Home - List All Discussions

The Same Child

An exercise in futility...?

by: Tam

For the amusement of prolifers and the utter bewilderment of Sigma and other pro-babykillers, let's review a little exchange from another thread.

It starts when I point out the simple fact that every person was once an unborn child.

Sigma, as usual, doesn't understand what is being said. She thinks I am making some random point about the birth process involving a change from being IN the womb to being OUT of the womb.

I try to explain that, as usual, I meant what I said. I try to explain that I wasn't making a point about birth or about location, but merely pointing out the fact that unborn children are the same children that, after birth, are "born children"--they're the same human beings they were in the womb. NOT a complicated point.

Sigma still doesn't get the point. Perhaps she's just hoping I'll say something that will enable her to say, "Aha! But genetically, twins are the same person!" or some other irrelevant thing.

I valiantly press on, pointing out that I'm not saying the child is the same AS something, just pointing out that s/he is the same child throughout.

Sigma clearly wants to find some way to deny that once a child exists, that child grows and develops--and that at every stage, the child is the same child. She tries again to make this about genetics, knocking down her "look alike" strawman on the way.

Apparently, Sigma wants this to be some kind of existential discussion, but it's quite mundane, to her dismay. I refused to give serious consideration to this nonsense, but she continued to pretend she really didn't understand what I meant.

I took pity on her and tried again, with four part harmony and feeling, to get the point across.

I had a feeling that bit wouldn't hit home, either, but since without understanding that much, the rest wouldn't stand a chance, I added a caveat:

For some reason, I kept trying to get this point across, even though it had long since become clear to me that Sigma understands perfectly well what I mean--and was merely trying to find some way to claim, preposterously, that what I was saying wasn't true.

Obviously, I shouldn't have bothered. Completely ignoring everything I said about the child (who was the focus of the post), she dives right back in with even more nonsense:

What about me was the same that would apply to me 3 days after conception? I don’t have the same memories, I don’t have the same viewpoint or attitude or temperament or personality or anything besides genetics that I know of. The common thread that connects you from today to tomorrow does not exist 3 days after conception.

Apparently, the fact that she has a physical body is a foreign concept to Sigma. Perhaps she thinks it's the child's memories, viewpoint, attitude, temperament, or personality that gets killed in an abortion. The physical aspect of our existence is apparently beneath her lofty philosophical notions of existence. Perhaps the fact that her physical body, too, has changed since yesterday makes her think that it's not really the "same" body, since it's not the same in every way. Perhaps she is gearing up for some "no one is really the same, we all change from moment to moment, so no one truly exists beyond a single moment" point. I'm sure that would make everyone's life easier. Imagine if no one ever had to take responsibility for anything, being able to claim, "I didn't do that! The self I was twenty minutes ago did that, and that is a different person!" I'm sure the police would be happy to retire, since no one could be held accountable for a crime ever again. Why, with all of us winking in and out of existence this way, it's amazing we even form relationships. Yoda? Is it really you? I haven't heard from you since yesterday--woe is me, my friend is gone and replaced by a stranger!

To frost the clueless cake, Sigma adds the following gem:

And when that wood was a freshly felled tree, was it the SAME COFFEE TABLE? It has the same wood, but what connects the coffee table in the living room and the coffee table in the den does not exist when it was a tree. This analogy only really works in the “minutes before birth/minutes after birth” point.

I knew an analogy would only confuse her further. I think we're going to the "an acorn isn't an oak tree" thing, and I expect the next bit will say, "yoda and tam think a z/e/f is a baby complete with crib and pacifier" or something like that.

So I'm curious...is there ANYONE else, prolife or otherwise, who doesn't get the point? Who doesn't understand the concept? Anyone out there? Perhaps Kate Michelman will raise her hand.

This is a ludicrous "discussion" that isn't worthy of any further comment other than to laugh at the fact that I even bothered staying with it as long as I did. Luckily for all of us, the Sigma who'll read this isn't the same person she was yesterday, so perhaps she'll actually get it now.

reply from: yoda

When one is losing a battle and has no way to turn the tide, one may try to slow the battle down so as to delay the inevitable defeat. The best way to do that is to distract your opponent with infantile, idiotic exercises in extremely silly minutia. In other words, sanbag your opponent with utter nonsense. Shall we deal with each grain of sand, or move on to matters of more substance?

reply from: Tam

I know, man, I wasted like an hour on this crap. You're probably right that THAT was the actual goal. Unbelievable that while some of us are actually trying to save the lives of innocent children, other people are wasting their own time and ours with stuff like this. Why don't we debate whether the earth is round? That would be equally exciting and important.

reply from: yoda

Every experience we have is useful as a learning tool, including this one.

reply from: Sigma

Then you should have said this when I asked “The same in what way”. We don’t necessarily have to have an existential discussion, but something beyond you restating “It’s the same!” over and over again without explaining what made them the same. My question was valid. You are just so scared that I may see a contradiction you do not fully explain your beliefs.

Physicality does change. I assumed you were making a more substantial point to link someone from conception to death. If your point is that 3 days after conception you are physically the same as you are 80 years down the line be my guest.

yodavater

lol. Pot, meet kettle.

reply from: Tam

LMAO!!! Your question was crap, as is your assessment of why I find it to be crap.

LOL!!! No, that wasn't the point. Obviously, as you admit here:

So I am NOT "physically the same" today as I was at my birth, or even as I was yesterday.



ROFL!!! You still can't even admit you get the point--or, damn, girl, maybe you still don't even get it. Something "more substantial"?!? LMAO!!

Hey everybody, this must be a joke! Sigma wants a "more substantial" way to "link" someone from conception to death--"more substantial" than the fact that s/he is the same human being the whole time. ROFL

reply from: Sigma

Which obviously begs the question: same in what way? I'm not sure why you keep referring to me as a girl

reply from: yoda

Just more sand in the hourglass of time.........

reply from: Tam

Which obviously begs the question: same in what way?

LMAO

Sorry, apparently your problem is one that must be dealt with by a qualified mental health care professional. My advice is to print out this thread and take it to your shrink. Good luck to you!

