Abortion Unfiltered

Ultravid

I'm off now, but a few last points before I go.

Somebody a while back mentioned this:

a tadpole (even frogspawn) is not a frog. Describe a frog. 4 legs,Amphibian etc Tadpole-not a frog. But is potential to become a frog. If i killed a tadpole,i killed a tadpole,i didn't kill a frog. I killed a potential frog. I kill a bunch of cells,i didn't kill a human. Thats my opinion.

If you squish a frog or a tadpole, you've still killed something from the Order Anura. This is the importance of using precise language. Even though frogs and tadpoles look different, they are the same animal.

Human life ('being') begins at conception: any other 'point' is purely arbitrary.

The right to life is enshrined in article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, making it a legally enforceable right in every UN member state.

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Note the term 'human being' - not 'person'. Wordplay is used by pro-abortion advocates to muddy the water and justify the crimes against the unborn.

Partial birth abortion: Why not legalize infanticide? In the Roe v. Wade decision the "justices" cited that the Hippocratic oath was influenced by Phygarean beliefs on the sacredness of life. What they omit that he was writing in a society in which abandonment of infants and children was acceptable: it plays a large part in many myths (e.g. Oedipus). In Sparta, every child was inspected and those which didn't fit the definition of the state on fitness were thrown off a cliff outside of town, no matter the parents desires on the matter. In Rome the pater potestas (head of the family) had the right to put to death any member of his family, regardless of age.

One final piece from Peter Kreeft:

Human Personhood Begins at Conception:

read here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

Non-Christians and even Christians can take opposite positions on abortion even when they think rationally, honestly, and with good will. The continuing controversy over abortion shows that it is a truly controversial issue. It is not simple and clear cut, but complex. Just as the choices for action are often difficult for a woman contemplating abortion, the choices for thought are often difficult for open-minded philosophers.

Everything I have said so far is a lie, in fact a dangerous lie.

There is one and only one reason why people argue about the topic of this paper, whether human personhood begins at conception: because some people want to justify abortion.

Therefore I begin with some remarks about abortion.

Abortion is a clear-cut evil. Anyone who honestly seeks "peace on earth, good will toward men" will see this if only he extends it to include women and children. Especially Christians should see this very clearly, for their faith reinforces their natural reason and conscience, a faith that declares that every human being is sacred because he or she is made in the image of God. The fact that some people controvert a position does not in itself make that position intrinsically controversial. People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton—for someone without principles.

....

Personhood is indeed unclear - for Functionalism. Such questions as the following are not clearly answerable: Which features count as proof of personhood? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personhood? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personhood are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personhood to decide the sharply controversial issue of who is a person and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius.

Perhaps not many people know this, but Roe*, of Roe v. Wade, is a member of the pro-life movement (and the Roman Catholic Church). She has stated that the pro-life and Christians have always treated her like a person, whereas the pro-abortion people treated her as a thing.

A Symbol and a Prophecy
[SIZE=+1]The decision of any person to convert to Christ, to become pro-life, and to join the Catholic Church is a momentous decision in the life of that individual, and is a blessing for the entire Church and the pro-life movement. In the case of Norma McCorvey , the decision is also a prophecy. It has been my conviction from doing pro-life work in all 50 states that the abortion industry and the mentality behind it are collapsing. The days of abortion are numbered, because no lie can live forever. Jane Roe's abandonment of the pro-choice cause is one of many signs of this.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Full article: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/story2.html[/SIZE]

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
TruthTV is also a good resource, including testimonies from abortionists themselves:
http://www.truthtv.org/

Zombrex

Ultravid wrote: »

Human life begins at conception: any other 'point' is purely arbitrary.

Well that statement itself is rather arbitrary. A sperm and egg are after all both human, and alive.

From the point of view of nature life doesn't really "begin", it merely changes. Life is an unbroken chemical process that can be traced back over 3 billion years. At no point were you dead, you were simply part of your parents.

The question then of course becomes then at what point do we decide that the "life" is no longer your parents and is now you. Conception is a rather arbitrary point to pick, people who do tend to pick it because of the rearranging of the DNA as a significant event, and because thinking of a single entity being made up of two cells separated by distance (in the case of the sperm and egg) as too difficult. Personally I find that argument through rather weak. The idea that the sperm and egg are not "you" two seconds before conception but they are you two seconds afterwards is a bit silly in my opinion.

Ultravid wrote: »

Note the term 'human being' - not 'person'. Wordplay is used by pro-abortion advocates to muddy the water and justify the crimes against the unborn.

The water is already muddy. This is a very complicated issue with a lot of things to think about (see above). I think some people would rather pretend that the issue if more clear cut, with statements like "life begins at conception!" that sound very definite and exact but are in fact rather inaccurate and misleading. I can see the appeal of this exactness, it allows people to make rather absolute and easy decisions, but it some what betrays the reality of the situation.

Ultravid wrote: »

One final piece from Peter Kreeft:

There is one and only one reason why people argue about the topic of this paper, whether human personhood begins at conception: because some people want to justify abortion.

