What should abortion laws be?

[Cecilie1200]

As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met.

Wait... when did this become a matter of a 'right to personhood'?!

"Personhood" is the new, invented standard of measurement people like JD came up with when it became painfully obvious that science just wasn't going to support the euphemisms they had been hiding behind. Since it has no real meaning aside from how they "feel" about it, it can't be contradicted with those pesky hard facts.

Did you know that some religions are opposed to blood transfusions, and refuse to get them, even for their little children???

Relevance?

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense

ppst! Doctors and caregivers EMTs and paramedics, too

Wanna know a secret? Parents are legally required tp provide the care and resiources to keep their children not only alive, but in a state of wellbeing!

Now I really worry for your child's welfare, if you think you have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to keep him/her alive.

I can't believe you just figured out that JD thinks her children exist only as extensions of herself, to fit in with her convenience or be disposed of when they do not. It's painfully obvious in every post she makes how much she resents the notion that she might have any obligation to anyone or anything other than fulfilling her own selfish, self-absorbed whims as it pleases her.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I was trying to maintain my faith in human potential....

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was trying to maintain my faith in human potential....

Didn't I already describe this as pie-eyed optimism once?

 

[JD_2B]

You keep saying that, and YET.. I have, and you have not. It is easy for you to claim that my medical journal sources do not have any evidence for my position, just because you CHOOSE to not believe what they have to say, that is, the portions that you bothered to read, at all. And even THOSE you tried to discount, based on the type of mammal used in the studies.
Also, now that I have posted several studies that have backed my claims, and clearly HAVE shown evidence for my stance- all you are going to do as some kind of evil hate spree tactic, is to just discredit them by saying that there was NO evidence within them proving that personhood starts at breathing. How convenient for you to do this.. Putting me on the defensive without lending a shred of credibility to your own subjective opinions. Real Classy.

Your position was that personhood starts with breathing. Where did ANY medical journal you posted broach the subject of personhood at all?

There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.

Oh Great.. Now you are depleting autonomy down to your own little arbitrary definition by implying that only humans that can make their own decisions are what I call people...
Hey newsflash, dickwad, I am not retarded. Your attempts to try and redirect my assertions into something else are THINLY VEILED AT BEST.
Why don't you stop acting like such a TOOL, here, please???

Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: \-mē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural au·ton·o·mies
Date: circa 1623

1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3 : a self-governing state

Exactly my point. Show me ONE fetus that is even AS self governing as the woman it is in, which would prove to ME that it is fully capable of the same actions outside of the womb, as it is during whatever week of gestation it is in, inside of the womb, no more, no less. I have already found a peer reviewed study which negates this notion, because the premature baby shows more activity and response than a fetus which would be at the exact same age of growth and maturity as the baby, if you counted the baby's gestation into the age.
Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.
I agree that this is a subjective opinion in part, but it is totally erroneous to claim that my method of coming to that opinion was through anything but objectivity.

Okay I'll meet you part way. I would agree there is a level subjectivity to my opinion on when personhood begins. I would concede that because I'm not sure there is a scientific explanation as to when personhood begins. I still believe what I believe as to when it occurs.

Thank you..

Also, I might just add in here, your opinion about personhood, is at any given time, between gestational weeks 13 and 40, which you cannot yourself pinpoint, and this is in spite of the fact that a preborn fetus has less response than a baby who is conceived on that exact date has. Just reiterating, so that you can SEE and understand what you believe, and so that you can also understand why I think that you are using emotion rather than logic to come to such a conclusion.

The way I see it you can argue person hood in maybe three contexts. Science first. Science is observation, nothing more. Can you honestly observe when personhood begins? Would a scientist really say that when he saw that first breath he also saw the biological function that is becoming a person? I don't think so. Personhood isn't as simple as taking a breath no matter how much you would like it to be.

That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming alive, and a person- the very process which people find wonderous and amazing. Hence, the token phrase "the miracle of childbirth". See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some point get proven by science. This breathing issue is just one of those things. Maybe I am like Galileo, or Columbus, for believing in the Bible, and allowing it to guide me in the scientific path to find out if one more thing is true.. People used to call them crazy and illogical as well.. but those men are now considered Pioneers of science, and Legends amongst explorers. Popular belief does not make anything true.. Anything that is believed by the masses can easily be proven wrong by science or exploration (which amounts to scientifically accurate observations).
For every law of physics, there is (apparently, according to the scriptures, which, like it or not, were and continue to be the world's first 100% scientifically accurate text) yet another law of physics which is the complete opposite. I am going off track here, but I just read "Angels and Demons" last week, and i gotta tell ya, some of the concepts referring to particle physics were absolutely genius. I checked it out, and the book is not off the mark at all- its amazing! A must read!! I can't stop raving about it! You should pick up a copy. I think you would like it a lot! =)

Legally personhood doesn't occur until the child is born and takes a breath. But the law is the law. It isn't science. From a legal perspective, who has right and who doesn't really is quite arbitrary.

I disagree.. Doctors and nurses often disconnect infants and old people, and invalids, etc, from life support, and they have no authorization to do this, which is entirely illegal. They usually get away with it, though, because the person has little hope of living, and either no family, or a really badly dysfunctional one. I do believe that anyone who is family and signs off, or is a medical professional, etc, and has a judge's order to do so, has the right to remove someone from life support, no matter what kind of life support it is, or what the prognosis looks like. OK- I agree that it can seem to be arbitrary (inconsistent with the right to die, etc) at times, though, but I have seen some cases in which the legal language did not make sense to me before I was a paralegal, and it turns out that it was just an issue of wrong jurisdiction, or the person filing their case in hopes of supporting the wrong argument.. And although some people thought that it was a judgment that was improperly made, I saw the reasoning and rationale behind them, and only wished that the person who filed had better legal representation.

Religion is probably the hardest one because all one has to go on is what other people say god said.

LOL I can relate to that also. It is certainly not a fax from heaven.

I am an agnostic, but I do believe that many of the core values of the bible are excellent ways to live one's life, and I can see that the bible has yet to be disproven, and has only actually been proven as an accurate scientific reference. Even with arguments for evolution, the bible is consistent with it, because if everything came from water, well- the genesis account of creation shows that water came first. The six days of creation are just "God" days, so who knows how long an actual day was, even. It wasn't until God's (third? Fourth?) day of creation that there could be differentiation between day and night. I think that the Genesis account of creation is not at all literal..

