What should abortion laws be?

[Father Time]

I believe that all abortion is immoral and evil unless the mother's life is in danger. I know my stated perspective on this issue will likely earn me the scorn and hatred from the enlightened, tolerant, sanctimonious, peace-loving left in this forum. But it is what I believe. Needless to say, the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. In other words, the woman/couple don't want the "burden" or the "punishment" (as our enlightened leader Obama put it) of a baby.

Now I'll duck for cover.

You're such a martyr

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Still waiting for conservatives to have more of a suggestion than, "Make abortion illegal". What happens to the kids? The mother?

You have a better solution than euthanasia? why should anyone have to support some old person or sick child when they could be at the club?

 

[JD_2B]

I agree that a 9 month gestated fetus should be birthed. I personally cannot see myself ever aborting at this stage. However, the argument you have here is emotional, not one based on anything factual. See, you can't adopt a fetus while it is still in it's mothers uterus, without taking her with it. I would like to see that happen. LMAO!!
And, it is not RIGHT to force a woman to have a C-section or induce a delivery, just because you want her to have a live birth.

Oh and lets be clear about the differences between a live birth and the birth of a "viable" fetus.
A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life

As a matter of fact, in many cases it does. My son was born almost an entire month early and he did not need any medical attention. Though he was born in a hospital and had jaundice he was put in our arms and never left them until we left the hospital, no doctors did more than look at him.

Well, my son was born three days late, and his lung collapsed, and he DID need medical attention.
Whats your point?

Conceivably, you could take a child several months early and still have it come to term in medical care without the mother. Your position is rather than force a woman to undergo a simple procedure or suffer through a day of live birth we should force a child to be cut into small pieces! Your attacks and language are not covering for the straw man. You still are lacking an argument for personal responsibility.

Only conceivably. Thats a potential argument.
Potentially, a Freshman in College will become a doctor, but we don't give him rights to perform surgery, now do we??
And the medical care is a social responsibility, not an entitlement. You can't keep everyone on life support forever, just because you are scared that they will "die".
Also, you are using emotionally misguided, and misguiding rhetoric, by even calling it a child. The scientifically accurate term is "fetus". I have also not attacked you at all.. Quite the opposite, really.
Also, what personal responsibility do you refer to? Abortions are expensive- costing from 400 dollars to 800 dollars just to have it done in the first few months. The woman almost ALWAYS pays for that entirely out of pocket. How is that not taking responsibility? Pregnancies can end in any number of ways. Taking responsibility for how it ends in one way, over another, is a moot point.

I understand that, and while I agree that those are immoral, I will not say that they should be illegal. There are a lot of things that are immoral that should not be illegal.
If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there.

You’re damn right it should be illegal and there is not a SINGLE GOD DAMN ARGUMENT OUT THERE THAT RESONABLE SUPPORTS PARTAL BIRTH ABORTIONS AS THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE BIRTHING PROSESS. Got that. It is coming out already and in some cases IS out. That is the insane argument you are making here. If that is your true belief, then please late abort yourself…

The term "Partial birth abortion" is a myth. It is NOT partially born, whatsoever. You have obviously been duped by anti abortion propaganda. Also, the Supreme Court banned "Intact Dilation and Extraction" for the most part, in Gonzales v Carhart. Unfortunately, they called it the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act", which is misleading as to what actually happens during this procedure. The feet and body come out up to the neck, and then a sharp instrument is shoved into the base of the skull. The head itself is not removed, prior to the brains being suctioned out, which causes the head to become small enough to pull out entirely. In a "birth", the Cervix must be dilated fully, except in cases of a C-section.
Often, the later on a woman is in the pregnancy, the more of a chance there is that she is already dilating between 1 and 3 centimeters.

Cervical dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a fetus has a hydrocephalus, then it will almost surely die or be severely disabled. For some parents, especially low income ones, or ones who are disabled themselves, there is no point in delivering this fetus, either vaginally or by C-section.