Well yes, why else would people argue about it?

Ultravid wrote: »

One final piece from Peter Kreeft:

Abortion is a clear-cut evil.

Simply stating that over and over again is not an argument. It is though rather tiresome. You may feel it is true but without the ability to articulate why it is true it is rather pointless to quote it in a discussion forum.

I could just as easily say -

"Abortion is not a clear-cut evil"

There, that was easy. Are you convinced yet :pac:

Phototoxin

All the pro-life arguments would be very convincing, both from theists and atheists, if I believed a foetus was a person. The really is the crux of the matter, and so far all their arguments, however well thought and argued, have failed to convince me of this. I guess I have such a high regard for what a person is I can't lower its stature by giving something barely alive the same definition.

why does being outside a womb make you a person ?

No, I value human life because of the consciousness that the human brain can product. Something non-human that produces a similar system (such as a self-aware ape or a super computer) I would value equally. I don't value potential that much at all, every time I have sex there is a potential baby I don't (or try not to) have, but I don't consider that as yet non-existent thing to be of any value at all.

what about unconcsious people ? If I go into unconsciousness should I be killed ?

9) It's not OK to terminate an unconscious adult on the basis of their consciousness, because they will return to consciousness in the future.
When I say consciousness I am not talking about being physically awake. I don't think it is perfectly fine to kill a sleeping person because they are not conscious. Even an unconscious person still has a brain with all the systems required for consciousness ticking away, even if they are not being used at that moment.

As I mentioned above, it is the difference between turning your computer off (all your data and OS and stuff is all still there) and throwing your computer out the window and driving over it with a truck.

but the embryo will be conscious in the future if left alone..

And also please, do try call us pro-choice.Its incredibly rude that you dont.
What if we started using anti-choice for your side?

pro/anti choice are idiotic terms as we choose lots of things. Abortion is the issue so its pro/anti abortion as opposed to anything else

At no point were you dead, you were simply part of your parents.

not true as sperm is being constantly made and reknewed, as opposed to eggs which were actually present inside your mum while in your grandmothers womb! You weren't dead but you didn't always exist as two seperate pieces.

Virgil°

Phototoxin wrote: »

why does being outside a womb make you a person ?


what about unconcsious people ? If I go into unconsciousness should I be killed ?
.

wicknight wrote:

When I say consciousness I am not talking about being physically awake. I don't think it is perfectly fine to kill a sleeping person because they are not conscious. Even an unconscious person still has a brain with all the systems required for consciousness ticking away, even if they are not being used at that moment.

phototoxin wrote:

why does being outside a womb make you a person ?

It doesnt, neither have we said it does. Its the brain that makes you a conscious, self aware person. SO as long as that is there or in the process of developing, its game over abortion.

phototoxin wrote:

but the embryo will be conscious in the future if left alone..

Wicknight would argue differently, but i dont think that i can convince anyone that a potential conscious person has no value. This is where i agree to disagree on its value.

stakey

Virgil° wrote: »

It doesnt, neither have we said it does. Its the brain that makes you a conscious, self aware person. SO as long as that is there or in the process of developing, its game over abortion.

Wicknight would argue differently, but i dont think that i can convince anyone that a potential conscious person has no value. This is where i agree to disagree on its value.

It's not necessarily that a potential conscious has no value. It's the fact that a developed conscious, ie. the mothers conscious carries much more value than that of a potential conscious.

The two should never be valued on an equal footing until the embryo has a conscious. Even in the later stages of the pregnancy if a termination is needed to save the mothers life then the mothers conscious should be valued more than the embryo's.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

It doesnt, neither have we said it does. Its the brain that makes you a conscious, self aware person. SO as long as that is there or in the process of developing, its game over abortion

The problem I have with this logic is: how do we know when consciousness occurs? And is this the short edge of the wedge, ie: how do you define conciousness to ensure it's protected?

I understand that it must happen as some stage after the brain in some form has begun developing, but what's that 6 weeks*? I'd suggest there exists a strong possibility that the majority of would be abortion seeking mothers wouldn't know they were pregnant until after 8 weeks!

*number may have been picked from my ass

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

It's not necessarily that a potential conscious has no value. It's the fact that a developed conscious, ie. the mothers conscious carries much more value than that of a potential conscious.

Well where do you draw you arbitrary line there? A newly born baby isn't protected by that rationality. Neither is a small child.
And again, how do you measure when someone is "fully conscious".

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

Well where do you draw you arbitrary line there? A newly born baby isn't protected by that rationality. Neither is a small child.
And again, how do you measure when someone is "fully conscious".

If you've read through the last few pages you'll see that I pointed out that the foetus has a brain, heart and some organs. However brain activity is slim to none suggesting a lack of consciousness and self-awareness. As well as that the foetus is unable to feel pain at this stage.

I think you'll agree that the rights of someone who can feel pain, is completely self-aware and conscious of their existance (i'm referring to the mother here in case you're wondering) supersede the rights of something that doesn't?