Have you considered that you haven't seen those things in a fetus because you have probably observed a lot more newborns than fetuses? How is it you know that they are concsciously choosing to do those things? You are familiar with the concept of instincts aren't you?

The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already said to be true.

Oh and PS- If you want to use some weird claim that my personal opinions are based also on my personal observations of fetuses and infants, consider these three very excellent points:

1- I had a fetus in my body for over 9 months, for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I am sure that I have spent AS MUCH time observing a fetus's reactions and so called instincts (no he did not have instincts, LMAO!!!) if not MORE Time, than a person with a doctorate's degree in obstetrics, who also has spent two years in residency at an obstetrics research facility.
Considering that my fetus was inside of my body for 24 hours X 7 days X 33 weeks (from week 8 to week 41), I have 5544 hours of experience. That actually equates to more than two full years for a full time researcher, and that is ONLY if they spent every second of every working hour (2080 a year, full time) observing fetuses, which I seriously doubt actually happens.

and

2- You don't even have this kind of experience, so to claim that personal observation of a fetus is the sole way for either of us to have some opinion on personhood is illogical from the word Go. So, again, nice try.

and

3- It could just as easily be surmised by any layman that a blastocyst (fertilized egg) has "instincts", because it "knows where to go", but this, too, would be erroneous, because there are actually chemicals and hormones that draw it into the uterus, rather than the blastocyst having a mobilization mechanism, much less the ability to have instincts. Since we are not discussing blastocysts, though, it could just as easily be surmised that if a fetus is at a maturity point that you refer to as "viable", and it has "instincts", that it should, then, turn itself upside down, in birthing position, rather than remain breech. In other words, fetuses obviously do not have instincts.. =)

Not all people have the full capacity to make their own decisions, but they are still considered people, and autonomous.

I'm pretty sure it is you now that doesn't understand the term autonomy. Self-governance, that is what autonomy essentially is. The ability to consciously guide your own actions.I'm pretty sure someone in a coma isn't self governing. What I have noticed is that you tend to make words mean what you would like them to mean.

Nope, it is self governance that is autonomy. A person who is, for all intensive purposes, dead, incapable of feeding themselves, or drinking water, etc, and hooked up to machines to simply put off the inevitable "D" word, and has not made up a living will or anything of the sort, then it is pretty silly to consider them alive or having any entitlement to continue being hooked up to those machines. The same applies to fetuses. If the "machine" stops working (the woman's body/ uterus/ etc) then a fetus person (if such a thing exists, which I believe is only in your mind) should make like a tree and LEAVE. As you can see, the fetus is incapable of this,even considering this as an option, and so, it will not do it. Just because technology and/or a biological support system EXISTS does not mean that anyone is entitled to it's being used, do you understand? A person in a coma CAN self govern, at least as far as our laws lend credence. He can have a living will that says "keep me on life support until I wake up or die naturally.. Use the trust fund money to pay for this, if needed.". THAT is self governance. Some people do not DO this. I personally think that if a person is in a coma, and is rescued by life support, then whether they do or do not have a will to testify their wishes, if they cannot pay by their own personal means or their family's means, then they should not be taking up space in a hospital bed for longer than two or three weeks on the taxpayer's dime.. THAT is when a person loses autonomy, when they need to RELY on someone else's biological support system or technical life support resources to remain clinically alive. And don't flip that one on me, too, you fucking semantics whore. I do not mean that nobody should get food stamps, welfare, section 8, or medicaid services, like oxygen tanks, etc. The point was that they could still get those things through other means, they have the capacity of mind to choose whether the path to get those things will be easy or extremely hard, and are totally autonomous in their decision to use federal funding that we Americans provide out of the kindness of our hearts.
Without that funding, they would surely lose autonomy far more quickly than with, and we do, overall, like using medical advances, as long as we can still laugh and giggle sometimes, as a result. So don't fucking switcharoo my words again, just because you feel like playing "Look at me! I'm a Semantics Whore" again!!! That really irritates the shit out of me.

[/quote]

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.

Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?[/quote]

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards.

Speaking of which, Why have you done NOTHING here but to constantly claim that my shit is untrue, without giving even a single shred of evidence or example for your own? Also, why do you constantly ignore half of what I say, 100% of the time?

Someone said via PM that it seems that I am talking to myself. With all of my heart and soul, I hope that this is not true...

 

[JD_2B]

As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met.

Wait... when did this become a matter of a 'right to personhood'?!

Since this is a constitutional discussion regarding the "person" having a "right to life" versus the right to abortion privacy.

Did you know that some religions are opposed to blood transfusions, and refuse to get them, even for their little children???

Relevance?

Parents are entitled to make medical decisions like these for their children, even if it means that the result will be death. Sad though it may be for most of us, even children have the right to die.

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense

ppst! Doctors and caregivers EMTs and paramedics, too

Wanna know a secret? Parents are legally required tp provide the care and resiources to keep their children not only alive, but in a state of wellbeing!

Nope.. That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement. Parents can legally give up their parental rights through adoption.

Now I really worry for your child's welfare, if you think you have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to keep him/her alive.

Fuck off, you little twit. <yawn> Your flaming me about my son's personal well being (who will tell you he has an extremely comfortable life with me) has absolutely no bearing on this discussion..

 

[Cecilie1200]

You keep saying that, and YET.. I have, and you have not. It is easy for you to claim that my medical journal sources do not have any evidence for my position, just because you CHOOSE to not believe what they have to say, that is, the portions that you bothered to read, at all. And even THOSE you tried to discount, based on the type of mammal used in the studies.
Also, now that I have posted several studies that have backed my claims, and clearly HAVE shown evidence for my stance- all you are going to do as some kind of evil hate spree tactic, is to just discredit them by saying that there was NO evidence within them proving that personhood starts at breathing. How convenient for you to do this.. Putting me on the defensive without lending a shred of credibility to your own subjective opinions. Real Classy.

Your position was that personhood starts with breathing. Where did ANY medical journal you posted broach the subject of personhood at all?

There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.


Exactly my point. Show me ONE fetus that is even AS self governing as the woman it is in, which would prove to ME that it is fully capable of the same actions outside of the womb, as it is during whatever week of gestation it is in, inside of the womb, no more, no less. I have already found a peer reviewed study which negates this notion, because the premature baby shows more activity and response than a fetus which would be at the exact same age of growth and maturity as the baby, if you counted the baby's gestation into the age.