Hydrocephalus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, the nasty side of me comes out when you condone partial birth abortions as they are obviously murder. It is the single largest travesty about the abortion issue.

No, murder is a legal term. Abortion is legal. In some cases, IDE (intact dilation and extraction) is legal. You are using terminology that emotionally misguides the reader, as a method of misinforming them of what actually happens during the abortion.
I have also said- I personally would probably not have a late term abortion of any kind. I can say that with ease, though, because I am not disabled, and my family has no genetic issues that can (potentially) cause massive complications during pregnancy or after birth. The fact that I do not call the sometimes disabled parents of fetuses who are facing taking care of a child with massive disabilities, a seemingly impossible task, MURDERERS just because they need the abortion for medical, physical, or even merciful emotional or sociological reasons, is OKAY. This kind of procedure is VERY rare, and only called for in the most dire of conditions.
Most people would not terminate a pregnancy for no fucking reason at all, at that stage, Cecile. Stop being so absurd.

I pointed out in my earlier post that what you say is untrue. We have active brain activity and can reasonable determine what said activity indicates. Since you are lazy and incompetent at actual sourcing
Fetal Psychology
At 32 weeks, it drowses 90 to 95% of the day. Some of these hours are spent in deep sleep, some in REM sleep, and some in an indeterminate state, a product of the fetus' immature brain that is different from sleep in a baby, child, or adult. During REM sleep, the fetus' eyes move back and forth just as an adult's eyes do, and many researchers believe that it is dreaming. DiPietro speculates that fetuses dream about what they know - the sensations they feel in the womb.

Duly noted- We do have brain activity. I have never contested that. Mice dream too.. at least according to these neurological sleep studies. WE ALL have working brains and memories. That is not an indicator of being sentient, or achieving personhood, or having a right to life, when the fetus is within an actual living person. Also, this link came from a bible-beater website, and I have no doubt that it is chock full of misinformation designed to misguide people into caring too much for a fetus over the mother. The fetus is STILL subjected to having a breathing, living woman encasing it, to remain a growing organism. (lather rinse, repeat again and again)
No amount of fetal sentience, either real or imagined, will ever change that.


http://graphoniac.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/fetal-brain-activity-28-weeks-pregnant/

Fetal Brain Activity – 28 Weeks Pregnant « Graphoniac

Week 28 of Pregnancy: Fetal Brain Activity
Are you dreaming about your baby? Your baby may be dreaming about you, too. Brain wave activity measured in a developing fetus shows different sleep cycles, including the rapid eye movement phase, the stage when dreaming occurs.

MAY be. There is JUST no conclusive evidence showing that this brain activity is indicative of sentience, or that thumb sucking is anything more than a reflexive response. It is also not conclusive that mice dreams are anything more than memories, and memories are not a definitive indicator of sentience, either.

http://cds.ismrm.org/ismrm-2000/PDF3/0875.pdf - A medical journal on fetal brain response to music

There are a lot more but you can go looking for some yourself.
[/QUOTE]

What a crock. That study says that even though they did 30 reps of the music and silence on the fetus, they could only analyze 5 out of the 30 reps, for the study and this was in three out of 14 of the occassions, based on motion of the mother versus motion of the fetus, and involuntary bowel movements, etc.
It is not conclusive, at all.

Also, a fetus having a REACTION is much akin to a reflex, and is not the same thing as being sentient. The fact that it CAN hear, and reflex when it does hear something, does not indicate that it understands or can process what it heard, it only shows that the fetus HEARD it. If the portion of the brain that controls hearing was not functional, then the fetus would not hear it, that is why the study detected brain activity. The fetus actually making a movement is not indicative that the movement was in response to any music whatsoever. This study had no conclusion, and SAID ITSELF that their technology was inadequate to come to a conclusion.

And that was the point. Are you really that dense? The man has no choice to shove off the responsibility; it is ALL on the woman.