A small child is protected (and so too is the foetus) once it reaches a certain level of development. However, up to 17 weeks there should be no question of the choice to abort.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

I pointed out that the foetus has a brain, heart and some organs. However brain activity is slim to none suggesting a lack of consciousness and self-awareness.

The key word here being "suggesting". So you are speculating, which is fine.

It's just not fine for me when it comes to choosing to kill someone.

As well as that the foetus is unable to feel pain at this stage.

Has this been proven?

I think you'll agree that the rights of someone who can feel pain, is completely self-aware and conscious of their existance (i'm referring to the mother here in case you're wondering) supersede the rights of something that doesn't?

You don't really think I'll agree do you?
And anyways, don't you mean someone? No I don't think the mothers right to "choose" to kill her unborn child supersede the childs right to life. Obviously. Otherwise I'd be all for abortion.
I believe she should exercise her choice not to be pregnant around the same time a penis is produced.

A small child is protected

...but why? (according to your logic?)

(and so too is the foetus) once it reaches a certain level of development.

Well it's fully protected here in Ireland. Thankfully.

However, up to 17 weeks there should be no question of the choice to abort.

Well there should always be a "question". Questioning things is what makes us great.

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

The key word here being "suggesting". So you are speculating, which is fine.

If you want to be specific about it, foetal brain development doesn't come close to anything we'd refer to as conscious until the last three months of pregnancy, ie. the foetus can apparently recognise voices, sounds and visions. Up until the 17th week the brain is literally forming with different neurological pathways connecting.

This isn't any sort of high end brain activity that one would deduce consciousness from, this is literally the organ growing. Please don't mistake an organ growing with consciousness.

Zulu wrote: »

I believe she should exercise her choice not to be pregnant around the same time a penis is produced.

Wow, just wow! The world must look so simple and easy to relate to when you put it into such black and white categories. Sure life isn't complicated at all. :rolleyes:

Phototoxin

I agree with Zulu, short of beign raped she has already made her dicision and should therefore be prepared to accept the consequences. It is black and white, she can say no...

Originally Posted by Zulu
I believe she should exercise her choice not to be pregnant around the same time a penis is produced.
Wow, just wow! The world must look so simple and easy to relate to when you put it into such black and white categories. Sure life isn't complicated at all.

It doesnt, neither have we said it does. Its the brain that makes you a conscious, self aware person. SO as long as that is there or in the process of developing, its game over abortion.

from conception the brain is developing..

Virgil°

Phototoxin wrote: »

from conception the brain is developing..

Do yourself a favour and look up the term "organogenesis".

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

If you want to be specific about it, foetal brain development doesn't come close to anything we'd refer to as conscious until the last three months of pregnancy, ie. the foetus can apparently recognise voices, sounds and visions.

I'm noting the use of the word "apparently" here.
Words like "suggesting" & "apparently" inspire no confidence. And to me, highlight a lack of definite proof. So...

This isn't any sort of high end brain activity that one would deduce consciousness from,

Until you can prove consciousness, or lack there of, I won't be changing my stance. I might suggest that without that proof you don't stand a chance in hell of changing other anti-abortion opinions. It's the crux of my beef really.

this is literally the organ growing.

And that organ continues to grow throughout a persons early life.

Please don't mistake an organ growing with consciousness.

I don't. If you had bothered to read the rest of the thread, you'd know I don't put weight on brain development.

Wow, just wow! The world must look so simple and easy to relate to when you put it into such black and white categories.

No, not really. Life is complicate. But I believe people should be responsible for their actions. It's a standard I live by. I wouldn't look to kill someone else to clean up one of my mistakes.

Sure life isn't complicated at all. :rolleyes:

Nice use of sarcasm there. It does actually make you appear smarter. I must try that sometime.

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

I'm noting the use of the word "apparently" here.
Words like "suggesting" & "apparently" inspire no confidence. And to me, highlight a lack of definite proof. So...

Here are some nice links covering foetal brain development:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Foetal-Brain-Development-in-Babies&id=1464700
http://www.learningdiscoveries.com.au/StagesofBrainDevelopment.htm

I'm sure there are more if you have a look around.

You'll see in both these articles that the brains main functionality up until the 6-7th month is simply growing the different organs and connecting different neurons and pathways. It's not a fully functioning organ unlike that of the foetus's host.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

Here are some nice links covering foetal brain development:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Foetal-Brain-Development-in-Babies&id=1464700
http://www.learningdiscoveries.com.au/StagesofBrainDevelopment.htm

Cheers for them. Interesting enough.

You'll see in both these articles that the brains main functionality up until the 6-7th month is simply growing the different organs and connecting different neurons and pathways.

Quite. However, I might re-iterate:
Until you can prove consciousness, or lack there of, I won't be changing my stance. I might suggest that without that proof you don't stand a chance in hell of changing other anti-abortion opinions. It's the crux of my beef really.

It's not a fully functioning organ

I never suggested it was. In fact, I went out of my way to suggest that the brain won't be fully developed until well into the child life. Can anyone tell me when the brain is fully developed?

unlike that of the foetus's host.

You mean the mother, right?

