The Abortion Question

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 11:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Be careful what you wish for.

If we take freedom and individual rights away from everyone who makes a mistake it might happen to you.

You have made a few mistakes in your life haven't you?

Yes I've made mistakes. I was just taught to accept responsibility for them.

By aborting an unborn child we have taken freedoms and rights away from someone who hasn't participated in activities that could lead to this "mistake".

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 11:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes I've made mistakes. I was just taught to accept responsibility for them.

But that "responsibility" was not the removal of your individual rights by the government.

[GodHatesBengals]

This thread repeatedly proves one thing: literally, the only thing pro-lifers have is a bag of rhetorical tricks. Fetus=baby. Abortion=murder. Mother=irresponsible. Etc. Al. Doesn't matter how much proof you give them to correct this misinformation; they will play coy and then go right back to them once you've made your point.

Keep bitching all you want. America will never become one of the small handful of societies left that denies women the right to control their pregnancies.

Kudos to Planned Parenthood!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 03:36 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 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.

She doesn't dismiss any kind of electrical waves from the brain, she dismisses the term "brainwaves" as a layman's term which it is (look it up), but medical professionals use layman's terms to explain information to patient so they understand.  I think her attitude toward a "nontechnical term" is a little petty and obviously undermines her credibility to a layman such as yourself.

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

Oh, the stuff you edited in after I quoted you?  It's not my job to go back and check to see if you edited your remark after I quoted you.

Quote: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.

BTW, you obviously haven't read Dr. Rhawn Joseph's book called "Fetal brain & cognitive development" because it isn't a book, it is an article. He mentioned waves twice and neither time in reference to brain waves. 

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

He explains the brainstem begins to develop around the 6th-7th week of gestation (which is the 8th to 9th week of pregnancy).  He continues "the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e. thinking, reasoning, understanding, or true emotionality" . . . "these same reflexive and rhythmic activities are demonstrated by anencephalic infants who may possess only a brainstem, i.e. respiration, sleeping, waking, crying, leg kicking, rudimentary smiling, and even rapid eye movements while sleeping."

Here's some information on brain anatomy which I'm sure you will ignore . . . http://www.agenthuman.com/product/intro_brain_anatomy.html

Quote:The Brain Stem
Pretty much everyone knows that the brain stem connects the spinal cord to the brain proper. It deals with highly instinctive survival functions including breathing, digestion, heart rate, and blood pressure; and controls many reflex motor responses. The brain stem includes the reticular formation, which is essential to consciousness and plays a major role in arousal (being awake and alert). The brain stem receives many types of sensory input and 'pre-processes' it before sending it on to higher parts of the human brain. The top section of the brain-stem is called the pons (bridge).

A primitive brain stem had already evolved about 600 million years ago in our ancestors the Protostomes (modern-day example, the ragworm, see Chapter One), and their own probable ancestor the Acoeli (flatworms), which are assumed to have had a fairly undifferentiated ganglion (collection of neural cells) in the head of the animal, and are the first known bilaterally symmetrical animal, although still invertebrate.

By about 550 million years ago, the direct line of our ancestors was represented by the sea squirt (Ascidia), which during its youth (later on it attaches itself to a rock for life and 'eats its brain') has a notochord (primitive backbone) supporting a spinal nerve column and a ganglion at the head which controls movement and is connected to a light-sensing organ. 'Controls movement' sounds more like the eventual function of the cortex, if somehow controlled by sensory input rather than just as a reflex action, but this animal has (had) no recognizable cortex as such (Goodbody, 1974).

So brainstem activity is on par with the brain activity of a flat worm.

Here is information regarding anencephaly . . . http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/anencephaly.html

Quote:Anencephaly happens if the upper part of the neural tube does not close all the way. This often results in a baby being born without the front part of the brain (forebrain) and the thinking and coordinating part of the brain (cerebrum). The remaining parts of the brain are often not covered by bone or skin.
Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth. CDC estimates that each year, about 1 in every 4,859 babies in the United States will be born with anencephaly.1(http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/anencephaly.html#ref)

 
Brainstem activity is comparable to a severe birth defect which almost always incompatible with life in humans.

Long story short, don't believe the hype.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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.

You stated the embyo is separate from the mother.  You stated separate = individual.  You're all over the place.

Quote: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.

Define "short amount of time" and "instantly." 

Quote: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.

Depending upon the gestational age, the fetus doesn't have the lung maturity to breath on its own.  It doesn't have the neurological maturity to control its lungs.

Quote: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.

If you place me underwater or in outer space, my vital signs will confirm very quickly I can't survive out of my natural habitat.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 07:49 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: She gave permission when she had sex, and didn't terminate the baby before it formed a brain.

Logical fallacy. 

Quote: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.

