your family. I'm sure your mom is very happy she did not abort. I placed my other thoughts within the quote above...

Virgil°

bquinn wrote: »

Years ago, they never thought a fetus would survivie outside the womb at 22 wks gestation, but now they can. Is a 22 week old fetus more human now than it was 30 yrs ago??

Who mentioned 22?The only point is that theyre the same in terms of being human cells, except at a different stages of development.

bquinn wrote:

You can see no difference between the mother holding her child with fingers, toes, etc...and a bunch of cells?

Well apart from it having fingers and toes, no not really. As i dont consider fingers and toes a particularly defining characteristic of who someone is.

bquinn wrote:

You say you don't believe in abortion once the brain is formed or is in the process of being formed. Go to a college library. Find the college text and go to the developmental chapter. The brain begins to form the 2nd week of pregnancy. Nervous system complete by end of 5th wk. It will continue to develop until we die, whatever age that may be...

Yeah gastrulation ive heard of it alright.But the brain isnt even close to initiation until any stage between the 4th or up to and including the 8th week. Organogenesis.When the organs start forming.
So its a bit early to be calling it a "brain" as we know it all things considered.And it isnt nearly capable of any higher brain functions that would bestow the characteristics of being a consciousness at that stage.

Nevyn

http://vimeo.com/1693176?pg=embed&sec=1693176

Phototoxin

Everyone is entitled to thier thoughts and beliefs, and to try take that away is a human rights violation, the same way everyone has the right to bodily integrity

except the baby .. you forgot them carlybaby..
Is the babys bodily integrety being protected when it is sliced apart or burned with a caustic soltuion or decapitated ?

Life, as characterised by scientists is defined above, so to say life begins at conception is muddying the water deliberately. I doubt the founder of modern genetics thought for one minute his words would be mutilated in the manner they were

as I pointed out we could argue that life began 650 million years ago. Its obvious that Ultravid means life of the child. You are the one trying to muddy the water..

Also quinn has rightly pointed out that mendelson is considered the father of modern genetics with his pea experiments.

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

Who mentioned 22?The only point is that theyre the same in terms of being human cells, except at a different stages of development..

You said the fetus needs the interaction in the womb to develop into a person. Well, 30 yrs ago you could have made that argument of a 22 wk old fetus, but you can't today. So when do you think it's ok for abortion and when do you not think it's ok??

Virgil° wrote: »

Yeah gastrulation ive heard of it alright.But the brain isnt even close to initiation until any stage between the 4th or up to and including the 8th week. Organogenesis.When the organs start forming.
So its a bit early to be calling it a "brain" as we know it all things considered.And it isnt nearly capable of any higher brain functions that would bestow the characteristics of being a consciousness at that stage.

So then abortions after 8 weeks are wrong???

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

You said that you eat these creatures because given the chance theyd probably eat you. In light of that,this statement makes no sense.

Ah but Virgil I didn't say that was the only reason; mearly a reason.

Cows arent capable of creating soceities and laws comparable to ours either, and its not because their hearts or lungs or stomachs arent advanced enough. I wonder which part of them is lacking?

...well some people would argue that opposable thumbs would be a major reason.
If you continue your logic to the great apes, should they be awarded more rights?

The fact that parents, who have just lost their child,

I didn't suggest the child was dead. Assume the child is alive - that was my point.

might take offence to my saying that to them, has no relevance tbh.

but it is relevant. They clearly perceive their child to be a person; to be human. To suggest otherwise is a lie. And, frankly, ignorant and offensive.

The fact remains though that since little Timmy is braindead, the part that would make little Timmy into,well little Timmy, is gone and theres no hope.

But none the less, little timmy is a person.

Thaedydal wrote: »

http://vimeo.com/1693176?pg=embed&sec=1693176

Care to post an actual point?

carlybabe1

Ultravid wrote: »

Sorry to double post, but here is more evidence of the fact that science tells us life begins at conception:

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

Just one of the quotes there:

Quote:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

bquinn wrote: »

[/color]
umm, the founder of modern day genetics was Gregor Mendel, who was a Catholic monk, and very much believed the teachings of the Catholic Church, so I'd say he would have believed life begins at conception...