Because when someone referred to you as a man, you asked "why do you think I'm a man?" and when it was pointed out that your avatar "nerd" is a male picture, you said you didn't realize that and had only intended to choose "nerd". So I assumed you are female. I could not possibly care less which gender you are. If you want to share that information now, I'll refer to you with the correct pronouns from now on. If you want to keep it a secret, I'll start using male pronouns from now on, to match your male avatar. Or, I could start referring to you as "it" if you prefer neutrality...or maybe she/he/it; maybe we could abbreviate that s/h/it. I'll call you that if you like. NO problem.

reply from: Sigma

I assume, then, that you bow out of the discussion.

Either is fine, I was just curious about the sudden shift.

reply from: Tam

I assume, then, that you bow out of the discussion.

Unless your psychiatrist has a comment to make, I don't think there's anything more to say!

Either is fine, I was just curious about the sudden shift.

Sudden shift? Was I calling you "he" before? I couldn't care less. Pick one and I'll use it. Otherwise, I'm leaning towards s/h/it.

reply from: Sigma

You did not call me "girl" before. Either he or she is fine.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

She means the same as in the same body, brain, way of thinking, ect. You are the same person you were 5 minutes ago, were you not?

reply from: yoda

Absolutely. And from now on, I'm going to ignore this thread, and I hope others will do the same.

reply from: cali1981

Wow, Tam - GREAT post. And it's too bad that after all the time you spent on it, a certain someone still can't admit that s/he gets this incredibly elementary, simple point.

reply from: Tam

Yeah, I know. Lame, huh? But I think yoda is right. Here CP and I are suggesting that Sigma seek help from a tutor or a shrink, but yoda's hit the nail on the head by pointing out that of course it's just an attempt to sandbag us with moronic diversions. NOT, mind you, that I think my suggestion of printing out this thread and showing it to his/her shrink was in any way far-fetched, or that CP's tutoring suggestion was at all out of place. But Sigma is reminding me of that old poster michael. This isn't an advanced philosophy seminar, and we're not discussing the nature of human existence. That the child in the ultrasound picture and the child in the graduation picture are one and the same child is not a matter of philosophical inquiry, but a simple fact on which everyone agrees. A police dog's identification of a suspect is considered expert testimony. When I see my mother next, I will know she is my mother even without the expert testimony of a bloodhound. I will know it without a DNA test, without a lie detector, without a psychological evaluation, and without a doubt.

I think the point that is so threatening to Sigma is the idea that there is such a thing as a person. To him, perhaps, "person" is a legal term used to justify killing those who don't qualify for its benefits according to a 1973 court ruling. The idea that a "person" is something more than this may perhaps elude her, just as the "true meaning of Christmas" eluded the Grinch. So perhaps, like the Grinch, the Sigma will have a revelation and his small heart may grow three sizes. Or perhaps there will be growth in the cerebral area as well. Instead of maybe we'll witness something more like The idea that there is some cutoff before which a person isn't really a person is ludicrous, but it's the basis for all legal abortion. The idea that I am the same person I have always been, and the same person I always will be, is threatening to someone for whom my personhood might imply a right to protection from being killed--protection that Sigma sees as coming at the expense of women's rights or bodily autonomy. Such a person will grasp at straws, saying that of course I am not identical from day to day, but grow and change. Sure! No kidding. I have been growing and changing from day one. And "day one" is the day of my conception, NOT the day of my birth. Every single day, I have grown as a person. I've grown physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. So has everyone. Sometimes we might grow in ways that are to our detriment, but we're still adding to ourselves--experiences, thoughts, feelings, memories, and so on. So my first physical experience was dividing from one cell into two. My most recent physical experience is typing on a keyboard. I've been "me" the whole time. I've changed, but I remain the same. To ask about the ways in which I am the same, and pretend that there is no real evidence that I am the same person, is of course a silly game meant as a distraction. But what underlies that game is not merely a desire to distract and obfuscate. That is present, but the more causal issue is a deep need to protect himself from a threat--the threat of the truth. ("You can't handle the truth!") So often, I notice pro-abortion people hiding behind Roe v. Wade in an effort to protect themselves from the reality that personhood, perhaps, is a little bit more! Yes, it's comical to watch at times, and yes, it's a waste of time to cater to that nonsense, but it pays to understand where it comes from. A five-year-old wouldn't play this game. It seems like an infantile form of pestering and misbehaving, but it's really far more than that. It's an intentional effort to undermine the very concept of personhood, by implying that what makes me ME is my physical body, or my experience, or some combination thereof. Since this ISN'T an advanced philosophy seminar, I don't feel the need to compose a treatise on the nature of my existence. I actually minored in Philosophy in college and have taken my share of those courses--and I am not inclined to pretend, to satisfy the inappropriate badgering of a deceptive pro-abortion, that this is such a setting. Perhaps Sigma and michael can have a nice little private discussion about it. I don't care. The fact is, each of us is an individual person, a person who has never been anyone else and never will be. That is a fact, and if anyone has doubts about it, then really the place to start is probably with some psychology. Part of the problem with guys like michael, ScreamingIke, MoaningMike, and Sigma is that, given a taste of some intriguing philosophical concepts, they feel that every discussion must address all of those issues, or be too mundane, too far beneath them, to be considered. Case in point, Sigma's comment that she had hoped I'd come up with something "more substantial" to prove to him that I am. Was she hoping I'd start out with "I think, therefore I am" so that he could start a tangent about the consciousness of an embryo? Who knows, who cares. Was he hoping I'd agree that my selfhood depends on my DNA, thus prompting a discussion of twins and other multiples, and the nature of individuality? Who knows, who cares. Did she not even care what I said, but would try to find some way to bury the actual point regardless? Probably, but again, who cares. I'm planning to let this thread die, as yoda suggested. I'm glad that at least some of you got some entertainment out of this. Yes, it's a serious subject, and it's seriously annoying to have a flea buzzing around trying to distract everyone from that serious subject. But it's sometimes rather satisfying to see a flea get swatted. I think I've had enough fun in that sense, though, and I'm getting back to work!

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte,

I would agree with this, completely, but this is not Tam’s point from what I understand. 3 days after conception there is no brain or way of thinking, though I could agree the same body exists since it is simply growth from that point.