He can take responsibility for having sex, also. Women are not the sexual gatekeepers. If you want to argue this, then you have to concede that much. Women do not choose to get pregnant any more than men choose to get them pregnant. There are no "guilty parties" in this, besides both of the people who had sex to begin with. Sorry, honey, but as long as the man never married the woman, he really has no say in the matter. He is not her "partner", he is just her "sperm donor", and until THAT problem is rectified, then he has no REASON to try to make any claim about what she does with her body. The problem is not with people having SEX, it is with people having sex before they are married, and women being made to be the villains, without fail. If she becomes an unwed single parent, she is also vilified. Men who are required to pay child support are treated as victims, as usual. If they are late, the family, friends, and employers they have actually feel sorry for them. Men can actually use the argument "I need this job- I am late on my child support payments!" and actually get some empathy from an employer. Women who say "I have a child I have to support alone, whose father has never given me a penny to help" are treated like whores. This is how life is, and it is not equal, and not fair to women.

SHE gets to decide whether or not the man is allowed to put the child up for adoption, have an abortion, or even to release him from the obligation. I did not whine about this at all, I believe the man should be held accountable. IT WAS YOU THAT WHINED THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT GO FOR THE WOMAN. YOU think that a woman should not be held accountable for getting pregnant; all she has to do is get an abortion. You fail to realize that the woman should also be held accountable.

Again, if the man is married to the woman, she cannot give it up for adoption. You make this claim as if it is across the board, but much can be said for personal responsibility on both sides of the token.
A woman IS entirely responsible for the pregnancy and the child she births or the fetus she does not birth if she is not married to the father. You want everyone to think of woman as the brakes and men as the gas. That is not how it works, anymore.

Show a SINGLE statistic here. Shut the fuck up if all you are going to do is LIE. Wagers are garnished, homes taken and the law comes back to a man that does not pay with an iron fist. I have seen it before.

Sure- I have seen that happen too. Shame that men go so long without supporting their children. It is NOT a shame that the women actually go and hire an attorney to fulfill the judgment and collect the male's obligation.
Still, about 95% of all unpaid child support is NOT collected.
Here is from the Office of the Inspector General, on medicare granted health care workers, mostly physicians in arrears:

FINDINGS

At Least Two Thirds of Absent Parents in Our Sample Were Not Current in Meeting Their Child Support Obligations.
Of 210 non-custodial parents in a sample which we drew for further analysis, only 53 were current in making payments both to meet their monthly support obligations and to reduce their arrears. A total of 140 were delinquent in meeting their monthly obligations, in reducing arrears, or both. (The remaining 17 records were incomplete.

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-95-00390.pdf

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-06-00070.pdf

Excellent, if you have a child and I don’t want to take care of it I will just hire a hit man, that is taking responsibility after all.

For that to work, then you would have to have the hit man kill the woman, in order to destroy the fetus. That is murder.
Abortion doctors are not hit men, they are health care practitioners, and are practicing legally. There is nothing wrong with evacuating the uterus, any more than it is wrong to evacuate the bowels, or the clogged artery. If something is causing you problems, the common response it to get rid of it.

As stated above, in many partial birth abortions (which you seem to support and all your arguments go out the window) and late term abortions it can. It has already been pointed out to you that there are many children who survive their mother while in the womb from an accident or other tragedy. I fail to see how the lack of a death certificate actually means anything either. If you fail to get one you never were truly alive!!! PROOF JESUS IS A MYTH – he could not have been alive as he does not have a death certificate.

I didnt say that one needed a birth certficate to be alive. Only recently did we even start using certificates to track lineage. However, fetuses and conceptions are not tracked on geneology charts. I do understand that sometimes a fetus will survive a fender bender. That does not change the risk it has that it may have been a full on crash, in which the woman stopped breathing for a minute or two. You cannot deny that the fetus is prone to all dangers and risks that the woman is prone to.

