Abortion Unfiltered

carlybabe1

Phototoxin wrote: »

so if its alive who has the right to murder it ? ?

Lets not go down this route,or I could ask you all these questions
1) if 'murdering' something thats alive offends you so, why do you eat meat/ go hunting (?)/ eat veal(? which is unborn calf meat) /eat horsemeat/eat dogmeat/ wear leather/suede?????If you dont do any of this then what do you do to try prevent any of this happening

If you're goin down the "all life is precious" route then stick to it, you shouldn't get to pick and choose like those pro-choicers...oh wait

carlybabe1

Ultravid wrote: »

What about the bodily integrity of the unborn? Where are their rights when they are being torn apart, limb by limb, and their head is crushed with forceps and dumped in a bucket? What about his bodily integrity?

Oh I see, so there is a clump of cells growing inside your body, with the potential to become a parasite, yes a parasite, as defined by what a parasite is ( ultimately needs a hosts body in order to feed/grow/live)
has more rights than the host, the host has no rights to its own body, no right to say "hang on, I dont want this ****in thing in me for the next 9 months" thats akin to saying, " I wont deflea my dog, because the flea has a right to life, and my dog has no rights"

Or when a suction machine that is able to pull the tiny fetus apart (killing him or her in the process). The remains are sucked out of the mother and deposited into a collection canister. Where is the bodily integrity of this human person?

tiny fetus=clump of cells/fatty tissue/cancerous growth.... should we feel sorry for them when they are removed??

Ultravid

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Oh I see, so there is a clump of cells growing inside your body, with the potential to become a parasite, yes a parasite, as defined by what a parasite is ( ultimately needs a hosts body in order to feed/grow/live)
has more rights than the host, the host has no rights to its own body, no right to say "hang on, I dont want this ****in thing in me for the next 9 months" thats akin to saying, " I wont deflea my dog, because the flea has a right to life, and my dog has no rights"

tiny fetus=clump of cells/fatty tissue/cancerous growth.... should we feel sorry for them when they are removed??

The unborn is not a parasite. The fact that you view it as such...

tiny fetus=clump of cells/fatty tissue/cancerous growth.... should we feel sorry for them when they are removed??

Again, a fetus is not a cancerous growth.

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

Well its a hard one to quantify given that its never exactly 8 weeks in all cases.And thats its also difficult to determine when consciousness actually forms or is it sufficient enough formation to deem it important. But as a general guideline, yeah 8 weeks give or take(if the consciousness really does begin to form at that time) in most cases.


Hmm but can it survive at 8 or 10 weeks as per my guidelines?
I'm not being rhetoric...i genuinely don't know.

As of now, no it cannot survive outside the womb at 8-10 weeks. But my point is that given medical advances that is possible in the future, so time and place should not define personhood. AS far as learning is concerned, i read in a periodical (I know, cite, but I can't remember the exact source) They were doing amniocentesis on (I'll say being,, since we agree it is a living human being, just personhood is questionable in your mind, right?) It was 6-7 weeks into the pregnancy, and they were using ultrasound to guide the needle. (This was done at John Hopkins, I believe in the late 70's) They observed that the being moved away from the needle. early pain response. They decided to 'test' their findings, so measured brain waves and heart rate as they stuck the being with the needle. Brain waves showed response, heart rate went up, and being moved away. That could be argued that it's a reflex, right?? The thing that surprised them was, when they went ot stick the 'being' a third time, it moved away before the needle stuck him. They repeated it several times with various 'beings', and it happened repeatedly. Hence their conclusion was that some form of learning could take place at that early age. I have not seen any other studies to back that up, but there were other studies done in Psychology Today, which associated behavior with memories from in the womb. They varied in how 'early' those memories took place, but some were definitely within the first trimester.

bquinn

Virgil° wrote: »

.

Well its a hard one to quantify given that its never exactly 8 weeks in all cases.And thats its also difficult to determine when consciousness actually forms or is it sufficient enough formation to deem it important. But as a general guideline, yeah 8 weeks give or take(if the consciousness really does begin to form at that time) in most cases.

Ok, then we agree abortion after the brain is formed, and they are 'concious' would be wrong. Scientifically everything is developed for that to be the case by 5-6 wks, depending on the resource. (Scientific/medical sources, not philosophy or religous as I would presume thay would vary depending on their definition...) We'll say at 8 wks the Orgsan systems are complete, and that gives the nervous system another 2 wks to mature, and make sure they are actually concious and not just physically working... (although physically working is the criteria used in medicine) We agree then after 8 wks abortion is wrong.

On that criteria, you believe the majority of abortions are wrong. I'll look up the statistics tomorrow, as I'm heading home, but the majority of abortions do occur after 8 wks. I believe, but will double check and give source, that most occur between 8 and 12 weeks.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Lets not go down this route,or I could ask you all these questions

no, lets...

1) if 'murdering' something thats alive offends you so, why do you eat meat/ go hunting (?)/ eat veal(? which is unborn calf meat) /eat horsemeat/eat dogmeat/ wear leather/suede?????

Oh dear. For one - because they are animals. We are discussing people. I for one, don't eat people. I doubt anyone else here does either.
Veal is calf meat, not "unborn calf meat". And very few people eat horse or dog in this country, and you'll find the reason being, is because people (for some reason) afford these particular animals an affection not shown to other animals because of their unique relationship with humans.
Wearing leather... ...well thats nothing got to do with anything really.

Now Carlybabe, I've answered your questions so far, do you think this time you might allow me the same courtesy later in the thread?

If you dont do any of this then what do you do to try prevent any of this happening

At a guess, because they are not people. You can tell the difference between people and animals right? I mean 78% + should give you a fairly good insight.

If you're goin down the "all life is precious" route then stick to it,

let me correct it for you then: "all human life is precious"

you shouldn't get to pick and choose like those pro-choicers...oh wait

like the way the "pro-choice" lobby pick and choose who gets the choice? Because it's clear that the childs choice to life doesn't get a look in.

Oh I see, so there is a clump of cells growing inside your body, with the potential to become a parasite, yes a parasite, as defined by what a parasite is ( ultimately needs a hosts body in order to feed/grow/live)
has more rights than the host, the host has no rights to its own body, no right to say "hang on, I dont want this ****in thing in me for the next 9 months" thats akin to saying, " I wont deflea my dog, because the flea has a right to life, and my dog has no rights"

That's all a bit emotive, no?
Are you suggesting that an unborn baby is akin to a flea?

tiny fetus=clump of cells/fatty tissue/cancerous growth.... should we feel sorry for them when they are removed??

Seeing as you enjoy definitions so much: foetus doesn't mean cancerous growth or parasite, however, it does = child. By the way, I only did biology up to the junior cert, and didn't particularly shine at it either!

Virgil° wrote: »

Well you didn't give any others. So until you do ill assume that you don't eat cows solely because they might eat you. Which they wont being herbivores.

Well assume all you want, but you do know what assumptions are don't you?
I eat cows because they are bloody tasty and I don't mind if they are slaughtered as a food source.
However, I find the killing of humans morally reprehensible.
If you wish to discuss further the differences between animals and humans perhaps start another thread, as we are discussing human abortions. And in the interests of keeping this on topic - how about I declare animal abortion wrong?

Ok then the child is alive. The parents can rejoice at the birth of their lovely little Timmy? Seriously, you would actually sustain this life?

If it was my child? I don't know. I wouldn't be comfortable killing the child though.

And i never suggested he wasn't a human just that he wasnt capable of being a person in the sense of having a sense of self and so on. You know? all the things that make him able to be "him".

I know - just that he wasn't a person.

Seing as how you seem so desperate to cling on to the formal definition of the word person ill try use something else. Timmy is not a consciousness,

Perfect. Thank you.
Ok now at least we are talking the same language.
So, so long as we aren't killing people or humans; how do we define conciousness?

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

no, lets...
Oh dear. For one - because they are animals. We are discussing people. I for one, don't eat people. I doubt anyone else here does either.
Veal is calf meat, not "unborn calf meat". And very few people eat horse or dog in this country, and you'll find the reason being, is because people (for some reason) afford these particular animals an affection not shown to other animals because of their unique relationship with humans.
Wearing leather... ...well thats nothing got to do with anything really.

Now Carlybabe, I've answered your questions so far, do you think this time you might allow me the same courtesy later in the thread?

At a guess, because they are not people. You can tell the difference between people and animals right? I mean 78% + should give you a fairly good insight.
let me correct it for you then: "all human life is precious"
like the way the "pro-choice" lobby pick and choose who gets the choice? Because it's clear that the childs choice to life doesn't get a look in.

That's all a bit emotive, no?
Are you suggesting that an unborn baby is akin to a flea?

Seeing as you enjoy definitions so much: foetus doesn't mean cancerous growth or parasite, however, it does = child. By the way, I only did biology up to the junior cert, and didn't particularly shine at it either!

Well assume all you want, but you do know what assumptions are don't you?
I eat cows because they are bloody tasty and I don't mind if they are slaughtered as a food source.
However, I find the killing of humans morally reprehensible.
If you wish to discuss further the differences between animals and humans perhaps start another thread, as we are discussing human abortions. And in the interests of keeping this on topic - how about I declare animal abortion wrong?

Are you trying to get this thread closed as well Zulu? And the question wasn't directed at you. As you have demonstrated i this post, as in other threads, you cant play nice, so therefore I dont want to play...with all due respect, I'll just ignore your sarcasm and ignore your posts. Now back on topic....

It boils down to how you see and define a fetus, for me, as with most posters who have an idea of biology, its a clump of cells until a certain stage, and therefore is removeable

carlybabe1

Ultravid wrote: »

carlybabe1 wrote: »

The unborn is not a parasite. The fact that you view it as such...



Again, a fetus is not a cancerous growth.

Yes a fetus is a parasite, as a parasite is defined scientifically. The fact that it is our own species and is cutchy coo cute when its born doesn't change that fact. And at early stages it has the same characteristics as a growth, and grows the same way, cell division

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

It boils down to how you see and define a fetus, for me, as with most posters who have an idea of biology, its a clump of cells until a certain stage, and therefore is removeable

Well, it's not really most other posters though, it's just the pro-abortion posters who see it as that.

The anti-abortion posters recognise it for exactly what it is, a foetus.

As for the rest of your post, this is a different thread so I'll ignore it in the spirit of progressing the conversation without getting personal. Hopefully you'll see to reciprocate.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Yes a fetus is a parasite, as a parasite is defined scientifically. The fact that it is our own species and is cutchy coo cute when its born doesn't change that fact. And at early stages it has the same characteristics as a growth, and grows the same way, cell division

...and say if you were answering an exam question, that required biological accuracy, would you expect full mark describing a human foetus as a growth or a parasite?

Something tells me you would exactly get full marks with that description.

stakey

A parasite is an organism that benefits entirely from the symbiotic relationship while the host is usually harmed. Seeing as the human body is designed to carry a child and doesn't come to any harm apart from side effects of sharing nutrients and hormonal changes I wouldn't agree with carlybabe on referring to the foetus as a parasite.

However, as far as the argument goes for development of personhood in a foetus I would be inclined to believe that personhood is not developed until the brain is capable of cognitive processing. From weeks 11-17 the foetus is very much a form of life but by no means on par with the host or on par with ourselves (ie. walking, talking, breathing, thinking humans). The foetus is incapable of feeling pain has minimal independent movement and no higher brain functions. Initial developments of brain and nerve pathways create movements designed to test or develop the formation of organs.

Hence it is my belief that the mother/host's rights supersede that of a developing life with no human characteristics such as free thought or emotions.

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

However, as far as the argument goes for development of personhood in a foetus I would be inclined to believe that personhood is not developed until the brain is capable of cognitive processing. From weeks 11-17 the foetus is very much a form of life but by no means on par with the host or on par with ourselves (ie. walking, talking, breathing, thinking humans). The foetus is incapable of feeling pain has minimal independent movement and no higher brain functions. Initial developments of brain and nerve pathways create movements designed to test or develop the formation of organs.

Hence it is my belief that the mother/host's rights supersede that of a developing life with no human characteristics such as free thought or emotions.

Says you. The interesting thing is, 26 years ago, >I< looked exactly like those pictures, in the links, posted just before your post, and some folks here would happily have me killed, based on the criteria of, no free thought or emotions. Very subjective. Thanks a bunch.

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

Says you. The interesting thing is, 26 years ago, >I< looked exactly like those pictures, in the links, posted just before your post, and some folks here would happily have me killed, based on the criteria of, no free thought or emotions. Very subjective. Thanks a bunch.

Don't forget your inability to independently move your limbs, your complete lack of higher brain functionality and your inability to feel any pain. The fact that you'd be lacking all of these would mean you were not conscience of your own existance!

Ultravid

bluewolf wrote: »

Ultra if that had been the case you wouldn't have known. There wouldn't have been an "I".
And yes, you are being rather subjective. We are not talking about killing you as you are now, we are talking about feti.

If the difference is too emotionally difficult for you one may suggest you take a step back before posting particularly if the most you have to contribute is "says you".


P.s. did you look like the picture in the 2nd link? That's very curious.

I did.

An embryo or fetus is smaller than a newborn baby. What does size have to do with rights of personhood? The answer: nothing.

Smaller people are no more or less human than those who are bigger. Embryos and fetuses are smaller than newborns just as newborns are smaller than infants and infants are smaller than toddlers and toddlers are smaller than adolescents and adolescents are smaller than teenagers and teenagers are smaller than adults. Size doesn't matter. It is lawful to kill a fly and not lawful to kill a person, not because the person is bigger, but because the person is human. Humanity is what matters.

It is true that embryos and fetuses are less developed than a newborn (unless, of course, that newborn was born prematurely). But this, too, is a distinction which has no moral significance. It is a difference of degree, not kind. Physical and/or intellectual development has nothing to do with determining personhood outside the womb. It is equally insignificant for determining personhood inside the womb. Children are generally less developed than adults. People with developmental disabilities may be less developed than some children, and those with extraordinary mental capacity are no more human than those with lesser IQs. It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood.

A person, as defined by the dictionary is nothing more or less than a living human. Anyone who tries to narrow this general definition of personhood does so in an attempt to eliminate a certain group of people who is either getting in their way or has something they want. Creating self-defined definitions of personhood that are uniquely crafted to eliminate certain individuals from protection under the law has long been the method of choice for implementing all manner of genocidal atrocities.
(abort73.com)

Ok so these aren't my own words. Sorry. But it's what I want to present so...

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

Don't forget your inability to independently move your limbs, your complete lack of higher brain functionality and your inability to feel any pain. The fact that you'd be lacking all of these would mean you were not conscience of your own existance!

What has consciousness got to do with it? What has consciousness got to do with my right to life? My right not to be killed. My right not to be torn apart in my mothers womb and dumped in a bucket?

I existed, therefore I was.

stakey

So going by this websites argument (which you haven't written yourself) you would state that a human is anything that develops within the womb after fertilisation (even a 10mm embryo).

Would you therefore be happy to call an entity born without ANY higher brain functionality, no ability to feel pain or express emotions or any control over there limbs a human?

Dave!

It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood.

Not really... I don't think most people would have a problem flicking the switch and turning off the maintenance of the body of a brain-dead person. Would you? Of course let's say it's a hypothetical situation and not your mother or something (ie. your decision is not based on emotion).

If you would, then I don't see how you can have a problem with 'turning off the machine' of an undeveloped embryo -- from the perspective of 'humanity'.

I think the 'potential' in an embryo is a more compelling point than its humanity.

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

So going by this websites argument (which you haven't written yourself) you would state that a human is anything that develops within the womb after fertilisation (even a 10mm embryo).

Would you therefore be happy to call an entity born without ANY higher brain functionality, no ability to feel pain or express emotions or any control over there limbs a human?

A human life is a human person is a human being and we have no right to kill that life.

As an aside, I used to be 10mm long myself.

Dave! wrote: »

It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood.

Not really... I don't think most people would have a problem flicking the switch and turning off the maintenance of the body of a brain-dead person. Would you? Of course let's say it's a hypothetical situation and not your mother or something (ie. your decision is not based on emotion).

If you would, then I don't see how you can have a problem with 'turning off the machine' of an undeveloped embryo -- from the perspective of 'humanity'.

I think the 'potential' in an embryo is a more compelling point than its humanity.

There is a difference between the extraordinary means of technological life support, and the normal way in which new human persons are produced. That is, in the womb. But this discussion is not about life support machines.

Dave!

It's entirely relevent to the discussion. Do you disagree with turning off the machine or not? It's either still a human by virtue of something other than brain activity, or it's 'below human' by virtue of lack of brain activity.

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

A human life is a human person is a human being and we have no right to kill that life.

A person is defined by intellect, literacy, personality, legal status etc...

A human being is defined by consciousness, cognition and self awareness.

None of the above are shared with a foetus.

A foetus has the potential to develop these once it's born but the anti-choice side believe the foetus should have the same rights as a PERSON who has developed all of these characteristics.

carlybabe1

[quote=Ultravid;57308382]
I existed, therefore I was.[/quote]

you exist now, not past tense, and you have evolved from a cluster of cells, nothing more magical than that
cluster of cells should not trump the rights of a being, based soley on its potential.

cancer exists, tumours exist, bacteria, funghii, algae, and athletes foot exists, whats the point Im missing??

Ultravid

Dave! wrote: »

It's entirely relevent to the discussion. Do you disagree with turning off the machine or not? It's either still a human by virtue of something other than brain activity, or it's 'below human' by virtue of lack of brain activity.

The life that is there is still human life.

The means of preserving that life are extraordinary, i.e. the life support machine.

Ordinary means of life support would be food and water - we have no right to withhold these from anyone.

It may be justified in turning off the machine, I wouldn't like to be the one making that decision. But I don't believe it would be murder.

The ordinary means of life support for the unborn is their mother's womb and the nutrients and oxygen they receive through the placenta. We have no right to remove these ordinary means of life support - the food, water, and oxygen. That would be murder.

I feel we are straying off topic though. A thread on that issue would be better.

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

A person is defined by intellect, literacy, personality, legal status etc...

A human being is defined by consciousness, cognition and self awareness.

None of the above are shared with a foetus.

A foetus has the potential to develop these once it's born but the anti-choice side believe the foetus should have the same rights as a PERSON who has developed all of these characteristics.

W are not anti-choice, we are pro-life. I am sure you would be offended if I said 'pro-death'? Or maybe you wouldn't be offended.

Anyway, Person n. A human being. This is the definition I got from a a dictionary. I always thought persons, human beings were one and the same. Where did you get your definition?

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

W are not anti-choice, we are pro-life. I am sure you would be offended if I said 'pro-death'? Or maybe you wouldn't be offended.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, i don't think they should be handed out to every pregnant woman.

If you believe abortion is okay in some circumstances, ie. threat to the mother or for other medical reasons, i'd happily call you pro-life (ie. you'd like to preserve real lives). But if you're completely and utterly against any abortions, you're anti choice IMHO.

Ultravid wrote: »

Anyway, Person n. A human being. This is the definition I got from a a dictionary. I always thought persons, human beings were one and the same. Where did you get your definition?

In philosophy the definition of a human being and person are seperated. A person is used to define certain characteristics of a human being such as those outlined before for reasons such as medical or legal ethics.

A human being is a distinction used to define a bipedal homo-sapien that can use and modify its environment.

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

It boils down to how you see and define a fetus, for me, as with most posters who have an idea of biology, its a clump of cells until a certain stage, and therefore is removeable

Carlybabe, quit trying to show you know anything about biology. You've compared a human life at it's earliest stages to pond scum, parasite, cancer... Lets see, if you take even a zygote to any biological lab (if they had real biologists and not people like you pretending to know biology), they could easily determine that it is human life, not cancer, parasite or pond scum.

We've already established once conception has occurred, it is a new human life. (Not another cell of the mom, such as skin..., as genetically unique)

We've moved on to personhood. We've also established that the nervous system is completely formed by 6 wks from conception, and movements are refined. (So using the criteria of the pro-abortion people here, we've established personhood at least after 8 wks) Let's move on from here.

Zulu

bluewolf wrote: »

The purpose of this conversation, as you well know, was to establish what exactly makes a human a person. As most of it thus far seems to have been "it's alive", which obviously applies to animals, it's a little vague. We also have human dna, which cancerous cells and various body parts have as well.

I have stressed "human life" on a few occasions now though. I only care because it is human life, and it's a living human/person
We also have

we kill every day, something or another. Wash your hands, mass slaughter.

and I deplore that we kill other humans, and I'm against it.

When you were asked "what defines a person" you say "I don't know so I don't kill". Well zulu you must have some idea if you and the other prolifers are so adamant that a blob of cancerous cells are not a person and animals with consciousness are not a person.

Well the burden of proof doesn't reside on me. I don't need to prove that an unborn child is a person. You and I are proof of that. However, no one has ever seen a cancerous growth turn into a person. Also, it's clear that an animal isn't a person. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise???
Are you trying to tell me a cow is a person? You are turning this into a farce - I can only assume you are alluding to a great point, please state it.

Going around saying "I don't kill" sounds very nice and sounds very morally correct no doubt but is rather useless for the purposes of this discussion.

It's "I don't kill humans" - I'm sorry I need to stress that. And it's rather useful for this conversation, as it's a justification for my position. I'd also stress that it's a far stronger justification that to kill for convenience, because "I'm not really killing, and it's her body her chioce."

Is it because it might eventually turn into one given time? Are we arguing from potential?

No, it's because it is an unborn child, but a child none the less.

Honestly, all I've seen this far after 14 pages is "it has living human cells" "it's my baby", "I don't eat humans" etc etc. Something a little more concrete and distinguishable from various other life forms' characteristics would be great.

And all I've seen is "it's her body", "it's not human", "it's not a person", "it's a parasite". You (the pro abortion) voice, wish to kill it, so the burden of proof is on you.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

cluster of cells should not trump the rights of a being, based soley on its potential.

It only trumps their rights to a hassle free 9 months. 9 months for a life. It's a small price to pay.

Two direct questions for you:
Do you not believe that the right to life is worth more?

Do you believe that the right not to be pregnant (if it is even a right) for 9 months is worth more someone else's right to live?

cancer exists, tumours exist, bacteria, funghii, algae, and athletes foot exists, whats the point Im missing??

I'd have taught that was fairly obvious: they aren't people.

carlybabe1

bquinn wrote: »

Carlybabe, quit trying to show you know anything about biology. You've compared a human life at it's earliest stages to pond scum, parasite, cancer... Lets see, if you take even a zygote to any biological lab (if they had real biologists and not people like you pretending to know biology), they could easily determine that it is human life, not cancer, parasite or pond scum.

WOW "proff" retract the claws, for starters its not very polite, where did you say you lectured??
And any biologist that has taught me, and they have taught me well, will tell you that life is defined as the ability to do certain things (which I listed earlier post) and both pond scum and bacteria have these abilities.

We've already established once conception has occurred, it is a new human life. (Not another cell of the mom, such as skin..., as genetically unique)

We've moved on to personhood. We've also established that the nervous system is completely formed by 6 wks from conception, and movements are refined. (So using the criteria of the pro-abortion people here, we've established personhood at least after 8 wks) Let's move on from here.

Clearly we hadn't, the following is a post which clearly shows as much

carlybabe1 wrote: »

[quote=Ultravid;57308382]
I existed, therefore I was.

you exist now, not past tense, and you have evolved from a cluster of cells, nothing more magical than that
cluster of cells should not trump the rights of a being, based soley on its potential.

cancer exists, tumours exist, bacteria, funghii, algae, and athletes foot exists, whats the point Im missing??[/quote]

I was replying to an earlier thread

bquinn wrote: »

As of now, no it cannot survive outside the womb at 8-10 weeks. But my point is that given medical advances that is possible in the future, so time and place should not define personhood. AS far as learning is concerned, i read in a periodical (I know, cite, but I can't remember the exact source) They were doing amniocentesis on (I'll say being,, since we agree it is a living human being, just personhood is questionable in your mind, right?) It was 6-7 weeks into the pregnancy, and they were using ultrasound to guide the needle. (This was done at John Hopkins, I believe in the late 70's) They observed that the being moved away from the needle. early pain response. They decided to 'test' their findings, so measured brain waves and heart rate as they stuck the being with the needle. Brain waves showed response, heart rate went up, and being moved away. That could be argued that it's a reflex, right?? The thing that surprised them was, when they went ot stick the 'being' a third time, it moved away before the needle stuck him. They repeated it several times with various 'beings', and it happened repeatedly. Hence their conclusion was that some form of learning could take place at that early age. I have not seen any other studies to back that up, but there were other studies done in Psychology Today, which associated behavior with memories from in the womb. They varied in how 'early' those memories took place, but some were definitely within the first trimester.

The brain is not developed enough to monitor brain waves, your talking about tests that were supposedly done in the 70's, I think science has moved on a bit since then
And thirdly, you're a proffessor yet you cant/wont cite your sources????

Ultravid

Zulu wrote: »

Two direct questions for you:
Do you not believe that the right to life is worth more?

Do you believe that the right not to be pregnant (if it is even a right) for 9 months is worth more someone else's right to live?

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.

bquinn

stakey wrote: »

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, i don't think they should be handed out to every pregnant woman.

So when do you say they should not be handed out? Sorry, if you already said it, but being new to forums, I'm not up on who is who. I now recognize Virgil, ultravid, zulu, phototoxin, Claire and carlybabe, and know where they stand.

I have another serious question for you. You say you are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I've had this discussion with others, and have found some truly pro-choice people, but have also found some truly pro-abortion people. If a woman is 6 wks pregnant (before the stage you think they are a person). Does her family have the right to force her to have an abortion? 2nd, If your answer is no (which I'm assuming it will be, since you're for choice), would you support a place that offers assistance (housing, medical care,...) to a woman who wants to have her baby, but has been thrown out of her house by the father of the child or her parents...?

stakey

By pro-choice I mean I believe the individual whom is pregnant has the right to choose what affects their bodies and mental health.

My issue with the pro-abortion/pro-life labels is it makes the argument very black and white which suits one side but is very far from the true realities of the situation.

Why wouldn't I support social programs that will help people who wish to continue with a pregnancy? If that is there choice then yes, of course I'd support it. However I'd prefer that it was state backed and fully neutral and unbiased.