Home - List All Discussions

just consider this

by: icecreamsocialist

it has been proven that fetuses are not sentient until 22 weeks, and cannot feel pain until 26 weeks- the vast majority of abortions are performed WELL before then.
want sources? here:
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7116/1111/c

reply from: ronin82

It is irrelevant, icecream. Our humanity is not contingent upon our ability to feel pain, or sentience for that matter. There have been documented cases of children born without the necessary nerves to feel pain - I don't think we would argue that this means we should be able to do whatever we want to them.
I'm also a socialist, btw, alibet with a Christian, anti-statist twist

reply from: icecreamsocialist

really, rohin? if you can find me a (credible) account of a first-semester fetus who lived outside of the womb, i'd love to hear it.
If our humanity isn't contingent on our ability to think or feel, than what exactly IS it contingent on?

reply from: sheri

so do you think it is wrong to kill a baby after 24 weeks?

reply from: ronin82

No no, you misunderstand. I was refering to a disorder people can be born with, called "congenital insensitivity to pain". Here is the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

To answer your question, in a scientific sense it is our possession of human DNA, of 46 chromosomes (plus or minus one chromosome with some birth defects such as Down Syndrome), 23 from our mother, 23 from our father.
Putting feeling aside (since it is possible for a born human being to not be able to feel pain), infants don't really "think" either, but their humanity is only called into question by extermists such as Peter Singer. There are few (probably no) cognitive arguments you can make about a fetus that you can't make about a young child, who is still governed more by instinct than reason. Clearly there is a vast difference between a newborn or a toddler and a 30 year old adult.
Life requires certain conditions to develop. I know that some feminists wish it weren't so - I know some wish they could be men. Your quote even attests to that. Dennis Miller only said what he said because on some level it makes sense that men can do as they please, while women must obey orders. We do live in a sexist society. I would rather hold men to a higher standard, however, than women to a lower one.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

I don't support abortion after 24 weeks except in cases in which the mother's life is in jeopardy.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

You're right, I did misunderstand you. I'm sorry!
Infants may not have the same mental capacity of a thirty year old, but they are conscious and aware of their own existences, giving them a level of humanity that non-sentient fetuses do not have.

reply from: yoda

And you have interviewed how many "fetuses", exactly?
What? You were talking out of your anus? Oh, I see.....

reply from: sheri

so its ok to kill a baby at 23 weeks but a week later you cant because they will feel pain? madness!

reply from: jujujellybean

think about it. Living period, in your mindset. I mean, some down syndrome cases are not very sentient and cannot think well. they may feel pain, but they aren't sentient and cannot comprehend it. Should we kill them because their 'humanity' doesn't depend on their ability to think or feel? They aren't dogs or cats, nonetheless, so they must be human. Soooooooooooooooooo...
according to your philosophy(that is of course if you believe some severe down syndrome cases are humans) is that being simply alive is what makes a human human. Which, of course, is what I believe, but you don't have the same kind of ideas...you think somehow that being in the womb makes the difference, if you do think some severe down syndrome cases are human.

reply from: yoda

Our species classification, dufus:
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0481706.html / hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

reply from: jujujellybean

Basically what I was trying to say...mine is a little less scientific though!

reply from: icecreamsocialist

And you have interviewed how many "fetuses", exactly?
What? You were talking out of your anus? Oh, I see.....
No, Yoda. I haven't interviewed any fetuses. I don't need to. You know all of those thoughts and feelings that you have? Well, you have some very special body parts that let you do that; maybe you've heard of them? They're called your BRAIN and your NERVOUS SYSTEM. And see, without those very special body parts, people cannot think or feel. Fetuses before 24 weeks don't have them yet... connect the dots?
Now that I've answered your question, maybe you can answer one of mine: you have very strong thoughts and opinions , as does everyone else on this board. Why is it that EVERYONE on this board has been able to show me respect except for you? Is it because you're some foriegn country where asking people whether or not they're talking out of their anuses is polite? Because your mother didn't hug you enough as a child?
Is it because you think that I don't deserve respect because I have opinions that are different than yours? I think Jesus would agree that EVERYONE deserves respect, even if you think they're wrong (remember Jezebel? yeah, I read the Bible, too.)
Here's a thought: maybe it's because you're afraid I'm right.
Whatever it is, you'll have some time to figure it out, because I'm not responding to you again until you follow your friend's examples and speak to me with respect.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

It's okay to abort a fetus that has no thoughts or emotions that isn't aware of it's own existence.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

think about it. Living period, in your mindset. I mean, some down syndrome cases are not very sentient and cannot think well. they may feel pain, but they aren't sentient and cannot comprehend it. Should we kill them because their 'humanity' doesn't depend on their ability to think or feel? They aren't dogs or cats, nonetheless, so they must be human. Soooooooooooooooooo...
according to your philosophy(that is of course if you believe some severe down syndrome cases are humans) is that being simply alive is what makes a human human. Which, of course, is what I believe, but you don't have the same kind of ideas...you think somehow that being in the womb makes the difference, if you do think some severe down syndrome cases are human.
You dug your own grave there and you know it. Down syndrome patients CAN feel and ARE aware of their own existence.

reply from: sheri

so awarness is a sign of life? In that case the child should be protected even at 8 weeks when they become so aware of a needle being poked at them that they will move away from it.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

Fetuses move away from the needle because of instinct- it doesn't mean that are at all aware.

reply from: IChoseLife

and you have to also think that with advances in science, younger babies are being born all the time. 30 years ago, my mother gave birth to a 28 week old baby that didnt make it...but now, they would be able to sustain a life that young.
http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=13397
">http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=13397
"Meet Amillia Taylor - or what she looked like in October, when she was born as the world's youngest surviving premature baby. Amillia was born at a Miami hospital after less than 22 weeks of development. Since then she's been incubating and is expected to go home soon.
Is there nothing more amazing than those teeny tiny translucent feet. Hold your own hand out in front of you, and imagine those feet poking through your fingers. She was 10 OUNCES when born (280 grams), and 9.5 inches (24 cm). That's just longer than the length of your hand."
http://www.local10.com/news/11053141/detail.html
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/02/worlds_youngest.html

so whats to say that in the future, a younger baby wont be born...hm...but that baby isn't a life is it? thats just tissue...that baby doesnt really count because it's time in the womb was not long enough for you...