I know who the modern day father of genetics was, I was trying to quote something ultravid had posted,apologies, I didnt realise it didnt post so I copied and pasted above

Now let's go through your definition:
life (lif) the aggregate of vital phenomena; the quality or principle by which living things are distinguished from inorganic matter, as manifested by such phenomena as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, etc. From the moment of conception the new being is chemically distinguished from inorganic matter, At the moment of conception, reactions occur with in the fertilized egg causing growth, reproduction of itself, adaptation to it's environment ( it responds to the position in the fallopian tubes, as well as differences in pH, etc.) these unique chemical reactions are themselves defined as metabolism.. So you have shown that from conception we have life. It is genetically unique from both the mom and the father, so it is a unique life...

Yes we do have life, in much the same way that we cultivate life of bacteria on an agar plate, my point was that life is defined by the ability to do the above. its not exclusive to humans, pond scum is also life, (algae) as it too can also complete the required that defines it as having life.
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

metabolism:is the set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments

A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere on Earth. Properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. They undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. Which of these do you disagree with??

Absolutely none, I was using this to back up my above claims.

bquinn wrote: »

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Actually as someone who has taught College level biology for 22 years, Solomen, Berg and Martin is one of the most popular texts today. Campbell has been very popular, and you will find the same info there. Curtis was also very popular and again, has the same facts.

As someone who is and has been studying biology in two of the largest colleges, I have never heard of this text, and always been recommended by my lecturers to get campbells

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Quote:

Yes we do have life, in much the same way that we cultivate life of bacteria on an agar plate, my point was that life is defined by the ability to do the above. its not exclusive to humans, pond scum is also life, (algae) as it too can also complete the required that defines it as having life.
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
...
As someone who is and has been studying biology in two of the largest colleges, I have never heard of this text, and always been recommended by my lecturers to get campbells

Regardless of what your prof prefers, all of the books give the same facts. And as a biology student of two years, if you can't tell the difference between pond scum and a newly formed human embryo, then you should have failed biology. Sorry, facts are facts.

Phototoxin

So have we established yet that a foetus is life/alive ?

If so then why does it not qualify as human life ?

bquinn

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Because they may come out of a coma

Wait, so you're ok with waiting for them to come out of a coma, but not ok with waiting for them to be born??? I know many women who were told their child would have brain deformities, or no brain at all, but the child ended up being fine. For that matter, one person I work with was told she should abort; that her child (who was a girl) did not have any brain except a tiny part of the brain stem. She did not believe in abortion, and went through with her pregnancy, expecting to deliver a dead child. Her daughter is now 21 years old, was valadictorian of her high school class, played soccer, and also played an instrument. Can't remember which one, I think it was the flute.

To answer an earlier question, no i don't believe abortion is ok at any stage,, but I will concede to the fact that it may be difficult for some to understand the value of human life prior to 6 wks from conception. I'm asking you (all who have argued for abortion) do you concede that abortion is wrong after 8 wks, when all Organ systems are complete??

Nerin

bquinn wrote: »

Do you have any idea what was being said here?? She was saying she was 9 wks pregnant, and her child had all her fingers and toes. Nine weeks from conceptiion, not nine weeks after birth. This was a miscarriage. Are you seriously going to tell a woman who has miscarried her child, which she held and saw with her own eyes, that it was just a bunch of cells?? This is a heartrending time for most mothers. Losing a child through miscarriage may be the most difficult thing a woman will ever face.

difference between a miscarraige and an abortion is someone getting an abortion want to get rid of whats inside them.

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

Ah but Virgil I didn't say that was the only reason; mearly a reason.

Well you didn't give any others. So until you do ill assume that you don't eat cows solely because they might eat you. Which they wont being herbivores.

zulu wrote:

...well some people would argue that opposable thumbs would be a major reason.
If you continue your logic to the great apes, should they be awarded more rights?

Sure why not. I wouldnt give it to them because of opposable thumbs though.

zulu wrote:

I didn't suggest the child was dead. Assume the child is alive - that was my point.

Ok then the child is alive. The parents can rejoice at the birth of their lovely little Timmy? Because having a brain clearly isn't that much of an issue.
The "important" thing is that he breathes?
Seriously, you would actually sustain this life?

zulu wrote:

but it is relevant. They clearly perceive their child to be a person; to be human. To suggest otherwise is a lie. And, frankly, ignorant and offensive.