Phototoxin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phototoxin


from conception the brain is developing..

Do yourself a favour and look up the term "organogenesis".

I dont see what that has to do with refuting my statmetn. From conception mitosis begins to occur which ultimatly will result in a child. All of these things are leading to the development of a child with a brain. It is developing, perhaps not the specific brain cells themselves but the rest of the infrastructure which is a prerequisit for specific braincells to be developed.

eg: you have to cut the grass, level a field and put in foundations before you build a shopping centre. While no bricks are around when you are cutting the grass you are still helping the shopping centre to be built.

unlike that of the foetus's host.

I like the rebranding... I will now call my mother 'Host' instead of mother.

stakey

Phototoxin wrote: »

I like the rebranding... I will now call my mother 'Host' instead of mother.

Doesn't work for you unless of course you're still somehow attached to her with an umbilical cord which would be just weird!

Virgil°

Phototoxin wrote: »

I dont see what that has to do with refuting my statmetn. From conception mitosis begins to occur which ultimatly will result in a child. All of these things are leading to the development of a child with a brain. It is developing, perhaps not the specific brain cells themselves but the rest of the infrastructure which is a prerequisit for specific braincells to be developed.

eg: you have to cut the grass, level a field and put in foundations before you build a shopping centre. While no bricks are around when you are cutting the grass you are still helping the shopping centre to be built.

Ahh here now thats taking the definition of "developing" to extremes.
You're ignoring the tense. Can you eat an apple seed and justify that you ate an apple?An apple seed being a pre-requisite for an apple.
I could be dead tomorrow, does that mean i should just go ahead and make all the funeral arrangements?
Similarly with organogenesis. Up until that point there IS NO DEVELOPING BRAIN. So its kinda ridicluous to imply that the brain has started its development at conception when it hasnt.

If the above isnt true do you agree that a sperm and an egg are a developing human then? Basic human right of life to all sperm then yeah?

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

Doesn't work for you unless of course you're still somehow attached to her with an umbilical cord which would be just weird!

What?

That's nonsense.



FYI: mother

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

What?

That's nonsense.



FYI: mother

Hardly, i don't see a result in reference.com saying

20. carrier of foetus to birth

In biology, a host is an organism that harbors a virus or parasite, or a mutual or commensal symbiont, typically providing nourishment and shelter.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_(biology)

I'm not inferring that that foetus is a parasite, but it certainly shares traits and the 'mother' certainly provides the role of host in the relationship.

And unless Phototoxin is still attached to his/her mother via an umbilical cord, referring to his/her mother as host only relates to say something like still living at home with her

carlybabe1

Just reading the posts with interest, and a recurring theme given to pro-choice posters is pro-lifers asking us to prove the fetus in not a baby, when we post links etc. we're still asked for more 'proof', despite the links being 100% scientific. I also notice that most pro-choicers have a good knowledge of biology. This leads me to pontificate if the reason for this is linked?? And also, to put a different spin on it, so Ultravid, Zulu, &Bquinn, can you prove that a fetus before twenty weeks is a baby....Proof, now, links to anti-abortion fanatical websites are not acceptable proof, neither is "quotes" for pre pro but now anti abortionists, as its hearsay, and its easy to twist what people say..

Phototoxin

Carlybabe then exactly what proof do you want ? You ask for proof but basically say but not this this and this. You cannot be that fussy. Here's an 9 week old baby, looks human to me, if not a bit small

You assessment of pro-choicers being more scientific is biased, I got a first in celluar biology at uni.

Bingo on living at home at the minute btw stakey!

What proof do you want that pre-20 weeks is a baby?

carlybabe1

Phototoxin wrote: »

Carlybabe then exactly what proof do you want ? You ask for proof but basically say but not this this and this. You cannot be that fussy. Here's an 9 week old baby, looks human to me, if not a bit small

You assessment of pro-choicers being more scientific is biased, I got a first in celluar biology at uni.

Bingo on living at home at the minute btw stakey!

What proof do you want that pre-20 weeks is a baby?

Thats precisely what I meant, thats not a 9 wk old baby,
1)its a digitally enhanced supposition of what a 9 wk old fetus looks like, an artists impression if you will. It alludes to arms and legs being present, but they are not, at 9 wks the buds are only being formed.
2) Its not a baby, its a fetus, calling it a baby is the same as calling a caterpillar a butterfly.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

The problem I have with this logic is: how do we know when consciousness occurs? And is this the short edge of the wedge, ie: how do you define conciousness to ensure it's protected?

I understand that it must happen as some stage after the brain in some form has begun developing, but what's that 6 weeks*? I'd suggest there exists a strong possibility that the majority of would be abortion seeking mothers wouldn't know they were pregnant until after 8 weeks!

*number may have been picked from my ass

Then they don't have abortions (if that is the number people go with)

I think sometimes people think this is an argument to allow abortions because I'm (we) are lefto liberal pickies

Its not. I have absolutely no probably saying to a pregnant woman who is homeless, no money, been raped by her father, that she cannot have an abortion because it appears as if her foetus has a developed brain capable of higher function.