A fetus is every bit as "self-governing" as an adult woman is, in the sense that his growth and biological functions are directed independently by his own body, not by hers or anyone else's. Furthermore, when a fetus moves, that movement is directed by HIS brain and nervous system, not hers or anyone else's. In fact, there is no time in the existence of a fetus in which his mother is ever "governing" of anything about him personally. She is only governing of the space around him, which isn't even close to the same thing.

As for "the same actions outside of the womb, a fetus does much the same things as a newborn baby does, which is where your fallacious demand that a fetus must be like an adult to be a person breaks down, since a newborn baby doesn't meet your standard, either.

Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.
I agree that this is a subjective opinion in part, but it is totally erroneous to claim that my method of coming to that opinion was through anything but objectivity.

Oh, you found a scientific study that purported to quantify and measure "personhood", did you? Let's see it. I would love to have this apocryphal "personhood" that you abortionists have tried to arbitrarily impose on everyone explained and nailed down once and for all. Otherwise, I'm just going to have to stick with that boring, pedantic biology thing that so stubbornly refuses to give you the excuses you want.

Also, I might just add in here, your opinion about personhood, is at any given time, between gestational weeks 13 and 40, which you cannot yourself pinpoint, and this is in spite of the fact that a preborn fetus has less response than a baby who is conceived on that exact date has. Just reiterating, so that you can SEE and understand what you believe, and so that you can also understand why I think that you are using emotion rather than logic to come to such a conclusion.

That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming alive, and a person- the very process which people find wonderous and amazing. Hence, the token phrase "the miracle of childbirth". See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some point get proven by science. This breathing issue is just one of those things. Maybe I am like Galileo, or Columbus, for believing in the Bible, and allowing it to guide me in the scientific path to find out if one more thing is true.. People used to call them crazy and illogical as well.. but those men are now considered Pioneers of science, and Legends amongst explorers. Popular belief does not make anything true.. Anything that is believed by the masses can easily be proven wrong by science or exploration (which amounts to scientifically accurate observations).
For every law of physics, there is (apparently, according to the scriptures, which, like it or not, were and continue to be the world's first 100% scientifically accurate text) yet another law of physics which is the complete opposite. I am going off track here, but I just read "Angels and Demons" last week, and i gotta tell ya, some of the concepts referring to particle physics were absolutely genius. I checked it out, and the book is not off the mark at all- its amazing! A must read!! I can't stop raving about it! You should pick up a copy. I think you would like it a lot! =)

You must be thrilled to think you finally managed to squirm around to this being all about "those mean Christians attacking you" instead of flailing around, making a damned fool of yourself on hard science.

I disagree.. Doctors and nurses often disconnect infants and old people, and invalids, etc, from life support, and they have no authorization to do this, which is entirely illegal. They usually get away with it, though, because the person has little hope of living, and either no family, or a really badly dysfunctional one. I do believe that anyone who is family and signs off, or is a medical professional, etc, and has a judge's order to do so, has the right to remove someone from life support, no matter what kind of life support it is, or what the prognosis looks like. OK- I agree that it can seem to be arbitrary (inconsistent with the right to die, etc) at times, though, but I have seen some cases in which the legal language did not make sense to me before I was a paralegal, and it turns out that it was just an issue of wrong jurisdiction, or the person filing their case in hopes of supporting the wrong argument.. And although some people thought that it was a judgment that was improperly made, I saw the reasoning and rationale behind them, and only wished that the person who filed had better legal representation.

LOL I can relate to that also. It is certainly not a fax from heaven.

I am an agnostic, but I do believe that many of the core values of the bible are excellent ways to live one's life, and I can see that the bible has yet to be disproven, and has only actually been proven as an accurate scientific reference. Even with arguments for evolution, the bible is consistent with it, because if everything came from water, well- the genesis account of creation shows that water came first. The six days of creation are just "God" days, so who knows how long an actual day was, even. It wasn't until God's (third? Fourth?) day of creation that there could be differentiation between day and night. I think that the Genesis account of creation is not at all literal..
The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already said to be true.

Oh and PS- If you want to use some weird claim that my personal opinions are based also on my personal observations of fetuses and infants, consider these three very excellent points:

1- I had a fetus in my body for over 9 months, for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I am sure that I have spent AS MUCH time observing a fetus's reactions and so called instincts (no he did not have instincts, LMAO!!!) if not MORE Time, than a person with a doctorate's degree in obstetrics, who also has spent two years in residency at an obstetrics research facility.
Considering that my fetus was inside of my body for 24 hours X 7 days X 33 weeks (from week 8 to week 41), I have 5544 hours of experience. That actually equates to more than two full years for a full time researcher, and that is ONLY if they spent every second of every working hour (2080 a year, full time) observing fetuses, which I seriously doubt actually happens.

Oh, well, if we're counting THAT as expertise, I've carried THREE babies to term, and unlike you, managed to refrain from killing any of them for inconveniencing me. So I guess by THAT standard, you STILL lose.

and

2- You don't even have this kind of experience, so to claim that personal observation of a fetus is the sole way for either of us to have some opinion on personhood is illogical from the word Go. So, again, nice try.

Same to you, since as I pointed out, I have you beaten on this one, too.

and

3- It could just as easily be surmised by any layman that a blastocyst (fertilized egg) has "instincts", because it "knows where to go", but this, too, would be erroneous, because there are actually chemicals and hormones that draw it into the uterus, rather than the blastocyst having a mobilization mechanism, much less the ability to have instincts. Since we are not discussing blastocysts, though, it could just as easily be surmised that if a fetus is at a maturity point that you refer to as "viable", and it has "instincts", that it should, then, turn itself upside down, in birthing position, rather than remain breech. In other words, fetuses obviously do not have instincts.. =)

I'm certainly glad I don't have to twist myself into a pretzel the way you do in an attempt to appear logical and scientific. Lying certainly looks like hard work.

I'm pretty sure it is you now that doesn't understand the term autonomy. Self-governance, that is what autonomy essentially is. The ability to consciously guide your own actions.I'm pretty sure someone in a coma isn't self governing.

According to whom, Noah Webster? You? I think everyone's seen how you make up definitions to suit yourself which bear no resemblance to the ACTUAL meaning. Please show me where "conscious" enters into the definition of "autonomy".