reply from: ronin82

It's okay to abort a fetus that has no thoughts or emotions that isn't aware of it's own existence.
You're all of those things when you are sleeping though... and I'm sure it isn't okay to kill a person in their sleep.
I watch the Simpsons. I call this Nelson Muntz logic - to you, abortion is a victimless crime, like "punching someone in the dark".
The thing is, we were all fetuses once. We are here because our mothers wanted us. And that is what this is really about, isn't it? A wanted fetus is always treated as a full member of the human community with the same rights as you and I. Regardless of what the law may say, a woman with a wanted pregnancy will feel that way, and so will the father, the family, etc.
Only the unwanted fetus is subject to this barrage of dubious philosophical and scientific arguments. That is the problem as I see it. Wantedness v. unwantedness. No human being ought to be discarded because it is unwanted, though. When this happens it epitomizes everything that is wrong with modern capitalist society.
As I explained to someone else, pro-life does not mean pro-motherhood. They are separate issues. What we want is for every life to have an opportunity to develop, because life is valuable, life is precious, and most importantly, only the individual has the right to decide whether or not his or her life is worth living.
I also disagree with your claims about infants being "self aware", or more so than a fetus. Do you remember your birth? Did you know you were being born when you were born? Of course not. Self awareness doesn't begin until later on, at least in any meaningful sense of the word. The infant and the fetus are far closer together in their cognitive abilities than the infant and the teenager or the adult, yet a very thin legal line declares the fetus a non-person, essentially the property of its mother.
To put it in perspective - if it weren't necessary for a human life to spend nine months in a woman's womb, I doubt as many people would be arguing for the legal right to destroy fetuses at will. This is about the threat that a pregnancy supposedly poses to a woman, and I will agree that we live in a society that is not always hopsitiable for such women. We can agree that that needs to change, that social and economic justice is important, and that when women have it, there will be fewer abortions. But in the meantime, we can't sacrifice our humanity for convienence, to allievate emotional or financial stress. If we can't retain our dignity in times of hardship, then we are worse than animals.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

You said a lot so I'll respond point by point:
You're all of those things when you are sleeping though... and I'm sure it isn't okay to kill a person in their sleep.
I don't know about you, but I still think and feel when I'm asleep.
I watch the Simpsons. I call this Nelson Muntz logic - to you, abortion is a victimless crime, like "punching someone in the dark".
The thing is, we were all fetuses once. We are here because our mothers wanted us. And that is what this is really about, isn't it? A wanted fetus is always treated as a full member of the human community with the same rights as you and I. Regardless of what the law may say, a woman with a wanted pregnancy will feel that way, and so will the father, the family, etc.
Only the unwanted fetus is subject to this barrage of dubious philosophical and scientific arguments. That is the problem as I see it. Wantedness v. unwantedness. No human being ought to be discarded because it is unwanted, though. When this happens it epitomizes everything that is wrong with modern capitalist society.
When a fetus is wanted it's treated like a fully living, functioning human. That doesn't make it one.
As I explained to someone else, pro-life does not mean pro-motherhood. They are separate issues. What we want is for every life to have an opportunity to develop, because life is valuable, life is precious, and most importantly, only the individual has the right to decide whether or not his or her life is worth living.
I also disagree with your claims about infants being "self aware", or more so than a fetus. Do you remember your birth? Did you know you were being born when you were born? Of course not. Self awareness doesn't begin until later on, at least in any meaningful sense of the word. The infant and the fetus are far closer together in their cognitive abilities than the infant and the teenager or the adult, yet a very thin legal line declares the fetus a non-person, essentially the property of its mother.
Infants have brainwaves and nervous systems. They might not remember any of it, but they can certainly think and feel.
Not so much a thin line.. more like a constitutional amendment.
To put it in perspective - if it weren't necessary for a human life to spend nine months in a woman's womb, I doubt as many people would be arguing for the legal right to destroy fetuses at will. This is about the threat that a pregnancy supposedly poses to a woman, and I will agree that we live in a society that is not always hopsitiable for such women. We can agree that that needs to change, that social and economic justice is important, and that when women have it, there will be fewer abortions. But in the meantime, we can't sacrifice our humanity for convienence, to allievate emotional or financial stress. If we can't retain our dignity in times of hardship, then we are worse than animals.
I'm glad that you keep on bringing up feminism; it highlights the fact that this is a women's rights issue. Women's bodies are not incubators. The government has NO right to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies. If fetuses didn't rely on women's bodies to survive, then you're right- it wouldn't be an issue at all. Thing is, they are. Whether or not emotional or financial stress is a good enough reason is only something that the woman can judge, not anyone else.

reply from: AshMarie88

Blah blah blah all I hear is blah...

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Isn't that mature of you...

reply from: icecreamsocialist

Blah blah blah all I hear is blah...
See now that's funny, because all I'm hearing from you is "wow, it's incredible that everything that I base my opinions on is fundamentally wrong."

reply from: ronin82

At least we got to the crux of the matter.
"I'm glad that you keep on bringing up feminism; it highlights the fact that this is a women's rights issue."
It isn't really, though. One has to bring up feminism because feminists have tried to make it a women's rights issue, but I don't believe it is one. It is a human rights issue.
"Women's bodies are not incubators. The government has NO right to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies."
That is just the thing. I know you won't believe I'm not a terrible sexist for saying so, but a part of women's bodies ARE, among other things, incubators! It isn't my fault, men's fault, or society's fault that evolution produced two genders, one of which must indeed serve as an incubator. If the uterus isn't an incubator, what it is it?
The broader point is this - pro-life does not mean pro-pregnancy either. Most pro-lifers don't really care whether or not you EVER get pregnant. I certainly don't think it is your job to have babies. But I do think it is your responsibility to a) take the necessary precautions to avoid having one if you don't want one, or b) to take care of your child if your efforts, or lack of effort, results in the creation of one. You have a parental obligation to your offspring to at the very least see the pregnancy to term. At that point adoption is a viable alternative.
"If fetuses didn't rely on women's bodies to survive, then you're right- it wouldn't be an issue at all. Thing is, they are."
Then you just conceded the point, don't you see? It doesn't matter whether or not the fetus thinks or feels. It's DEPENDENCE is what marks it out for death.
9 months of your time is a little light next to the possibilities of a whole human lifetime. I'm not unsympathetic to the potential problems of pregnancy, but no amount of hardship short of a direct threat to your life can possibly justify taking the life of another human being.
"Whether or not emotional or financial stress is a good enough reason is only something that the woman can judge, not anyone else."
If that unborn human being has human rights, as we in the pro-life camp believe, then society has every right and duty to protect that human being, in the same way it has a duty to protect your life and liberty.
You wrote,
"Infants have brainwaves and nervous systems. They might not remember any of it, but they can certainly think and feel."
We ruled out feeling, remember? There are born people who cannot feel anything. It is irrelevant.
You haven't convinced me at all that brainwaves = thinking. The truth is that abortion is virtually indistinguishable from infanticide in its logic. The only difference is that the human being is outside and not inside of the womb. Infants do not think more, or to any significant or relevant degree more, than a fetus, or any other mammal for that matter. An adult chimp or a well-trained dog probably has more intelligence based on its life experience than a newborn infant. Hawks and ravens probably have more intelligence.
If we can kill fetuses, there is no reason we can't kill infants, alzhimers paitents, the comatose, severe drug addicts, the mentally ill, etc. All of these have their thinking and their reason impaired to such degrees that what they do with their brains hardly qualifies as "thinking", if by thinking we mean reason and rationality. Even the severely stupid, those with very low IQs, could be exterminated. The point is, when you start using criteria such as "thinking" to detrermine who lives and who dies, someone else will move the line a little further. Society has to take a firm stand on the sacredness of every life, from the moment of conception to the moment of death. It is called the "Consistent Life Ethic". At the same time society has to treat women and children with dignity, to prevent the sort of poverty and neglect that makes abortion attractive to begin with. Our society does NIETHER. It abuses and neglects women and hands them abortion as a way out, instead of real social reform, love and compassion.