Of course they would perceive him so. Because theyre completely incapable of being objective to the whole situation.They probably named him Timmy or Tabatha months before he/she was even conceived.
And i never suggested he wasn't a human just that he wasnt capable of being a person in the sense of having a sense of self and so on. You know? all the things that make him able to be "him".

zulu wrote:

But none the less, little timmy is a person.

Seing as how you seem so desperate to cling on to the formal definition of the word person ill try use something else. Timmy is not a consciousness, never will be. He lacks a certain organ.Arguably the most important one to the human system.

bquinn wrote:

So then abortions after 8 weeks are wrong???

Well its a hard one to quantify given that its never exactly 8 weeks in all cases.And thats its also difficult to determine when consciousness actually forms or is it sufficient enough formation to deem it important. But as a general guideline, yeah 8 weeks give or take(if the consciousness really does begin to form at that time) in most cases.

bquinn wrote:

You said the fetus needs the interaction in the womb to develop into a person. Well, 30 yrs ago you could have made that argument of a 22 wk old fetus, but you can't today. So when do you think it's ok for abortion and when do you not think it's ok??

Hmm but can it survive at 8 or 10 weeks as per my guidelines?
I'm not being rhetoric...i genuinely don't know.

Phototoxin

It can survive by not being killed.

Virgil°

Phototoxin wrote: »

So have we established yet that a foetus is life/alive ?

If so then why does it not qualify as human life ?

It can survive by not being killed.

People without brains generally dont possess the power to sustain themselves.
So if left to their own devices without serious medical intervention they die.

And for the last bloody time , were not arguing that it isnt human life. Just that when it doesn't have a brain it doesn't qualify for rights because it isn't "someone".

carlybabe1

bquinn wrote: »

Regardless of what your prof prefers, all of the books give the same facts. And as a biology student of two years, if you can't tell the difference between pond scum and a newly formed human embryo, then you should have failed biology. Sorry, facts are facts.

Who said two years I was in trinners for two years, before I moved, and not to brag but the lowest % i ever got in biology was 72%, and that ws in my 1st yr.....the reason I do so well is that Im not emotive, and the definition of life stands across the board, whether pond life or animal....
If I was emotive, how could I justify dissecting animals,... i couldnt.....
I do believe there should be stringent rules in place where abortion is acceptable after a certain time (16 wks) unless life or death situation, but I also think that its acceptable up till then cause there are too many variables in the alternative

Phototoxin

And for the last bloody time , were not arguing that it isnt human life. Just that when it doesn't have a brain it doesn't qualify for rights because it isn't "someone".

so if its alive who has the right to murder it ? How come I cannot kill anyone I want to legally but somehow in some places its ok to kill people who aren't born ?

Virgil°

Phototoxin wrote: »

so if its alive who has the right to murder it ? How come I cannot kill anyone I want to legally but somehow in some places its ok to kill people who aren't born ?

Do you consider a "person" without a brain to be "someone"?

Ultravid

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Everyones entitled to thier beliefs, without question,...but that does not mean that one side has the right to preach disturbing " facts" to another, or shove opinions down a persons neck. Everyone is entitled to thier thoughts and beliefs, and to try take that away is a human rights violation, the same way everyone has the right to bodily integrity

What about the bodily integrity of the unborn? Where are their rights when they are being torn apart, limb by limb, and their head is crushed with forceps and dumped in a bucket? What about his bodily integrity?

Or when a suction machine that is able to pull the tiny fetus apart (killing him or her in the process). The remains are sucked out of the mother and deposited into a collection canister. Where is the bodily integrity of this human person?

carlybabe1

Phototoxin wrote: »

so if its alive who has the right to murder it ? ?

Lets not go down this route,or I could ask you all these questions
1) if 'murdering' something thats alive offends you so, why do you eat meat/ go hunting (?)/ eat veal(? which is unborn calf meat) /eat horsemeat/eat dogmeat/ wear leather/suede?????If you dont do any of this then what do you do to try prevent any of this happening

If you're goin down the "all life is precious" route then stick to it, you shouldn't get to pick and choose like those pro-choicers...oh wait

carlybabe1

Ultravid wrote: »

What about the bodily integrity of the unborn? Where are their rights when they are being torn apart, limb by limb, and their head is crushed with forceps and dumped in a bucket? What about his bodily integrity?