Autonomy - 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing

Autonomous - 1 : of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
2 a : having the right or power of self-government b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained <an autonomous school system>
3 a : existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid> b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth>
4 : controlled by the autonomic nervous system

Self-governing - having control or rule over oneself

I find that last definition concerning the autonomic nervous system to be particularly interesting, considering that the autonomic system, by definition, functions WITHOUT any conscious control by its owner. That lack of conscious direction is, in fact, WHY it's called the "autonomic" system. Hmmm.

What I have noticed is that you tend to make words mean what you would like them to mean.

You mean when he perniciously insists on quoting the dictionary?

Nope, it is self governance that is autonomy. A person who is, for all intensive purposes, dead, incapable of feeding themselves, or drinking water, etc, and hooked up to machines to simply put off the inevitable "D" word, and has not made up a living will or anything of the sort, then it is pretty silly to consider them alive or having any entitlement to continue being hooked up to those machines. The same applies to fetuses. If the "machine" stops working (the woman's body/ uterus/ etc) then a fetus person (if such a thing exists, which I believe is only in your mind) should make like a tree and LEAVE. As you can see, the fetus is incapable of this,even considering this as an option, and so, it will not do it. Just because technology and/or a biological support system EXISTS does not mean that anyone is entitled to it's being used, do you understand? A person in a coma CAN self govern, at least as far as our laws lend credence. He can have a living will that says "keep me on life support until I wake up or die naturally.. Use the trust fund money to pay for this, if needed.". THAT is self governance. Some people do not DO this. I personally think that if a person is in a coma, and is rescued by life support, then whether they do or do not have a will to testify their wishes, if they cannot pay by their own personal means or their family's means, then they should not be taking up space in a hospital bed for longer than two or three weeks on the taxpayer's dime.. THAT is when a person loses autonomy, when they need to RELY on someone else's biological support system or technical life support resources to remain clinically alive. And don't flip that one on me, too, you fucking semantics whore. I do not mean that nobody should get food stamps, welfare, section 8, or medicaid services, like oxygen tanks, etc. The point was that they could still get those things through other means, they have the capacity of mind to choose whether the path to get those things will be easy or extremely hard, and are totally autonomous in their decision to use federal funding that we Americans provide out of the kindness of our hearts.
Without that funding, they would surely lose autonomy far more quickly than with, and we do, overall, like using medical advances, as long as we can still laugh and giggle sometimes, as a result. So don't fucking switcharoo my words again, just because you feel like playing "Look at me! I'm a Semantics Whore" again!!! That really irritates the shit out of me.

[/quote]

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.

[/QUOTE]

Not quite true. I am legally responsible for the life, health, and well-being of my children. That includes adoption, because I still have the legal responsibility to make sure that they are in the competent care of someone else before I can relinquish my own responsibility for them. Otherwise, I am legally liable and will be punished. I cannot simply deny my responsibilities. I am legally required to discharge them, one way or another.

And "abortion is an alternative because abortion is an alternative" is circular reasoning at best.

Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards. [/QUOTE]

Matter of opinion. Just because YOU decide that people have no entitlement to life doesn't make it objectively true.

Speaking of which, Why have you done NOTHING here but to constantly claim that my shit is untrue, without giving even a single shred of evidence or example for your own? Also, why do you constantly ignore half of what I say, 100% of the time?

Having skimmed this conversation, I can only assume that "without a single shred of evidence" in this case "a single shred of evidence I'm willing to accept".

As for why he's ignoring half of what you say, I'm assuming it's because 90% of what you say is self-serving, uneducated bullshit, and he's a lot nicer than you deserve.

Someone said via PM that it seems that I am talking to myself. With all of my heart and soul, I hope that this is not true...

In terms of who's hearing you, you're not. In terms of who's actually buying your tripe, I hope with all my heart and soul that you are. I'd hate to think there are MORE people that dumb and gullible.

 

[Bern80]

Nope.. That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement. Parents can legally give up their parental rights through adoption.

Hellooooo in there. We have an entire governmental department DEVOTED to makeing sure that parents are responsible for their children. Ever hear of child neglect laws? Yes you indeed are legally required to do what is in the best interest of your child.

There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try

MY POINT EXACLTEY. You went on a paragraph long rant about how ALL the evidence was on your side as to when you defined personhood (which is a made up term in the first place). Now you are admitting that science doesn't even mention the concept. So we are both in agreement now that science really can't be used as evidence for your defintion of personhood, right?

Exactly my point. Show me ONE fetus that is even AS self governing as the woman it is in, which would prove to ME that it is fully capable of the same actions outside of the womb, as it is during whatever week of gestation it is in, inside of the womb, no more, no less. I have already found a peer reviewed study which negates this notion, because the premature baby shows more activity and response than a fetus which would be at the exact same age of growth and maturity as the baby, if you counted the baby's gestation into the age.
Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.
I agree that this is a subjective opinion in part, but it is totally erroneous to claim that my method of coming to that opinion was through anything but objectivity.

Also, I might just add in here, your opinion about personhood, is at any given time, between gestational weeks 13 and 40, which you cannot yourself pinpoint, and this is in spite of the fact that a preborn fetus has less response than a baby who is conceived on that exact date has. Just reiterating, so that you can SEE and understand what you believe, and so that you can also understand why I think that you are using emotion rather than logic to come to such a conclusion.

I understand what you are trying to get at with that particular study. But I think you are a little quick to conclude that has something to do with personhood. There are at least a couple other logical explanations. The premature baby for example; it should make sense that it responds more than the same baby still in the womb, not because it became more autonomous, but because it is being bombarded with more stimuli than it would be if it were still in the womb.

I argue your position on autonomy in general because again it isn't as simple as just taking a breath. There would have to be something that triggers in that instant a greater level of autonomy where once something that was once non self governing now is. I think what is observable is that autonomy is gradual. Sure a birthed child has more autonomy than it did in the womb. But a toddler has more autonomy than an infant. A 5 year old more so than a toddler and so on. Which makes saying that it is this threshold of autonomy at this point in time that counts as personhood, rather arbitrary.

That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming alive, and a person- the very process which people find wonderous and amazing. Hence, the token phrase "the miracle of childbirth". See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some point get proven by science. This breathing issue is just one of those things. Maybe I am like Galileo, or Columbus, for believing in the Bible, and allowing it to guide me in the scientific path to find out if one more thing is true.. People used to call them crazy and illogical as well.. but those men are now considered Pioneers of science, and Legends amongst explorers. Popular belief does not make anything true.. Anything that is believed by the masses can easily be proven wrong by science or exploration (which amounts to scientifically accurate observations).

Did you or did you just not admit a few mere paragraphs ago that science would never say they observed personhood as being the point where a child took its first breath? How is it then that you can continue to state this as fact? A child isn't alive before it takes a breath? Add alive to the list of words you pull definition for out of your ass.

And your take on religion is probably a bit off as well. After all if everything in the bible can be proven )i.e adam and eve were made out of whatever god made them out of) then we ought to be able to prove God him/her/it self. This is entirely my opinion by I think a creator would think that would defeat the purpose of having people believe in him. You can not 'know' that the bible, Jesus, God, etc. are true and also have faith that they are true. Faith in something is a belief in the absence of evidence. I don't think God wants us to 'know' he exists or that there's life after death. I think he wants us to have faith in those things.

Nope, it is self governance that is autonomy. A person who is, for all intensive purposes, dead, incapable of feeding themselves, or drinking water, etc, and hooked up to machines to simply put off the inevitable "D" word, and has not made up a living will or anything of the sort, then it is pretty silly to consider them alive or having any entitlement to continue being hooked up to those machines. The same applies to fetuses. If the "machine" stops working (the woman's body/ uterus/ etc) then a fetus person (if such a thing exists, which I believe is only in your mind) should make like a tree and LEAVE. As you can see, the fetus is incapable of this,even considering this as an option, and so, it will not do it. Just because technology and/or a biological support system EXISTS does not mean that anyone is entitled to it's being used, do you understand? A person in a coma CAN self govern, at least as far as our laws lend credence. He can have a living will that says "keep me on life support until I wake up or die naturally.. Use the trust fund money to pay for this, if needed.". THAT is self governance. Some people do not DO this. I personally think that if a person is in a coma, and is rescued by life support, then whether they do or do not have a will to testify their wishes, if they cannot pay by their own personal means or their family's means, then they should not be taking up space in a hospital bed for longer than two or three weeks on the taxpayer's dime.. THAT is when a person loses autonomy, when they need to RELY on someone else's biological support system or technical life support resources to remain clinically alive. And don't flip that one on me, too, you fucking semantics whore. I do not mean that nobody should get food stamps, welfare, section 8, or medicaid services, like oxygen tanks, etc. The point was that they could still get those things through other means, they have the capacity of mind to choose whether the path to get those things will be easy or extremely hard, and are totally autonomous in their decision to use federal funding that we Americans provide out of the kindness of our hearts.
Without that funding, they would surely lose autonomy far more quickly than with, and we do, overall, like using medical advances, as long as we can still laugh and giggle sometimes, as a result. So don't fucking switcharoo my words again, just because you feel like playing "Look at me! I'm a Semantics Whore" again!!! That really irritates the shit out of me.

There isn't any semantics in the contradiction you just made. You said a person in a coma is autonomous because he can write a will telling people what he wants if he should wind up in a coma. Mere sentences later you said the same person is not autonomous because, having a will or not, they are dependent on others to carry out those wishes. You're talking dependence again. Even a newborn is dependent on an awful of outside help to keep it alive. Yet you don't recognize that the argument you made justifying abortion could very well certainly justify killing a child well after it is born. FOR GOD'S SAKE LOOK at the argument you made. No is responsible for keeping anyone alive. YOUR WORDS.

You are floundering JD. You are desperately trying to reconcile two irreconcilable positions. That one should be able to have an abortion whenever she wants and that killing an innocent person should remain a legal offense. In your mad scramble to do this you define words outside of their accepted meaning to try and reconcile those two beliefs. Person, alive, human, human being, consciousness, autonomy, and the grand daddy of made up concepts personhood Science doesn't define that. Even the law doesn't define that. Stating the child has legal rights at x point in time is not the same as saying we recognize a measurable change in consciousness, autonomy or whatever word you want to try and use. That leaves you with the religious qualifiers for your made up definition of personhood. And the irony is that you cling to that for your justification for abortion but completely ignore what God would want prior to that point.

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.

The point/question is when does not having a responsibility to keep someone alive cross the line to killing an innocent person.

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards.

Then why is it not empircally true that you can kill someone for whatever reason you choose? Why does the law require gaurdians not neglect minors?

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.

:sigh:

fetal brain development sentience - Google Scholar

Neuromaturation of the Human Fetus -- Flower 10 (3): 237 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

Personhood and Human Embryos and Fetuses -- Tauer 10 (3): 253 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal... : Pediatric Research

http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsaae/zasshi/WC6_PC/paper79.pdf

MD Consult -- Start Session Cookie Error

ScienceDirect - Neuropsychologia : Fetal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective. Edited by Jean-Pierre Lecanuet, William P. Fifer, Norman A. Krasnegor and William P. Smotherman. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1995.

http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/downloads/education-packs/KS4FetalSentience.pdf

When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?; Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine - 1(3)ages 153-165 - Informa Healthcare

You were talking earlier about medical journals?

Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.

You're a fucking moron with no medical education. Even a rudimentary understanding of neuroplasticity makes clear that exposure to the environment outside the womb and the associated audiovusal and tactile stimuli are going to have a major impact on the formation of neural associations and the form and operations of the brain.

That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming alive

:motherfuckinggfacepalm:

By definition, the life of a human organism begins when egg and sperm merge to form a new entity.

What were you saying about biology before? Clearly you've never studied the subject at so much as a fifth grade level.

See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some point get proven by science

How fucking retarded are you?

Grass before the sun? Get real.

Doctors and nurses often disconnect infants and old people, and invalids, etc, from life support, and they have no authorization to do this, which is entirely illegal. They usually get away with it, though, because the person has little hope of living, and either no family, or a really badly dysfunctional one.

You have proof of systemic illegal killing of patients in American hospitals?

The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already said to be true.

Only if you're too stupid to read them and dishonest enough to claim they say something they don't.

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

I already did, you illiterate ****. I gave a number of examples. It's not our fault you can't read.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met.

Wait... when did this become a matter of a 'right to personhood'?!

Since this is a constitutional discussion regarding the "person" having a "right to life" versus the right to abortion privacy.

1) The Constitution was never brought up, you twit

2) You jumped from 'right to life' to 'personhood' to 'autonomy' to 'I don't care if it's sentient, I just wantto kill it' to 'right to personhood' and back to square one.

Can you even keep up with your own story?


Parents are entitled to make medical decisions like these for their children, even if it means that the result will be death. Sad though it may be for most of us, even children have the right to die.

ppst! Doctors and caregivers EMTs and paramedics, too

That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement.

Right. We'll see what you're saying when CPS finds out your kid's lockled up in the basement starving to death or some shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.

:sigh:

fetal brain development sentience - Google Scholar

Neuromaturation of the Human Fetus -- Flower 10 (3): 237 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

Personhood and Human Embryos and Fetuses -- Tauer 10 (3): 253 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal... : Pediatric Research

http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsaae/zasshi/WC6_PC/paper79.pdf

MD Consult -- Start Session Cookie Error

ScienceDirect - Neuropsychologia : Fetal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective. Edited by Jean-Pierre Lecanuet, William P. Fifer, Norman A. Krasnegor and William P. Smotherman. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1995.

http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/downloads/education-packs/KS4FetalSentience.pdf

When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?; Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine - 1(3)ages 153-165 - Informa Healthcare

You were talking earlier about medical journals?

Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.

You're a fucking moron with no medical education. Even a rudimentary understanding of neuroplasticity makes clear that exposure to the environment outside the womb and the associated audiovusal and tactile stimuli are going to have a major impact on the formation of neural associations and the form and operations of the brain.

:motherfuckinggfacepalm:

By definition, the life of a human organism begins when egg and sperm merge to form a new entity.

What were you saying about biology before? Clearly you've never studied the subject at so much as a fifth grade level.



How fucking retarded are you?

Grass before the sun? Get real.


You have proof of systemic illegal killing of patients in American hospitals?

The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already said to be true.

Only if you're too stupid to read them and dishonest enough to claim they say something they don't.

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

I already did, you illiterate ****. I gave a number of examples. It's not our fault you can't read.

I'd give you rep if I could.

 

[JD_2B]

A fetus is every bit as "self-governing" as an adult woman is, in the sense that his growth and biological functions are directed independently by his own body, not by hers or anyone else's.

Wrong-o... If the woman got severely sick, hurt or died, that fetus would not be independent "in the sense" that it IS not an independent entity, and the pregnancy would cease.

Furthermore, when a fetus moves, that movement is directed by HIS brain and nervous system, not hers or anyone else's. In fact, there is no time in the existence of a fetus in which his mother is ever "governing" of anything about him personally. She is only governing of the space around him, which isn't even close to the same thing.

Actually, since her bloodstream runs directly to the fetus' bloodstream, then there is no way that you can make the inference that her actions and day to day activities, even, do not affect the fetus as well. If she so much as lays on her back a certain way, her major arteries can experience just enough blockage to slow the fetus' oxygen delivery from HER body, as a result of HER decision to rest herself in a comfortable way, that the fetus can, and sometimes does, cease to continue growing.
By the way, to be consistent in your own beliefs, applying the logic that the metabolism or a hiccup is some form of autonomy and self governance, then you must also apply this logic to that of the also metabolizing embryo, and early fetus.
Having reflexes is not autonomy, in any event.

And, if she governs the space around the fetus, in a 360 degree range, then how is it that she does not govern the space that is within this space as well? How do you even BEGIN to figure on that one? LOL!!

As for "the same actions outside of the womb, a fetus does much the same things as a newborn baby does, which is where your fallacious demand that a fetus must be like an adult to be a person breaks down, since a newborn baby doesn't meet your standard, either.

I never said like an adult. I said that a newborn premature baby will have MORE response than its counterpart fetus, even if both were conceived on the exact same day. Stop playing semantics soldier with me, and twisting my words around to have a new meaning. I swear you people just LOOOOVE those pathetic strawman arguments. =)

Oh, you found a scientific study that purported to quantify and measure "personhood", did you? Let's see it. I would love to have this apocryphal "personhood" that you abortionists have tried to arbitrarily impose on everyone explained and nailed down once and for all. Otherwise, I'm just going to have to stick with that boring, pedantic biology thing that so stubbornly refuses to give you the excuses you want.

No you fucking dimbulb, I specifically said that there is NO study that measures actual personhood, because personhood is, as of yet, a subjective belief system. The judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific, medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well.

PS I already showed you the studies. It is not MY ignorance that is preventing you from reading it.

You must be thrilled to think you finally managed to squirm around to this being all about "those mean Christians attacking you" instead of flailing around, making a damned fool of yourself on hard science.

When has anyone said anything derogatory about Christians???? LMAO!!!

Oh, well, if we're counting THAT as expertise, I've carried THREE babies to term, and unlike you, managed to refrain from killing any of them for inconveniencing me. So I guess by THAT standard, you STILL lose.

Glad none of your pregnancies came at a bad time for you. Also glad I am not strapped down by three kids..

PS- I did SAY that observation of a pregnancy from a personal perspective made both of us none the wiser.. LOVE the way you, as per the usual, blissfully ignored that..

Same to you, since as I pointed out, I have you beaten on this one, too.

From the lack of a true to life avatar of the bags that are surely under your eyes, and the migraine medicine next to your keyboard, I wonder.. Tee hee!!

I'm certainly glad I don't have to twist myself into a pretzel the way you do in an attempt to appear logical and scientific. Lying certainly looks like hard work.

I love your flaming.. It is certainly not up to par with anything anyone would consider logic, but hey, if it makes you feel better about your life...

According to whom, Noah Webster? You? I think everyone's seen how you make up definitions to suit yourself which bear no resemblance to the ACTUAL meaning. Please show me where "conscious" enters into the definition of "autonomy".

Autonomy - 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing

Autonomous - 1 : of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
2 a : having the right or power of self-government b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained <an autonomous school system>
3 a : existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid> b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth>
4 : controlled by the autonomic nervous system

Self-governing - having control or rule over oneself

And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system.

I find that last definition concerning the autonomic nervous system to be particularly interesting, considering that the autonomic system, by definition, functions WITHOUT any conscious control by its owner. That lack of conscious direction is, in fact, WHY it's called the "autonomic" system. Hmmm.

No shit. You can talk to HIM about that, though. I never once claimed that INVOLUNTARY movements were somehow a form of autonomy. Again, ignorance is bliss..

You mean when he perniciously insists on quoting the dictionary?

The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked.

:yawn:

Not quite true. I am legally responsible for the life, health, and well-being of my children. That includes adoption, because I still have the legal responsibility to make sure that they are in the competent care of someone else before I can relinquish my own responsibility for them. Otherwise, I am legally liable and will be punished. I cannot simply deny my responsibilities. I am legally required to discharge them, one way or another.

And "abortion is an alternative because abortion is an alternative" is circular reasoning at best.

Boo.. Is that ALL you've GOT, REALLY?????

Can't fight straightforward logic, my dear! Besides, nobody SAID that. You are not even sounding REASONABLE here.

Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards.

Matter of opinion. Just because YOU decide that people have no entitlement to life doesn't make it objectively true.[/QUOTE]

And just because YOU decide that people do not have a right to die, or a right to govern their feminine, pregnant bodies as they see fit, without being treated like a human petri dish for forensics, does NOT mean that a fetus will have a right to life, or any entitlements, thereof.

Speaking of which, Why have you done NOTHING here but to constantly claim that my shit is untrue, without giving even a single shred of evidence or example for your own? Also, why do you constantly ignore half of what I say, 100% of the time?

Having skimmed this conversation, I can only assume that "without a single shred of evidence" in this case "a single shred of evidence I'm willing to accept".

Noperss.. That's what you get for skimming. He posted ZILCH. Nothing. Not even ONE article to even begin debating.
Why am I defending myself against such a flaming little ignorant troll anyways???

As for why he's ignoring half of what you say, I'm assuming it's because 90% of what you say is self-serving, uneducated bullshit, and he's a lot nicer than you deserve.

OK

Someone said via PM that it seems that I am talking to myself. With all of my heart and soul, I hope that this is not true...

In terms of who's hearing you, you're not. In terms of who's actually buying your tripe, I hope with all my heart and soul that you are. I'd hate to think there are MORE people that dumb and gullible.

Hahahahaha I bet you looked into the eyes of the six year old's photograph and started thinking "what a mature looking FETUS!!!" Dumbass.

 

[JD_2B]

Wait... when did this become a matter of a 'right to personhood'?!

Since this is a constitutional discussion regarding the "person" having a "right to life" versus the right to abortion privacy.

1) The Constitution was never brought up, you twit

Uhhh yes it was.. Right to life.. Criminalization of women, right to privacy.. Ringin any bells???

2) You jumped from 'right to life' to 'personhood' to 'autonomy' to 'I don't care if it's sentient, I just wantto kill it' to 'right to personhood' and back to square one.

Can you even keep up with your own story?

I have a LOT more than just pictures of aborted fetuses to determine my stance on abortion, you fucking emo. Sorry if it has put you into some kind of rage that I shared it. It doesn't make me want to stop sharing, though.

ppst! Doctors and caregivers EMTs and paramedics, too

That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement.

Right. We'll see what you're saying when CPS finds out your kid's lockled up in the basement starving to death or some shit.

Wah wah wah.. Fucking ad hominems every time. Back to ignore you go...

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Wrong-o... If the woman got severely sick, hurt or died, that fetus would not be independent "in the sense" that it IS not an independent entity, and the pregnancy would cease.

When Gaia gets sick and Earth's ecosystem (health) is effected, the woman's not so autonomous, is she?

Actually, since her bloodstream runs directly to the fetus' bloodstream,

Are you fucking retarded? Cecile already linked to an explanation of fetal blood supply. If the mother's blood ran into the fetus, then no child could ever have a different bloodtype than the mother or they'd both die. Bloodtypes could only differ between races and mixing of races would be nearly impossible. I have a different bloodtype than my mother. Specifically, I could receiver her blood but she could not receive mine or she'd die ( I think I have the same blood type as my father).

FETAL BLOOD AND CIRCULATION

Throughout the fetal stage of development, the maternal blood supplies the fetus with O2 and nutrients and carries away its wastes.

• These substances diffuse between the maternal and fetal blood through the placental membrane.
• They are carried to and from the fetal body by the umbilical blood vessels.

FETAL BLOOD AND CIRCULATION

The placenta is responsible for working as a trading post between the mother's and the baby's blood supply. Small blood vessels carrying the fetal blood run through the placenta, which is full of maternal blood. Nutrients and oxygen from the mother's blood are transferred to the fetal blood, while waste products are transferred from the fetal blood to the maternal blood, without the two blood supplies mixing.

The Fetal Life-Support System: Placenta, Umbilical Cord, & Amniotic Sac : American Pregnancy Association

How fucking retarded are you? How many times must we explain things to you before you learn?

And, if she governs the space around the fetus, in a 360 degree range, then how is it that she does not govern the space that is within this space as well?

There is a city within my city and there are many nations wholly surrounded by another nations. Of course, stupid questions are your hallmark.

he judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific, medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well.

Find a single respected peer-reviewed study that says the processes of life begin with the first breath of a living organism.

And still, a fetus is none of the above

Ask any medical doctor whether the autonomic nervous system comes into being magically with the first breath.

PS: You need to look up the definition of forensic.

S: (n) forensics (scientific tests or techniques used in the investigation of crimes)


Retard

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

I have a LOT more than just pictures of aborted fetuses to determine my stance on abortion,

Yes, you have illiteracy and ignorance behind you

 

[JD_2B]

There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.

:sigh:

fetal brain development sentience - Google Scholar

A google search, not a link, and none of them show any signs of the word personhood. Dipshit.

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/237

Neuromaturation of the Human Fetus -- Flower 10 (3): 237 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

Control + F + "Person" = "Phrase not found"

Personhood and Human Embryos and Fetuses -- Tauer 10 (3): 253 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

"While agreement on personhood is elusive, this concept has unquestioned moral relevance. A stipulated usage of the term, the psychic sense of ‘person’, applies to early human prenatal life and encompasses morally relevant aspects of personhood. A ‘person’ in the psychic sense has (1) a minimal psychology, defined as the capacity to retain experiences, which may be nonconscious, through physiological analogs of memory; and (2) the potential to become a person in the full sense. "

Dipwad- "psychic" sense of person?? Nonconscious (and inconclusive again) and "potential" to become a person in the FULL sense?? Are you smoking that rock again tonight??

http://journals.lww.com/pedresearch...nce_of_Human_Consciousness__From_Fetal.1.aspx

The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal... : Pediatric Research

Oh for christ's sake- even this study backs me up, too!!

http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsaae/zasshi/WC6_PC/paper79.pdf

http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsaae/zasshi/WC6_PC/paper79.pdf

YOU LOVE ME DON'T YOU?? You didnt even read the ABSTRACT!!! LMFAO!!!

Go ahead.. READ IT. YOU POSTED IT, YOU FUCKING NEANDERTHAL.

"The extent to which the fetus may be able to experience sensations, including pain, in utero has apparently
been greatly overestimated. The misconception that the prematurely born human infant is a good surrogate
for the human fetus of the same post-conception age has led to the notion that awareness, pain experience and
the potential to suffer, which are observable in premature human infants born at 30 weeks or earlier, should
therefore occur in equivalent human fetuses. However, extensive studies of lambs in utero have demonstrated
that the physiological environment of the fetal brain, and its responsiveness to stimuli, are markedly
different from those of the newborn lamb, whether born prematurely or not. The fetus apparently remains
in continuous states of sleep-like unconsciousness, which are maintained by a range of neuroinhibitory
physiological mechanisms that are unique to fetal life. Moreover, the fetus is not apparently arousable to
states of 'awareness' by potentially noxious humoral, auditory or surgical stimuli. These observations question
the need to use pain-relieving medication in fetuses during experimental surgery."

http://www.mdconsult.com/das/articl...=16703880&sid=0/N/562339/1.html?issn=02770326

MD Consult -- Start Session Cookie Error

Start session cookie error... But no doubt, another one that supports my claims as being medically and scientifically accurate. =) Because you are in looooove with meeeee..

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=aa39565736d2d70bac722294042fae9e

ScienceDirect - Neuropsychologia : Fetal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective. Edited by Jean-Pierre Lecanuet, William P. Fifer, Norman A. Krasnegor and William P. Smotherman. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1995.

Pay per article.. Post the pdf, if you actually read this, so that I can brag some more about your crush on me, and thank you repetitively for posting more proof for supporting the pro choice movement. =)

http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/downloads/education-packs/KS4FetalSentience.pdf

Publications made by right to life groups are not medical journals.. they are nothing more than propaganda, my little crusher.. ;-)

It also seems to know a lot more about fetal pain than anyone else in the world, based on the answer they put in there, to give some air of quality to their unsubstantiated claims, that based solely on the structures being THERE, that the 10 week gestated fetus, having these structures in place, experiences pain, even if it does not react, as this right to life group claims that the neurological system can experience and understand pain even if the fetus does not respond to pain stimuli. What a crock of shit. I have posted a peer reviewed medical article that negates this anyways, not to mention the definitive truths from the medical articles above, that YOU posted. Google some more, lovebird. =)

When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?; Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine - 1(3)ages 153-165 - Informa Healthcare

You posted this before, and I debunked it. By the way- your own (more recent) article above, which I cut and pasted a bit from, negates this study.

You were talking earlier about medical journals?

Thanks!! <catches pro's kisses, chucks them in the garbage can>

Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.

You're a fucking moron with no medical education. Even a rudimentary understanding of neuroplasticity makes clear that exposure to the environment outside the womb and the associated audiovusal and tactile stimuli are going to have a major impact on the formation of neural associations and the form and operations of the brain.

:motherfuckinggfacepalm:

Fancy way to say "are going to have a major impact on... sentience"

<kissy kissy>

By definition, the life of a human organism begins when egg and sperm merge to form a new entity.

What were you saying about biology before? Clearly you've never studied the subject at so much as a fifth grade level.

How fucking retarded are you?

Grass before the sun? Get real.

Water before grass.. sun came before water. PS why do you send me so many kissy kissy lovey dovey articles that only degrade your own prior claims, and support mine, and then talk down to me like that?? Ahhh but that was a short lived crush.. ;-)

You have proof of systemic illegal killing of patients in American hospitals?

Systemic?? As in, there being some systematic way of medical professionals going about doing it, or Systemic as in happening within the medical system?

A- No
B- Yes

Ask any neonatal nurse. =)

The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already said to be true.

Only if you're too stupid to read them and dishonest enough to claim they say something they don't.

My darling ex crusher, I do believe that it is only YOU who is not reading them.

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

I already did, you illiterate ****. I gave a number of examples. It's not our fault you can't read.

Sociological expectations are not the same thing as a physical requirement or a legal one for that matter. Like I said- People do adopt. If all parents were criminalized for not caring for their kids 24/7, then most parents would be in jail, for leaving their kids with a caregiver. It TAKES A VILLAGE.

What happens to orphans, or children whose parents have gone to jail?? What happens to foster kids?

A sociological expectation towards a person is DIFFERENT from having a physical requirement or actual NEED from that person.

 

[Bern80]

And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system.

Autonomy does not distinguish between biological dependence, nurturing dependence or any other type of dependence. If one can not self govern, one is dependent on SOMETHING. The point that is trying to be made here is that your justification for abortion due to autonomy or lack of it can't work either because it would also force you to support killing after birth as well. Newborn's are not autonomous. They can not self govern. There is little to no difference in their level of dependence on the outside world before birth or for a good time after. You said quite clearly so you can't argue someone is putting words in your mouth, that no one is responsible for keeping anyone from dieing. If that is the case then you MUST support no legal action be taken if a legal gaurdian neglects there born child. Because the fact is an infant is dependent on someone. If it's needs are not met, it will die.

The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked.

So the book we all look to to find out what words mean got it wrong? Man I thought you'd at least deny making up definitions of stuff, but you're actually making excuses for it.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

I get the distinct impression I confused her when I said 'neuroplasticity'
.

Too many syllables. Also, I think the letters MD after Mr.McCullagh's name might have thrown her off as well.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

I'm still waiting for her promised scientifoc papers about how she can have puppies with fido and life begins when a living organism takwes its first breath and the autonomic nervous system magically springs into existence. Oh, that's right- the bible says so

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Personhood and Human Embryos and Fetuses -- Tauer 10 (3): 253 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

.

Control + F + "Person" = "Phrase not found"

Learn to Read with phonics

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Invariably, when philosophers wish to challenge the notion that human
beings in the womb have a right to life or need to be protected from
harm, they invoke a distinction between &#8220;human&#8221; and &#8220;person&#8221;: the
embryo or fetus might be a &#8220;human being,&#8221; but the being&#8217;s humanity is
not the issue. The only relevant question to ask in regard to the fetus is
whether or not it is a &#8220;person.&#8221; Only persons have rights; mere
membership in the human race is not enough to secure a place at the table
of the moral community. And an embryo or fetus does not meet the
criteria of a person. As a consequence, a woman does nothing immoral if
she secures an abortion to avoid some type of evil.
Many pro-life philosophers have already addressed this reasoning
head-on; they have played according to pro-choice rules and won.

http://www.uffl.org/vol13/peach03.pdf

Just happened across this. Looks like a good read