reply from: jujujellybean

think about it. Living period, in your mindset. I mean, some down syndrome cases are not very sentient and cannot think well. they may feel pain, but they aren't sentient and cannot comprehend it. Should we kill them because their 'humanity' doesn't depend on their ability to think or feel? They aren't dogs or cats, nonetheless, so they must be human. Soooooooooooooooooo...
according to your philosophy(that is of course if you believe some severe down syndrome cases are humans) is that being simply alive is what makes a human human. Which, of course, is what I believe, but you don't have the same kind of ideas...you think somehow that being in the womb makes the difference, if you do think some severe down syndrome cases are human.
You dug your own grave there and you know it. Down syndrome patients CAN feel and ARE aware of their own existence.
I don't dig graves. I ask questions that you can't answer.
No, not all of them. Some are more acute than others. I think it also depends on the intelligence of those who raises them.
Anywho...the point is, that some don't. In SEVERE cases they may not be able to think, feel and be aware of existence as we do. They are like an unborn.
And if you don't believe that there are cases such as that, which there are, say there was. What would you say then? Should we be able to kill them?

reply from: icecreamsocialist

It isn't really, though. One has to bring up feminism because feminists have tried to make it a women's rights issue, but I don't believe it is one. It is a human rights issue...
No women, no fetuses. Women's rights issue.
That is just the thing. I know you won't believe I'm not a terrible sexist for saying so, but a part of women's bodies ARE, among other things, incubators! It isn't my fault, men's fault, or society's fault that evolution produced two genders, one of which must indeed serve as an incubator. If the uterus isn't an incubator, what it is it...
The fact that women's bodies produce children does not mean that that production is something that should be regulated by the government.

The broader point is this - pro-life does not mean pro-pregnancy either. Most pro-lifers don't really care whether or not you EVER get pregnant. I certainly don't think it is your job to have babies. But I do think it is your responsibility to a) take the necessary precautions to avoid having one if you don't want one, or b) to take care of your child if your efforts, or lack of effort, results in the creation of one. You have a parental obligation to your offspring to at the very least see the pregnancy to term. At that point adoption is a viable alternative.
I'm curious as to what you think about situations involving rape or when the mother's life is in danger.
In response to your point a, birth control fails, especially since our nation's educational system often neglects to teach students about contraception. Someone could be the most responsible person in the world and still become pregnant.
in response to your point b, if a woman doesn't want to be a parent, she shouldn't be forced to be one.
Then you just conceded the point, don't you see? It doesn't matter whether or not the fetus thinks or feels. It's DEPENDENCE is what marks it out for death.
9 months of your time is a little light next to the possibilities of a whole human lifetime. I'm not unsympathetic to the potential problems of pregnancy, but no amount of hardship short of a direct threat to your life can possibly justify taking the life of another human being.
It's dependence that makes the fetus a part of the woman's body and not alive in it's own right.
To a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, pregnancy can be like rape- invasive and extremely painful physically, emotionally and psychologically. Women need the ability to control their own bodies- OUR bodies, not the governments.
If that unborn human being has human rights, as we in the pro-life camp believe, then society has every right and duty to protect that human being, in the same way it has a duty to protect your life and liberty.
Unborn embryos and fetuses are not human beings for reasons that I have already described.
We ruled out feeling, remember? There are born people who cannot feel anything. It is irrelevant.
It isn't irrelevant. A small, small, tiny tiny tiny portion of the population is born without physical feeling. That doesn't say anything about emotional feeling, and the reason that I pointed out feeling is because of the arguments that pro-lifers make about how the fetus can feel the pain of the abortion. Evidently, they can't.
You haven't convinced me at all that brainwaves = thinking. The truth is that abortion is virtually indistinguishable from infanticide in its logic. The only difference is that the human being is outside and not inside of the womb. Infants do not think more, or to any significant or relevant degree more, than a fetus, or any other mammal for that matter. An adult chimp or a well-trained dog probably has more intelligence based on its life experience than a newborn infant. Hawks and ravens probably have more intelligence.
What are thoughts? brainwaves.
If we can kill fetuses, there is no reason we can't kill infants, alzhimers paitents, the comatose, severe drug addicts, the mentally ill, etc. All of these have their thinking and their reason impaired to such degrees that what they do with their brains hardly qualifies as "thinking", if by thinking we mean reason and rationality. Even the severely stupid, those with very low IQs, could be exterminated.
infants, alzhimers patients, the comotose, severe drug addicts, the mentally ill, etc. are all people. they are all aware of their own existences, have memories and emotions. I'm obviously not condoning the genocide of disabled people... a fetus and a disabled person are very different.
At the same time society has to treat women and children with dignity, to prevent the sort of poverty and neglect that makes abortion attractive to begin with. Our society does NIETHER. It abuses and neglects women and hands them abortion as a way out, instead of real social reform, love and compassion.
And your idea of social reform is the re-criminalization of abortion? That would be social regression. I agree that women and children should be well taken care of and better education and healthcare would reduce abortion, but you're suggesting that abortion clinics and doctors lack love and compassion. They do not.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

think about it. Living period, in your mindset. I mean, some down syndrome cases are not very sentient and cannot think well. they may feel pain, but they aren't sentient and cannot comprehend it. Should we kill them because their 'humanity' doesn't depend on their ability to think or feel? They aren't dogs or cats, nonetheless, so they must be human. Soooooooooooooooooo...
according to your philosophy(that is of course if you believe some severe down syndrome cases are humans) is that being simply alive is what makes a human human. Which, of course, is what I believe, but you don't have the same kind of ideas...you think somehow that being in the womb makes the difference, if you do think some severe down syndrome cases are human.
You dug your own grave there and you know it. Down syndrome patients CAN feel and ARE aware of their own existence.
I don't dig graves. I ask questions that you can't answer.
No, not all of them. Some are more acute than others. I think it also depends on the intelligence of those who raises them.
Anywho...the point is, that some don't. In SEVERE cases they may not be able to think, feel and be aware of existence as we do. They are like an unborn.
And if you don't believe that there are cases such as that, which there are, say there was. What would you say then? Should we be able to kill them?
I assumed your question was rhetorical. Find me a case in which the patient has no emotion, ability to think or to feel.

reply from: sheri

visit any ddso medical state house and you will be sure to find at least one person who would be able to display only as much emotion or awarness as a preborn child.
would you be in favor of ending their lives if their mothers suddenly decided they wanted to?