Another thing- if a woman is already financially impaired (which is the case with most abortions) or already has all the children she wants, for the time being, why should that be some kind of "inexcusable reasoning", to you- for her to choose not to have her next pregnancy come to term, as opposed to her conceiving a ZEF which ended up lacking a brain?

That is why the first trimester term. Is that really to much strain on you that you can’t decide in that time frame?

You ignored the rest of my post- Some women do not even find out that they are pregnant or that something is seriously wrong, until later on in the pregnancy. Is it really such a strain on you that you cannot imagine such an event occurring as this??

 

[☭proletarian☭]

He can take responsibility for having sex,

Just don't imply that she should, too.

Lay off the crackpipe feminism,.

 

[JD_2B]

I believe that all abortion is immoral and evil unless the mother's life is in danger. I know my stated perspective on this issue will likely earn me the scorn and hatred from the enlightened, tolerant, sanctimonious, peace-loving left in this forum. But it is what I believe. Needless to say, the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. In other words, the woman/couple don't want the "burden" or the "punishment" (as our enlightened leader Obama put it) of a baby.

Now I'll duck for cover.

For the record, I am a libertarian, and am pro choice, from conception to one second before the actual birth. Now, Duck, cause here it comes... lol!!

I only have one question- How is it any less convenient or any more moral for a woman to terminate the pregnancy, just because of the "life in danger" clause?

One could easily argue that the weight gain alone puts a woman's life in danger, especially considering the obesity of Americans, in today's world.

Also, if a woman developed higher blood pressure, even if it was not considered "high" blood pressure, but pre-hypertension. I would say that this is reason enough for her to abort.
Considering the fact that a woman's blood pressure falls in the beginning, and then gradually goes up naturally during pregnancy, then it stands to reason that a woman who is already in pre-hypertension should abort, for the sake of her own life, knowing that her blood pressure will inevitably increase, and that a woman who already had low blood pressure would choose to abort, for her heart's sake.
Why should either woman have to wait until her life is on the line, or she has had a heart attack, to choose to do this?
Also, women who have pre existing conditions are at a higher risk of weight gain and hypertension, if they were to bring the pregnancy to term. Does it make any difference whatsoever to you, when her life is at stake, or does she have to be pregnant at the time she is on her death bed, to choose the abortion? See, if a woman died a year after giving birth, because of the weight gain associated with the pregnancy, and the higher blood pressure that followed, then it would stand to reason that having an abortion would have been a better course to follow, after which, a serious diet, or a gastric bypass, etc.. and then hope that she tries again and succeeds in having a child, without the risk involved.

Cochrane Review Pregnancy BP Complications

 

[JD_2B]

He can take responsibility for having sex,

Just don't imply that she should, too.

Lay off the crackpipe feminism,.

Having an abortion is not being irresponsible, you goon. Getting pregnant when the time is not right is also not being irresponsible. It happens at least once in a lifetime, to about 50% of all women, worldwide.


STFU. Troll.

 

[georgephillip]

If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?

 

[JD_2B]

If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?

No, because that is not the legal definition for death. Death happens when someone's heart stops beating, as a result of them not breathing, and there being no air in the blood stream, to keep the cells alive. Most people who die are not later hooked up to an MRI, because within 20 to 40 seconds, it is known that measurable brain activity ceases, or at least that the person will not be able to be revived anyways. When they are resuscitated, and blood circulation is restored, that is generally when the brain death actually occurs, as well.

Also, did you know that neuron cultures have been taken from the brain and grown in petri dishes hours after the person is declared clinically dead?

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

ScienceDirect - Neuroscience Letters : Tissue culture of adult human neurons

Since some portions of the brain remain alive, after all of our measuring is done, then it stands to reason that brain death or activity is not an issue when it comes to whether a person is alive or not.

