Now what a story this is! ..what a doctor said infront of an abortion

For those that think "LIFE" only begins at some random development stage (brain function, nervous system, heart beat, etc).

Go educate yourself.

www.britannica.com...

the life cycle also encompasses a single generation: the individual animal begins with the fusion of male and female sex cells (gametes);

www.biology-online.org...

Life cycle entails the course of development of an organism, i.e. from the time of inception to growth to finally maturity when an organism can viably produce another of its kind.

www.biologyreference.com...

The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote .

www.sciencedaily.com...

Fertilisation, also spelt fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is fusion of gametes to form a new organism of the same species.

Science...it's your friend...don't ignore it justify your own beliefs.

It is a great post, but you can't fight against people's opinions.

reply to post by puzzlesphere

As I stated, and agreed with you, technically "life" does begin with fertilisation, but that has nothing to do with the definition of a human being... there is a decided difference between basic life and a fully developed organism.

Yes...and biology says that a "fully developed organisim" is one that can reproduce itself (Maturity).

So...shall we allow the murder of kids up until they can reproduce???

The fact is that you are picking a completely arbitrary point in the development life cycle of the human being to decide that this is "LIFE". There is nothing you can say to prove that the point you select is more valide than someone elses. One person says when the heart beats, someone else says when there is brain function, someone else says when there is a nervous system, someone else says when they are "sentient" (that has it's own definition problems), someone else says it's when they are outside the womb.

Who is right?


My answer...none of you...because you are all just picking a random point in the development to say "This is when you are actually human".

I pick the only logical point in the life cycle to say you are human....at the very start...conception. It's consistent with scientific knowledge...I don't have to rely on a philosophical argument like you do to justify my starting point in life.

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by marg6043

 

hey hey hey... easy with the castration talk... some of us un-needed males are on your side... so step away from the hedge clippers please...

As far as I'm concerned this issue never get's past "it's their body". I refuse to even try to tell them what to do with it.

Not to mention, we are in mutual need of one another, otherwise, a large percentage of pregnancies would not even have to happen right?

-rrr

Complex issues of life and choice will never be resolved in a few paragraphs with a skewed point of view.

No stars, no flags.

Originally posted by rickyrrr
Not to mention, we are in mutual need of one another, otherwise, a large percentage of pregnancies would not even have to happen right?

-rrr

Not really, no. Mutual need doesn't exist. Spermless fecundation is already possible.

Originally posted by Helmkat
Complex issues of life and choice will never be resolved in a few paragraphs with a skewed point of view.

No stars, no flags.

Thank you for proving my point.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by puzzlesphere

 

This source says brain function begins at 40-43 days.

I also found this.

"The nervous system develops from the neural plate which appears during the third week of development. About six weeks after conception, the child's brain is sending out impulses which control body functions, and the nervous system is controlling the child's movements. At seven weeks the unborn child responds to touch. At twelve weeks, the brain is fully formed, and of couse it continues to grow as the child grows. It is unmistakeably evident that the tiny growing fetus responds to its environment and knows when it is injured. If injured, the small child exhibits an awareness of intense pain."

This is false.

tigtogblog.blogspot.com...

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I am not making an arbitrary point in the development, the scientific community has, as a consensus come to a definition to define what a human being is based on gathered scientific data pertaining to embryonic development.

Interestingly enough, this is an old argument. All of the literature I can find on the matter dates between the 60's and the 80's, as that is when the consensus was reached. Pro-life groups have since then attempted to change the general academic opinion on this numerous times, with little success. Only a handful of their studies have produced any meaningful data, and none that I can find in respected peer-reviewed journals. Generally it seems that their results have only confirmed the data, so for the last 20 years there has been almost no significant research done in this area as, any studies are essentially just re-confirming existing data.

Goldenring J M , J Med Ethics 1985;11:198-204 doi:10.1136/jme.11.4.198

Abstract
This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable organ in the human body, as the orchestrator of all organ systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death. At any point human tissue or organ systems may be present, but without the presence of a functional human brain, these do not constitute a 'human being', at least in a medical sense. The implications of this theory for various ethical concerns such as in vitro fertilisation and abortion are discussed. This theory is the most consistent possible for the definition of a human being with no contradictions inherent. However, having a good theory of definition of a 'human being' does not necessarily solve the ethical problems discussed herein.

