Abortion Unfiltered

Otacon

eveie wrote: »

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

That depends...

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

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

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

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

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

bquinn

stakey wrote: »

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

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

Zulu

Can we leave out the pictures please?

bquinn

Zulu wrote: »

Can we leave out the pictures please?

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

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

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

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

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

stakey wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

No. (I've already covered that)

Zulu

bquinn wrote: »

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

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

eveie

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

Virgil°

eveie wrote: »

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

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

eveie wrote:

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

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

eveie wrote:

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

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

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

Development of the brain etc..

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

ChocolateSauce

bquinn wrote: »

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

Looks like HR Giger art.

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

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

The discussion about brain development isn't some slight nod to brain mass or overall development. The discussion that has taken place is around brain development leading to conscious thoughts, feelings, memories, and voluntary actions or what we would call a personality.

Within the last three months of foetal development these characteristics are come into place. Before that the brain acts simply as a switching station sending messages around the body to make sure certain organs are working/developing. That I wouldn't call consciousness.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

Before that the brain acts simply as a switching station sending messages around the body to make sure certain organs are working/developing. That I wouldn't call consciousness.

Well I'd argue that the brain, throughout a persons existence, acts as a switching station.
Electrical pulse here, electrical pulse there.
I wouldn't call that consciousness, yet, it is.

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

Well I'd argue that the brain, throughout a persons existence, acts as a switching station.
Electrical pulse here, electrical pulse there.
I wouldn't call that consciousness, yet, it is.

Right, i'm no neuro surgeon or anything but I believe the brain does more than just switching. It stores a huge amount of information, controls our vision, controls our ability to understand language, controls our ability to modify our environment and to feel emotions.

Also, the brain is made up of many smaller sections that control these behaviours such as the celebral cortex (for memories, thoughts) or the left temporal lobe (language). None of which adequately develop to even after birth. However, our development cycle deems them ready enough at 9 months.

To claim they are ready and defining our persona's at 12 weeks is poposterous.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

Right, i'm no neuro surgeon or anything but I believe the brain does more than just switching. It stores a huge amount of information, controls our vision, controls our ability to understand language, controls our ability to modify our environment and to feel emotions.

And how does it do this? Ultimately, the brain is a lot of cells passing an electronic pulse between each other.

Also, the brain is made up of many smaller sections that control these behaviours such as the celebral cortex (for memories, thoughts) or the left temporal lobe (language). None of which adequately develop to even after birth. However, our development cycle deems them ready enough at 9 months.

...but they are undeveloped.

To claim they are ready and defining our persona's at 12 weeks is poposterous.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. I'm not making that claim.

eveie

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



i have read the thread i have yet to see my question being answered. who is going to define when a unborn child gets rights? as most of us are aware the vast majority of abortions are carried out on women with unplanned pregnancies, how is their conception date going to be precise? it could be out by a number of weeks, so therefore haveing a cut off point at (lets just say) 12 weeks is ridicilous as the unborn may be as old as 14 weeks

F.A.

eveie, comments like that make me wonder what you actually know about pregnancy. A gynaecologist can quite easily determine the age of the embryo or fetus by means of ultrasound and basic maths.

Ultravid

eveie wrote: »

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



i have read the thread i have yet to see my question being answered. who is going to define when a unborn child gets rights? as most of us are aware the vast majority of abortions are carried out on women with unplanned pregnancies, how is their conception date going to be precise? it could be out by a number of weeks, so therefore haveing a cut off point at (lets just say) 12 weeks is ridicilous as the unborn may be as old as 14 weeks

It's entirely arbitrary. Let's look at what, for example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states about the right to life for human beings:

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

—Article 6.1

F.A. wrote: »

eveie, comments like that make me wonder what you actually know about pregnancy. A gynaecologist can quite easily determine the age of the embryo or fetus by means of ultrasound and basic maths.

That is not really the crux of the issue. Eevie pointed out something which I have elucidated in this post. The issue is not biology, it is why do you think you can arbitrarily decide to end the life of another human being? Answer me that.

F.A.

Ultravid wrote: »

That is not really the crux of the issue. Eevie pointed out something which I have elucidated in this post. The issue is not biology, it is why do you think you can arbitrarily decide to end the life of another human being? Answer me that.

First of all, eveie claimed something which is simply not true, i.e., that you cannot know whether a fetus is 12 or 14 weeks old. I was correcting her on that, which I consider very important indeed as 12 weeks is the time limit to me.

As for why - with all due respect, I am not going to repeat this yet again just because you cannot be bothered to follow your own thread. Hint: it is not arbitrary.

carlybabe1

The issue is not biology,

If its not biology, then what is it??? Biology by definition is the study of life in all forms

it is why do you think you can arbitrarily decide to end the life of another human being? Answer me that.

It is not another human being, its a POTENTIAL human being, its statements like this that besides being inflammatory, lead me to conclude that most anti- abortion (choice imo) people avent a clue as to how thier food gets digested, never mind pregnacy. The most they know is,
man+woman have sex=pregnant
fetus grows in womans body till its able to cope with big bad world and all us evil people who would have murdered it given half a chance
baby is born looking no different to what it would have when it was conceived.

If anyone can give me proof that any biologist/gynacologist will publicly state that a fetus should be given rights before twenty weeks, then post it.
and I DO NOT mean "quotes" from fanatic anti-abortion sites that frequently misquote anything a health professional might have said,
I mean proof

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

If its not biology, then what is it??? Biology by definition is the study of life in all forms



It is not another human being, its a POTENTIAL human being, its statements like this that besides being inflammatory, lead me to conclude that most anti- abortion (choice imo) people avent a clue as to how thier food gets digested, never mind pregnacy. The most they know is,
man+woman have sex=pregnant
fetus grows in womans body till its able to cope with big bad world and all us evil people who would have murdered it given half a chance
baby is born looking no different to what it would have when it was conceived.

If anyone can give me proof that any biologist/gynacologist will publicly state that a fetus should be given rights before twenty weeks, then post it.
and I DO NOT mean "quotes" from fanatic anti-abortion sites that frequently misquote anything a health professional might have said,
I mean proof

All the other ones who call themselves pro-choice say we don't have to adddress this issue, as they all know it's human life. Then you keep going back to asking for proof that's it's human life. Human being = an organism that is human (Homo Sapiens); when egg + sperm = new organism (BIO 101) If new organism is of the species Homo Sapiens, then Human Being

I really do not believe you've even taken elementary school science, let alone claim to have taken college biology. Ask your professor to define human being to you!!!! At least most of the other arguments are not totally against science. Go back and look at the pictures. Is it a dog, oh must be pond scum.

bquinn

bquinn wrote: »

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

Carlybabe calls this pond scum, a one year old can see it's a baby human.

carlybabe1

bquinn wrote: »

Carlybabe calls this pond scum, a one year old can see it's a baby human.

Seriously, if ye misquote me like that again Ill report you, how Dare you, and you claim to be a biology proffessor, we'll Im calling you a liar. For starters, if you had any academic training whatsoever, you would kbnow how to form a rational argument. Proffessor for 22 yrs my ass. And that is NOT a sonograph, its digitally enhanced.In the words of me 9 yr old, DUH any woman who has ever has a scan/ultrasound/sonograph would know that looking at this picture.

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

that is NOT a sonograph, its digitally enhanced.In the words of me 9 yr old, DUH any woman who has ever has a scan/ultrasound/sonograph would know that looking at this picture.

It's new technology called 4-D ultrasound. It gives a 3 dimensional image instead of 2 dimensional images. It's used to do surgery on pre-born children, as well as surgeries on heart... Go to search engine and type in 4-D ultrasound. You'll see it's for real

Phototoxin

It is not another human being, its a POTENTIAL human being, its statements like this that besides being inflammatory, lead me to conclude that most anti- abortion (choice imo) people avent a clue as to how thier food gets digested, never mind pregnacy. The most they know is,
man+woman have sex=pregnant

I'm diabetic, i bet i know more about my body rythm than you. Also if you do some research you'll find that countries with low abortion rates have better maternity care. Ireland included despite our sh*tty general health service !

I'm a potential serial killer, should I be killed ? I'm a potential anything (short of mother or nun) at this point really.. so am I not anything because I have potential ? It must be something to have potential. It is not a potential human, it is a human wiht a potential full life

If anyone can give me proof that any biologist/gynacologist will publicly state that a fetus should be given rights before twenty weeks, then post it.
and I DO NOT mean "quotes" from fanatic anti-abortion sites that frequently misquote anything a health professional might have said,
I mean proof

proof is supplied by evidence.. human rights articles state the right to life, we've established that a fetus is alive, if even on the cellular level, however there is nothing concrete that defines it as human and nothing to refute it. Also you'll find that both 'sides' will quote things out of context occassionally.


I dont think he called it a sonograph, however it is ultrasound imaging, here's a link that might help you understand :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4D_Ultrasound

Also if by 'digitally enhanced' you mean 'sound waves processed in a computer to make a visible picture ' then yes you are right, no computer = no picture. That siad you might as well not watch tv as its 'digitally enhanced' too. Also try telling the photography forum people that their images dont count as they aren't 'real'...

When you get an MRI dont forget to mention that you wont accept it as the image of the hydrogen molecules flipping (as it were) has been captured and enchanched to make it visible to the doctor..

carlybabe you obviously dont know as much about medical imaging as you try to imply to so give it a rest

carlybabe1

Phototoxin wrote: »

I'm diabetic, i bet i know more about my body rythm than you.

really

Also if you do some research you'll find that countries with low abortion rates have better maternity care. Ireland included despite our sh*tty general health service !

Are you sure its maternity care and not social welfare that makes the difference???

Also if by 'digitally enhanced' you mean 'sound waves processed in a computer to make a visible picture ' then yes you are right, no computer = no picture. That siad you might as well not watch tv as its 'digitally enhanced' too. Also try telling the photography forum people that their images dont count as they aren't 'real'...

What has this got to do with what I stated Please stop trying to muddy the waters, anyone that reads my post will understand what I meant

When you get an MRI dont forget to mention that you wont accept it as the image of the hydrogen molecules flipping (as it were) has been captured and enchanched to make it visible to the doctor..

How long did it take you to google this??And also, see above

carlybabe you obviously dont know as much about medical imaging as you try to imply to so give it a rest

obviously you dont know as much about gestation as you try to imply, but heres the crucial difference between us, at no stage did I say I was an expert. And fobbing off the question with mumblings of human rights charters is not proof that a fetus at sixteen wks is a baby, so I say again, PROVE IT

carlybabe1

Also, it amazes me that anti-choicers can just pick things out that suits them. What you didnt state bquin was that image is of a FETUS AT 30 WKS. So who here has advocated abortion so far along???? oh wait thats right, NO-ONE

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Also, it amazes me that anti-choicers can just pick things out that suits them. What you didnt state bquin was that image is of a FETUS AT 30 WKS. So who here has advocated abortion so far along???? oh wait thats right, NO-ONE

[URL="javascript: picGalleryChangeDisplay(9)"][/URL]
9 of 10
Foetuses as young as 11 weeks have been seen with their thumbs in their mouths. This baby started out sucking his smallest toes and gradually moves on to suck a bigger and better toe.

same link as before

Phototoxin

How long did it take you to google this??And also, see above

0 seconds because I have actually studied this in my degree. Your fobbing off the proof you ask for saying that its digitally altered when software is required to actually translate the scan from sound wave to image. The fact that you didn't know about the 3d scan speaks loads.

karen3212

Ultravid wrote: »

Good questions Zulu. Looking forward to the responses.

Interestingly, you only get pregnant if you have sexual intercourse. If you don't want to be pregnant, refrain from sexual intercourse. Because that is, actually, it's primary purpose: the creation of new human life.

I find this interesting, ''the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is the creation of new human life''.
Would you agree that there are secondary, tertiary etc purposes to sexual intercourse? If yes, do you know what they are and what are the consequences for a society that promotes repression of sexuality?

Not addressed to you:

Has nobody questioned why motor car insurance companies(in general) load the premiums of people under 25? I thought it was because the part of the brain that controls impulse is not fully developed until around then. (I'd say we can be sure that they have studied the matter.)

Ultravid

carlybabe1 wrote: »

It is not another human being, its a POTENTIAL human being,
If anyone can give me proof that any biologist/gynacologist will publicly state that a fetus should be given rights before twenty weeks, then post it.
and I DO NOT mean "quotes" from fanatic anti-abortion sites that frequently misquote anything a health professional might have said,
I mean proof

That is untrue. It (he/she) is a human being from the moment of conception. This is biological fact which you cannot dispute.

The onus is on you to prove why, and on what authority, you should be allowed to kill a human being.

Rights are not granted, they are inalienable, and I'm interested to hear how you think you have the 'right' to kill this human being. Of course there is no 'right' to kill the unborn.

Why would anyone would want to kill their unborn child? It's something I've never fully understood.