Pro-Choice “Facts”: Fetal Development

a reply to: Justso

What does self sustaining mean. And if the baby isn't done growing of course it isn't self sustaining.

I'm not self sustaining, I depend on a whole lot of other people to live.

originally posted by: seasonal

I'm not self sustaining, I depend on a whole lot of other people to live.

I don't know hardly anyone who's self-sustaining. You throw 99.9% of the people in this country into the woods (in nice weather, even) with nothing but the clothes on their backs and 99.9% of them will be dead in a week.

It's interesting how self-sufficiency is only important when justifying infanticide. In any other context, self-sufficiency is a dirty phrase, and something to discouraged at all costs because it promotes a lack of dependence on the state.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: whismermill

UNABLE TO SUSTAIN LIFE "OUTSIDE".

you disagree with that fact?

How do you know it has no conscious thought?

Measurable brain waves (as EEG) only appear past 25 weeks. Voluntary movements past 14 weeks. Reaction to external stimuli only after 14 weeks. It is safe to assume it doesn't have conscious thoughts.

You don't, just another mindless barbarian killing the LIFE within bellies.

Oh please. I never made my position clear, so stick those assumptions and that idiotic rethoric where the sun doesn't shine.

SMFDH

Life and Consciousness don't start because the tangible parts aren't all fully formed, that is what science is saying, "oh its still developing so it can't work blah blah blah", I don't believe that and never will.

The moment that spark ignites, a universe is born.

Don't impose your faith on me. I don't impose my science over you either

a reply to: seasonal

Man, I'm pretty much pro-life (except for a few instances), but I find it inappropriate to use medical data concerning fetal development dated from 1965.

I'm not saying that he information is faulty, I'm just saying that if you do not want to have to defend your quotes and links, you should certainly find more contemporary information to share, like from The Mayo Clinic, where it goes into semi-detailed information, week by week, concerning zygotic(?)/embryonic/fetal development.

As you can see, the embryonic stage, starting at week 5 (or, week 3 of post-conception development) is "when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form," and by the end of week 6 (week 4, post-conception), the embryo's heart is already pumping blood. Week 7 brings rapid brain development, amongst other things.

By the time you're at week 11 (week 9, post-conception--cited as being the official start of the fetal stage), limbs have bones, feet have toes, neck is forming, eyelids are closing to protect developing eyes, the torso is straightening, and all kinds of other internal things have happened. By the end of week 11, the fetus' own liver is producing its own red blood cells and external genitalia will begin forming gender-appropriate organs, amongst other things happening.

I could go on and on, but I just wanted to show you that I support your claim that the Planned Parenthood information is intentionally misleading, for sure, but citing 50-year-old sources is not the best way to put forth your argument.

originally posted by: whismermill

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: whismermill

UNABLE TO SUSTAIN LIFE "OUTSIDE".

you disagree with that fact?

Not at all, with the assistancw of the mother.

How do you know it has no conscious thought?

Measurable brain waves (as EEG) only appear past 25 weeks. Voluntary movements past 14 weeks. Reaction to external stimuli only after 14 weeks. It is safe to assume it doesn't have conscious thoughts.

No its not. Concscious is far more complex and it isn't a verifiable measure. Infact there isn't any science that says so or concludes so, rather just going off what they deem it to be. Life is much more complicated then some scans.

You don't, just another mindless barbarian killing the LIFE within bellies.

Oh please. I never made my position clear, so stick those assumptions and that idiotic rethoric where the sun doesn't shine.

Sure, barbarian.

SMFDH

Life and Consciousness don't start because the tangible parts aren't all fully formed, that is what science is saying, "oh its still developing so it can't work blah blah blah", I don't believe that and never will.

The moment that spark ignites, a universe is born.

Don't impose your faith on me. I don't impose my science over you either

No faith, no science, just the propogation of life you so clearly want to snuff out.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

Unless your directly involved in the pregnancy keep your opinions to yourself is my stance

Then stop clamoring for public financing.

I have no idea what your talking about???

Who wants financing and for what?