Perhaps you can ask Tam and get a better answer as to what she means, though they seem to look down on anyone who cannot understand. Thank you for not being insulting in your response to me

reply from: Tam

I would agree with this, completely, but this is not Tam’s point from what I understand. 3 days after conception there is no brain or way of thinking, though I could agree the same body exists since it is simply growth from that point.

Perhaps you can ask Tam and get a better answer as to what she means, though they seem to look down on anyone who cannot understand. Thank you for not being insulting in your response to me

Did I call this or what!?

laurissa, you understand what I meant, but you made the mistake of trying to help Sigma understand. My advice is not to bother, for reasons I made clear in my last post.

reply from: Sigma

Bradensmommy has not posted in this thread, tam.

If others wish to ask me questions it is their business. You're being a busy-body.

reply from: Tam

Bradensmommy has not posted in this thread, tam.

oops, you're right! it was laurissa. Holy cow, Sigma, you said something true!!

ROFL!!! LMAO!!! Now you're pretending not to understand why I responded as I did. I see you really like the "but, but, but ... I don't know what you mean!!" game. Having fun? ROFL

reply from: Sigma

And yet, I'm completely unsurprised that you're wrong!

reply from: Tam

And yet, I'm completely unsurprised that you're wrong!

Oh, you DIDN'T say something true? Ok.

reply from: Sigma

It also doesn't surprise me that you feign ignorance over what I'm talking about. Violating you're own rules.

reply from: Tam

It also doesn't surprise me that you feign ignorance over what I'm talking about. Violating you're own rules.

ROFL!! You got the inside joke! That's great. You actually noticed that I was parodying your very own "but, but, but ... I don't know what you mean!!" method. Of course, you wish it were unintentional. LMAO!!! Thanks ever so much for being so obliging and actually falling for that. I really didn't think it would be that easy.

I suppose you expected me, instead, to beg laurissa's forgiveness for failing to notice at first glance that, for once, you weren't trying to pick on bradensmommy as you have so much lately, but had aimed your nonsense at a new target? OOPS!!! I'm soooo sure she really gives a damn. ROFL

Bottom line: when it comes to matters of importance--such as the lives of children--I'm absolutely thrilled to have someone like you think that I'm wrong. You think I'm wrong, you think they're wrong, you think we're all wrong--and that you, who believe it's okay for moms to kill their children in the womb, are right.

Take a good look, folks: Sigma IS "pro-choice America"--and it ain't a pretty sight, because the "choice" she represents is the choice to torture little babies to death in the womb.

reply from: Sigma

In what way am I picking on either bradensmommy or laurissamarcotte?

And yet, you have no argument against abortion. Merely insults.

reply from: Tam

In what way am I picking on either bradensmommy or laurissamarcotte?

Any way you can, as is your style. If you think I'm going to try to explain to you, forget it! Your "but, but, but... I don't know what you mean!" technique is not cutting it.

And yet, you have no argument against abortion. Merely insults.

LOL This whole forum is full of arguments against abortion. I've made hundreds myself. If you want to protest "but, but, but...I don't know what you mean!" I have no patience for it. You will learn it eventually, and I will not waste my time playing your little game.

Neither anything you have read, nor anything you could ever read, will constitute a good argument against abortion to you, because you've already decided that there IS no argument against abortion, because it's simply a woman's right. That's your opinion and you have a right to it. If you'd like to pretend I have no argument against abortion, be my guest. You certainly seem to enjoy playing "Let's Pretend". Just don't expect me, or anyone else familiar with your little tactics, to jump in the playpen with you.

reply from: Sigma

I do not try to pick on either of them. Nor do I pretend not to understand. If I ask a question, I genuinly want to know.

Everything you spat out at me was a misunderstanding of my posts and positions, so I cannot consider those arguments against abortion. I am very open-minded, if you have a logical argument I do listen and consider. You have not shown this, all I have seen are insults and innuendo.

reply from: Tam

Here's a thought--why don't you try telling this BS to someone who has an iota of respect left for you, if such a person exists anywhere in the world. Pretty much every sentence you write is dishonest in some way. To point out all your lies and distortions would be a full-time job. I'm not interested. You have long ago lost any shred of credibility you ever had with me, so please don't kid yourself that I take seriously your BS assessment of my arguments, or of anyone else's. You've been thoroughly "pwned" on this forum by pretty much every prolife poster here, and if you can't admit that, I could not possibly care less. Anyone who takes you seriously will have to learn the hard way what most people reading at this point have figured out long ago: that your dishonesty is surpassed only by your arrogance.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

No, but I think at 2 weeks it dreams about the mother's voice and the mother's movement and stuff like that. Dreaming is a form of thinking, so a child does think in the womb.

reply from: Sigma

Well, thank goodness Maybe some actual discussion can take place now that you won't be involved.

reply from: Sigma

Brain development does not begin until at least the 3 week mark, and true brainwaves don't appear until about the third trimester from what I've read. Where did you see that the fetus dreams in the first trimester?

Certainly towards the end of the pregnancy it is undisputable that a developed brain exists, but I don't think brain activity is the criteria that tam was using when she was saying the same person exists from conception onward.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Ok, so 4 weeks. But it still thinks in the womb XD And yes, I do think that Tam meant the same person and body.

reply from: Sigma

She meant the same person, the dispute was over what was the same or what made them the same. It may be that she meant that the body was the same, I'm not sure. It wasn't that the genes were the same because I asked that.

Early EEG readings measure potential, but this indicates that the cells are alive. Without certain structures that don't appear until later in the pregnancy, however, true brainwaves aren't possible.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

But it is still brain waves.

reply from: Sigma

Can't argue with that

reply from: yoda

He's just sandbagging you, laurissa. He knows we don't change who we are during our lifetime. Heck, everyone in the world but him/her knows that. Probably even space aliens know that. But not Sig!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Since when do brain waves and thinking determine personhood? As as I'm concerned, the dictionary and Constitution defined a person as a human being. If an unborn baby isn't a human being, then what is it? A parrot...?

reply from: Sigma

We aren't determining the criteria for personhood, per se. We were discussing what is the same 3 days after conception through the rest of ones life.

reply from: dignitarian

We aren't determining the criteria for personhood, per se. We were discussing what is the same 3 days after conception through the rest of ones life.