reply from: ronin82

"No women, no fetuses. Women's rights issue."
Well, technically, no sperm no fetuses - that doesn't make it a men's issue either.
"The fact that women's bodies produce children does not mean that that production is something that should be regulated by the government."
You make it sound as if we want a government timetable for sexual intercourse and parenthood.
What we think is that the unborn are human beings with human rights, full members of the human community, who are entitled to the same protection under the law as born human beings. That means outlawing and prosecuting abortion as homocide.
Again I will re-state, so there is no confusion - we do not want "regulation". Government exists to protect our rights, first and foremost. Among those rights, and indeed first among them, is the right to life. It isn't regulation when people are arrested for abusing, neglecting, and mudering their born children. What you need to understand is that we see no fundamental difference between the born and unborn human being.
"I'm curious as to what you think about situations involving rape or when the mother's life is in danger."
Ok, but first I will say that less than 1% of abortions are for these reasons - we want to stop as many abortions as possible, if not all of them.
So in the case of rape, while I think it is still morally wrong to kill an innocent human being because he or she is concieved in rape, I would accept a law that allowed abortion in that case but outlawed it in all others because it would mean a drastic reduction in the number of abortions overnight.
Life of the mother, I say there always has to be an exception for that. There isn't a moral tradition on the planet that has failed to recognize the right to self-preservation. But it is a rare case. Having an exception for that would be a far cry from "abortion on demand", which is what I presume you want.
"To a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, pregnancy can be like rape- invasive and extremely painful physically, emotionally and psychologically. Women need the ability to control their own bodies- OUR bodies, not the governments. "
You can believe that all you like, but it is still false to the core. You have the capacity to prevent pregnancy. Unless you actually ARE raped, to compare pregnancy to rape is to ask people to accept something rather unnatural and repugnant. If pregnancy scares a woman that much, she should be extra careful.
I don't care what you do with your body, quite honestly. Nor do I want the government to tell you what to do with it. But when you are pregnant there is a body inside you, and that is the one we are concerned with. I don't care if you never want to have kids, if you never have them. But if you reproduce, you have a parental obligation to your child that overrides your right not to be inconvienenced. The government has a simple fundamental duty - to defend every human beings right to life, liberty, and property. We count the unborn as human beings. Beyond this defense, again, I don't care what you do.
"That doesn't say anything about emotional feeling,"
So now this is relevant? Why is emotional feeling important? So if we find a person who doesn't have emotional feelings, say, like a Vulcan from Star Trek, that means we can kill it? Help me out here.
"What are thoughts? brainwaves."
It's a little bit more complicated than that. There is a difference between "having brainwaves", which animals have too, and thinking, which we generally attribute to developed human beings. Infants are barely distinguishable from fetuses in the thinking department - neither of them do it. Neither of them have the characteristics that philosophers for centuries have said makes us uniquely human. They are inherent potentialites that take time to develop. People who have considered this issue on both sides of this debate agree - there is no important difference. The difference between the two sides, us and say Peter Singer, is that while we want to say that this means all life is valuable, Singer and those like him want to legalize infanticide.
"infants, alzhimers patients, the comotose, severe drug addicts, the mentally ill, etc. are all people. they are all aware of their own existences, have memories and emotions."
Are you sure about that? Do you know what Alzhimers is? Do you know what mental illness is? Do you know what a coma is? I'm sure you're a swell person, but you've really stretched the bounds of credibility here.
"I'm obviously not condoning the genocide of disabled people... a fetus and a disabled person are very different."
It's not so obvious to me... what's obvious is that you really haven't thought too much about thought, the brain, development, etc.

reply from: 4given

Julie, as the sibling of a high functioning, tax paying member of society that has Down's, I can tell you that regardless of what you are basing your argument on, is not true. Granted you said "severe case". Because one can not express verbally their feelings about pain, does not mean they are not aware of it. I have had the pleasure of working w/ more severe Down's cases. They had limited if no communication, but were expressive in other ways when it came to discomfort or other issues that required my attention. This is a poor example. What is most disturbing to me is that so many women will abort their Down Syndrome children based on the assumption that they will not be able to communicate, express themselves and suffer the ridicule of others because of their "special needs" baby. My brother may be a unique example- (He broke off his engagement to another high functioning Down's girl to date another.) I worked w/ him and his speech from an early age. Others aren't as fortunate. Point is, Down Syndrome men and women feel and think- They have trouble w/ communication, but ask those close to them what their needs may be, and they will likely be able to differentiate between one thing or another based on understanding their methods of communication. Josiah also learned sign language at 4, for those that could not understand him. Basic needs like eat and drink and tired. I know we are blessed, as is everyone that has ever had the pleasure of meeting him. I had to clear that up. This is not an attack on you personally, but a need to defend w/ my experiences, which happen to differ from your ideas.

reply from: carolemarie

It's okay to abort a fetus that has no thoughts or emotions that isn't aware of it's own existence.
There is no need for abortion. If a women doesn't want to raise a baby, she can in most states drop it off at the firestation and hospital and that is that. Most states she can do that up to 90 days after birth, so she can try out mothering first and if it isn't to her liking leave the baby and walk away legally without penalty.
It is a win-win situtation, no one dies, no one is forced to raise a child they don't want.
With abortion, even if you change your mind, you still have a dead baby....no 90 day period to decide if this is what you want....
Abortion adversely affects the women who choose it. It is not in OUR best interest to kill our children...

reply from: yoda

Now that last part is really funny. "Love and compassion" as they rip the baby into little pieces?
What a sense of humor you seem to have.

reply from: lukesmom

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/330/21/1499

The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment, accompanied by sleep-wake cycles, with either complete or partial preservation of hypothalamic and brain-stem autonomic functions. In addition, patients in a vegetative state show no evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioral responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli; show no evidence of language comprehension or expression; have bowel and bladder incontinence; and have variably preserved cranial-nerve and spinal reflexes. We define persistent vegetative state as a vegetative state present one month after acute traumatic or nontraumatic brain injury or lasting for at least one month in patients with degenerative or metabolic disorders or developmental malformations.
It would be unethical and illegal for me to give you names of cases of adults in a vegetative state that I have worked with. I can assure you there are many in this world. Shall we "do away" with them?

reply from: 4given

Hmmm.. I love money! I was on a PP website trying to find out if a clinic close to me performs abortions (rumor says yes, postings said nothing..) and read "treated with compassion.." mumbo. Essentially I have come to realize that many of the pro-abort visitations (Ahhh, it's an alien!) have been schooled by Planned Parenthood! It is almost like they send their "Roebots" over to misguide the pondering..

reply from: carolemarie

I'm glad that you keep on bringing up feminism; it highlights the fact that this is a women's rights issue. Women's bodies are not incubators. The government has NO right to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies. If fetuses didn't rely on women's bodies to survive, then you're right- it wouldn't be an issue at all. Thing is, they are. Whether or not emotional or financial stress is a good enough reason is only something that the woman can judge, not anyone else.
The government tells us what we can do with our bodies all the time. You can't have your body in a car without a seatbelt. You can't inject heroin into your body legally. You can't sell your body legally (except in nevada)
You can't even control your own body and grow another foot taller or grow eyes in the back of your head or a third ear.
This is a human rights issue. Do the bigger and stronger women have the right to kill a weaker and defenseless child to make their lives easier? If they do, then bigger and stronger men shoud be able to rape any woman they want to if might makes right.

reply from: sk1bianca

so you're saying that a certain human (the mother) can decide if another human (the fetus) deserves to live or if he's worthless?

reply from: yoda

Wow...... hey I was accused of being "paranoid" for saying essentially the same thing....

reply from: jujujellybean

think about it. Living period, in your mindset. I mean, some down syndrome cases are not very sentient and cannot think well. they may feel pain, but they aren't sentient and cannot comprehend it. Should we kill them because their 'humanity' doesn't depend on their ability to think or feel? They aren't dogs or cats, nonetheless, so they must be human. Soooooooooooooooooo...
according to your philosophy(that is of course if you believe some severe down syndrome cases are humans) is that being simply alive is what makes a human human. Which, of course, is what I believe, but you don't have the same kind of ideas...you think somehow that being in the womb makes the difference, if you do think some severe down syndrome cases are human.
You dug your own grave there and you know it. Down syndrome patients CAN feel and ARE aware of their own existence.
I don't dig graves. I ask questions that you can't answer.
No, not all of them. Some are more acute than others. I think it also depends on the intelligence of those who raises them.
Anywho...the point is, that some don't. In SEVERE cases they may not be able to think, feel and be aware of existence as we do. They are like an unborn.
And if you don't believe that there are cases such as that, which there are, say there was. What would you say then? Should we be able to kill them?
I assumed your question was rhetorical. Find me a case in which the patient has no emotion, ability to think or to feel.
Hard question? Seems to be so, because you haven't answered it even if it was hypothetical.
Also, you don't think there has ever been at least one person that didn't have the ability to think or feel? Not even one in the history of the world and recently? And it's true: some severe cases of down syndrome never get past the mindset of a preborn.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

If they had absolutely no thought, no emotion, no awareness, no ability to feel, no hope of recovery, and their closest family members wanted to, then yes.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/330/21/1499
">http://content.nejm.org/cgi/co...ull/330/21/1499
The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment, accompanied by sleep-wake cycles, with either complete or partial preservation of hypothalamic and brain-stem autonomic functions. In addition, patients in a vegetative state show no evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioral responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli; show no evidence of language comprehension or expression; have bowel and bladder incontinence; and have variably preserved cranial-nerve and spinal reflexes. We define persistent vegetative state as a vegetative state present one month after acute traumatic or nontraumatic brain injury or lasting for at least one month in patients with degenerative or metabolic disorders or developmental malformations.
It would be unethical and illegal for me to give you names of cases of adults in a vegetative state that I have worked with. I can assure you there are many in this world. Shall we "do away" with them?
As I said to Sheri, If a person has no thought, feeling, awareness, emotion, hope of recovery, and their family member want to let them go, then I think that that would be best. I'm not the only one- look at cases such as Terry Schiavo, in which this has been the outcome.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

think about it. Living period, in your mindset. I mean, some down syndrome cases are not very sentient and cannot think well. they may feel pain, but they aren't sentient and cannot comprehend it. Should we kill them because their 'humanity' doesn't depend on their ability to think or feel? They aren't dogs or cats, nonetheless, so they must be human. Soooooooooooooooooo...
according to your philosophy(that is of course if you believe some severe down syndrome cases are humans) is that being simply alive is what makes a human human. Which, of course, is what I believe, but you don't have the same kind of ideas...you think somehow that being in the womb makes the difference, if you do think some severe down syndrome cases are human.
You dug your own grave there and you know it. Down syndrome patients CAN feel and ARE aware of their own existence.
I don't dig graves. I ask questions that you can't answer.
No, not all of them. Some are more acute than others. I think it also depends on the intelligence of those who raises them.
Anywho...the point is, that some don't. In SEVERE cases they may not be able to think, feel and be aware of existence as we do. They are like an unborn.
And if you don't believe that there are cases such as that, which there are, say there was. What would you say then? Should we be able to kill them?
I assumed your question was rhetorical. Find me a case in which the patient has no emotion, ability to think or to feel.
Hard question? Seems to be so, because you haven't answered it even if it was hypothetical.
Also, you don't think there has ever been at least one person that didn't have the ability to think or feel? Not even one in the history of the world and recently? And it's true: some severe cases of down syndrome never get past the mindset of a preborn.
Julie, look up the definition of rhetorical. It dosen't mean hard or hypothetical, sweetie, it means that I didn't think that you expected an answer for it. The question that your referring to is fuzzy... if you'll clarify it I'd be happy to answer it.
Look at my responses to Sheri and Sue in response to your second point.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

Look at my responses to Sheri and Sue.

reply from: yoda

Easiest thing in the world:
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
http://www.bartleby.com/61/
HUMAN:
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
Human (Redirected from Human being) Humans Status: Secure Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata Class: Mammalia Order: primates Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: Sapiens Binomial name Homo sapiens
Biologists classify humans as a species (Homo sapiens) of primates and the only surviving species of the genus Homo. The species is commonly referred to as "mankind" or "humanity" and its members as "humans", "human beings" or "people". The species name Homo sapiens is an uncountable noun and has no plural form. Man is a male human being and woman is a female human being. Historically, man may refer to all of humanity. There is only one extant subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens; that is, all humans alive today belong to this one subspecies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being

reply from: kayluvzchoice

You think they care??
They have been told that numerous times...
An invisible fertilized egg is more important than a viable, living and breathing person. Didn't you know that?

reply from: faithman

Not more important, as important. please get it right.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

If they had absolutely no thought, no emotion, no awareness, no ability to feel, no hope of recovery, and their closest family members wanted to, then yes.
What if some wanted them dead, but others did not? If the ones that did acted against the wishes of the others, would that be OK? I mean, if it's just an insignificant slab of flesh without consciousness, and it is acceptable to kill it, what if I killed, even against the families wishes? Would I be guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?
Whoever has power of attorney makes the decisions.

reply from: icecreamsocialist

Look at my responses to Sheri and Sue.
I read the thread. I noticed that you added an interesting qualification. You said if there was "no hope of recovery," the family could kill them, right? So, if a person is "unthinking, unfeeling, unaware, etc.", but they have a chance of regaining consciousness, then they can not be killed?
Yes, I did add that one. Obviously if the situation was only temporary it would be inhumane to allow the patient to die.
The difference is that it's recovery vs. ...covery. One person has been born, has been alive and aware and has memories. the other does not.

reply from: ronin82

What hysterical thinking. Because we don't want you to have the legal right to kill your child, we don't think you're important?
I think every human being is important enough to be entitled to a dignified standard of living by society. That includes mothers and their children. Unfortunately we don't have that. It doesn't negate our moral obligation to respect the right to life.

reply from: lukesmom

Boy, you put a lot on medical professionals! We are not God and we can't possibly know in many cases whether this is temporary or not. Case in point: young mother in vegetative state due to a nontrauma brain accident. Can't remember all details but was in vetetative state for many years, kids grew up and mom woke up much to everyones suprise and delight. Mom talked and was aware, I believe a daughter was getting married at the time. Anyway mom unfortunantly contracted a virus and after a few days of awareness slipped back into a vegetative state. Lived this way for several more years, cared for by her parents and spouse. She eventually died, approx 2 yrs ago, I believe. No one knows how perment or temporary a vegetative states is in each individual person. Now how do you know those in a vegetative state are aware and have memories? How do you know the awareness level and memories of the fetus? Difinitive proof please.

reply from: yoda

I'm looking at one right now, and it's mostly empty space but taking up a whole page on the forum. And that's just plain rude.
Do us all a favor..... trim it down to the point you're responding to, and your reply...... OR AT LEAST remove all the empty spaces.

reply from: yoda

Well there you are!! We're like a bunch of school kids who have been "instructed" by their "teachers", but paid no attention!!
Please, please "tell us" again............. NOT!!

reply from: yoda

WOW! It's another BRAND NEW BORTHEAD WORD!!
And WE got to see it being made right here!! Woooo Woooo!!
What does it mean, btw?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Well there you are!! We're like a bunch of school kids who have been "instructed" by their "teachers", but paid no attention!!
Please, please "tell us" again............. NOT!!
::WOW! It's another BRAND NEW BORTHEAD WORD!! ::
Yoda,
I stopped telling "Not" jokes and making up silly names in 5th grade....

reply from: yoda

Kay, you are making yourself look like a fool again. No "fertilized egg" can ever survive without a healthy mother.

reply from: yoda

Kay, you are making yourself look like a fool again. No "fertilized egg" can ever survive without a healthy mother.
Kay, 1. It wasn't a joke. 2. Who cares what you stopped doing?

reply from: ProInformed

The type of argument you are employing to justify fatal abuse of an innocent victim is very common among sociopaths.
I learned that from a child abuse prevention organization. I was instructed to report any hotline callers who started to talk about how children weren't aware yet or weren't capable of later remembering, whatever is done to them. It was STRESSED that was a RED FLAG that indicated sociopathy.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

So, all the pro-choice people in America are sociopaths? Do you know how much of the country is pro-choice?

reply from: Skippy

About 60%, if you combine those who think abortion should be legal in all cases and those who think it should be legal in most cases. That's about the same number that self-identify as pro-choice.
If you count the "pro-life with exceptions" folks, who are really "pro-choice with restrictions," it's closer to 90%. But I think the militant anti-abortion faction wants to claim the "rape and incest exception" crew for their own, lest the militants look like total froot loops.

reply from: jujujellybean

So, all the pro-choice people in America are sociopaths? Do you know how much of the country is pro-choice?
isn't everybody in some way?
Anyway, you know, maybe not, in fact, I know several people that are pro choice. Aunts, uncles, friends. They aren't sociopaths, but it's so easy to wonder where they get such screwed up info. Not surprisingly my aunt and her friends are social workers and my other aunt's a lawyer and my other family members for it live in CA. Go figure...

reply from: lukesmom

No, not all pro-aborts are sociopaths. Most are uninformed and misguided by people like you are sociopaths or have sociapathic tendencies.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, not all pro-aborts are sociopaths. Most are uninformed and misguided by people like you are sociopaths or have sociapathic tendencies.
You think I'm a sociopath? Sorry, calling people who disagree with you sociopaths isn't a valid argument.

reply from: lukesmom

I don't call anyone who disagrees with me a sociopath. I call people with sociopathic signs and symptoms sociopaths. And I wasn't arguing, just stating an observation.
Signs and symptoms
The classic person with an antisocial personality is indifferent to the needs of others and may manipulate through deceit or intimidation. He or she shows a blatant disregard for what is right and wrong, may have trouble holding down a job, and often fails to pay debts or fulfill parenting or work responsibilities. They are usually loners.
People with antisocial personality disorder can be aggressive and violent and are likely to have frequent encounters with the law. However, some antisocial personalities may also possess a considerable amount of charm and wit.
Common characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder include:
Persistent lying or stealing
Recurring difficulties with the law
Tendency to violate the rights of others (property, physical, sexual, emotional, legal)
Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
Inability to keep a job
A persistent agitated or depressed feeling (dysphoria)
Inability to tolerate boredom
Disregard for the safety of self or others
A childhood diagnosis of conduct disorders
Lack of remorse for hurting others
Possessing a superficial charm or wit
Impulsiveness
A sense of extreme entitlement
Inability to make or keep friends
Of course we can't know you completely with this being on the web but does seem to have a reoccuring theme.

reply from: 4given

Father God, we plead the blood of this generation- the aborted lives, the innocent and pure in heart. We praise and thank You Lord! We ask for Your healing, deliverance and direction Lord. We declare this Nation belongs to us! We take authority over the evils of this Nation and abortion, pornography, all sexual rebellion and we ask for Your Spirit of truth to touch every member of this nation Lord. Prick the hearts of the abortive and those that promote it. Deliver and awaken them to their wickedness and false beliefs. We take authority over our nation, government and people Lord. We give them to You. We praise You for the revival that the youth will provide. Let our adultress hearts turn toward You. I trust You! I praise You!I love You Lord! Revive this Nation and her children Lord! Awaken the sleeping ,unmoved generation. Let them take on the evil giant of abortion, immorality and greed. Empower, enlighten and strengthen us Lord. Strengthen our leaders and guide them. Bring revival, mercy and justice to this generation. Bring desperation, realization, healing, pain and forgiveness. Deliver this wicked nation! In Jesus Name! I pray! Amen! Let justice reign!

reply from: carolemarie

Amen to that!
Carolemarie

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

People with leprosy have had the nerves in their skin destroyed, they can't feel pain. Therefore, they damage their limbs without knowing it, leading to serious damage or loss of limbs. Pain is a protective mechanism designed to be an early alert system to help us avoid a catasthropic event. Pain is a good thing for those who can take care of themselves; it is not a neccesary function early in life.
Also, it's not necessary for the young human being to be conscious and actively planning his or her strategies early in life. Once again, in these early formative stages, the child is dependent on it's parents; often for years after birth.

reply from: yoda

It's a sign of a corrupt, degenerate mind to constantly seek out irrelevant details about human development to use as lame excuses for the elective killing of innocent unborn babies.
Teenagers go through puberty, so should we make it legal to electively kill all pre-pubescent children "just because they're not sexually mature yet", and can't actually reproduce their species yet?
That's the kind of horrible, unfeeling, egocentric garbage spewed out by the supporters of baby killing on this forum. On the other hand, how else do you try to sell their "product" (dead babies)?
BTW, the ucg website appears to be experiencing connectivity problems right now: "msxml3.dll error '80072ee2' The operation timed out /app/toolbox.inc, line 44 Failed to execute script: Http Status Code = 500"

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

My last post I said the need to feel pain and conduct heavy thinking was not necessary for the young developing human being. You mean the Choicers are trying to use that as a reason why killing kids isn't wrong?!?!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I'm afraid so. Their excuse are so thin you can see right through them.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Kay, you are making yourself look like a fool again. No "fertilized egg" can ever survive without a healthy mother.
Kay, 1. It wasn't a joke. 2. Who cares what you stopped doing?
You are acting really immature with your little name calling...

reply from: yoda

You're so right, Kay...... I'm like a five year old sometimes.
Now, how does that make it more moral to kill a baby?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

It is not moral to kill a baby that has been born.
I think aborting a first trimester or early second trimester fetus that cannot feel, think, do, or care is more moral than forcing a woman through a pregnancy.

reply from: jujujellybean

Do you admit that she is killing a person? Specifically, give me a date after which woman shouldn't be allowed to abort.

reply from: yoda

Why did you change the verb from "kill" to "abort", Kay?
Don't you know you can't abort a fetus/baby? You can abort a pregnancy, and that will kill the baby, but you can't "abort" a baby!
So why did you change the verb, Kay.... too skittish to write "kill a first or second fetus/baby"?
Does it bother you to write those words, Kay? Why?

reply from: jujujellybean

because it makes it sounds wrong. that can't be because they are always right.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Do you admit that she is killing a person? Specifically, give me a date after which woman shouldn't be allowed to abort.
It is alive. Not in the sense we are but yes, it is alive. So that means abortion does kill the fetus/embryo. I don't think that anyone should be able to abort (for other than health) when its nervous system is functional.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Why did you change the verb from "kill" to "abort", Kay?
Don't you know you can't abort a fetus/baby? You can abort a pregnancy, and that will kill the baby, but you can't "abort" a baby!
So why did you change the verb, Kay.... too skittish to write "kill a first or second fetus/baby"?
Does it bother you to write those words, Kay? Why?
I honestly had no idea I did that and I don't know why it matters.
I think you put to much thought into it. Yes, abortion does kill the fetus. And no it doesn't bother me to say it.

reply from: Teresa18

Explain with sources how a person at an earlier stage of human development is not alive "in the sense we are". Is an infant not alive like a toddler, a toddler not alive like school age child, etc.?

reply from: yoda

Wow....... how many "senses" are there to being alive, Kay? Can you name them? Can you link us to an article that describes the "different senses of being alive"? Or are you just blowing smoke out your butt as usual?

reply from: yoda

Then, can you say "abortion kills a baby"?
I mean, since you've already admitted that a fetus IS a baby, can you put it that way...... without it "bothering you"?
Come on, let's have a little truth in debating here...... how about it?

reply from: yoda

Explain with sources how a person at an earlier stage of human development is not alive "in the sense we are".
She wouldn't know a "source" if it jumped up and bit her where she sits.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Explain with sources how a person at an earlier stage of human development is not alive "in the sense we are". Is an infant not alive like a toddler, a toddler not alive like school age child, etc.?
A fetus is not viable. Infants and toddlers are.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Wow....... how many "senses" are there to being alive, Kay? Can you name them? Can you link us to an article that describes the "different senses of being alive"? Or are you just blowing smoke out your butt as usual?
So you honestly think that the second that sperm fertilizes the egg, the zygote has the ability to do everything a newborn baby has the ability to do?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Then, can you say "abortion kills a baby"?
I mean, since you've already admitted that a fetus IS a baby, can you put it that way...... without it "bothering you"?
Come on, let's have a little truth in debating here...... how about it?
Abortion does kill a baby.
You are trying to compare an embryo/fetus to a newborn baby. Yes, since you provided proof that it is a baby, I will believe that. But it does not compare with a baby that is born. They are not the same thing.

reply from: Teresa18

Yes, they are at different stages in development and in different locations, but can you provide sources saying they are not BIOLOGICALLY the same thing?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Explain with sources how a person at an earlier stage of human development is not alive "in the sense we are". Is an infant not alive like a toddler, a toddler not alive like school age child, etc.?
It doesn't even develop the neural tube until 5 weeks. Which will eventually develop into the brain and the rest of the nervous system. It doesn't have anything to think or feel with. The ONLY thing that is alive about it is the heart that beats at like 5 weeks.
source-http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-5-weeks

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Yes, they are at different stages in development and in different locations, but can you provide sources saying they are not BIOLOGICALLY the same thing?
I never said they were biologically different. Anyone who does needs to take biology over.
You do not consider an embryo a baby any more than I do.
An embryo needs another body to survive. A baby doesn't.
A baby is aware of it's existence. It can feel. It can think. It is conscience. It can breathe. A baby has the necessary (and developed) organs to do all those things with.

reply from: yoda

Prepare to be attacked by a mob of angry proaborts!! Duck and cover!!
What do you mean, "compare"? Does saying that they both are immature human beings constitute a "comparison"? Do you find any fault with that "comparison"?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Prepare to be attacked by a mob of angry proaborts!! Duck and cover!!
What do you mean, "compare"? Does saying that they both are immature human beings constitute a "comparison"? Do you find any fault with that "comparison"?
You honestly do not know the difference between what you are calling a baby and a newborn?
A fetus has nothing to feel, think, care, or move with. It doesn't even start to look like a baby until the 10th week.

reply from: 4given

Prepare to be attacked by a mob of angry proaborts!! Duck and cover!!
What do you mean, "compare"? Does saying that they both are immature human beings constitute a "comparison"? Do you find any fault with that "comparison"?
You honestly do not know the difference between what you are calling a baby and a newborn?
A fetus has nothing to feel, think, care, or move with. It doesn't even start to look like a baby until the 10th week.
Kayla, do you just like to tire others w/ the same nonsense? I believe "look" has already been discussed. Maybe you should try knitting or something. Please stop w/ the same ole. It becomes bothersome to have to repeat the same things and hear the same waste repeated here. You should know that by now! Maybe, if you have no other hobbies, you should go to CP's thread and take his open challenge. I would be curious to see how you would fare w/ him.

reply from: ronin82

Yes, they are at different stages in development and in different locations, but can you provide sources saying they are not BIOLOGICALLY the same thing?
I never said they were biologically different. Anyone who does needs to take biology over.
You do not consider an embryo a baby any more than I do.
An embryo needs another body to survive. A baby doesn't.
A baby is aware of it's existence. It can feel. It can think. It is conscience. It can breathe. A baby has the necessary (and developed) organs to do all those things with.
Peter Singer doesn't agree - that's why he's for infanticide as well as abortion. I'm always curious as to why pro-aborts don't jump on board with Singer's logic. Imagine how much more "liberation" women and sexually irresponsible men could achieve if infanticide were legal too.
We could even have the government help out - next to the barrels marked "paper" and "plastic" we could have one that says "infant".
Point is, there are plenty of people, not all of whom are pro-life and some of whom are pro-infanticide, that find these attempts to draw and meaningful distinctions beyond mere location between a "fetus" and a newborn or even a toddler to be quite ridiculous.
"Babies" as you say are no more aware of their existence than dogs or cats, and probably less so. And you're deluding yourself if you think there is some great gap in the consciousness of a fetus and a baby. A baby doesn't know what it is, it doesn't have wants, it doesn't have desires, all it has is instinct for the first months and arguably years of its life.

reply from: yoda

Of course I do, Kay!! A newborn is older, it is outside the womb, and it is no longer connected to the placenta. Didn't you know that?
REALLY??? Are you REAL SURE about that??? Oh my, well I see you are willing to condemn humans to death based on their lack of development... right? Not even mentioning your total misrepresentation of how soon a baby develops (which is irrelevant anyway), what you're saying could be used to justify the killing of all kids before puberty, since they are INCAPABLE of reproducing themselves before then.
Wow, Kay....... you and your friends could start a campaign to kill all "unwanted" kids before they reach puberty!!
THINK OF IT!!

reply from: yoda

Just as Teresa and I predicted, Kay is suddenly afflicted with amnesia... she can't recall a thing that she said just yesterday.
And yes, I'm quite sure that's intended to drive us to distraction.... since they have no real arguments to present, all they can do is try to slow us down.

reply from: lukesmom

My son's neural tube never closed. He supposebly never thought or felt but we don't know that for sure, do we? To you, he didn't deserve to live before he died because by your definition above, even when he was born at 36 weeks (with the undeveloped neural tube) he wasn't ? alive?, a baby???? possibly even human? to you. Funny thing though, even though he didn't have a ?functioning brain, the government considered him a citizen.
There are many people out there that only have a heart function, their brain function is nil or questionable. You advicate their death also? Should we rip them apart limb by limb? Your reasoning on this is cold and hard.

reply from: Skippy

Lack of brain function is one of the standards for determining death. That is, when you are "brain-dead," your family can consent to removing you from life support, because even though your body is still functioning, your brain isn't.
Such people are not "ripped apart limb by limb," but if the brain-dead individual is young and healthy, the hospital will sure be interested in consent to harvest some organs.

reply from: lukesmom

Lack of brain function is one of the standards for determining death. That is, when you are "brain-dead," your family can consent to removing you from life support, because even though your body is still functioning, your brain isn't.
Such people are not "ripped apart limb by limb," but if the brain-dead individual is young and healthy, the hospital will sure be interested in consent to harvest some organs.
Of course people without brain function are not ripped limb by limb unless they happen to be preborn.

reply from: Skippy

Well, non-surgical abortion is growing more and more popular every day.

reply from: joe

No loving family would remove life support if the brain was guaranteed to function a year later. That would be considered murder.

reply from: Skippy

No loving family would remove life support if the brain was guaranteed to function a year later. That would be considered murder.
Well, there are no guarantees. But the law does support pulling the plug after an electroencephalogram shows no brain activity, even though there are cases where the family didn't remove life support and a subsequent EEG indicated brain function had returned.

reply from: faithman

Lack of brain function is one of the standards for determining death. That is, when you are "brain-dead," your family can consent to removing you from life support, because even though your body is still functioning, your brain isn't.
Such people are not "ripped apart limb by limb," but if the brain-dead individual is young and healthy, the hospital will sure be interested in consent to harvest some organs.
Of course people without brain function are not ripped limb by limb unless they happen to be preborn.
But the preborn show brain waves at 8wks. SSSSSSOOOOOOO this does not aply to the womb child. And the "harvesters" can only pluck organ fruit from those who have given permission before time. Aples and oranges tend to lose flavor when mixed in fruit salad. We need to keep these issues seperate, as these comparisons are only an atempts to cloud over the issue of life in the womb.

reply from: joe

The unborn do have this guarantee.

reply from: Skippy

The unborn do have this guarantee.
Actually, no, they do not. Sometimes the brain just never develops. I believe it is called anencephaly.
That's about as common as a brain-dead person regaining brain function.

reply from: joe

Are you making a case that all pregnancies that are terminated, they are killing brain dead children?
My point is simple, let the unborn live since their brain will develop to a state that functions like the born. I am equating abortion to pulling the plug on a patient that is guaranteed to recover.

reply from: lukesmom

The unborn do have this guarantee.
Actually, no, they do not. Sometimes the brain just never develops. I believe it is called anencephaly.
That's about as common as a brain-dead person regaining brain function.
Not at all common until it happens to you as it did to me and my son who had anencephaly. Would you like to meet some of the many families this does happen to? I know many and that includes those who aborted and those who did not. In just my little community there are two of us that I know about. You would be suprised at the numbers. And for your info, the brain sometimes DOES develop, depends on the severity of the condition.
fman, this IS relevant as brain "dead" or limited people are allowed rights whereas healthy and unhealthy unborn with possibly more brain function are not. A life alone, even without a beating heart, brain function, etc, is reason enough to allow the right to life.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

No loving family would remove life support if the brain was guaranteed to function a year later. That would be considered murder.
My wife is three months pregnant. I believe the child will have a functional brain one year later as in your example Joe. Coming to this site just made me sick to my stomach today seeing how eager Skippy is to make a case to kill unborn human life. Forunately, I haven't thrown up. It is not just a saying, but the actual literal truth that seeing their attitude makes me sick on melancholy days. Does Skippy know what kids are? Does Skippy have a two year old climbing up on his or her lap to have a book read to them, as my two year old does? What's with this attitude against young children? It makes me sick...literally.

reply from: Skippy

Are you making a case that all pregnancies that are terminated, they are killing brain dead children?
No. I am making the case that your contention that brain function will eventually develop is false. It usually does, but not always.
There are no "guaranteed to recover" patients, any more than there are "guaranteed not to recover" patients.

reply from: Skippy

I'm sorry to hear you are unwell. Try ginger tea.
I know what kids are. I don't particularly like them, and I don't want any of my own.
That's not why I'm pro-choice, though.

reply from: joe

Congratulations GodsLaw4Us2Live.

reply from: yoda

Since we are talking about elective abortion, that point is moot.
Brain function will ALWAYS develop in a healthy baby that is allowed to live.

reply from: ProInformed

Dr. Warren Hern, a Boulder, Colorado abortionist who has performed a number of D&E abortions, says they can be particularly troubling to a clinic staff and worries that this may have an effect on the quality of care a woman receives. Hern also finds them traumatic for doctors too, saying "there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensation of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."

reply from: ProInformed

Twenty-five years ago, when Kanwaljeet Anand was a medical resident in a neonatal
intensive care unit, his tiny patients, many of them preterm infants, were often
wheeled out of the ward and into an operating room. He soon learned what to expect
on their return. The babies came back in terrible shape: their skin was gray, their
breathing shallow, their pulses weak. Anand spent hours stabilizing their vital signs,
increasing their oxygen supply and administering insulin to balance their blood sugar.
"What's going on in there to make these babies so stressed?" Anand wondered.
Breaking with hospital practice, he wrangled permission to follow his patients into the
O.R. "That's when I discovered that the babies were not getting anesthesia," he
recalled recently. Infants undergoing major surgery were receiving only a paralytic
to keep them still. Anand's encounter with this practice occurred at John Radcliffe
Hospital in Oxford, England, but it was common almost everywhere. Doctors were
convinced that newborns' nervous systems were too immature to sense pain, and
that the dangers of anesthesia exceeded any potential benefits.
But Anand was not through with making observations. As NICU technology
improved, the preterm infants he cared for grew younger and younger - with
gestational ages of 24 weeks, 23, 22 - and he noticed that even the most
premature babies grimaced when pricked by a needle. "

reply from: carolemarie

In mystical Yoda-land it might.
In the real world, any number of genetic defects could arrest the brain function of a baby.
Hell, there have been babies born without brains, just a brain-stem to keep their basic functions going.
So much for THAT fantasy theory, Yoda.
He said Healthy... if you have a genetic defect that would mean the baby would not be healthy.....

reply from: faithman

You might get tested for the defect that makes you a baby killer.

reply from: joe

You might get tested for the defect that makes you a baby killer.
LOL.

reply from: joe

Guilty by association.

reply from: yoda

Now, now, not fair using common sense to debate a baby killer.....

reply from: yoda

Guilty by association.
AND..... guilt by support of baby killing in general...... like on this forum.


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