Here is a wikipedia article on clinical death, and should shed some light on the whole issue of what is alive and what is not, especially in the sense of brain function. Enjoy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't waste your time on Proletarian or Cecile. Prolet has posted all of ONE opinion,

Yes, unlike you, I don't don't chave to change my argument every time someone points out that a dog



When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.

Both seem to be victims of the anti abortion haters of america, who do nothing but cause people to believe things that are not fact based, or scientific/ peer reviewed,

says the woman who thinks her dog can get her pregnant and dead babies grow

This peer reviewed genetics study shows that Humans and Dogs share the same ancestry. I can assure you, it may not be possible TODAY, but it has been possible in the past, as these recent genetics study show.

Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog : Article : Nature

Oh, my God in Heaven. I think evolution is a steamy pile of crap, and even I know more about it than this.

Assuming one believes in evolution, a common ancestor does NOT mean that humans and canines ever interbred. It means that a completely different animal species divided down two completely different lines that eventually led to humans and canines.

As far as similar genetic structure goes, so what? I seem to recall hearing that we share genetic similarities with dandelions, too. Do you believe that humans and dandelions interbred at some point? Were you impregnated by the weeds in your front yard?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe that all abortion is immoral and evil unless the mother's life is in danger. I know my stated perspective on this issue will likely earn me the scorn and hatred from the enlightened, tolerant, sanctimonious, peace-loving left in this forum. But it is what I believe. Needless to say, the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. In other words, the woman/couple don't want the "burden" or the "punishment" (as our enlightened leader Obama put it) of a baby.

Now I'll duck for cover.

I wouldn't worry overly about it, bud. There are much bigger, juicier, more inflammatory targets on the range who will draw fire away from you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?

Since when does science follow the law instead of the other way around? Seems to me that since science already has a definition of life, it would behoove the law to take direction from its better-informed colleagues, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel to serve special interests, with the historically-proven result of twisting itself into a pretzel.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?

No, because that is not the legal definition for death. Death happens when someone's heart stops beating, as a result of them not breathing, and there being no air in the blood stream, to keep the cells alive. Most people who die are not later hooked up to an MRI, because within 20 to 40 seconds, it is known that measurable brain activity ceases, or at least that the person will not be able to be revived anyways. When they are resuscitated, and blood circulation is restored, that is generally when the brain death actually occurs, as well.

Also, did you know that neuron cultures have been taken from the brain and grown in petri dishes hours after the person is declared clinically dead?

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

ScienceDirect - Neuroscience Letters : Tissue culture of adult human neurons

Since some portions of the brain remain alive, after all of our measuring is done, then it stands to reason that brain death or activity is not an issue when it comes to whether a person is alive or not.

Here is a wikipedia article on clinical death, and should shed some light on the whole issue of what is alive and what is not, especially in the sense of brain function. Enjoy.
Clinical death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong again, Punkinhead. Perhaps you should pull your head out of Wikipedia and realize that there's a whole, wide Internet out there.

The American National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws proposed, in 1980, a Uniform Determination of Death Act which has been adopted by, amongst others, Kansas, as statute 77-202 as follows:

"An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards."

However, the definition is not totally patient-focussed and instead accommodates the needs of the medical profession and organ transplants; thus the word "or" in the statute as opposed to the word "and" in the more exclusively legal definition.

Typically, organ transplant cannot occur until death has been certified.

In accordance with the uniform act, organs can be harvested from an irreversibly brain-dead person, thereby legally dead, even though circulatory and respiratory functions are still ongoing and viable.

Organ transplant puts apparently unstoppable pressure on the traditional legal definition of death. In Switzerland, the Swiss National Foundation for organ donation and transplantation defines the moment of deatn without any reference to circulatory and respiratory functions and as follows:

"... complete irreversible cessation of all brain function, including brainstem function"

Almost all US states have adopted the uniform definition.1

Amazing what you can find about the law in legal dictionaries.

On the other hand, I fail to see what legal OR medical standards of death have to do with anything, because no one at all is trying to claim that fetuses are dead. Well, YOU might be, but we've all seen what a scientific genius YOU are.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Also, if a woman developed higher blood pressure, even if it was not considered "high" blood pressure, but pre-hypertension. I would say that this is reason enough for her to abort.

So I can kill a six-year-old when it angers me, since it's causing me the same amount of harm? Self-defense, we'll call it?

Why can I only kill someone if they're threatening my life?

Because sane people oppose homicide.

 

[Yukon]

Proletarian,

You rally are quite mad.

 

[FA_Q2]

rdean
Not sure I understand. What I do understand is that for the right, abortion is not an option at any time. Not even the morning after pill.

For the fringe this is true but for the majority it is not. If the right were even the slightest unified on this it would have become law under the republicans’ stint in control. The fact is most republicans just want tighter restrictions.

JD
I understand that entirely- but the fact that they CAN be removed does not mean that they SHOULD be removed. Remember again. A right to live is not an entitlement to.

And this is where we will most likely never agree on. I think the “right” and “entitlement” statement is bull because the fetus does not have the right to life in an abortion. That is the right that is taken away during an abortion. I believe the fetus does have that right to life.

Also, an 8 or 9 month fetus can also "die" in the uterus, or be born at full term, as a stillbirth. So I have to say that this is not necessarily a fully functioning organism. I do agree that it would be pretty dumb and cold to abort something that late in the game, but I don't hate on people for doing it. Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that. I brought up the 20 week thing, because I am sick of hearing about "viability", and want to hammer that point home. You are not ONLY against 8 and 9 month abortions, but are against much earlier abortions as well, as you have said. I want to help cover those seemingly gray areas for you, as much as you need. Clearly, discussing it and asking for links and facts, you WANT us to give you truths that you are not getting from your anti abortion sites or friends or groups. We are happy to educate you, here. =)

The fact that someone CAN die has nothing to do with whether or not that life should be terminated. Under that argument, a child can be terminated up to 2 years because SIDS can set in up to that age (at least I believe 2 years is the danger time frame but I could be a little off).

I brought up viability because your position with the life support statement makes no sense in those cases. I don’t stand on that argument because I believe that rights should be tied with the development of a individual mind and that is why I put the time frame at first trimester. I believe that is a reasonable middle ground for both parties.

I have put facts forward as to why the breath is a factor. Once it fucking breathes (lather, rinse repeat) it CANT go BACK INSIDE OF THE WOMAN. Hence, it is self supporting, self sustaining, alive, a LIFE, and individual, an entity, a human being. How many times do I have to repeat this?

You don’t need to state it again. The issue is that statement has nothing to do with the points put forward. Whether or not it can go back in – and it can’t go back in even if it did not take a breath – does not change the fact that taking a breath does not change the physiology or psychology of the child.

A newborn would not HAVE to starve to death, just because the mother chose not to breastfeed, or in many cases, could not breastfeed. This is a social expectation, not an entitlement or a requirement on the mother's part, for a born baby to survive, even if formula did not exist. In many societies, and even in the US, there are women available who are more than happy to continue pumping their own breasts, long after their own babies have been weaned, or breastfeeding another person's baby if needed.
It DOES take a village. Always has, always will. The child does NOT have a "right" to the breast, or any other portion of someone else's body. To say otherwise is completely lacking respect for women, and expecting women to lose all of their own personal respect.

Yes it would. Someone would HAVE to provide the nourishment if there was no formula. If there was no one to provide it then the child would starve to death but that would be all right as the child apparently does not have the right to said nourishment.

pro
When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.

? I did post some info, but I don’t think you read my post
Unfortunately, much of the information is protected because it is in medical journals but you can still see the synopsis which gives a positive indication of the results. Also, it helps to search under fetal myths and abortion to get the differing opinion. By comparing some of the lit on both sides and using the articles in the middle is where I came up with the first trimester.

JD
This peer reviewed genetics study shows that Humans and Dogs share the same ancestry. I can assure you, it may not be possible TODAY, but it has been possible in the past, as these recent genetics study show.

JD
Potentially, a Freshman in College will become a doctor, but we don't give him rights to perform surgery, now do we??

Analogy off again. We give him the rights to attempt to become a doctor, the same way we should give a fetus the rights to at least try living. Abortion ensures a fetus has no rights whatsoever.
Out of time, will get to the rest of the posts later

 

[JD_2B]

Yes, unlike you, I don't don't chave to change my argument every time someone points out that a dog



When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.says the woman who thinks her dog can get her pregnant and dead babies grow

This peer reviewed genetics study shows that Humans and Dogs share the same ancestry. I can assure you, it may not be possible TODAY, but it has been possible in the past, as these recent genetics study show.

Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog : Article : Nature

Oh, my God in Heaven. I think evolution is a steamy pile of crap, and even I know more about it than this.

Assuming one believes in evolution, a common ancestor does NOT mean that humans and canines ever interbred. It means that a completely different animal species divided down two completely different lines that eventually led to humans and canines.

As far as similar genetic structure goes, so what? I seem to recall hearing that we share genetic similarities with dandelions, too. Do you believe that humans and dandelions interbred at some point? Were you impregnated by the weeds in your front yard?

The question is not something you imply that is so absurd as to indicate that it is common or current, or something that happened specifically between a canine and human, but that genetic interbreeding is entirely possible. Even that it is possible that humans intermingled with wolves so much back in prehistoric times, that the two created the dog- now considered mans best and most loyal friend.

There is a lot of anthropological history behind the relationship between humans and wolves, and then humans and dogs. Dogs as a species, have only been known to be around for about 10,000 years, while wolves and humans lived together, and hunted-gathered together for thousands of years before then.

Anyways, whether dogs were or weren't made as a result of some weird interbreeding situation, from way back when, the fact remains- if a human and a dog were to have the capacity of interbreeding (or a gorilla, or a chimp, etc- It doesn't matter to me, what species- if you want to keep the technically impossible separate from the technologically feasible, that is all you) then the conceived organism that results is still no less human than any other.

 

[Yukon]

JD,

If a white woman is gang raped by a gang of drug crazed Negros should she be permitted the option of having an abortion if she becomes pregnant?

 

[Contumacious]

If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?

WTF.

"What is missing? The missing piece is individuality ... auton- omy ... a biologically discrete person. As long as the fetus is physically within the woman's body, nourished by the food she eats, sustained by the air she breathes, dependent upon her circulatory and respiratory system, it cannot claim individual rights because it is not an individual. It is part of the woman's body and subject to her discretion."

Wendy McElroy

 

[JD_2B]

If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?

No, because that is not the legal definition for death. Death happens when someone's heart stops beating, as a result of them not breathing, and there being no air in the blood stream, to keep the cells alive. Most people who die are not later hooked up to an MRI, because within 20 to 40 seconds, it is known that measurable brain activity ceases, or at least that the person will not be able to be revived anyways. When they are resuscitated, and blood circulation is restored, that is generally when the brain death actually occurs, as well.

Also, did you know that neuron cultures have been taken from the brain and grown in petri dishes hours after the person is declared clinically dead?

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

ScienceDirect - Neuroscience Letters : Tissue culture of adult human neurons

Since some portions of the brain remain alive, after all of our measuring is done, then it stands to reason that brain death or activity is not an issue when it comes to whether a person is alive or not.

Here is a wikipedia article on clinical death, and should shed some light on the whole issue of what is alive and what is not, especially in the sense of brain function. Enjoy.
Clinical death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong again, Punkinhead. Perhaps you should pull your head out of Wikipedia and realize that there's a whole, wide Internet out there.

The American National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws proposed, in 1980, a Uniform Determination of Death Act which has been adopted by, amongst others, Kansas, as statute 77-202 as follows:

"An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards."

However, the definition is not totally patient-focussed and instead accommodates the needs of the medical profession and organ transplants; thus the word "or" in the statute as opposed to the word "and" in the more exclusively legal definition.

Typically, organ transplant cannot occur until death has been certified.

In accordance with the uniform act, organs can be harvested from an irreversibly brain-dead person, thereby legally dead, even though circulatory and respiratory functions are still ongoing and viable.

Organ transplant puts apparently unstoppable pressure on the traditional legal definition of death. In Switzerland, the Swiss National Foundation for organ donation and transplantation defines the moment of deatn without any reference to circulatory and respiratory functions and as follows:

"... complete irreversible cessation of all brain function, including brainstem function"

Almost all US states have adopted the uniform definition.1

Amazing what you can find about the law in legal dictionaries.

On the other hand, I fail to see what legal OR medical standards of death have to do with anything, because no one at all is trying to claim that fetuses are dead. Well, YOU might be, but we've all seen what a scientific genius YOU are.

As per the usual, you failed to read the actual peer reviewed medical journal articles on brain function, and instead decided to define death, to bring us no further along in the debate than we already were.

Brilliant..

Well, let's rehash then, shall we?

People who think that the brain having function makes for a sentient fetus. I have proven this theory to be incorrect. If you wish to argue this further, I will happily QUOTE the articles directly, if you really need someone to hold your hand through the reality of it all.

My contention stands firm, that sentience and the beginning of the individual's life begins at birth, by the act of breathing. I have proven that the heart cannot beat or bring oxygen to cells without breathing to occur, except when a secondary system is attached, in this case, the pregnant mother breathes, and provides the fetus with oxygen. If the pregnant woman stops breathing, then the fetus will lose all oxygen, and cease from continuing the growth process that is gestation. This is a fact that is as yet, undisputed.
I have proven that fetuses, even full term births, are not always born alive, and thus, viability is a moot topic.
I have repeatedly shown that a fetus' full term live birth and the caring for/ breastfeeding of a born child are both sociological responsibilities, rather than entitlements. The is proven in the fact that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that born children can be nursed by other women, as is common all over the world. This again is indisputable.
I have proven that a fetus is not an individual life of it's own, based on the FACT that it is prone to any dangers that the woman carrying it is also prone, as well as any decisions or health problems that the woman has, causing an additional risk to the partially gestated fetus not resulting in a live birth. This is just one more thing that you can't argue with.

Fetuses are not people, and do not deserve any rights whatsoever. You lose.

 

[JD_2B]

JD,

If a white woman is gang raped by a gang of drug crazed Negros should she be permitted the option of having an abortion if she becomes pregnant?

Of course. Just as she has the option to abort even if she CHOSE to have a sex orgy with a gang of drug crazed negros, or drug free negros, or white people, or hispanics, asians, or little green men, for that matter. Why is race or the emotional conditions that were present when the so called "child" was conceived, so important??

She also has the option to NOT abort, and should not be coerced into thinking that she should have to feel like she has to abort the fetus, to survive the attack. I am damn sick and tired of all the "abused little pathetic women" argument for abortion, when it comes to rape. Women are strong people, and many women who are raped DO give birth. In fact, giving birth after a rape is an excellent way to stick it to the rapists, because then a DNA sample can be taken and analyzed against the rapists, putting them in jail for an extended stay, and the woman finally getting justice served right, at least whenever the dillholes drop the soap.

The point is- why should a raped woman be any less capable of surviving a pregnancy, just because the sex was involuntary? For so many pro lifers, you would think that they would all just say "Oh she should have just used one of those female condoms, then!!" Or.. "A woman having an unexpected tragedy that results in an unexpected pregnancy, is deserving of some unexpected joy".

Fucking emotional hyperbole, if you ask me.