Oh I see, so there is a clump of cells growing inside your body, with the potential to become a parasite, yes a parasite, as defined by what a parasite is ( ultimately needs a hosts body in order to feed/grow/live)
has more rights than the host, the host has no rights to its own body, no right to say "hang on, I dont want this ****in thing in me for the next 9 months" thats akin to saying, " I wont deflea my dog, because the flea has a right to life, and my dog has no rights"

Or when a suction machine that is able to pull the tiny fetus apart (killing him or her in the process). The remains are sucked out of the mother and deposited into a collection canister. Where is the bodily integrity of this human person?

tiny fetus=clump of cells/fatty tissue/cancerous growth.... should we feel sorry for them when they are removed??

Ultravid

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Oh I see, so there is a clump of cells growing inside your body, with the potential to become a parasite, yes a parasite, as defined by what a parasite is ( ultimately needs a hosts body in order to feed/grow/live)
has more rights than the host, the host has no rights to its own body, no right to say "hang on, I dont want this ****in thing in me for the next 9 months" thats akin to saying, " I wont deflea my dog, because the flea has a right to life, and my dog has no rights"

tiny fetus=clump of cells/fatty tissue/cancerous growth.... should we feel sorry for them when they are removed??

The unborn is not a parasite. The fact that you view it as such...

tiny fetus=clump of cells/fatty tissue/cancerous growth.... should we feel sorry for them when they are removed??

Again, a fetus is not a cancerous growth.

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

Well its a hard one to quantify given that its never exactly 8 weeks in all cases.And thats its also difficult to determine when consciousness actually forms or is it sufficient enough formation to deem it important. But as a general guideline, yeah 8 weeks give or take(if the consciousness really does begin to form at that time) in most cases.


Hmm but can it survive at 8 or 10 weeks as per my guidelines?
I'm not being rhetoric...i genuinely don't know.

As of now, no it cannot survive outside the womb at 8-10 weeks. But my point is that given medical advances that is possible in the future, so time and place should not define personhood. AS far as learning is concerned, i read in a periodical (I know, cite, but I can't remember the exact source) They were doing amniocentesis on (I'll say being,, since we agree it is a living human being, just personhood is questionable in your mind, right?) It was 6-7 weeks into the pregnancy, and they were using ultrasound to guide the needle. (This was done at John Hopkins, I believe in the late 70's) They observed that the being moved away from the needle. early pain response. They decided to 'test' their findings, so measured brain waves and heart rate as they stuck the being with the needle. Brain waves showed response, heart rate went up, and being moved away. That could be argued that it's a reflex, right?? The thing that surprised them was, when they went ot stick the 'being' a third time, it moved away before the needle stuck him. They repeated it several times with various 'beings', and it happened repeatedly. Hence their conclusion was that some form of learning could take place at that early age. I have not seen any other studies to back that up, but there were other studies done in Psychology Today, which associated behavior with memories from in the womb. They varied in how 'early' those memories took place, but some were definitely within the first trimester.

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

.

Well its a hard one to quantify given that its never exactly 8 weeks in all cases.And thats its also difficult to determine when consciousness actually forms or is it sufficient enough formation to deem it important. But as a general guideline, yeah 8 weeks give or take(if the consciousness really does begin to form at that time) in most cases.

Ok, then we agree abortion after the brain is formed, and they are 'concious' would be wrong. Scientifically everything is developed for that to be the case by 5-6 wks, depending on the resource. (Scientific/medical sources, not philosophy or religous as I would presume thay would vary depending on their definition...) We'll say at 8 wks the Orgsan systems are complete, and that gives the nervous system another 2 wks to mature, and make sure they are actually concious and not just physically working... (although physically working is the criteria used in medicine) We agree then after 8 wks abortion is wrong.

On that criteria, you believe the majority of abortions are wrong. I'll look up the statistics tomorrow, as I'm heading home, but the majority of abortions do occur after 8 wks. I believe, but will double check and give source, that most occur between 8 and 12 weeks.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Lets not go down this route,or I could ask you all these questions

no, lets...

1) if 'murdering' something thats alive offends you so, why do you eat meat/ go hunting (?)/ eat veal(? which is unborn calf meat) /eat horsemeat/eat dogmeat/ wear leather/suede?????

Oh dear. For one - because they are animals. We are discussing people. I for one, don't eat people. I doubt anyone else here does either.
Veal is calf meat, not "unborn calf meat". And very few people eat horse or dog in this country, and you'll find the reason being, is because people (for some reason) afford these particular animals an affection not shown to other animals because of their unique relationship with humans.
Wearing leather... ...well thats nothing got to do with anything really.

Now Carlybabe, I've answered your questions so far, do you think this time you might allow me the same courtesy later in the thread?

If you dont do any of this then what do you do to try prevent any of this happening

At a guess, because they are not people. You can tell the difference between people and animals right? I mean 78% + should give you a fairly good insight.

If you're goin down the "all life is precious" route then stick to it,

let me correct it for you then: "all human life is precious"

you shouldn't get to pick and choose like those pro-choicers...oh wait

like the way the "pro-choice" lobby pick and choose who gets the choice? Because it's clear that the childs choice to life doesn't get a look in.

Oh I see, so there is a clump of cells growing inside your body, with the potential to become a parasite, yes a parasite, as defined by what a parasite is ( ultimately needs a hosts body in order to feed/grow/live)
has more rights than the host, the host has no rights to its own body, no right to say "hang on, I dont want this ****in thing in me for the next 9 months" thats akin to saying, " I wont deflea my dog, because the flea has a right to life, and my dog has no rights"

That's all a bit emotive, no?
Are you suggesting that an unborn baby is akin to a flea?

tiny fetus=clump of cells/fatty tissue/cancerous growth.... should we feel sorry for them when they are removed??

Seeing as you enjoy definitions so much: foetus doesn't mean cancerous growth or parasite, however, it does = child. By the way, I only did biology up to the junior cert, and didn't particularly shine at it either!

Virgil° wrote: »

Well you didn't give any others. So until you do ill assume that you don't eat cows solely because they might eat you. Which they wont being herbivores.

Well assume all you want, but you do know what assumptions are don't you?
I eat cows because they are bloody tasty and I don't mind if they are slaughtered as a food source.
However, I find the killing of humans morally reprehensible.
If you wish to discuss further the differences between animals and humans perhaps start another thread, as we are discussing human abortions. And in the interests of keeping this on topic - how about I declare animal abortion wrong?

Ok then the child is alive. The parents can rejoice at the birth of their lovely little Timmy? Seriously, you would actually sustain this life?

If it was my child? I don't know. I wouldn't be comfortable killing the child though.

And i never suggested he wasn't a human just that he wasnt capable of being a person in the sense of having a sense of self and so on. You know? all the things that make him able to be "him".

I know - just that he wasn't a person.

Seing as how you seem so desperate to cling on to the formal definition of the word person ill try use something else. Timmy is not a consciousness,

Perfect. Thank you.
Ok now at least we are talking the same language.
So, so long as we aren't killing people or humans; how do we define conciousness?

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

no, lets...
Oh dear. For one - because they are animals. We are discussing people. I for one, don't eat people. I doubt anyone else here does either.
Veal is calf meat, not "unborn calf meat". And very few people eat horse or dog in this country, and you'll find the reason being, is because people (for some reason) afford these particular animals an affection not shown to other animals because of their unique relationship with humans.
Wearing leather... ...well thats nothing got to do with anything really.

Now Carlybabe, I've answered your questions so far, do you think this time you might allow me the same courtesy later in the thread?

At a guess, because they are not people. You can tell the difference between people and animals right? I mean 78% + should give you a fairly good insight.
let me correct it for you then: "all human life is precious"
like the way the "pro-choice" lobby pick and choose who gets the choice? Because it's clear that the childs choice to life doesn't get a look in.

That's all a bit emotive, no?
Are you suggesting that an unborn baby is akin to a flea?

Seeing as you enjoy definitions so much: foetus doesn't mean cancerous growth or parasite, however, it does = child. By the way, I only did biology up to the junior cert, and didn't particularly shine at it either!

Well assume all you want, but you do know what assumptions are don't you?
I eat cows because they are bloody tasty and I don't mind if they are slaughtered as a food source.
However, I find the killing of humans morally reprehensible.
If you wish to discuss further the differences between animals and humans perhaps start another thread, as we are discussing human abortions. And in the interests of keeping this on topic - how about I declare animal abortion wrong?

Are you trying to get this thread closed as well Zulu? And the question wasn't directed at you. As you have demonstrated i this post, as in other threads, you cant play nice, so therefore I dont want to play...with all due respect, I'll just ignore your sarcasm and ignore your posts. Now back on topic....

It boils down to how you see and define a fetus, for me, as with most posters who have an idea of biology, its a clump of cells until a certain stage, and therefore is removeable

carlybabe1

Ultravid wrote: »

carlybabe1 wrote: »

The unborn is not a parasite. The fact that you view it as such...



Again, a fetus is not a cancerous growth.

Yes a fetus is a parasite, as a parasite is defined scientifically. The fact that it is our own species and is cutchy coo cute when its born doesn't change that fact. And at early stages it has the same characteristics as a growth, and grows the same way, cell division

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

It boils down to how you see and define a fetus, for me, as with most posters who have an idea of biology, its a clump of cells until a certain stage, and therefore is removeable

Well, it's not really most other posters though, it's just the pro-abortion posters who see it as that.

The anti-abortion posters recognise it for exactly what it is, a foetus.

As for the rest of your post, this is a different thread so I'll ignore it in the spirit of progressing the conversation without getting personal. Hopefully you'll see to reciprocate.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Yes a fetus is a parasite, as a parasite is defined scientifically. The fact that it is our own species and is cutchy coo cute when its born doesn't change that fact. And at early stages it has the same characteristics as a growth, and grows the same way, cell division

...and say if you were answering an exam question, that required biological accuracy, would you expect full mark describing a human foetus as a growth or a parasite?

Something tells me you would exactly get full marks with that description.

stakey

A parasite is an organism that benefits entirely from the symbiotic relationship while the host is usually harmed. Seeing as the human body is designed to carry a child and doesn't come to any harm apart from side effects of sharing nutrients and hormonal changes I wouldn't agree with carlybabe on referring to the foetus as a parasite.

However, as far as the argument goes for development of personhood in a foetus I would be inclined to believe that personhood is not developed until the brain is capable of cognitive processing. From weeks 11-17 the foetus is very much a form of life but by no means on par with the host or on par with ourselves (ie. walking, talking, breathing, thinking humans). The foetus is incapable of feeling pain has minimal independent movement and no higher brain functions. Initial developments of brain and nerve pathways create movements designed to test or develop the formation of organs.

Hence it is my belief that the mother/host's rights supersede that of a developing life with no human characteristics such as free thought or emotions.

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

However, as far as the argument goes for development of personhood in a foetus I would be inclined to believe that personhood is not developed until the brain is capable of cognitive processing. From weeks 11-17 the foetus is very much a form of life but by no means on par with the host or on par with ourselves (ie. walking, talking, breathing, thinking humans). The foetus is incapable of feeling pain has minimal independent movement and no higher brain functions. Initial developments of brain and nerve pathways create movements designed to test or develop the formation of organs.

Hence it is my belief that the mother/host's rights supersede that of a developing life with no human characteristics such as free thought or emotions.

Says you. The interesting thing is, 26 years ago, >I< looked exactly like those pictures, in the links, posted just before your post, and some folks here would happily have me killed, based on the criteria of, no free thought or emotions. Very subjective. Thanks a bunch.

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

Says you. The interesting thing is, 26 years ago, >I< looked exactly like those pictures, in the links, posted just before your post, and some folks here would happily have me killed, based on the criteria of, no free thought or emotions. Very subjective. Thanks a bunch.

Don't forget your inability to independently move your limbs, your complete lack of higher brain functionality and your inability to feel any pain. The fact that you'd be lacking all of these would mean you were not conscience of your own existance!

Ultravid

bluewolf wrote: »

Ultra if that had been the case you wouldn't have known. There wouldn't have been an "I".
And yes, you are being rather subjective. We are not talking about killing you as you are now, we are talking about feti.