Basically, you think these people are irresponsible.  Because they are irresponsible you think they need to be responsible.  Hint:  people who are irresponsible aren't responsible by definition.  By.  Definition.

Lucie wouldn't respond to my questions to explain the morning after pill so I'll explain it.  A woman has a window of approx. 120 hours or less to take the morning after pill when she suspects her contraception failed in order to prevent pregnancy.  That's five days.  If a woman's birth control method consists OCPs combined with condoms with spermicidal lubricant, IUD, diaphragm with spermicidal jelly, the rhythm method, and prayer she won't know if her contraception failed until sometimes weeks after the five day window for the morning after pill has closed.  Additionally, the morning after pill uses hormones used in OCPs so you just can't take a morning after pill after every time you have sex.  Suggesting so just demonstrates the ignorance of the person making the suggestion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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.

Is an anencephalic infant missing the parts of the brain that "pretty much determines human life" not a person?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 09:31 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: How does it not give consent by default? Everyone knows what the outcome of sex can be, and they still do it. If you want to roll the dice I'm not going to stop you, but you shouldn't complain when you get unlucky (which is almost 0% when you use everything properly).

If you consent to have sex do you consent to be infected with HIV "by default"?  Hell to the no.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 09:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Except the fetus isn't a part of their own body. It's separate.

Again, that is an oversimplification and it isn't nearly that black and white.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 10:21 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I think you may be surprised to know that your assertion is quite incorrect. 

When you dehumanize the opposition it makes it easier to believe they are less than human.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 11:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If I “accidentally’ kill someone while participating in activities that could lead to his or her death, should I be responsible for the death? Or can I claim “It was an accident, please absolve me of any responsibility?”  

I totally agree that the woman should not be held responsible for an activity she did not willingly participate in.  I’m just not sure we should give her free rein to kill the baby because of “oops, I did it again”.

In your scenario that "someone" has individual rights and why we have laws like negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 02:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In your scenario that "someone" has individual rights and why we have laws like negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.

Sure does, but that's not what the guy I was replying to asked.
 
 
He simply asked should they suffer consequences (be an incubator) for their "mistake".

I am well aware that you and those of your ilk condone abortion because you don’t believe the unborn child has a right to life.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 04:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure does, but that's not what the guy I was replying to asked.
 
 
He simply asked should they suffer consequences (be an incubator) for their "mistake".

I am well aware that you and those of your ilk condone abortion because you don’t believe the unborn child has a right to life.

By "you and those of your ilk" do you mean people who don't force our religious views upon other people despite the current position of all three branches of our government regarding abortion in this country?

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 04:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: By "you and those of your ilk" do you mean people who don't force our religious views upon other people despite the current position of all three branches of our government regarding abortion in this country?

If hyperbole helps you feel more justified in your stance; sure.

I was unaware that religion was a requirement to think an unborn child has a right to live.

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But that "responsibility" was not the removal of your individual rights by the government.

If a woman accepts the responsibility  to keep her child what rights are removed by the government? 

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 01:36 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: This thread repeatedly proves one thing: literally, the only thing pro-choicers have is a bag of rhetorical tricks. Fetus=glob of cells. Abortion=right. Mother=incubator. Etc. Al. Doesn't matter how much proof you give them to correct this misinformation

FIFY

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 04:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If hyperbole helps you feel more justified in your stance; sure.

I was unaware that religion was a requirement to think an unborn child has a right to live.

Abortion is legal in this country because of all three branches of the government. No hyperbole there. 

Religion isn't a requirement, but it is certainly the major driving force among conservative Christians. Do you deny religion has shaped your opinion that it is morally wrong to kill a fetus while it is morally acceptable for a soldier to kill an adult "enemy"?

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 05:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Abortion is legal in this country because of all three branches of the government. No hyperbole there. 

Religion isn't a requirement, but it is certainly the major driving force among conservative Christians. Do you deny religion has shaped your opinion that it is morally wrong to kill a fetus while it is morally acceptable for a soldier to kill an adult "enemy"?

most likely pointing to the "force our religious views on others" line when I was pointing to the hyperbole.

No. My religion is not what I point to when I feel it is morally wrong to kill an innocent unborn child. I would like to think if I had no faith at all, I would still find the action reprehensible.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-07-2015, 05:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: FIFY

The problem is that you keep seeing pro-choicers citing biological facts to support their position, often with links to sources. Do you understand the difference between someone using facts to support their words, and someone merely throwing out words without connecting them to reality?

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a woman accepts the responsibility  to keep her child what rights are removed by the government? 

If she accepts it fine.  then she is voluntarily giving up her rights to make decisions about her own body.  But the government can not force her to give them up.

How many of your individual freedoms have you given up as a result of the mistakes you made?