Equally I've no problem what so ever with saying yes have an abortion to a woman who should have known better who wants to have an abortion before the foetus has even developed a brain.

Zombrex

Phototoxin wrote: »

Carlybabe then exactly what proof do you want ? You ask for proof but basically say but not this this and this. You cannot be that fussy. Here's an 9 week old baby, looks human to me, if not a bit small

I don't know why people keep saying this, who has ever argued that a foetus is not biologically human?

Frogmeister

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Thats precisely what I meant, thats not a 9 wk old baby,
1)its a digitally enhanced supposition of what a 9 wk old fetus looks like, an artists impression if you will. It alludes to arms and legs being present, but they are not, at 9 wks the buds are only being formed.
2) Its not a baby, its a fetus, calling it a baby is the same as calling a caterpillar a butterfly.

6 week old baby, with hands, nose, eyes...
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I/nilsson/06-weeks.jpg

8 week old baby, with hands, individual fingers, mouth, nose:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I/nilsson/08-weeks.jpg

15 week old baby:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I/nilsson/15-weeks.jpg

19 week week old baby with hands, eyes, and a nose:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I/nilsson/19-weeks.jpg



The prenatal photographs shown were taken by famed Swedish photograper Lennart Nilsson.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

Hardly, i don't see a result in reference.com saying
...

I was suggesting it was nonsense to suggest that you had to be attached via umbilical cord to be a mother

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Just reading the posts with interest, and a recurring theme given to pro-choice posters is pro-lifers asking us to prove the fetus in not a baby, when we post links etc. we're still asked for more 'proof', despite the links being 100% scientific.

No one said the links weren't scientific, just that they contained no PROOF.
Posting a link isn’t proof - no matter how much you want it to be.

I also notice that most pro-choicers have a good knowledge of biology.

Are you suggesting that anti-abortion don't have a good knowledge of biology? How have you deduced this opinion? Is it based solely on your impression (read: what you want to hear), because I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

This leads me to pontificate if the reason for this is linked??

What does this mean?

And also, to put a different spin on it, so Ultravid, Zulu, &Bquinn, can you prove that a fetus before twenty weeks is a baby....

The burden of proof isn't on me; I'm not killing or condoning the killing of anything. The burden of proof is on the allow-abortion lobby.

Proof, now, links to anti-abortion fanatical websites are not acceptable proof, neither is "quotes" for pre pro but now anti abortionists, as its hearsay, and its easy to twist what people say..

What you mean like the "proof" you don't provide in the "scientific" links?

carlybabe1

Frogmeister wrote: »

6 week old baby, with hands, nose, eyes...
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I/nilsson/06-weeks.jpg

8 week old baby, with hands, individual fingers, mouth, nose:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I/nilsson/08-weeks.jpg

15 week old baby:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I/nilsson/15-weeks.jpg

19 week week old baby with hands, eyes, and a nose:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I/nilsson/19-weeks.jpg



The prenatal photographs shown were taken by famed Swedish photograper Lennart Nilsson.

Ok fair enough, but as Im eternally sceptical, please dont be offended if I ask how a photographer got photos of a fetus in utero
ie what technology did he use

Frogmeister

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Ok fair enough, but as Im eternally sceptical, please dont be offended if I ask how a photographer got photos of a fetus in utero
ie what technology did he use

I don't know to be honest, but there is an amazing website here belonging to Lennart: watch the intro! The images I posted are also on the site along with articles on his techniques:

http://www.lennartnilsson.com/

I'm gonna take a look myself now, but I imagine the answer to your question might be on that site.

carlybabe1

No one said the links weren't scientific, just that they contained no PROOF.

Thats just it, they did have proof

Are you suggesting that anti-abortion don't have a good knowledge of biology? How have you deduced this opinion? Is it based solely on your impression (read: what you want to hear), because I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

It comes from the observation that I have posted proof, but its either ignored or not understood

The burden of proof isn't on me; I'm not killing or condoning the killing of anything. The burden of proof is on the allow-abortion lobby.
What you mean like the "proof" you don't provide in the "scientific" links?

Actually, when you try to paint something as wrong/criminal/a-moral, the proof is on you, you cant accuse someone of being a baby killer if you cant prove it was a baby they killed..( as Im not sure if you referenced babykiller term, apologies if it wasn't you, but it has definately been bandied around on this thread, )

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Thats precisely what I meant, thats not a 9 wk old baby,
1)its a digitally enhanced supposition of what a 9 wk old fetus looks like, an artists impression if you will. It alludes to arms and legs being present, but they are not, at 9 wks the buds are only being formed.
2) Its not a baby, its a fetus, calling it a baby is the same as calling a caterpillar a butterfly.

10 of 10
Babies produce a motion approximating to yawning from as early as 12 weeks' pregnancy. Maybe this is nature's way of ensuring that as soon as she enters the world, she'll be able to take her first breath.