This also ties in with how we define the "death" of a person. Since the 70's "death" has been accepted when there is no brain activity. Once there is no brain activity, the body will die shortly after, and even with extensive life support, a brain dead body cannot be maintained for any significant amount of time. The brain tissue decays, and death soon follows.

121 U. Pa. L. Rev. 87 (1972-1973)
Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal ; Capron, Alexander Morgan ; Kass, Leon R.

Intro
In recent years, there has been much discussion of the need to refine and update the criteria for determining that a human being has died. In light of medicines' increasing ability to maintain certain signs of life artificially and to make good use of organs from newly dead.

Essentially this was not a lightly reached definition, there has been much debate about it over the last half century, and it was not just "arbitrarily decided", it was based on scientific fact, and a slowly reached consensus with much research and academic discourse.

ETA: Please excuse the inconsistent referencing, I am not trying to write an academic paper here.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
It is disturbing that you see the same people over and over in abortion threads so passionately defending the murdering of babies.

I have shown in other threads that a "fetus" is biologically considered a living human being...just like any other life in biology...a new "life" begins at conception. This is basic fact you can find in any biology book.

But what I have learned is that some demented people are so hell bent on supporting the killing of babies...they will deny scientific facts for this argument to switch over to "philosophy"...and then outright reject and ridicule a religous opposing view...even though that is also "philosophy". My position is neither...it is backed by science and biology....abortion is ending a human life...thus it is MURDER.


But some people seem to just have a passion for killing babies...I've come to the conclusion that you can't speak logically to people who are so demented that they think killing babies is justified becuase their government has told them it is "legal".

edit on 10-11-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

Murder is defined an unlawful killing of a human person. Not all killing of human life is murder. When human life is not a person, killing it is not murder.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

 

Stop spreading blatant lies. If you supported scientific fact then you should know legally aborted fetuses did not have the neurological connections necessary to feel

Sorry...but biology is not a lie.

And your "argument" suggest that if I kill you and you don't feel it...then it isn't a crime

Murder has nothing to do with "feeling pain"...it has to do with ending the life of another human being.


You can call them "lies" all you want...but these are facts...the biological definition of the beginning of "LIFE" is conception. Abortion is ending that "LIFE"...hence it is MURDER.

I'm sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable...on second thought...I'm not....it should make you feel uncomfortable and angry that millions of babies are MURDERED by their own (heartless) mothers.

YOU SAID A FETUS IS A BABY. THAT IS A LIE.

A fetus is an undeveloped being incapable of thought and feeling. They do not know they are a living thing, they do not feel that they are a living thing. How many living creatures have you killed, how many buys and germs have you killed? We're all murderers why is that so hard for you to understand?

The only discomfort I feel stems from your blatant ignorance. I am not discomforted by the fact that ALL OF US that are living right now could be dead tomorrow. We could all be dead in five seconds. But YOU discomfort me with your idiocy.

STOP CALLING FETUSES BABIES!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by puzzlesphere

 

As I stated, and agreed with you, technically "life" does begin with fertilisation, but that has nothing to do with the definition of a human being... there is a decided difference between basic life and a fully developed organism.

Yes...and biology says that a "fully developed organisim" is one that can reproduce itself (Maturity).

So...shall we allow the murder of kids up until they can reproduce???

The fact is that you are picking a completely arbitrary point in the development life cycle of the human being to decide that this is "LIFE". There is nothing you can say to prove that the point you select is more valide than someone elses. One person says when the heart beats, someone else says when there is brain function, someone else says when there is a nervous system, someone else says when they are "sentient" (that has it's own definition problems), someone else says it's when they are outside the womb.

Who is right?


My answer...none of you...because you are all just picking a random point in the development to say "This is when you are actually human".

I pick the only logical point in the life cycle to say you are human....at the very start...conception. It's consistent with scientific knowledge...I don't have to rely on a philosophical argument like you do to justify my starting point in life.

Wrong, you rely on philosophy just like anyone else. You cannot justify why we must value human life without philosophy. Why is your opinion that humans must be protected from conception more valid or more objective (less philosophical) than any other opinion?

reply to post by puzzlesphere

I am not making an arbitrary point in the development, the scientific community has, as a consensus come to a definition to define what a human being is based on gathered scientific data pertaining to embryonic development.

Yes you are...and so is the ONE paper you sourced to show that this is a "consensus".

Finding ONE paper that proposes "The brain-life theory" does not make it a consensus in the scientific community.

And who is the author of your paper...he appears to be an abortion doctor... Yeah...no bias there huh.



Show me anywhere that there is a "consensus" among "scientists" (since the one source you provided was a doctor...not a scientist).


You can deny basic biology all you want...like I said...it's just to justify a belief that deep down you know is wrong.

reply to post by Maslo

Murder is defined an unlawful killing of a human person. Not all killing of human life is murder. When human life is not a person, killing it is not murder.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

I would need to justify my support of killing babies as well if I held that position.

reply to post by Maslo


I read that entire debunking......twice. She connects the 6 week brain function argument to some pretty credible sources and citations, but then she downplays those citations and says they should have been cited differently, but she never discredits the claim? She also continually says there is no scientific data to back up the claim, but she also cites the EEG data and admits to the functioning body parts controlled by the central nervous system. All of the sources seem to agree that at 24-27 weeks there is obvious "organized activity in the Cortex." But that doesn't mean there was no activity at 6 weeks. In fact, she says "While no embryo or fetus has ever been found to have "brain waves," extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies. " So, they have no significant data to debunk the idea of the brainwaves at 6 weeks, but they do have extensive studies on premature babies at 24 weeks and on up, and those babies do have organized cortex function.

This sounds like confirmation that some respected, peer-reviewed opinion articles in respected journals agree with the idea of brain waves at 43 days, and science can confirm the brain waves in the extensive studies done at later stages, but nothing exists to dispute the activity at 43 days?

I realize the tone of the author and the intention was to debunk, but where are the facts that say the claim is false? She only says the sources are misunderstood as research papers, but even as credible opinion papers in respected journals, they are still valid.

Sorry, I didn't see anything there other than a strong tone and a strong "want-to" debunk. In my opinion, she didn't succeed.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Human life =/= human being or human person

Being:

It refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").[

Why should we value and protect human life which is not a being (person) - which does not contain human mind?

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

A fetus is an undeveloped being incapable of thought and feeling. They do not know they are a living thing, they do not feel that they are a living thing. How many living creatures have you killed, how many buys and germs have you killed? We're all murderers why is that so hard for you to understand?

We are not talking about other animals...nice try...but you are just trying to deflect.

This isn't a discussion about the reverance of "life"...it is a discussion about when any biological life begins. Murder is when you kill another human being...not a bug...so let's try to stay focused.

I could make an argument that some here are obviously incapable of thought and feeling...that still doesn't make it ok for me to kill them.

The only discomfort I feel stems from your blatant ignorance. I am not discomforted by the fact that ALL OF US that are living right now could be dead tomorrow. We could all be dead in five seconds. But YOU discomfort me with your idiocy.

I am discomforted by the willingness of some to deny science to justify their beliefs.

I bet you say the same thing about religious people...huh???

reply to post by Maslo

Wrong, you rely on philosophy just like anyone else. You cannot justify why we must value human life without philosophy. Why is your opinion that humans must be protected from conception more valid or more objective (less philosophical) than any other opinion?

This argument is about valuing human life...as a society we have already decided on that...hence Murder is illegal.

Try to stay on topic and stop dodging the basic facts of biology.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

This argument is about valuing human life...as a society we have already decided on that.

No we have not. We kill braindead but biologically alive people all the time and harvest their organs for others. Thats why we use neurological and not biological definition of death of a person in hospitals. Its obvious we do not value human life in itself, but human mind (and we protect human life only because there is no other way (yet?) how to protect human mind without it).

reply to post by getreadyalready


Not all electrical activity is brain waves. Brain waves refer to specific cortical activity indicating presence of mind. Those citations claiming brain waves are detected in 43 days are not peer-reviewed research papers, but a letter and a convention speech transcript. Peer-reviewed research paper says this about fetal brain waves:

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

www.cirp.org...

Originally posted by heineken
Hi..

i encountered this short story and wanted to share with you :

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'

So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?'

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.'

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!'

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.'

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

This has got to be the stupidest garbage I've ever heard LOL

That's a #ing retarded doctor if he doesn't see the difference.