The moment of conception establishes a living (metabolizing) Being of Human Origin with its completely formed code of DNA; this living Being just happens to be the only thing OBJECTIVELY identifiable as both a Human AND a Person.

Thus, if we must attach the label of Personhood to this Being of Human Origin at some particular time of its life, we had better do it right here. The only alternative is to reserve the status of Personhood on the basis of a subjective criterion, and our experience with this method of human qualification is filled with tragedies of the greatest magnitude.

After all, if one can declare personhood on the basis of one set of subjective criteria, there is absolutely no reason why some one else can't declare it upon some other basis of subjective criteria.

Regards,

Dig

reply from: yoda

Hey, I think Sig is absolutely right on this. Why, I used to be Normal Rockwell!

reply from: Sigma

I raised this point with Tam when I asked Same in what way, then? Genetically?, but she rejected that as the basis for saying it is the same. I don't know what criteria she is using, but it isn't the existance of human DNA.

reply from: Tam

"But, but, but ... I don't know what you mean!" LOL

Normal? You used to be normal? I don't believe it for a second!

ROFL I think I was Hillary Clinton for awhile, but I don't like to talk about that painful period of my life. Right now, I'm Obi Wan Kenobi, and Hillary is Monica Lewinsky. How embarrassing is THAT! I wish there were some way we would all stay the same people all of our lives. This is terribly inconvenient. Just this morning, I was Susan Powter. Stop the insanity!!

reply from: yoda

ROTFLMAO!! I almost went back and corrected my spelling, but then I decided it was better like it is!

THIS was your morning to be Susan Powter? Heck, I had to google that name, and this is what I got: "Whatever happened to Susan "Stop the Insanity!" Powter? But then again, Susan Powter wasn't exactly your average huckster. In the
90s, the muscular blonde with the buzz cut was everywhere you looked, ..."

So you were a muscular blonde this morning?? Why did you change back?

p.s. Hey, this is just too good for one single thread........

reply from: Tam

THIS was your morning to be Susan Powter? Heck, I had to google that name, and this is what I got: "Whatever happened to Susan "Stop the Insanity!" Powter? But then again, Susan Powter wasn't exactly your average huckster. In the
90s, the muscular blonde with the buzz cut was everywhere you looked, ..."

So you were a muscular blonde this morning?? Why did you change back?

Couldn't stand the buzz cut. Actually, some guy recently offered me $300 if I'd get a buzz cut for a video he's making, and I turned him down. So there ya go. I should have waited until this morning, then I'd only have had to get a half-inch taken off in order to get the money. Since I'd previously sent him a photo of me with hair down nearly to my knees, I think he might not have appreciated the switcheroo, but them's the breaks when people don't stay the same people from one day to the next. It's terribly confusing.

... Actually, it's odd, isn't it? In a world where no one stays the same person from one moment to the next, it's confusing for everyone, but in a world where everyone stays the same person his/her entire life, it's confusing for Sigma. Tsk, tsk. Stop the insanity!!!

reply from: Tam

LOL I'm sure it's not so much thinking that we don't stay the same people, it's just that we can't prove we don't to his/her satisfaction. Maybe hidden cameras would work to help prove it? Perhaps we should suggest to the Dept. of Homeland Security that all homes and businesses be wired in Orwellian fashion, to monitor the day-to-day activities of each person on the planet, in order to make sure none of us is changing places with anyone else. It would be like "The Truman Show" for every one of us. Then, after a century, we could take all the video footage and make "life history" sequences for each human being on the planet.

So here's my big question: if you play the footage BACKWARDS, does it say "Satan eats Cheese Whiz?" (sorry, inside joke for Weird Al fans). No, really, if you play the footage backwards, starting from a person's death, and follow it back, back, back through old age, middle age, young adulthood, adolescence, youth, infancy, and gestation, all the way back to conception, I wonder if that would be "proof" enough that no "baby switching" had been taking place, that the person in question hadn't been anyone else at any point. "Switch on wombcam 1" "Wombcam 1 on" LOL

reply from: yoda

I have another suggestion. Why don't we interview Gianna Jessen, and ask her if she's the same person who was almost killed by an attempted saline abortion? Or that other girl who lost an arm to an attempted abortion, and makes appearances at Prolife functions? Do you think Sig would believe them? Or would he claim that they've switched places with some other handicapped, or one-armed people? Or would he insist that they have no right to be alive, and try to kill them?

reply from: yoda

Looks like the whole world is insane, except for Sig.....

reply from: Tam

I have another suggestion. Why don't we interview Gianna Jessen, and ask her if she's the same person who was almost killed by an attempted saline abortion? Or that other girl who lost an arm to an attempted abortion, and makes appearances at Prolife functions? Do you think Sig would believe them? Or would he claim that they've switched places with some other handicapped, or one-armed people? Or would he insist that they have no right to be alive, and try to kill them?

Oh, man! Good point. I wonder, would he say they have no right to be alive? Probably he'd say that once they survived, they weren't attached to anyone and therefore no one had the right to kill them. I think the entire basis for his belief that they have no right to live is the "attached to mom" thing.

reply from: yoda

Well, we're all "guilty" of having been attached at one time, right.........?? So if "being attached" is punishable by death, then aren't we all guilty of a capital offense? And isn't Mother Nature responsible for all those attachments? Shouldn't he be demanding that Ma Nature be executed too?

reply from: Tam

Well, according to the latest physics, we're all connected on a subatomic level, just one big roiling foam of energy taking various material shapes. From a spiritual perspective, it could be said that all life is connected to one divine Source from which all life springs. So whether you're thinking scientifically or spiritually, perhaps there's not a living creature on this or any other planet who deserves to exist, if connection is reason to kill someone.

Or, perhaps, connection is NOT reason enough to be sentenced to death? Hmm?

reply from: Sigma

Neither of these are original research, they are personal essays that are not subjected to peer review. They are essentially the opinion of the authors and the sources they used have long been superseded.