This is a real ultrasound, not an artist's rendition...
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm

Human being, homo sapiens, a homo sapiens life begins at conception, we've proven it from many scientific sources. Your comparison of human life to pond scum is rediculous. You argue which is the better source Campbell's, Curtis, Solomen, Berg. That doesn't matter, they all say the same thing. When the DNA of an human egg joins with the DNA of a human sperm, you get a new, genetically unique human organism.

Why is human life more precious than other forms of life? Because each human life is valued by millions of others who respect the dignity of that human life. You may not value human life, and maybe some lives are valued by others more than some, but guaranteed all human life is precious. Yes, that's wht we pro-lifers do worry about the environment and how poisons in the environment can hurt the pre-born child, as well as someone born. That's why we care for the handicapped, the poor people starving throughout the world, those who are orphans, those who are lonely and depressed, those who are raped, those who feel unloved. We love them all equally, and yes we would fight for your life, just like we are fighting for the lives of these precious children in the womb. I'm sorry, these pre-born homo sapiens!

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Thats just it, they did have proof

That's not "just it".
They didn't have any proof whatsoever that a foetus was not human or an unborn child - which is the proof they were supposed to contain.

Now, perhaps I missed that proof, I apologise if I did. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to highlight where that proof existed. Would you be able to do that please?

It comes from the observation

ah, ok so it's speculation. Well regardless of whether or not everyone from one particular stance is educated in biology, and everyone else is ignorant, I think if the proof existed you wouldn't need expertise to understand it.

You see, in my limited understanding of biology, (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) humans can't actually give birth to other animals, be they mammals or whatnot. So when a human woman is pregnant, what she carries in her womb is a child (at some stage of development). This child, I deduce, must be a human child, as the mother is in fact a human. Now are you suggesting that any of the links provided refute this wild speculation of mine?

And ultimately it's the killing of humans I object to.

Actually, when you try to paint something as wrong/criminal/a-moral, the proof is on you,

Well not really - killing people is already widely acknowledged as wrong and criminal. Abortion is currently considered wrong and is illegal here in Ireland, so this has already been established.
Now if you want to refute an established position, then the onus is on you.

you cant accuse someone of being a baby killer if you cant prove it was a baby they killed..

ok, so in an abortion procedure you are killing the child of a pregnant woman before it comes to term. Is that not correct?

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

That's not "just it".
They didn't have any proof whatsoever that a foetus was not human or an unborn child - which is the proof they were supposed to contain.

What the pro-choice side have tried to convey here is that up to a certain point the foetus is literally the sum parts of what could be one day a child, ie. it has the potential for consciousness.

Whether you like it or not, to claim a foetus is a human child is to fly in the face of basic biology. A human child can breathe, eat and break down basic elements free of it's mother, it has its own conscious, can feel emotions and develops its own persona. Up to a certian point a foetus cannot breathe, eat or break down basic nutrients independently of its host, nor does it have consciousness, feelings, or pain receptors.

Most people have argued here and rightly so that if you want to protect the 'unborn' why not expand this to protect sperm and ovum? These two also contain the basic elements of life so why not protect them also?

The 'pro-life' side like to paint basic development of cellular structures in the womb as a living, breathing, thinking, playing and ****ting it's nappy baby since day one of conception. That is a complete falsity.

Zulu wrote: »

Well regardless of whether or not everyone from one particular stance is educated in biology, and everyone else is ignorant, I think if the proof existed you wouldn't need expertise to understand it.

It's not that everyone else is ignorant, i'm sure there are plenty of people on the 'pro-life' side who have degrees in biology or some sort of background. But they're not arguing from a simply scientific fact based analysis, they're adding personal opinion and some old fashioned theology in there too. That's what annoys alot of people on the pro-choice side.

Zulu wrote: »

Well not really - killing people is already widely acknowledged as wrong and criminal. Abortion is currently considered wrong and is illegal here in Ireland, so this has already been established.

The vast majority of the European Union allows abortion on demand. Just because our government don't have the balls to enter into any sort of national debate (about anything) doesn't automatically backup your side of the argument.

A June 2007 TNS/MRBI poll found that 43% supported legal abortion if a woman believed it was in her best interest while 51% remained opposed. 82% favoured legalization for cases when the woman's life is in danger, 75% when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, and 73% when the pregnancy has resulted from sexual abuse.

There's obviously a need for debate on this in Ireland but certain elements of the population would like to continue with our local solution for a local problem, ie. under the carpet it goes or off to the UK with ya!

Frogmeister

I think it is quite simple:

We do not have dominion over human life.

We do not get to decide who lives and who dies to suit ourselves.

We do not get to create our own criteria about what WE consider to be a human life, being, person, child, baby etc... based on our own personal preferences.

The pictures posted by me show quite clearly the humanity of the unborn. In one of the pictures posted by bquinn (post 399), the baby is yawning, and I really do think this summarises the entire 'debate': the unborn is a human life, a human child. The child must be left in peace to continue growing in his/her mother's womb and not be subjected to torture or murderous destruction and removal.

Each of us on this discussion forum, began our individual lives at the moment of conception - that is when Frogmeister began. That is when each of us began. From that point, we grew and so this is when our lives began.

I heartily recommend this website by Lennart, it is truly amazing: http://www.lennartnilsson.com/

We have no right on this earth to kill other human beings. No right whatsoever.

stakey

Frogmeister wrote: »

We do not get to create our own criteria about what WE consider to be a human life, being, person, child, baby etc... based on our own personal preferences

Of course not, we should look at the facts and keep things like theology and emotions out of it. If you look at the hard facts, a foetus at 12 weeks cannot be compared to a child at 9 months out utero.

Frogmeister wrote: »

In one of the pictures posted by bquinn, the baby is yawning

So you base life on the ability for something to yawn? You have read this thread where it's been explained time and time again that things like the foetus moving (or yawning) are literally nervous impulses checking the different organs, limbs etc around the body and not some sort of cute kid having a yawn.

Frogmeister wrote: »

The child must be left in peace to continue growing in his/her mother's womb and not be subjected to torture or murderous destruction and removal.

There is no torture or murder, the foetus cannot feel pain up to a certain period and has no humanity as you speak of up until a certain stage in its development.

Frogmeister

stakey wrote: »

Of course not, we should look at the facts and keep things like theology and emotions out of it. If you look at the hard facts, a foetus at 12 weeks cannot be compared to a child at 9 months out utero.

So you base life on the ability for something to yawn? You have read this thread where it's been explained time and time again that things like the foetus moving (or yawning) are literally nervous impulses checking the different organs, limbs etc around the body and not some sort of cute kid having a yawn.

There is no torture or murder, the foetus cannot feel pain up to a certain period and has no humanity as you speak of up until a certain stage in its development.

Sure I yawn myself. And I'm not being cute, it's just a nervous impulse. I do it when I am tired, and I can't really help it, like the baby I guess.

No humanity? What is it, a frog?

I'm sorry you see and believe what you want. The child is human and it is a life we cannot destroy at any stage. That my friend is murder, plain and simple. Whether the murder causes pain or not, it is irrelevant.

stakey

Frogmeister wrote: »

Sure I yawn myself. And I'm not being cute, it's just a nervous impulse. I do it when I am tired, and I can't really help it, like the baby I guess.

You yawn for many reasons (not just tiredness), evolutionary trait for synchronising sleep patterns, preventing alveolar collapse in the lung (possibly very beneficial for something only developing its lungs).

Frogmeister wrote: »

No humanity? What is it, a frog?

Nope, it's a foetus. When it can develop it's own consciousness, persona and think freely it'll have alot in common with humanity and it'll be referred to as a child at that point.

Frogmeister wrote: »

The child is human and it is a life we cannot destroy at any stage.

Nope, it's a human foetus, not a fully developed human. Are you going to expand this protection to ovum and sperm too?

Phototoxin

Thats precisely what I meant, thats not a 9 wk old baby,
1)its a digitally enhanced supposition of what a 9 wk old fetus looks like, an artists impression if you will. It alludes to arms and legs being present, but they are not, at 9 wks the buds are only being formed.
2) Its not a baby, its a fetus, calling it a baby is the same as calling a caterpillar a butterfly.

No its a picture, medical imaging exists now a days. When you get your brain scanned do you said "oh its only an artists impression of my brain that tumor's not really there"? I somehow doubt it!

I'm sorry you see and believe what you want. The child is human and it is a life we cannot destroy at any stage. That my friend is murder, plain and simple. Whether the murder causes pain or not, it is irrelevant.

There is no torture or murder, the foetus cannot feel pain up to a certain period and has no humanity as you speak of up until a certain stage in its development.

So the capacity to feel pain is what makes it a person ? Haven't you seen the silent scream? In addition even less developed foetus' try to avoid needles beign stuck in them...

I'm sure a 2 year old cannot comprehend rape yet its not ok to rape them so similarly just because you think a foetus (which is a stage in child development) cannot feel pain isn't a reason to kill it.

Nope, it's a foetus. When it can develop it's own consciousness, persona and think freely it'll have alot in common with humanity and it'll be referred to as a child at that point.

think freely.. that means we need to kill lots and lots of people. As there are many people in this world who dont think for themselves. Fanatical Evangelican Chrisitans anyone ? Children dont think freely until they are old enough.

stakey

Phototoxin wrote: »

So the capacity to feel pain is what makes it a person ? Haven't you seen the silent scream? In addition even less developed foetus' try to avoid needles beign stuck in them...

Really at this point you're rolling out the old favourites here; the silent scream, the foetuses hiding in the corner of the womb from the scary needles. Instead of showing us ridiculously scaremongering pro-life sites with emotive imagery can you point to some sort of scientific work that has been done around these?

Information on the foetus's development, how far in to the pregnancy etc?

If you can't, do you mind if we just put those points aside as irrelevant?

Phototoxin wrote: »

I'm sure a 2 year old cannot comprehend rape yet its not ok to rape them so similarly just because you think a foetus (which is a stage in child development) cannot feel pain isn't a reason to kill it.

I don't think a foetus cannot feel pain, it's acknowledged by everyone within the academic community that works on these matters as truth. If you can't handle that then you might want to re-consider your viewpoints on these matters. As an awful lot of information that has been pointed out in these pages are basic facts which the 'pro-life' side either willfully ignores or corrupts with outside ideals or thoughts.

eveie

can any pro-choice poster answer this question???
how do we decide when it is ok and not ok to abort a baby? at what age does it become not ok? you see by giving lets say a 12 week time frame to abort a child is that not discrimination? is a child at 12 weeks less human then a child at 13 weeks, why protect a child at 13 weeks but sure scrape out a child at 12 weeks?
life begins at conception, that is a fact, you cannot argue with that because if you try then you must believe in a flat earth.
stakey many born children cannot breath independantly of a machine and do not have the capacity to free thought is it ok to kill them? you cannot define a person by its ability to think and breath because then many people in your eyes do not deserve the tag "person"
the irish medical council state that abortion is wrong.
irish law does not allow abortion(only where the mothers life is in risk)
and the majority of irish people are still oppossed to abortion

Otacon

eveie wrote: »

life begins at conception, that is a fact, you cannot argue with that because if you try then you must believe in a flat earth.

That depends...

"The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life"

"The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization"

"In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals"

"...the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life."

LINK: http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

bquinn

stakey wrote: »

You yawn for many reasons (not just tiredness), evolutionary trait for synchronising sleep patterns, preventing alveolar collapse in the lung (possibly very beneficial for something only developing its lungs).

Same baby smiling, then sleeping. It's sad when you don't even believe your own eyes.

Zulu

Can we leave out the pictures please?

bquinn

Zulu wrote: »

Can we leave out the pictures please?

Why?? A picture is worth more than a thousand words.

"A second category of evidence for baby consciousness comes from empirical research on bodily movement in utero. Except for the movement a mother and father could sometimes feel, we have had almost no knowledge of the extent and variety of movement inside the womb. This changed with the advent of real-time ultrasound imaging, giving us moment by moment pictures of fetal activity.
One of the surprises is that movement commences between eight and ten weeks gestational age. This has been determined with the aid of the latest round of ultrasound improvements. Fetal movement is voluntary, spontaneous, and graceful, not jerky and reflexive as previously reported. By ten weeks, babies move their hands to their heads, face, and mouth; they flex and extend their arms and legs; they open and close their mouths; and they rotate longitudinally. From 10 to 12 weeks onward, the repertoire of body language is largely complete and continues throughout gestation. Periodic exercise alternates with rest periods on a voluntary basis reflecting individual needs and interests. Movement is self-expression, an expression of personality.
Twins viewed periodically via ultrasound during gestation often show highly independent motor profiles, and, over time continue to distinguish themselves through movement both inside and outside the womb. They are expressing their individuality." http://www.eheart.com/cesarean/babies.html

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

I don't think a foetus cannot feel pain,...

You don't "think", yet you've no proof.

stakey wrote: »

Nope, it's a foetus. When it can develop it's own consciousness, persona and think freely it'll have alot in common with humanity and it'll be referred to as a child at that point.

And yet you've no proof that a foetus has no consciousness. Just an assumption.

Nope, it's a human foetus, not a fully developed human.

A child isn't fully developed. Neither is an adolescent.

Are you going to expand this protection to ovum and sperm too?

No. (I've already covered that)

Zulu

bquinn wrote: »

Why?? A picture is worth more than a thousand words.

Because a) they're not needed and b) they're a half a step away from the gory images used by "pro-life" quacks that do more harm than good.

eveie

zulu i have to disagree with you i think pictures shouls be allowed they are a form of proof, i cannot see anything worng with a picture that shows an unborn baby ywaning

Virgil°

eveie wrote: »

zulu i have to disagree with you i think pictures shouls be allowed they are a form of proof, i cannot see anything worng with a picture that shows an unborn baby ywaning

Proof of what? That an unborn foetus looks human at a certain stage?
Which was never a subject of arguement anyway as both sides agree on it.

eveie wrote:

how do we decide when it is ok and not ok to abort a baby? at what age does it become not ok? you see by giving lets say a 12 week time frame to abort a child is that not discrimination? is a child at 12 weeks less human then a child at 13 weeks, why protect a child at 13 weeks but sure scrape out a child at 12 weeks?

Development of the brain etc.......... Try read the thread instead of asking questions already covered.

eveie wrote:

ife begins at conception, that is a fact, you cannot argue with that because if you try then you must believe in a flat earth.

Hahaha.Thats quite an assumption there. Life doest "begin" at conception. Are a sperm and an egg not life no?
Guess not, ahh well im off to commandeer a wooden ship off the edge and into the depths of space then so.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

Development of the brain etc..

Well according to a study I read yesterday, the brain isn't fully developed until we are 18/19/20. So your premise about brain development isn't exactly bulletproof.

ChocolateSauce

bquinn wrote: »

Same baby smiling, then sleeping. It's sad when you don't even believe your own eyes.

Looks like HR Giger art.