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

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

I do just have one more question on it though - I presume you accept that this is a new "growing human creature" even if you don't want to use the word child?

Well I don't mind using the word child, though I don't accept that if I do use the word child then that must mean it is a human being with rights. A child, as far as I'm aware, is simply a young human offspring.

But anyway, back to your question...

InFront wrote:

And that it is unlike anything else of the woman's body, with new genetic identity in its DNA, and therefore characteristic of an individual - albeit one in a state of paralysis?

It certainly has a unique set of DNA, but having unique set of DNA is not particularly special. The bacteria in your stomach has a unique set of DNA. We don't bestow rights on them because of it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a state of paralysis. My understanding was paralysis means loss of muscle movement, in which case I'm not sure what the relevance is. I don't consider the foetus to be in a state of paralysis, especially before it has developed muscles in the first place.

InFront wrote:

I'm not aware of her personal background apart from embryology, but you must mean 'not well regarded in philosophy' surely.

No, science. She claims that established scientific (medical) theories back her up. I don't think that is true.

InFront wrote:

The embryology in the linked page is perfectly sound, there's nothing wrong with it that I can see, so I'm not sure why you suggest otherwise.

Not really. For a start she never defines what she means by "human being" aside from saying that a sperm and an egg aren't a human being. She then uses this as a cyclical proof that sperm and the egg aren't human beings. That isn't exactly what I would call science.

InFront wrote:

There are scientists who dedicate their academic careers to explaining how sperm (alone) consume food, as do oocytes (alone) by way of biomolecular metabolism - just as we do.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that fact. I would suggest thought that sperm is alive would it not?

InFront wrote:

The crucial difference is that nothing will ever come of that unless you bring them together

Is the purpose of the entire natural process to bring them together? Is that not what they are ultimately designed to do and what nature tries to get them to do?

Nothing will come of the zygote unless it implants on the womb wall either, and as such there is a process who's entire purpose is to make that happen.

I can think of countless other examples after fertilisation where such and such doesn't happen unless such and such happens.

InFront wrote:

In the first case here, then this goes back to the foetus in the womb. I thought you were against abortion in late stage pregnancy?

Yes I'm against abortion when there is a chance that the foetus has already formed consciousness in its brain.

InFront wrote:

The late foetus in the uterus is just not a conscious baby looking around him or crying or seeing etc, nor has he ever been.

I don't think you need to be able to cry or see to possess conscious. In fact you still possess consciousness and other higher brain functions when you are asleep, which is why you dream.

InFront wrote:

He wouldn't pass any consciousness tests, or be self aware, why not kill that?

I'm not quite sure how you can tell this?

InFront wrote:

In those cases, there's going to be an unconscious baby brought out of the womb as opposed to a conscious one.

I think we are getting slightly in tangled in the difference between a human that is unconscious (knocked out) and a human that is brain dead (no longer possesses the ability to form consciousness), or has never formed consciousness in the first place.

An unconscious person still possesses all the ability in their brain to form consciousness along with that consciousness (personality and memories) itself stored in the neural pathways of the brain.

A brain dead person doesn't possess the ability to form consciousness and as such there is no way to retrieve the consciousness stored in the neural pathways of the brain and it is as good as lost, if the neural pathways even exist any more.

Simply being unconscious does not mean someone does not possess consciousness. It is the difference between turning off your computer, which will boot back up again when you turn it back on, and throwing your computer out of a window and having it run over by a truck. In the former everything is still there, it just is in a different state of nonuse. In the later it is destroyed.

InFront wrote:

You simply have to include potential to develop consciousness/ intelligence.

But there is nothing "potential" about it. The foetus starts developing consciousness as soon as it brain starts functioning and the neural pathways start forming. By the time the foetus is being born it already has 50 billion neural pathways formed in its brain.

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

InFront wrote:

This is the contradiction with the previous posts - the functioning brain is there by 40 days, maybe earlier.