Hamlin's essay had nothing to do with abortion, but to do with using EEG to determine death instead of lack of a heartbeat or breathing determining death. Secondly, the source Hamlin uses is "Electroencephalographic Studies on Brain of Foetus of Children of Premature Birth and New-Born, Together With Note on Reactions of Foetus Brain Upon Drugs" (Folia Psychiat Neurol Jap 1951;5:135-146), which is incorrectly cited. The original study used fetuses from hysterectomy abortions (which are no longer done) at more than 3 months of pregnancy, not the 40-odd days cited. This Japanese study is antiquated and later research has been unable to corroborate any cerebral activity, drug induced or not.

J. Goldenring also did no original research. Only two courses of study on still-living aborted human embryos and fetuses have ever been done. One was the Japanese study I mentioned, and the other was Bergstrom and Bergstrom in Finland which, like the Japanese study, obtained fetuses from hysterectomy abortions. They found "electrical activity" in fetal brainstem cells from 10 weeks of pregnancy, but nothing to do with "brain function" until 12 weeks of gestation. The activity was not what we know as brain waves, rather they were random bursts of electrical activity which looked exactly like the bursts they got from the fetal leg muscles when they were stimulated.

To get potentials from the cortex, you require a few structures that are not present until later in the pregnancy: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Without those structures there are no true brainwaves.

If by the “same entity” you mean it will have the same DNA, yes. However, that is not what tam is saying from what I understand.

If your physical body is what you mean by person, then you are not the same person. However, I don’t know of anyone who uses the physical body as their criteria for a certain person. You are still you with cosmetic changes, so there is something else that stays the same through the cosmetic change. I’m asking what that something else is.

Most link our mental processes as the common thread throughout our lives, or at least our consciousness. As we grow and change in our outlook we do consider ourselves as a “new person” as we mature. A child of ten would also understand that.

However, this is not the criteria tam is using because consciousness does not exist 3 days after conception. The only criteria I can think of that is continuous throughout cosmetic changes and maturing is our genetic code. However, this is not what tam is talking about by her own admission.

Obviously we are not talking about when the legal system considers us the same person.

reply from: yoda

Is there anyone here sucker enough to talk to Sigma about whether we are the same human being we were at conception? Anyone?

reply from: Tam

LOL Yes, Virginia, it's not all about your DNA. It's not all about the shape of your body or the content of your mind. Personhood is a fascinating subject for an abstract philosophy seminar.

Are you really asking, because you have no idea what is constant throughout your life, or are you just trying to say that there isn't anything constant throughout your life?

What is constant IS your life. Is it really that hard for you to grasp? It's a life. Your life is YOUR life. My life is MY life. Or are you just wondering the age-old question, "What is life, anyway? What does it mean to be human? To be a person?"

Clue phone ringing Sigma--hey, it's for you! The answer has been staring you in the face the whole time, right at the top and bottom of every page on the site. LIFE. It's YOUR LIFE. You have a body, but your life is not just your body. You have DNA, but your life is not just your DNA. You have memories and thoughts and asinine ideas, but your life is more than just your asinine ideas, much as it may seem at times to posters here that it is not. You have a life. From when you began to when you end, that's your life, and it has never NOT been your life.

I don't know why I'm bothering. Someone remind me this is a waste of time.

reply from: yoda

HEY TAM....... that's a waste of time!

reply from: Tam

Thanks, I needed that!

reply from: yoda

YW! Check this out:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/prolifeviews/messages?msg=8096.1

reply from: Sigma

That's great tam, trade one ambiguity for another. "Life" is not quantifiable or measurable or, strictly, observable or definable.

Yes, you are alive. Life isn't a substance or object, so what makes it your life, as distinct from another's life?

This may very well be a waste of time. If you wish to stop discussing this then go with my blessing, but both you and yodavater seem to have a hard time quitting the discussion as you indicated pages ago you would do. As much as the little inane conversations between the two of you amuse me, the dubious pleasure of your company is not desired.

reply from: Tam

Really, attending college should sort this issue out for you. Good luck!

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,

My source was an argument I had written up some time ago and modified here. One of the ultimate sources may have been the site you mentioned, if it was up when I wrote the argument.

It’s always good to have up to date material. I’ll do more of an in-depth read when I am off work, but the excerpt does not seem to contradict what I said. EEG readings can be recorded, but that means little besides the brain is alive and being wired up, not that there is cognitive ability or activity.

Even your second link says What we are seeing, I believe, is the integration of various levels of the brain as it organizes into a feeling, learning, thinking organ.

Ignoring that it is a theory (and that he is examining evidence secondhand), this also does not contradict what I have said. Carl is suggesting that the wave patterns indicate a purpose similar to what REM sleep does in us; it helps organize the brain.

No, the fetus does not have the physical structures required to have consciousness. A sleeping adult does. A coma patient may not, as in the case of Terri Schiavo, have enough of a brain to support higher brain function.

This is an interesting philosophical viewpoint. If I may ask, if your brain were transplanted into a body that did not have a brain and you, in effect, had a new body, where would you the person be? Were you transferred with the brain, or do you, the person, remain in the body that now has no brain? Was a new person created with this transfer?

Most would say that they were transferred with the brain, I daresay. Most equate the mind as the locus for self.

Is an eye still an eye when it exists as genetic code but has no physical structure? Does DNA a person make, then?

Most give greater significance to those who are older (or at least have had more experience), but I don’t think that’s what you meant.

tam

I have, but thank you for the suggestion.

reply from: Jaylee

don't you believe life exists then?

i know unborn babys have life in them.

reply from: bradensmommy

don't you believe life exists then?

i know unborn babys have life in them.

According to 'ol Sigma (who knows everything) unborn babies aren't alive thus means they have no "right to life"

reply from: Sigma

bradensmommy,

This has never been my position, bradensmommy

Jaylee,

I do believe in life, and I do believe the fetus is alive.

The question was What is the same from 3 days after conception until death?. Tam answered that it is the same life. I responded with what you quoted, that life is not identifiable so what makes one life different from another.

reply from: yoda

Still wanting someone to hold your greasy little hand, Sig?

