Abortion Unfiltered

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