That isn't true as far as I know, though it is often quoted on anti-abortion websites based on a speech by a doctor (nothing about abortion) given in 1964.

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html

According to the blog above George Bush's scientific adviser stated that the human brain starts limited functioning after 13 weeks but at that point it has the functionality of a snail. The cortex starts to function after about 20 weeks (about 5 months), at which point I would start to have serious concerns about aborting the foetus.

InFront wrote:

A functioning brain does not equal conscience or consciousness though

Again I'm not sure how you have determined this. Once the higher brain starts functioning how can you tell the brain is not building a consciousness?

metrovelvet

Im still waiting for you to tell me why you choose the brain and not the heartbeat to determine when life begins.

And technology and scientific discoveries change all the time. The machines which identify and observe feotuses in utero have dramatically changed in sensitivity in the last decades.

Abortionists are people who specialise in abortion and operate out of clinics which perform this service. They are not interested in healing the sick, nor do they take the hippocratic oath. A doctor who can perform and abortion would be an obstetrician who could induce an abortion if it were to protect the health of the mother. Im surprised you dont know the difference.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

I personally meant sentience but got caught up in using "consciousness", and I don't think sentience is related to intelligence.

LOL

I used to use "sentience" but was constantly been criticised because sentience is diffcult to define and can technically include anything that can feel and process sensory information (ie it isn't necessarily related to humans only), so I started using consciousness instead. And now I get people thinking I'm saying it is ok to kill people when they are a sleep or passed out!!!!

You can't win!!

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

1.Why conciousness as the determining factor? Why an intellectual quality to determine life?

It isn't determining "life" it is determining the value of "life".

Why is it not ok to kill a human being but it is ok to kill millions of living bacteria in your stomach everytime you eat chocolate bar?

As bluewolf says, why can't we kill children? Why is that wrong?

What quality do humans possess that makes us more valuable as living creatures than bacteria or cattle or trees?

You may think that is a silly question but if you can't determine why we are worthy of different rights than all other living creatures on Earth you won't be able to properly debate abortion because ultimately why we have different rights is at the heart of the matter of determining when we get these rights.

metrovelvet

Why the brain and not the heartbeat?

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Im still waiting for you to tell me why you choose the brain and not the heartbeat to determine when life begins.

Apologies, I wasn't aware you had asked me that.

To answer you question I don't choose the brain to determine when life begins. As far as I'm concerned life never stops. The sperm and egg are alive as soon as they are produced in your parents bodies.

I use the brain to determine when a human being first forms because I consider a human being to be the consciousness (sentience, memories, personality, thought etc) stored in the neural pathways of the human brain.

I don't consider the heart to be particular important in that because basically if you have a heart transplant and you are given a completely different heart you are still the same person, are you not?.

This applies to pretty much every organ in the body except the brain. "You" would go where ever your brain goes, as demonstrated by countless "Star Trek" episodes.

metrovelvet wrote:

And technology and scientific discoveries change all the time. The machines which identify and observe feotuses in utero have dramatically changed in sensitivity in the last decades.

Yes, you keep mentioning that. But as far as I know the machines that can detect when a brain starts functioning in a foetus are quite advanced and can certainly tell when a brain isn't functioning or doesn't yet exist. I don't see that changing any more than medical science is going to tell us a few years down the line that actually conception doesn't happen when we thought it did.

metrovelvet wrote:

They are not interested in healing the sick

Ok, if you say so. The next time I find someone having a heart attack on a plane I will remember to shout "Is there a doctor on board, other than an abortionist!"

metrovelvet wrote:

Im surprised you dont know the difference.

Well that could be because I wasn't aware there is one. As far as I knew in the UK, USA, and most of Europe abortions could only be carried out by a doctor or a trained nurse in a government approved hospital or medical centre.

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

Here's a question for you all: Why is it wrong to kill unborn babies?

Say you accept conception as the beginning of life, why is destroying this life so wrong?