EVERYONE, even you, knows that we are the same people that we've always been........ you just want us to hold your hand, don't you?

reply from: Tam

Yup. But what's even sadder is that many of them already hold this position but simply refuse to admit it, because it's such a despicable position that they can't bring themselves to acknowledge--even to themselves--that this is their position.

reply from: Tam

Yup. But what's even sadder is that many of them already hold this position but simply refuse to admit it, because it's such a despicable position that they can't bring themselves to acknowledge--even to themselves--that this is their position.

Exactly. Many obviously did not arrive at their position by considering the issues they use to attempt to justify that position. The selfish position preceded the search for justifications. That is what we call a**backwards where I come from.

Absolutely. It is a position in search of a rationale, not a rational position.

reply from: Sigma

To use your words, "nice dodge". When you have nothing to say you retreat and say "Is that your justification for abortion?". No, that is not my justification for abortion. I was answering your comment as best I could.

You said I do not believe level of development makes one person more significant than another. Significant in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of others? Absolutely people assign more significance to older folks than younger folks. When an older man speaks of what has happened in his lifetime, it has more significance, in some ways, than a younger man speaking of what he read in a book.

However, I don't think that's what you meant by "significant".

I said no such thing. They did no research so I did not have to contend with what they said, but with their sources. Their sources did not say what they think they said.

And it was invalid.

False, and I even included that in my rebuttal. They get EEG readings. I said they were random, and the research you posted was a theory that they were not random but were generated as the brain organized itself, similar to what our brains do as we sleep. This is not directly contradictory, as my main point is undisturbed by this new information. Whether the activity is random or not, both of us agree that the readings are the brain wiring itself up.

I'm afraid I must have missed that. Can you quote the passage?

reply from: Sigma

No. Read my posts that sparked your involvment: Early EEG readings measure potential, but this indicates that the cells are alive. Without certain structures that don't appear until later in the pregnancy, however, true brainwaves aren't possible.

I did not dispute that there are EEG readings early in the pregnancy, I disputed that they indicated consciousness or higher brain function.

EEG is a measure of electrical activity. When measuring brainwaves it picks up the synchronization of neurons, which are not present early in the pregnancy.

You have no idea what I say You mischaracterize what I say, then say I was dishonest. You're a riot sometimes.

reply from: yoda

Folks, I think it's time we stopped holding Sigma's greasy little hand, as we walk down this primrose path with him.

reply from: Sigma

In this forum? You’re right.

I am saying the very same thing I have said since the beginning. There are EEG readings which indicate that the cells are alive. The readings do not indicate much, if anything, beyond that.

Strawman. I have said nothing along these lines.

Your lack of the machinery necessary for higher brain function does indeed mean that the decision to allow you to live rests in the hands of your next-of-kin. This is what happened with Terri.

EEG readings are measured at 40 days, I have not disputed this. True brainwaves require certain structures in the brain that have not formed at 40 days.

reply from: yoda

Not really. She was confined and denied water and food. That's a killing, as sure as if they'd killed her with a large rock. Except that it's much slower and more painful, probably.

reply from: Sigma

Whether it is different is a matter of opinion.

How are they misleading? I explain exactly what I mean, that you disagree does not make what I say misleading or dishonest. EEG readings are indeed found early in the pregnancy. Do you believe those readings mean anything besides that the brain is alive and growing?

Did it say in your link the gestational age of what he was examining? It did not say the readings resembled a sleeping adult, it was theorized that they indicated a similar function in the brain.

“Brain function”? Sure, I have not disputed this. True brainwaves that indicate actual thought processes, when measured by an EEG, are created by the synchronization of neurons. Neurons are not present early in the pregnancy.

Any other readings confirms the tissue is alive and not much else.

reply from: sowerjr

Terri was killed by withholding food and water from her. She was not ill, she was not in the process of dying, she could not feed herself or go get her own food. Therefore withholding food and water killed her just as surely as if she had been a walking talking adult placed in a locked room and given no food and water for a couple weeks.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Exactly! Saint Michael said that she couldn't think and wasn't really alive, but she was!

reply from: faithman

It all amounts to killing someone who inconveniansed us, and does not have a voice to say please don't.

reply from: yoda

And in the case of Terri, the intentional action was the withholding of food and water. That is not "negligence", that is intentionally starving a person to death.

reply from: galen

Gee Sig when did you become a nuerologist?? Embryologist?
pain is a perception that is reacted upon as soon at those nerve fibers function. that takes less than 3 weeks.
Mary

reply from: faithman

And in the case of Terri, the intentional action was the withholding of food and water. That is not "negligence", that is intentionally starving a person to death.
SSSSOOO if we tie a child up in a closet, and forget to feed and water them, it is abuse. If we refuse to feed and water the impaired, it is mercy?

reply from: galen

I agree with CP.
but then again i am for the right to takre my own life should i so choose.
Mary
*Cough* * sniffle*

reply from: yoda

That isn't how it was.
There were several family members who wanted to feed her, there were people outside begging to give her a drink of water, and her monster of a hubby locked them all out and kept a police guard on her to keep all food and water away.
And you think that was "refusing to take an action"? Come on!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Concerned, what an agonizing decision. I think you made the right choice.
In some place, I believe its the Netherlands, old ppl are so afraid of being euthanized against their will they avoid medical care -- euthanization became legal as a "merciful" act. (This parallels how the UN insists women want birth control, but so many women are afraid of being sterilized against will, which the UN does, that they shun all health care.)
I hear many people say they only want to be alive for as long as they are mentally stable. In fact, I have a friend in her nineties who said that to me -- she doesn't realize she has dementia. So say she had said this in her 30's, her son could say, "Well mom said she didn't want to live this way so let's end things." But, although she is not really mentally stable, she still enjoys her quality of life, which questions if it is ever valid for someone to make such a statement.
I have heard a man who was in a near fatal accident say that no one should be able to say "just let me die" because after the accident the impulse of the body and spirit is to heal, even if the person didn't think they would feel that way.
During my great-grandmother's last year, she struggled with Alzheimer's badly that she lived in a world of imagination and could not even walk. My grandmother says that even if it may have looked as if she were ready to die, she must have had something her spirit needed to work out with God. Ultimately, that's why I'm against euthanasia, God knows when to take people, its not our jurisdiction.

