Where should the line be drawn on abortion?

[Intense]

Two Questions.

What is a Soul?

When is it first present in a Human Life?

 

[catzmeow]

Two Questions.

What is a Soul?

When is it first present in a Human Life?

Souls are metaphysical constructs that don't exist in a scientific sense. So, they don't really matter in this discussion, except to metaphysical adherents whose views aren't shaped by science or logic.

 

[catzmeow]

What a soul probably looks like to you, in practical terms, though, Intense, is self-awareness.

When you see a human in a permanent vegetative state, who is only being kept alive via life support, where is that person's soul?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Evidence? You aren't a doctor.

Are you?

The brain develops at around 6 weeks. Between 6 and 12 is a period of extremely rapid growth for all organs, particularly the nervous system (which you incorrectly claimed was not "attached" )

Measuring a traditional EEG can is is done on a fetus;

BBC NEWS | Health | Baby brainwaves measured in womb

Based upon child development websites for pregnant moms.

Have you ever heard the term, "cite?"

If it isn't fact, then you can surely rebutt it with evidence.

This is supposedly the "clean debate zone," so let's get a few things straight; when engaging in a scholarly debate of any sort, the onus of support lies with the claimant.

You may enjoy tossing our spurious claims and demanding that others proved them false, but that doesn't cut it in debate.

{ "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things which cannot properly be doubted. }

Dictionary of Logical Fallacies

At what point in fetal development does the fetus sense and become consciously aware of pain?

At what age did the Buddha become enlightened?

Not relevant to a subject of medical fact.

Not before the 3rd trimester according to a review of literature and research on the subject.

So there is no injunction against killing those who you don't perceive to feel pain?

Quadriplegics the nation over will be pleased to learn that killing them at will is now acceptable.

Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.
JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | Fetal PainA Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

Well, you finally offer a cite.

I'm not sure you actually read the source, but at least you swayed from the "Alan Guetmacher Institute" for a moment.

From the AMA that you cited;

{In a study of 8 human fetuses, mediodorsal thalamic afferents were first observed in the cortical plate at 22 weeks’ developmental age (24 weeks’ gestational age)}

At the very least, 24 weeks gestational does feel pain. Again, from your cite, which apparently you failed to read.

You aren't operating off of facts here, you're operating off of your preconceived notion of what is happening based upon anti-abortion rhetoric.

That's amusing, since many of the anti-abortion people view me as pro-abortion.

The fact is that I am basing my opinion on fact, and only fact. Based on those, I support things like RU486, "Plan B" and other abortificants because the facts show that life does not begin at conception, but those same facts also refute the pro-abort hard line that you take. I put the line at about 6 weeks. Were it set at 8, I wouldn't quibble.

However, the arbitrary declaration that some humans are "not human" by those who wish to kill them, is a bit too reminiscent of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Ho for my taste. Never have I seen institutional slaughter where the victims are not first dehumanized.

If you want to kill, make a valid argument for killing. dehumanizing the victim falls short of that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now that your other claims have been proven false, you've shifted the goalpost.

False. Humans stop being sentient when their brains are not functional. Sentience is a conscious characteristic, it is not present when the brain is not functional.

Nor is it a genetic one. Unless you'd like to prove that claim?

LOL


Utter nonsense. Sentience is a matter of species. Humans are a sentient species. Those who deny sentience to particular humans are fiends, seeking to justify their homicidal desires, but in utter defiance of the term.

Humans are sentient, sow bugs are not. Dogs are highly argued about. Dehumanizing the victim is common for those who wish to slaughter large numbers of their fellow humans, though your little rant is particularly absurd.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Tell me, uncensored. How long would you want to be maintained on life support in a permanently vegetative state?

{A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. }

Fallacy: Red Herring

 

[Uncensored2008]

Edited.



I think I'm beginning to like the CDZ.

Really?

LOL

 

[catzmeow]

Are you?

The brain develops at around 6 weeks. Between 6 and 12 is a period of extremely rapid growth for all organs, particularly the nervous system (which you incorrectly claimed was not "attached" )

It is not functional in the sense that you believe it is (see article I provided twice in this thread which you clearly have not read).

Measuring a traditional EEG can is is done on a fetus;

BBC NEWS | Health | Baby brainwaves measured in womb

From your link, which you apparently did not read:

To test the device, 10 pregnant women with foetuses aged between 28 and 36 weeks leaned into an array of 151 sensors around their "bumps".

Brain waves are not measurable in a fetus of 6-12 weeks, because the brain as you think of it does not exist at that point. It is a clump of cells the size of a sesame seed that has only begun to form.

Have you ever heard the term, "cite?"

See the last post I made to you, it includes a link to a summary of research on fetal brain development.