Think about it, who is harmed if a baby is killed before birth? The parents might be slightly upset(although largely to do with guilt induced by society's attitude towards abortion IMO), but considering they're the ones who make the decision it shouldn't matter.

Now I know the baby is killed and we tend to perceive killing as bad, but why is it necessarily bad? The only reason I can see for it being bad is that if people could go around killing each other it would cause immense upset to relatives/friends of those killed and could be detrimental to the functioning of society.

However, if "murder" was allowed simply in the case of unborn babies I can't see any harm being done to society - unless there was a population shortage or something, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

Call me "immoral" if you wish, but morality is subjective and laws are in place to protect society. Abortion clearly has no detrimental effects on society. Sentimentalists and religious people might argue against it, but neither of these should influence laws in any way.

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

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

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

No, science. She claims that established scientific (medical) theories back her up. I don't think that is true.

The conclusions she is drawing from to reach her position on abortion are things scientists talk about, biology, genetics or embryology, and this is what you claim is wrong. While you may disagree with her philosophy, the biology, genetics and embryology of her argument are are completely accurate, I'm wondering which aspect you are rejecting?
She expresses the exact same viewpoint as another medical expert, William Cheshire
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/genetics/cheshire_2002-11-14.htm

Science informs us that the human embryo is, objectively speaking, an early human life, and the same kind of being, a human being, as the scientist. But while science is competent to judge what is a human life, science has nothing to say about what it means to be human.

Thanks to science, arguments that dehumanize the human embryo now belong to a withering and overturned paradigm of the past. Those who choose to cling to that paradigm may find their place in history alongside the U.S. Supreme Court justices who, in the 1857 Dred Scott case, ruled that African-American slaves were not persons but personal property.

Conpare this to the page you linked to to demonstrate Dr Irving's unscientific opinion...

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

The main page is here. I don't know what "Eileen's" own professional qualification is to speak on science, medicine and medical ethics in the way she does, but she certainly doesn't suggest one.

[I pointed out that EEG brain activity begins weeks 6-8 development, as early as day 42 (heartbeat)]

That isn't true as far as I know, though it is often quoted on anti-abortion websites based on a speech by a doctor (nothing about abortion) given in 1964.

That may be what Eileen said, but it isn't true. It's written in every out of date and every up to date human embryology textbook you'll ever come across. There's enough activity in that tiny embryo about half an inch in length to be measurable by an EEG at eight weeks, neurological activity is seen a bit earlier with the reflexes. To say that there is are no “brain waves” until late in pregnancy is simply a lie – it exists in the first trimester without any shadow of a doubt.

My question is how does this relate to your belief that once neurological activity begins, abortion is out?

The fact is that EEG activity, pain sensation, parasympathetic activity and anything else you think of just doesn’t equal consciousness. Consciousness has not been measured in the embryo or the foetus or the neonate because it is such a conveniently fuzzy term that it really means nothing. It’s some sort of psychology-philosophy hybrid. Pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both use this as an argument in their favour, but you simply cannot measure consciousness, so therefore how can you say when consciousness begins? Exactly what date of pregnancy do you choose?

bluewolf wrote:

My dividing line is current capacity for sentience. It's iffy as to whether a fetus can be sentient or not once its brain is working. That would depend on our ability to test this to great precision.
So, to be safe, I say once its brain is fully formed - which I'm sure we can certainly verify - that's the cut off point

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/brain/mg16522224.200

...a pair of studies that used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to monitor cortex growth in teenagers. Like a high-tech X-ray, an MRI scanner can measure the thickness of the grey matter forming the outer rind of the brain with millimetre accuracy. In the studies, one team tracked changes in the same set of youngsters over a number of years. The other compared the brains of a group of 14-year-olds with a group of adults in their mid-twenties.

Both sets of researchers found that the lower-level areas of the cortex-those to do with more basic functions like sensory and motor processing-did indeed seem to stabilise in early childhood. But the parietal and frontal lobes-cortex areas which respectively are specialised for visuo-spatial ability and what might loosely be called "executive functions" such as planning and self-control-show a surge in growth between the ages of 10 and 12, the years just before puberty (see Diagram)

...Autopsy studies suggest that language areas of the brain do not myelinate until late childhood.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

While you may disagree with her philosophy, the biology, genetics and embryology of her argument are are completely accurate, I'm wondering which aspect you are rejecting?

She claims that science demonstrates that a sperm and egg, while being alive, are not a "human being", where as a zygote is a "human being" As far as I'm aware that is an opinion based on nothing more than her own philosophy in the matter. Which is fine. But science says nothing of the sort since she has not even defined what she means by a "human being."

InFront wrote:

She expresses the exact same viewpoint as another medical expert, William Cheshire

She can express any opinion she likes. My objection is when she claims that scientific theory shows she is right.

InFront wrote:

That may be what Eileen said, but it isn't true. It's written in every out of date and every up to date human embryology textbook you'll ever come across.

I find that very hard to believe. Which medical text book states that a foetus has functioning brain waves after 40 days?

InFront wrote:

There's enough activity in that tiny embryo about half an inch in length to be measurable by an EEG at eight weeks, neurological activity is seen a bit earlier with the reflexes.

InFront I'm well aware of the anti-abortionists slant on this, but the simple fact is that modern medicine does not consider that to be a functioning brain as anti-abortionists pretend it is. Electrical signals do not a brain wave make. A brain dead someone still has higher levels of electrical signals detectable under EEG than a 40 day old foetus.

InFront wrote:

To say that there is are no “brain waves” until late in pregnancy is simply a lie – it exists in the first trimester without any shadow of a doubt.

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

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

InFront wrote:

Pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both use this as an argument in their favour, but you simply cannot measure consciousness, so therefore how can you say when consciousness begins? Exactly what date of pregnancy do you choose?

As I've stated a few times you don't need to. All you need to show is when the brain has not yet begin to function.

metrovelvet

InFront wrote:

My question is how does this relate to your belief that once neurological activity begins, abortion is out?

The fact is that EEG activity, pain sensation, parasympathetic activity and anything else you think of just doesn’t equal consciousness. Consciousness has not been measured in the embryo or the foetus or the neonate because it is such a conveniently fuzzy term that it really means nothing. It’s some sort of psychology-philosophy hybrid.
[\QUOTE]

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

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

coffee_cake

Wicknight wrote:

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

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

Bingo.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

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

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

metrovelvet wrote:

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

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

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

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

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

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

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

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

No brain, no consciousness.

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

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

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

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

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

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

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

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

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

InFront wrote:

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

That isn't true.

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

InFront wrote:

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

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

InFront wrote:

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

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

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

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

InFront wrote:

This could not be any simpler.

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

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

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

It sounds like a secularised version of the word SOUL.

Wicknight wrote:

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

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

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

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

It sounds like a secularised version of the word SOUL.

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

metrovelvet wrote:

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

Well that isn't correct either.

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

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

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

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

JC 2K3

Dontico wrote:

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

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

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

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

Dontico wrote:

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

OMG racist!!11

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

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

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

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

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


OMG racist!!11

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

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

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

JC 2K3

Dontico wrote:

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

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

Dontico wrote:

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

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

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

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

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

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

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

Link 1

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

Link 2

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

Link 3

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

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

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

Look at what you've posted earlier:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

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


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

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

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

StephenC_IRL

Rock Climber wrote:

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

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

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

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

JC 2K3

Dontico wrote:

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

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

Dontico wrote:

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

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

...

hot chick

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

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

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

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

hot chick

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

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

metrovelvet

hot chick wrote:

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

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

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

BostonB

hot chick wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

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

this arguement is silly.

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

Dontico

metrovelvet wrote:

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

thats good.

metrovelvet

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

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

http://allphilosophy.com/topic/889