reply from: Tam

Yeah, if you can't say, "I want to live," but can only manage "I wa...." you're doomed, I suppose. When her loved ones tried to get her to say "I want to live," all she could manage was "I wa..." and so they couldn't save her.

reply from: Sigma

I do have a background in biology.
Pain, as a perception, cannot be perceived by the fetus until it develops the mental machinery necessary to recieve pain signals. Regardless of how many nerves are firing and what they are saying, the perception of pain relies on certain mental structures that are not present at 3 weeks.

reply from: galen

Siggy ,
You need to brush up on your biology. Opinion will not win out fact on this one when a fetus contracts in pain as its being vaccumed up. yours seems to be a very outdated opinion in the feild.
Mary
* cough sneeze blow*

reply from: galen

CP
thank you for your concern.
Just to be clear... i reserve the right to take my own life... not anyone elses, nor do i think that blanket laws should be passed for such. however, i do not feel i should be locked in a mental ward should i have a yerminal disese and want to end my suffering, nor do i think my doctor should go to jail, nor my husband. it is a personal family matter. In Terri's case they both should have had living wills and avoided the whole mess.
Mary
* cough wheeze*

reply from: yoda

How about honesty, Siggy? Do you have a background in honesty? Or did you flunk that too?

reply from: yoda

Okay. Not to belabor this point (because I agree we need to keep it relevant to the abortion issue) but my reason for engaging in this debate was to point out that using force to prevent others from providing food and water to a starving person is not a "passive" action. I'm not opposed to giving every person the right to determine the time and circumstances of their own death either, but that wasn't the case.

reply from: Tam

Right. I feel the same way. If a person wants to die, then although if I love the person I will try to keep him/her from feeling such despair as to wish to die, ultimately the choice is his/hers. Killing someone is another story entirely. I agree with Mary that Terri should have had a living will. (But I disagree with anyone who thinks that in the absence of any such hard proof of her specific intentions, her husband should have had the right to legally bar her parents from giving her any food or water, thereby causing her slow death.)

reply from: faithman

Right. I feel the same way. If a person wants to die, then although if I love the person I will try to keep him/her from feeling such despair as to wish to die, ultimately the choice is his/hers. Killing someone is another story entirely. I agree with Mary that Terri should have had a living will. (But I disagree with anyone who thinks that in the absence of any such hard proof of her specific intentions, her husband should have had the right to legally bar her parents from giving her any food or water, thereby causing her slow death.) Think you may have miss worded your post, or do you agree that mikie had the right to have his wife starved to death?

reply from: AshMarie88

I do have a background in biology.
Pain, as a perception, cannot be perceived by the fetus until it develops the mental machinery necessary to recieve pain signals. Regardless of how many nerves are firing and what they are saying, the perception of pain relies on certain mental structures that are not present at 3 weeks.
Which is very early in pregnancy.
If it can feel complete pain by 17 weeks, when do you think the machinery developed? Hmmm, take a guess.

reply from: yoda

Painkillers can be administered before any abortion, which makes the pain question irrelevant. Death is the one constant of every abortion, and it cannot be ignored. Does death itself hurt? "Oh death, where is thy sting?" Has anyone returned from the grave lately to tell us? Would we be more opposed to intentional killing if we knew it always hurt?
Or is it the fact that they are robbed of their natural life expectancy that is the most objectionable thing about the intentional killing of the innocent? Is that why we wink at the killing of a terminally ill 85 year old who is in constant pain? If so, then why do some of us "wink" at the killing of a 8 week old embryo? Is there a part of us that winks at any misfortune that befalls someone else, and leaves us alone? If so, should we honor that part, or try to minimize and punish it? It seems that in our present society, there are many who seek to honor such dispicable things in the name of "diversity", and to lift up evil and call it "good".
I for one will stand against the evil, selfish parts of human nature, and despise any who seek to legitimize and/or "normalize" them. "These are the time that try men's (the collective "men's) souls"...... and there is great social pressure to go along with the "diversity" movement and say "anything goes". Do not be fooled, that is pure evil staring you in the face. Resist their temptation and their pressure, or you will end up serving only the baser parts of your nature.
<end of sermon>

reply from: Sigma

It is not opinion, or at least it is not just my opinion. Brain development begins fairly early and continues throughout gestation, but awareness and pain is generally accepted not to occur until the end of the second trimester/start of the third trimester. Consciousness is generally associated with the cortex, which develops its characteristic convolutions in the third trimester, as well as begins to recieve signals from other parts of the brain around then.
From http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/genetics/gtac/inutero.htm
Such very early interventions do not raise the issue of fetal awareness and pain (The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Working Party Report on Fetal Awareness, October 1997 [2], concluded that it is not possible for the fetus to be aware of events before 26 weeks' gestation
Being reactive to the environment and perceiving pain are two different things. From http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf
The fetus is capable of movement from a very early age. At 7 weeks it can move its head in response to a stimulus around the mouth. At ten weeks, the palms will flex or toes curl if touched. Spontaneus jerks of limbs and squirming movements become routine and towards the end of the fourth month, these are detectable by the woman. These movements are automatic and serve to sort the developing neurons into efficient organisational pathways; without them, limbs would not develop. At 17-18 weeks, they start to subside, as the developing brain regions start to inhibit the primitive activity of the existing central nervous system. Ultimately movements are brought under brain control and from six months onwards, the level of fetal activity increases again.
The spinal cord and brain stem differentiate earlier than higher brain function and structures. Reflex and awareness are separate.

reply from: galen

that study is almost 10 years old siggy... try again.
Mary
*cough*

reply from: Sigma

Do you have something more recent that disputes this? From a non-biased source, obviously.