So there is no injunction against killing those who you don't perceive to feel pain?

I see removing a fetus from the womb in the same that that I see removing an adult in a permanent vegetative state from life support. That person is no longer sentient.

Quadriplegics the nation over will be pleased to learn that killing them at will is now acceptable.

Are quadriplegics sentient?

From the AMA that you cited;

{In a study of 8 human fetuses, mediodorsal thalamic afferents were first observed in the cortical plate at 22 weeks’ developmental age (24 weeks’ gestational age)}

At the very least, 24 weeks gestational does feel pain. Again, from your cite, which apparently you failed to read.

This is why I support making abortion illegal somewhere between the 20th and 24th week. At that point, the fetus's development is sufficient that removing it from the womb becomes murder. Sentience is the difference between the cow you will eat for lunch today and a child you tuck into bed at night.

The fact is that I am basing my opinion on fact, and only fact. Based on those, I support things like RU486, "Plan B" and other abortificants because the facts show that life does not begin at conception, but those same facts also refute the pro-abort hard line that you take. I put the line at about 6 weeks. Were it set at 8, I wouldn't quibble.

See above for where I set the line, based upon research on brain development and the odds for fetal survival outside the womb.

However, the arbitrary declaration that some humans are "not human" by those who wish to kill them, is a bit too reminiscent of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Ho for my taste. Never have I seen institutional slaughter where the victims are not first dehumanized.

That decision is made all the time in medical practice when dealing with patients with non-functioning brains. It's not dehumanization, it is simply a medical decision based upon sentience. When a person stops being sentient, he/she stops being human. That's why it is standard medical practice to consider removing such patients from life support.

 

[Intense]

Two Questions.

What is a Soul?

When is it first present in a Human Life?

Souls are metaphysical constructs that don't exist in a scientific sense. So, they don't really matter in this discussion, except to metaphysical adherents whose views aren't shaped by science or logic.

I think it does matter here. One having a Soul, would put them in the Human category, like it or not. People believing in the existence of the Soul outnumber people who don't by how much? As convenient as it is for you to dismiss the existence of the Soul, you are greatly outnumbered. By what authority or right do you claim to dismiss it? Consider also that because Science can neither prove or disprove it's existence, the problem there may actually be with Sciences, limits. There are many Scientists that believe in God. Are they disqualified because of their belief?

 

[catzmeow]

Now that your other claims have been proven false, you've shifted the goalpost.

False. Humans stop being sentient when their brains are not functional. Sentience is a conscious characteristic, it is not present when the brain is not functional.

Nor is it a genetic one. Unless you'd like to prove that claim?

LOL


Utter nonsense. Sentience is a matter of species. Humans are a sentient species. Those who deny sentience to particular humans are fiends, seeking to justify their homicidal desires, but in utter defiance of the term.

Humans are sentient, sow bugs are not. Dogs are highly argued about. Dehumanizing the victim is common for those who wish to slaughter large numbers of their fellow humans, though your little rant is particularly absurd.

Humans who don't demonstrate sentience aren't sentient. It's an individual-level behavior. What do you recommend doing with patients who are brain damaged beyond recovery? Should they be maintained indefinitely on life support because they were once human? I don't mythologize our species.

 

[catzmeow]

Two Questions.

What is a Soul?

When is it first present in a Human Life?

Souls are metaphysical constructs that don't exist in a scientific sense. So, they don't really matter in this discussion, except to metaphysical adherents whose views aren't shaped by science or logic.

I think it does matter here. One having a Soul, would put them in the Human category, like it or not. People believing in the existence of the Soul outnumber people who don't by how much? As convenient as it is for you to dismiss the existence of the Soul, you are greatly outnumbered. By what authority or right do you claim to dismiss it? Consider also that because Science can neither prove or disprove it's existence, the problem there may actually be with Sciences, limits. There are many Scientists that believe in God. Are they disqualified because of their belief?

It may matter to you, but there is zero evidence for souls. Unless you wish to provide some, the topic is largely irrelevant to the discussion. If you wish to contend that souls exist and should factor into the discussion, the burden of proving this contention rests on you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Humans who don't demonstrate sentience aren't sentient.

The party will determine tests to demonstrate sentience, showers will be constructed for those who fail to meet party standards.

It's an individual-level behavior.

If one is rewriting the language.

What do you recommend doing with patients who are brain damaged beyond recovery?

{Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. }

{Fallacy: Red Herring

Should they be maintained indefinitely on life support because they were once human? I don't mythologize our species.

Under the laws of the old republic, there was a clause;

{No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }

Before you can kill another human, there must be due process.

Would you agree that judicial review on a case by case basis is warranted?

 

[catzmeow]

Humans who don't demonstrate sentience aren't sentient.

The party will determine tests to demonstrate sentience, showers will be constructed for those who fail to meet party standards.

It's an individual-level behavior.

If one is rewriting the language.

What do you recommend doing with patients who are brain damaged beyond recovery?

{Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. }

{Fallacy: Red Herring

Should they be maintained indefinitely on life support because they were once human? I don't mythologize our species.

Under the laws of the old republic, there was a clause;

{No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }

Before you can kill another human, there must be due process.

Would you agree that judicial review on a case by case basis is warranted?

prove that sentience is innate in the human species, then we'll talk. Brain damaged patients are relevant, because like the unborn fetus up until around 24 weeks, they do not have sentience. We feel no qualms about pulling a patient in a permanent vegetative state from a life support machine, because we know that, in human terms, they are no longer living. They don't think. They don't feel. They don't sense or perceive.

The same is true for the fetus up until more than halfway of the pregnancy. A mouse has greater sentience, can feel more pain, than a fetus who is under 20 weeks.

 

[thanatos144]

I draw the line at Government funding of baby killing.....

Life begins at conception and that not open to debate....The question is do you support the right for women to kill innocent babies or not. I dont support it. I will not fund it and find the US government using my tax money to fund it in any form....I am not a progressive fascist so I don't believe that life is cheapo and disposable.

 

[Uncensored2008]

prove that sentience is innate in the human species, then we'll talk. Brain damaged patients are relevant, because like the unborn fetus up until around 24 weeks, they do not have sentience. We feel no qualms about pulling a patient in a permanent vegetative state from a life support machine, because we know that, in human terms, they are no longer living. They don't think. They don't feel. They don't sense or perceive.

The same is true for the fetus up until more than halfway of the pregnancy. A mouse has greater sentience, can feel more pain, than a fetus who is under 20 weeks.

Sentience is a concept to distinguish the ability to think. Sentience is a philosophical construct which you are attempting to use as a straw man. However, sentience has never been applied on a case by case basis. Arguments by Buddhists that birds or cats are sentient are the subject of debate, arguments of whether the neighbor you hate is sentient is of no debate at all. Humans, as a species, posses the ability to think and reason, ergo humans, as a species, are sentient.

You simply are misapplying the term in a desperate attempt to erect a straw man. Your entire argument rests on your ability to dehumanize your intended victim. As such, you've utterly lost any rational debate.

 

[koshergrl]

The concept that a human must be sentient in order to have a right to life is just another way the left is edging us towards acceptance of killing off those they consider a "drain" on resources. They start with the unborn, they move forward to adult coma victims, and along the way pick up the elderly, the depressed, the lonely, the disabled, all while speaking in soothing tones about how "civilized" it is to kill people who "want" to die, or who are not able to "actively contribute to society".

Our right to life does not rest on whether or not we are "sentient", it never has. People at the end of their lives have the "right" be be allowed to die on their own, not to be killed, and babies have the "right" to continue to live, so they can continue to develop into the sentient beings they are already on their way to becoming.

 

[catzmeow]

Sentience is a concept to distinguish the ability to think.

No. Sentience is the ability TO THINK and TO FEEL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

http://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/sense5.html


C.S. Lewis said: " 'Life' in the biological sense has nothing to do with good and evil until sentience appears."..."No doubt, living plants react to injuries differently from inorganic matter; but an anaesthetised human body reacts more differently still and such reactions do not prove sentience."

Some humans, on an individual basis, cannot think or feel. Their brain does not function, either because it isn't developed or because of brain injury. When their brain stops functioning (persistent vegetative state), we remove life support because they have lost their humanity (the ability to think or feel).

You're attempting to imply something else, and you need to provide evidence for that idea.

 

[catzmeow]

The concept that a human must be sentient in order to have a right to life is just another way the left is edging us towards acceptance of killing off those they consider a "drain" on resources.

Actually, it is an acknowledgement of what we now know about brain function that we didn't know back in the dark ages when people thought of sentience as "a soul."

Sentience, as a concept, developed in the 18th century amongst philosophers who were trying to determine what it means to be human. Think Rousseau: "I think, therefore, I am."

When the thinking stops (when brain function stops), we stop thinking of a hunk of meat as human. At that point, it is a cadaver, or will be one shortly.

 

[koshergrl]

Our Declaration claims that one of the things that are "self-evident" is that all men are CREATED equal. They are equal from their creation. Equality is not dependent upon intelligence, or wealth, or stage of development.

 

[koshergrl]

The concept that a human must be sentient in order to have a right to life is just another way the left is edging us towards acceptance of killing off those they consider a "drain" on resources.

Actually, it is an acknowledgement of what we now know about brain function that we didn't know back in the dark ages when people thought of sentience as "a soul."

I don't acknowledge that. Can you support it?