The gov shouldnt be giving money to either side on this issue

a reply to: NthOther

There is a difference between self-sustaining when talking about a fetus, and self-sufficiency when talking about an adult.

And as a side note, self-sufficiency should be the goal of every human being--that doesn't automatically make an individual non-societal to be able to want to be able to provide everything that they need for life ("need" being the important word). Why people prefer and or embrace reliance on government for certain basic needs is beyond me.





Disclaimer: Yes, I know there are those who absolutely cannot provide for themselves in many aspects of life--I'm generalizing humanity as a whole, not specific instances.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Why would she kill herself?

Because 14 yr old girls are notoriously bad at performing medical procedures on themselves.

a reply to: whismermill

I don't understand why any of the thing you mentioned make the removal of the baby a Ok thing.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

The gov shouldnt be giving money to either side on this issue

And yet they are.

And as long as they are doing so, that makes it my business.

Take public financing out of elective medical procedures and you can go on about your business murdering children.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I guess i should say why is she having an abortion?

a reply to: NthOther

How and who is the govt giving $ to?

OK, just to stirr things up, since you're calling me barbaric, i'll act like one

originally posted by: Arnie123

Not at all, with the assistancw of the mother.

as a parasite. Strictly biologically speaking.

No its not. Concscious is far more complex and it isn't a verifiable measure. Infact there isn't any science that says so or concludes so, rather just going off what they deem it to be. Life is much more complicated then some scans.

So a body with no measurable brain waves (the one requirement to call someone dead for sure) could still be conscious? Really?

Sure, barbarian.

not impressed. I've been called worse

No faith, no science, just the propogation of life you so clearly want to snuff out.

Again, i have not mentioned my position, but still you keep assuming you know.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

The gov shouldnt be giving money to either side on this issue

And yet they are.

And as long as they are doing so, that makes it my business.

Take public financing out of elective medical procedures and you can go on about your business murdering children.

So your only issue is that public money is being used and if that stopped you would be fine?

Some how I find that hard to believe.

I am not familiar with your posts and its hard to get a good idea from written words but dude you come across as a bit rabid.

originally posted by: whismermill
OK, just to stirr things up, since you're calling me barbaric, i'll act like one

Lol, trust me, you don't need to act.

originally posted by: Arnie123

Not at all, with the assistancw of the mother.

as a parasite. Strictly biologically speaking.

Yes, it can be called that. I don't call it that.

No its not. Concscious is far more complex and it isn't a verifiable measure. Infact there isn't any science that says so or concludes so, rather just going off what they deem it to be. Life is much more complicated then some scans.

So a body with no measurable brain waves (the one requirement to call someone dead for sure) could still be conscious? Really?

Yes, because the baby isn't DEAD in the womb.

Sure, barbarian.

not impressed. I've been called worse

I know, trust me It isn't to impress you

No faith, no science, just the propogation of life you so clearly want to snuff out.

Again, i have not mentioned my position, but still you keep assuming you know.

You have and make it abundantly clear, you may fool the other forums you crawled from, but on this site, we clearly see your position.

You can stop making a fool of yourself now

a reply to: seasonal

Who am I to judge if it is ok or not. It is not my womb.
I'm just pointing out the currect known facts.

Abortion is as old as society. Making it illegal again will not stop it. However, making it illegal again will risk the lives of women who for themselves decided they don't want to deliver a baby, for whatever reason.

a reply to: seasonal

There's infinite reasons. None of which are important.

You could say it was due to incestual rape, or perhaps she want's abortions for birth control, or perhaps she's doin it for a bet. It's completely irrelevant.

If there's a circumstance where this theoretical child cannot receive a safe abortion then the only option for them is an unsafe one.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Or adoption?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Or adoption?

...that implies something is still living...

a reply to: Arnie123

science is saying, "oh its still developing so it can't work blah blah blah"

Neuroscience tells us key neuroanatomical features do need to develop sufficiently before consciousness arises.

I don't believe that and never will.

Your belief is not required.

I don't believe in your 'spark of life' religious woo woo either. Does that impact anything?