reply from: galen

ok what do you consider non biased??
Mary
*wheeze*

reply from: jelaine

It is not opinion, or at least it is not just my opinion. Brain development begins fairly early and continues throughout gestation, but awareness and pain is generally accepted not to occur until the end of the second trimester/start of the third trimester. Consciousness is generally associated with the cortex, which develops its characteristic convolutions in the third trimester, as well as begins to recieve signals from other parts of the brain around then.
From http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/genetics/gtac/inutero.htm
Such very early interventions do not raise the issue of fetal awareness and pain (The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Working Party Report on Fetal Awareness, October 1997 [2], concluded that it is not possible for the fetus to be aware of events before 26 weeks' gestation
Being reactive to the environment and perceiving pain are two different things. From http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf
The fetus is capable of movement from a very early age. At 7 weeks it can move its head in response to a stimulus around the mouth. At ten weeks, the palms will flex or toes curl if touched. Spontaneus jerks of limbs and squirming movements become routine and towards the end of the fourth month, these are detectable by the woman. These movements are automatic and serve to sort the developing neurons into efficient organisational pathways; without them, limbs would not develop. At 17-18 weeks, they start to subside, as the developing brain regions start to inhibit the primitive activity of the existing central nervous system. Ultimately movements are brought under brain control and from six months onwards, the level of fetal activity increases again.
The spinal cord and brain stem differentiate earlier than higher brain function and structures. Reflex and awareness are separate.
From your link:
In 1996, the CARE trust established a 'Commission of
Inquiry into Fetal Sentience' (CIFS) which called expert
witnesses and concluded that "the fetus may be able to
experience suffering from around 11 weeks of development".The All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPLG)
also brought out a paper ("Human Sentience before Birth"),which concluded that the anatomical structures in the
fetal nervous system necessary for the appreciation of
pain are "present and functional before the tenth week of
intrauterine life".

reply from: AshMarie88

Second trimester?
Yep.

reply from: Sigma

Generally, national and international organizations who have no vested interest would be considered non-biased. Pro-life and pro-choice groups would not be non-biased.

reply from: Sigma

The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. The perception of pain does not seem to be possible before the end of the second trimester/start of the third.

reply from: faithman

Generally, national and international organizations who have no vested interest would be considered non-biased. Pro-life and pro-choice groups would not be non-biased.
The United nations is totally sold out pro-abort. Aleander sanger, grandson to margret, is the one over reproductive issues, and a total planed parenthood shill.

reply from: yoda

That's just the kind of "unbiased" source Siggy loves.

reply from: jelaine

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf

reply from: faithman

MAN!!! very good info!!!

reply from: Sigma

Read the rest of the article and it shows the major points of contention. What you posted assumed that movement shows conscious action or avoidance. The article contends this is reflex action.

reply from: jelaine

So there are differing opinions...when in doubt, "do no harm". It is better to err on the side of caution and not cause a developing baby any pain, in my opinion. I have a reflex action to move away from a lit match if it gets too close to me but that doesn't mean that I won't feel pain if it actually touches me.

reply from: Sigma

Some believe the world is flat, some believe it is spherical. Both are wrong. However, believing the world is flat is more wrong than believing it is spherical. There can be differing opinions, but one has more evidence than the other.
When in doubt, protect the woman's rights. That is my opinion.

reply from: AshMarie88

Some believe the world is flat, some believe it is spherical. Both are wrong. However, believing the world is flat is more wrong than believing it is spherical. There can be differing opinions, but one has more evidence than the other.
When in doubt, protect the woman's rights. That is my opinion.
Yea, protect the woman's rights and completely ignore a man's rights or child's rights.
It's alllll about the woman, all the time. Forget about everyone else.

reply from: Sigma

Not ignore, no. The woman's rights take precedence, yes.
In the pregnancy relationship? Yes. The woman, first and foremost, deserves consideration before any consideration is given to what grows inside her. That is my opinion.

reply from: AshMarie88

Not ignore, no. The woman's rights take precedence, yes.
In the pregnancy relationship? Yes. The woman, first and foremost, deserves consideration before any consideration is given to what grows inside her. That is my opinion.
Then I guess in the same way, a woman deserves more consideration before her small child.
Just keep thinking that way. Maybe women will have more rights than men some day.

reply from: jelaine

Okay, I don't know anyone who believes the world is flat...but if you do....whatever.
This I do know....no individual should have the right to kill another human being!
Come out of the dark ages, quit believing the world is flat, look at a few ultrasounds, open your mind to the truth, and you will agree...I know you can do it.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Some people believed blacks were 3/5 human, some believed they were a higher class of ape. However, believing the blacks are apes is more wrong than believing they are 3/5 human. There can be differing opinions, but one has more evidence than the other.
When in doubt, protect the white slaveowers' rights. That is my opinion.

reply from: yoda

Take a look at that sentence. See anything odd there? How about the phrase "what grows inside her"? Does that strike you as the least bit cold, unfeeling, indifferent to human life? Why would anyone call an unborn baby "what grows indside her"? Apparently, Siggy places unborn babies on the same level as a fungus that might be "growing inside her".
What kind of person puts human life on the same level as fungus?

reply from: yoda

Yes, that is exactly what Siggy is saying. "Give the slaveowner consideration over what may be growing in his slaves quarters".
Of course, Siggy's definition of "consideration" is "the power to kill".
That's always the bottom line with anything Siggy says: the power to KILL.

reply from: faithman

Make the babies dead.... suck the brains from their head... just a little saline...wipews JR from the seen... nothing could be keener.... than to suck um thru a vaccum cleaner.... catch um from the start... and tare them all apart.

reply from: galen

Ok ZSig,
Sorry I was out of it for a while i had pnuemonia,
So you say that reflexivity is not sensation?
When you put your hand to a hot stove, you jerk it back because your reflexes percive pain. That is the most primitive function any animal can have. Now if you want when you are older you can force yourself o keep your hand on the hot stove, but your brain will be screaming at you to stop. That is higher functioning. if the fetus has reflexes to pull away from something that is harmful, on some level the organism is aware of the harm about to befall it. it may be rudimentary but it is there. When I get back to my office i will post several jounal articles to this thread to back this up.
again sorry for taking so long.
Mary

reply from: Tam

Awesome parody. I hope it stands a chance of penetrating the thick skulls of those who most need to hear it.

reply from: yoda

What a shame to waste such a beautiful piece of logic on someone who will probably never read it, or respond.
Nice work!

reply from: galen

sorry to bump this late. but Sigma never replied... I want to know if he ever even saw this last post of mine.
mary

reply from: yoda

Even if he saw it, he will never answer it. He ignores anything that makes him look bad.

reply from: galen

I think he is out of school for the semester... oh well . If anyone wants the journal articles please post here.
Mary


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics