Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

[Poly]

Originally posted by avatar382

-Sentient (defined as consciously possessing interests, and a sense of self among other things)

This one seems to describe babies who have an interest in sucking their thumb in the womb. And others who have an interest in avoiding irritation when a "stress" test is done, causing them to kick up a storm while in the womb. And most unfortunately, others who have an interest in trying to avoid pain, by thrashing around violently just before they are murdered in the womb.

 

[avatar382]

This one seems to describe babies who have an interest in sucking their thumb in the womb. And others who have an interest in avoiding irritation when a "stress" test is done, causing them to kick up a storm while in the womb. And most unfortunately, others who have an interest in trying to avoid pain, by thrashing around violently just before they are murdered in the womb.

My understanding is that the scenarios you describe typically happen during the late 2nd and early 3rd trimester, after the fetus has developed a functional central nervous system.

How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.

My argument is that personhood develops gradually, the zygote at a few days old doesn't yet have it, while the fetus at the 2nd/3rd trimester does.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by avatar382
How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.

Wow, such a factual sounding statement and yet it's nothing more than some idiot's opinion.

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by avatar382
How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish........

You're disgusting. :vomit: I hope you're not a parent.

 

[avatar382]

Originally posted by Poly

Wow, such a factual sounding statement and yet it's nothing more than some idiot's opinion.

It's not opinion, it's fact.

If you disagree, why don't you add something positive to the discussion and tell us what sentience a brainless cluster of stem cells, which is what a human zygote is at concecption, could possibly have?

 

[avatar382]

Originally posted by SOTK

You're disgusting. :vomit: I hope you're not a parent.

I'm disgusting because I merely pointed out the fact that a blob of cells with no central nervous system, brain, nerves, spine (zygote at conception) shares the quality of not being sentinent (not having interests) with simple organisms like bacteria, ameobas, etc?

 

[Anne]

By eight weeks the hands and feet of the unborn baby are almost perfectly formed, and fingerprints are developing.

By nine weeks the unborn baby is sucking her/his thumb.

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by avatar382

I'm disgusting because I merely pointed out the fact that a blob of cells with no central nervous system, brain, nerves, spine (zygote at conception) shares the quality of not being sentinent (not having interests) with simple organisms like bacteria, ameobas, etc?

Yes. :down:

 

[avatar382]

Originally posted by SOTK

Yes. :down:

Are you suggesting that my statement was in error? If so, could you please offer an argument against it? (specifically that zygotes at conception are not sentient beings)

Or are you merely playing "kill the messenger" who is only repeating what is verifiable fact?

 

[Anne]

Typical pro-abort:doh:

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart, brain waves and are fully formed or almost fully formed.
An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.:bannana:

 

[avatar382]

Originally posted by Anne

Typical pro-abort:doh:

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart, brain waves and are fully formed or almost fully formed.
An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.:bannana:

Things you should know about my position:

1.) I personally look down on abortion in general and believe 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be criminalized. You should stop bringing up the evils of aborting the fully/almost fully developed, you are preaching to the choir.

2.) I believe the government should regulate the minimum possible. I believe the power of the goverment should be limited to protecting the life, liberty, and property of its people.

My motivation for supporting the legalization of 1st trimester abortion ONLY is because I see its restriction as unnecessary and dangerous government involvement.

3.) Crucial: The disctintion between sentinent unborn and not sentinent unborn is important to me because I consider sentience to be requisite to personhood. Thus, not sentinent = not a person.

4.) I am hoping that this thread evolves into an interesting philosophical discussion instead of the emotionally charged insult fest it currently is...

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by avatar382

My understanding is that the scenarios you describe typically happen during the late 2nd and early 3rd trimester, after the fetus has developed a functional central nervous system.

How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.

My argument is that personhood develops gradually, the zygote at a few days old doesn't yet have it, while the fetus at the 2nd/3rd trimester does.

I've got a question for you then--do you believe that abortion of viable infants should be illegal? At this time, there are abortionists who perform elective abortions at 28 weeks.

Here's data for survivability and the source cited. It varies somewhat by which source you pull up, the newest ones have the highest percentage of survivability since medical techniques improve constantly.

Survival rates by gestational birth age Weeks of gestation at birth

23 weeks- 30% survived
24 weeks- 52% survived
25 weeks- 76% survived

1MacDonald H, Committee on Fetus and Newborn (2002). Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics, 110(5): 1024–1027.

3Wood NS, et al. (2000). Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(6): 378–84.

Here is an example of a physician who does elective abortions 26 weeks LMP which works out to about 27-28 weeks of gestation. Is this acceptable under your "personhood" qualifiers. He does "medically indicated" abortions for fetal anomalies or genetic disorder or medical problems to 36 weeks. Sounds legit, until you apply the personhood theory. Since by your qualifications personhood is a consideration, this guy is killing persons because of their disabilities. Or do the disabled have less personhood?

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and this old saw has been played out time and time again. Historically, when personhood has been used a qualifier to granting human rights, it has spawned evil consequence. The US history of slavery. Selling one's kids into brothels in Thailand. Firebombing "mudpeople's" churches. Genocide against Jews and Gypsies. "Personhood" definitions, which are arbitrary, don't lead to good, the lead to evil.

If personhood is indeed a legitimate entity, then when does it occur? 16 weeks? 20 weeks?

(this is not directed to you specifically, avatar 382)

If those who demand that Christians demonstrate scientifically when "ensoulment" occurs would be so kind as to give us evidence of the same quality they demand indicating when "personhood" is invested, then we would at least have some basis for a more productive discussion. I haven't really seen much evidence that one's arbitrary designation of personhood being a good way to determine whether or not one is entitled to the most basic of human rights--the things which are necessary for bodily survival. I've seen much historical evidence that when a designation of personhood determines said rights, the end achievement is invariably evil.

 

[cattyfan]

Keeping this on the active page...

Zakath,

please read post #117. thanks.

 

[avatar382]

I've got a question for you then--do you believe that abortion of viable infants should be illegal? At this time, there are abortionists who perform elective abortions at 28 weeks.

Not only do I believe that abortions at the "age of viability" should be illegal, I believe abortions should be illegal at the development of the central nervous system, which is generally agreed to be sometime in the second trimester, weeks 12 - 24.

I think drawing the line for abortions at 12 weeks is reasonable. Any later than that and the fetus may be a sentinent being...

If those who demand that Christians demonstrate scientifically when "ensoulment" occurs would be so kind as to give us evidence of the same quality they demand indicating when "personhood" is invested, then we would at least have some basis for a more productive discussion. I haven't really seen much evidence that one's arbitrary designation of personhood being a good way to determine whether or not one is entitled to the most basic of human rights--the things which are necessary for bodily survival. I've seen much historical evidence that when a designation of personhood determines said rights, the end achievement is invariably evil.

Simply put, the rights to the things necessary to bodily survival are obtained when a being is capable of an interest in bodily survival.

A fetus at 24 weeks that can be seen squirming in the womb while a physican dismembers it clearly shows this interest. At conception, the zygote does not. It is not yet capable of having interests...

I don't think sentinence is an arbitrary disctinction, we as people use it all the time.

Consider this:
-Generally speaking, killing a human is a henious crime.
-Most people will agree that killing an mammal such as dog, cat, or dolphin is henious. (animal abuse laws)
However few object to the killing simpler animal life, like insects and lobsters. (we boil lobsters alive before eating them)
Fewer still object to the killing of bacteria.
No one objects to killing plants, since we eat them...

Why is it that we can legally "put down" our dog, but it's generally much harder to "put down" a human being?

Why is it that taking a saw and cutting your cat in half would land you in jail for animal abuse, yet fishermen bisect earthworms in a similar manner all the time?

Why is it that even the most hardcore animal rights activist has no problem killing plants?

You get the point...

Sentinence is what makes people people, it is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by avatar382

Things you should know about my position:

1.) I personally look down on abortion in general and believe 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be criminalized. You should stop bringing up the evils of aborting the fully/almost fully developed, you are preaching to the choir.

On what grounds do you consider 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion a crime?




Posted by Avatar:

2.) I believe the government should regulate the minimum possible. I believe the power of the goverment should be limited to protecting the life, liberty, and property of its people.

I agree the government should be in the business of protecting "Life." The Republicans passed the ban on "partial birth" abortion over the objections of the pro-abortion Democrats. Bush signed the bill into law after Clinton vetoed the same ban twice before. The point is our government "IS" engaged in protecting "LIFE."



Posted by Avatar:

My motivation for supporting the legalization of 1st trimester abortion ONLY is because I see its restriction as unnecessary and dangerous government involvement.

Restriction unnecessary and dangerous government involvement? Wait a minute, a government of the people by the people and for the people are divided on protecting human life. The Republicans are for protecting human life, Democrats are for destroying human life. Obviously we need more Republicans and less Democrats in Congress. The issue of abortion will only be resolved in favor of the baby's life, when Democrats are replaced by Republicans in Congress.




Posted by Avatar:

3.) Crucial: The disctintion between sentinent unborn and not sentinent unborn is important to me because I consider sentience to be requisite to personhood. Thus, not sentinent = not a person.

You have retreated into an illogical intellectual cul-de-sac. Observation, the basis of scientific inquirey, requires you to acknowledge that the human life cycle at its begining, left undisturbed by an abortionist, will under normal circumstances provide a live natural birth of a human child.

Posted by Avatar:

4.) I am hoping that this thread evolves into an interesting philosophical discussion instead of the emotionally charged insult fest it currently is...

I'm hoping that this thread will evolve into a logical discussion of of abortion.

 

[avatar382]

On what grounds do you consider 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion a crime?

As I've stated before, I consider anything 1.) alive, 2.) human, and 3.) sentient to be a human person.

By the 2nd trimester, the fetus develops a brain and nervous system, gaining sentience, and therefore, I believe is a person with full rights.

I agree the government should be in the business of protecting "Life."

You forgot that I added the qualifier "of people". My whole point is that in the first trimester, a zygote is not a person because it lacks sentience.

You have retreated into an illogical intellectual cul-de-sac. Observation, the basis of scientific inquirey, requires you to acknowledge that the human life cycle at its begining, left undisturbed by an abortionist, will under normal circumstances provide a live natural birth of a human child.

You are confusing a potential person with an actual person. Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? NO! The fact that a 1 week old zygote may become a person if undisturbed does not mean that *at that point in time* the zygote is, in fact, a person.

Time is everything. Children are potential adults, but they are not given the rights of adults until they are actually adults...

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by avatar382

As I've stated before, I consider anything 1.) alive, 2.) human, and 3.) sentient to be a human person.

Why do you qualify human life at all? What gives you the right to qualify human life.

Posted by Avatar:

By the 2nd trimester, the fetus develops a brain and nervous system, gaining sentience, and therefore, I believe is a person with full rights.

From conception to natural death is the human life cycle. Reason and logic would require one to admit that an uninterrupted pregnancy leads to a live birth. All that is required is about nine months of normal developement. It is human at conception and it is human at birth and it is human at death. A continum that represents the human life cycle. Why would any sane individual interrupt that lifecycle without acknowledging they have terminated a human life at what ever stage it was in?



Posted by Avatar:

You forgot that I added the qualifier "of people". My whole point is that in the first trimester, a zygote is not a person because it lacks sentience.

Again, who gave you the right to qualify human life? Are you playing God? The human life cycle in all its many manifestations shows your right to qualify human life to be erroneous and morally repugnant.



Posted by Avatar:

You are confusing a potential person with an actual person. Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? NO! The fact that a 1 week old zygote may become a person if undisturbed does not mean that *at that point in time* the zygote is, in fact, a person.

Is an acorn a tree? Yes, in its early stages of growth. One thing is certain, destroy the acorn and there will be no fully developed tree. Destroy the zygote and that human being in its earliest stage of developement will cease to grow and develope into a full term baby.

Posted by Avatar:

Time is everything. Children are potential adults, but they are not given the rights of adults until they are actually adults...

True, but killing the child takes away any chance at adulthood. Similarly, killing the developing child in the womb takes away any chance at reaching adulthood with all the rights obtained by the transition from infancy to adulthood.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Anne

An unborn baby's heart starts beating by the 21st day of life. Brain waves are detectable by 45 days. Abortion is definitely murder. Little babies are being murdered who have a beating heart and brain waves.

A heart beat is a sign of a working hypothalmus. The brain is working on auto-pilot. The heartbeat, as Zakath pointed out in a previous post, does not make someone a person.

Brain waves aren't detectible until about the 20th week. Brain synapses don't start to develop until the early to mid second tri-mester. Without brain-waves it isn't a person.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Anne

By eight weeks the hands and feet of the unborn baby are almost perfectly formed, and fingerprints are developing.

By nine weeks the unborn baby is sucking her/his thumb.

Looks good in a GE commercial, but it doesn't prove conciousness. By day one the baby has the DNA instruction set necessary to carry it into full development. It is clearly alive, but isn't human until around the 20th week.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Anne

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

That would be rather difficult to do. The spermazoa and ovum don't merge until about 12 hours after intercourse. The zygote doesn't travel down the falopian tube for several hours (days?)

Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart,

It is true that the heart is beating, but that does not mean the fetus is a human in any constitutional sense.

An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.

This isn't true. A baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb indicates that the lower brain functions common in all animals exist. The sucking motion is instinctual. Without this ability, the baby would not be able to take in nutrients without its umbilical chord.

Nature is crueler than any abortion doctor could every be. The evidence that two-thirds of conceptions fail regardless of abortion provides a powerful new argument in favor of choice in the early trimesters. Perhaps it is possible that God ordains, for reasons we cannot know, that vast numbers of souls be created at conception and then naturally denied the chance to become babies. But science's new understanding of the tenuous link between conception and birth makes a strong case that what happens early in pregnancy is not yet life in the constitutional sense.

The zygotes that do implant soon transform into embryos. During its early growth, an embryo is sufficiently undifferentiated that it is impossible to distinguish which tissue will end up as part of the new life and which will be discarded as placenta. By about the sixth week the embryo gives way to the fetus, which has a recognizable human shape. (It was during the embryo-fetus transition, Augustine believed, that the soul is acquired, and this was Catholic doctrine for most of the period from the fifth century until 1869.) Also around the sixth week, faint electrical activity can be detected from the fetal nervous system. Some pro-life commentators say this means that brain activity begins during the sixth week, but, according to Dr. Martha Herbert, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, there is little research to support that claim. Most neurologists assume that electrical activity in the first trimester represents random neuron firings as nerves connect--basically, tiny spasms.

The fetus's heart begins to beat, and by about the twentieth week the fetus can kick. Kicking is probably a spasm, too, at least initially, because the fetal cerebral cortex, the center of voluntary brain function, is not yet "wired," its neurons still nonfunctional. (Readings from 20- to 22-week-old premature babies who died at birth show only very feeble EEG signals.) From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically "impossible" before these connections form, says Fisk, of the Imperial College School of Medicine.