The Abortion Question

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 01:54 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: You claimed they did first, and I just argued that point. Look at your quote. It's clearly claiming that people are individuals after death.

Stop getting hung up on this anyways. It's irrelevant at this point.

Are they part of the mother after death?  Then what are they?  The reason I argued the point is your using the opposite of death as your definition of "individual" which asinine.

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 02:09 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You contradict yourself again because at 6 weeks it is still considered an embryo.  (Although your information is misinformation.)






Your information is misinformation again.  At 25 weeks pregnant the odds of survival are 50/50 with NICU support.  At 24 weeks the odds are less than 40%.

Thanks for leaving out a part of my statement to try and seem like I'm contradicting myself.

how is that misinformation? Why is the law like that then? What logic is behind the law to make it the way it is if that's not the case?

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 01:35 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The right of an innocent life trumps all other individual rights, do you not agree?

No.  I believe a woman has the ultimate rights over her own body.  An individual's rights over his/her own body can not be compromised unless they interfere with the rights of another individual.

Until the fetus has the potential to survive separate from the mother it is not an individual entitled to any rights of its own that are greater than those of the mother.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 02:15 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Thanks for leaving out a part of my statement to try and seem like I'm contradicting myself.

how is that misinformation? Why is the law like that then? What logic is behind the law to make it the way it is if that's not the case?

What did I leave out?  Your information about fetal brain activity is misinformation.  Why is the law like what?

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 02:25 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What did I leave out?  Your information about fetal brain activity is misinformation.  Why is the law like what?

When it develops brain activity it's an individual. That's what you left out. It has brain activity at 6 weeks. That's facts.

The law allowing abortions obviously.

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 02:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I believe a woman has the ultimate rights over her own body.  An individual's rights over his/her own body can not be compromised unless they interfere with the rights of another individual.

Until the fetus has the potential to survive separate from the mother it is not an individual entitled to any rights of its own that are greater than those of the mother.

The fetus isn't a part of her body though. She would be interfering with the fetuses rights. She allowed it to grow. If you allow someone to live in your house you can't kick them out whenever you want.

Yoh are still using the argument that technology controls when you are become an individual rather than common sense.

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 02:25 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What did I leave out?  Your information about fetal brain activity is misinformation.  Why is the law like what?

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

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 02:30 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: When it develops brain activity it's an individual. That's what you left out. It has brain activity at 6 weeks. That's facts.

The law allowing abortions obviously.

I most certainly did not leave it out.  It's right there in post #360.  

http://www.svss-uspda.ch/pdf/brain_waves.pdf

"Why is the law like that then? What logic is behind the law to make it the way it is if that's not the case?"  How about you explain these questions like I asked?

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 02:34 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: If you allow someone to live in your house you can't kick them out whenever you want.

Yoh are still using the argument that technology controls when you are become an individual rather than common sense.

1.  Yes I can kick them out anytime I want.

2.  I am the one using common sense, not you. What kind of "common sense" tells you that a fetus is "separate" from the mother when it is impossible for it to exist separate from the mother?  

Don't know why I keep coming back to this argument when it is clear that we are just arguing semantics that will never do anything except go in circles.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 02:30 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: When it develops brain activity it's an individual. 

That is just your opinion.  You use it because it fits your argument, but there is no authority out there that defines "individual" based on brain activity.  It is totally arbitrary.  Brain activity does not in anyway equal "thought".

And even if we do accept that definition all it does is move the line back from the beginning of the third trimester to 6 weeks after conception.

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 02:54 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I most certainly did not leave it out.  It's right there in post #360.  

http://www.svss-uspda.ch/pdf/brain_waves.pdf

"Why is the law like that then? What logic is behind the law to make it the way it is if that's not the case?"  How about you explain these questions like I asked?

Did you read that? She dismisses any kind of electrical waves from the brain because "brainwaves are a nontechnical term".  There were multiple times in that paper where she would show that there is "brainwaves", but dismiss it because she wanted to.

brain·wave

ˈbrānˌwāv/
noun
an electrical impulse in the brain.

you should go back and look at my post, so you can see what you left out.

BTW there is another book by Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. called "Fetal brain & cognitive development" that says that there is brain activity about ~7 weeks after conception. So I was wrong by 1 week according to Dr Rhawn Joseph.

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 03:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  Yes I can kick them out anytime I want.

2.  I am the one using common sense, not you. What kind of "common sense" tells you that a fetus is "separate" from the mother when it is impossible for it to exist separate from the mother?  

Don't know why I keep coming back to this argument when it is clear that we are just arguing semantics that will never do anything except go in circles.

1. No you cant. You need to look up renter rights and squatter rights.

2. Common sense will tell you that when the fetus has brainwaves it should be considered an individual. If you remove the fetus it will still be alive for a short amount of time. If it was a part of the mother it would die instantly when separated. Right now the only reason why it can't live outside of the mother is because we don't have the technology to support it's life. It's common sense to say something is alive based on it's vital signs and not based on if it can survive outside of its natural habitat.

[GMDino]

(10-07-2015, 12:16 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: My bad for pointing out that Freds logic is that humans can be property.

Except that is not what he said or meant and you know it...but you can't argue the point without adding some twist to it that isn't there.

Fred more than explained himself...repeatedly.

[GMDino]

(10-07-2015, 03:45 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 1. No you cant. You need to look up renter rights and squatter rights.

2. Common sense will tell you that when the fetus has brainwaves it should be considered an individual. If you remove the fetus it will still be alive for a short amount of time. If it was a part of the mother it would die instantly when separated. Right now the only reason why it can't live outside of the mother is because we don't have the technology to support it's life. It's common sense to say something is alive based on it's vital signs and not based on if it can survive outside of its natural habitat.

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 07:36 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Does that have a brain or heartbeat?

Heres a pic for you

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2015, 03:45 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 1. No you cant. You need to look up renter rights and squatter rights.

Well, renter's rights wouldn't apply since we are using this metaphor for something/someone being there without permission. And even an entire pregnancy isn't long enough for squatter's rights to kick in. So, yeah.

[GMDino]

(10-07-2015, 07:43 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Does that have a brain or heartbeat?

Heres a pic for you

Is it "alive"?

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 07:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, renter's rights wouldn't apply since we are using this metaphor for something/someone being there without permission. And even an entire pregnancy isn't long enough for squatter's rights to kick in. So, yeah.

She gave permission when she had sex, and didn't terminate the baby before it formed a brain. Things have consequences, and if you can't be responsible then you have to deal with what happens. There are a ton of ways to prevent pregnancy. Pills, condoms, morning after pills, patches, implants, IUDs, Diaphragms, ect. There are also pregnancy tests and things like that too.

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 07:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Is it "alive"?

sure it's alive, but it's not a person yet. It doesn't have a brain. You know the thing that pretty much determines human life.

[GMDino]

(10-07-2015, 07:50 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: sure it's alive, but it's not a person yet. It doesn't have a brain. You know the thing that pretty much determines human life.

So you're OK with "killing" it if its alive...just if its not "too" alive?

And you said since it doesn't die "immediately" after being removed its "alive"...how fast should it die?  Since it WILL die anyway.