If the difference is too emotionally difficult for you one may suggest you take a step back before posting particularly if the most you have to contribute is "says you".


P.s. did you look like the picture in the 2nd link? That's very curious.

I did.

An embryo or fetus is smaller than a newborn baby. What does size have to do with rights of personhood? The answer: nothing.

Smaller people are no more or less human than those who are bigger. Embryos and fetuses are smaller than newborns just as newborns are smaller than infants and infants are smaller than toddlers and toddlers are smaller than adolescents and adolescents are smaller than teenagers and teenagers are smaller than adults. Size doesn't matter. It is lawful to kill a fly and not lawful to kill a person, not because the person is bigger, but because the person is human. Humanity is what matters.

It is true that embryos and fetuses are less developed than a newborn (unless, of course, that newborn was born prematurely). But this, too, is a distinction which has no moral significance. It is a difference of degree, not kind. Physical and/or intellectual development has nothing to do with determining personhood outside the womb. It is equally insignificant for determining personhood inside the womb. Children are generally less developed than adults. People with developmental disabilities may be less developed than some children, and those with extraordinary mental capacity are no more human than those with lesser IQs. It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood.

A person, as defined by the dictionary is nothing more or less than a living human. Anyone who tries to narrow this general definition of personhood does so in an attempt to eliminate a certain group of people who is either getting in their way or has something they want. Creating self-defined definitions of personhood that are uniquely crafted to eliminate certain individuals from protection under the law has long been the method of choice for implementing all manner of genocidal atrocities.
(abort73.com)

Ok so these aren't my own words. Sorry. But it's what I want to present so...

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

Don't forget your inability to independently move your limbs, your complete lack of higher brain functionality and your inability to feel any pain. The fact that you'd be lacking all of these would mean you were not conscience of your own existance!

What has consciousness got to do with it? What has consciousness got to do with my right to life? My right not to be killed. My right not to be torn apart in my mothers womb and dumped in a bucket?

I existed, therefore I was.

stakey

So going by this websites argument (which you haven't written yourself) you would state that a human is anything that develops within the womb after fertilisation (even a 10mm embryo).

Would you therefore be happy to call an entity born without ANY higher brain functionality, no ability to feel pain or express emotions or any control over there limbs a human?

Dave!

It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood.

Not really... I don't think most people would have a problem flicking the switch and turning off the maintenance of the body of a brain-dead person. Would you? Of course let's say it's a hypothetical situation and not your mother or something (ie. your decision is not based on emotion).

If you would, then I don't see how you can have a problem with 'turning off the machine' of an undeveloped embryo -- from the perspective of 'humanity'.

I think the 'potential' in an embryo is a more compelling point than its humanity.

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

So going by this websites argument (which you haven't written yourself) you would state that a human is anything that develops within the womb after fertilisation (even a 10mm embryo).

Would you therefore be happy to call an entity born without ANY higher brain functionality, no ability to feel pain or express emotions or any control over there limbs a human?

A human life is a human person is a human being and we have no right to kill that life.

As an aside, I used to be 10mm long myself.

Dave! wrote: »

It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood.

Not really... I don't think most people would have a problem flicking the switch and turning off the maintenance of the body of a brain-dead person. Would you? Of course let's say it's a hypothetical situation and not your mother or something (ie. your decision is not based on emotion).

If you would, then I don't see how you can have a problem with 'turning off the machine' of an undeveloped embryo -- from the perspective of 'humanity'.

I think the 'potential' in an embryo is a more compelling point than its humanity.

There is a difference between the extraordinary means of technological life support, and the normal way in which new human persons are produced. That is, in the womb. But this discussion is not about life support machines.

Dave!

It's entirely relevent to the discussion. Do you disagree with turning off the machine or not? It's either still a human by virtue of something other than brain activity, or it's 'below human' by virtue of lack of brain activity.

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

A human life is a human person is a human being and we have no right to kill that life.

A person is defined by intellect, literacy, personality, legal status etc...

A human being is defined by consciousness, cognition and self awareness.

None of the above are shared with a foetus.

A foetus has the potential to develop these once it's born but the anti-choice side believe the foetus should have the same rights as a PERSON who has developed all of these characteristics.