Log In Sign Up

Adoption vs Abortion


Abortion Debate

This forum is for Abortion debate only. If you are highly sensitive about this topic, read at your own discretion.

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Abortion Debate LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #42  
January 20th, 2011, 09:29 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
If a doctor really can abort as early as 4 weeks (and thus meaning my own doctor lied to me) then as long as there is no heart beat, I'm Ok with.
Wikipedia says a D&C can be done between 4-12 weeks and that vacuum aspiration can be done between 3-12 weeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Presenting your arguments needs to involve reliable sources to prove what you've said.
That's fine, but this isn't a study I am going to get published. I'm not going to go to all the work to provide references for each fact I post, nor do I think that is necessary. I think that through debate and logical analysis that people can come to agreement on many facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
3. All of them.
LOL. Ok. Then I will say I supported all my facts already and if you want clarification on anything then let me know what those specific items are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
4. Diminished brain function with hope of recovery given a few months. If the person's brain functionality will be restored in a few months, is it Ok to unplug them now anyway because *right at this moment* they are not a person because *right at this moment* brain function is down?
No, of course not. That would be no more ethical than suffocating someone while they were sleeping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Because a conceptus is precisely that. A human on life support. Given a few more months of life support, it will come out of its coma.
No, you are improperly applying the concept of "come out of". A conceptus has never had consciousness from which it can later come out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
People can chant "my body my choice" all they want but at the end of the day, the mother stopped someone else's heart, not her own. And that someone else was their own separate person.
And I would agree with you regarding something like a six month old fetus (and probably earlier). I think abortion at that stage should be illegal unless there is an overwhelming risk to the mother's or child's health.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
It is a separate human being (on life support waiting to come out of its coma) with its own heart, its own DNA and its own separate body.
Again, it comes down to the definition of a human being. Feel free to provide a definition that we can discuss. Include some of the primary attributes of a human being that differentiate it from other organisms.

Tell me, what is it about a beating heart that leads you to draw the line at that point? Would you draw the line at that point for all living things with hearts? Or just for humans? I don't see how just because something has started pumping blood for the first time that that alone would be a determining factor. Consider the brain-dead person on life support for which there is no hope of them ever regaining conscious brain function... if their heart is beating would you say there could never be a moral decision to unplug them?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
January 21st, 2011, 06:18 AM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
1. Sure, I'll believe what you say Wikipedia says over what my own DOCTOR told me directly. Again, I have no reason to believe what you say if you can't even be bothered to post a link.

2. I'm not going to split hairs with you.

3. Congratulations, you still have a shred of a conscience to you.

4. You prove it's not a human.

A beating heart is where I draw the line because a beating heart is something that's alive. Taking a life would be defined as stopping a beating heart. That's for all things and not just humans. The brain dead person on life support (which I do have experience dealing with as my late BIL was in an accident and never woke up) whom doctors have said has no realistic chance of recovery can be let go. And if a doctor tells a woman that she will face serious health risks, or that the conceptus is not likely to survive after birth, then abandon the cargo to save the ship.
Our society has decided that killing other humans is not acceptable. When the heart stops, life is gone. The brain can go, the breathing can start to trail off, but when the heart stops, that's the moment of death. When a human woman has an abortion of her conceptus which was co-created with a human man, she has not stopped the heart of a kitten, a chicken, or a dolphin. Just because it might not look like a human doesn't mean it's anything other than a human. If we went by looks alone, I can't see the oxygen particles I'm inhaling so can I claim I'm not inhaling any? Or does my beating heart prove that I am?
And a conceptus is its own human being from the moment of conception because blood/DNA tests will prove that it is not an extra growth of the mother. It is its own separate entity with human DNA, it is a human entity.

Entity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Reply With Quote
  #44  
January 21st, 2011, 10:32 AM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
1. Sure, I'll believe what you say Wikipedia says over what my own DOCTOR told me directly. Again, I have no reason to believe what you say if you can't even be bothered to post a link.
I'm not telling you not to listen to your doctor, I am telling you what another source says. I have no control over what you choose to believe or not believe. That is up to you. Oh, and I am sure you know how to look something up on Wikipedia. BTW, be sure to tell your doctor about he discrepancy on Wikipedia. She can correct it herself, as can you. Just be prepared to defend the change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
2. I'm not going to split hairs with you.
Really?? A little late for that, wouldn't you say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
3. Congratulations, you still have a shred of a conscience to you.
Now you are just being mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
4. You prove it's not a human.
Are you saying "prove it's not a human being" as opposed to "prove it's not human tissue"? I could if you would dare to define a human being like I asked. If you actually believe that a conceptus is a human being then would you support charging women, who have abortions at any point in a pregnancy, with murder? How about the death penalty for multiple abortions? Of course not, because you don't actually believe that a early-stage conceptus deserves the same protections that a full-fledged human being deserves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
A beating heart is where I draw the line because a beating heart is something that's alive. Taking a life would be defined as stopping a beating heart. That's for all things and not just humans. The brain dead person on life support (which I do have experience dealing with as my late BIL was in an accident and never woke up) whom doctors have said has no realistic chance of recovery can be let go. And if a doctor tells a woman that she will face serious health risks, or that the conceptus is not likely to survive after birth, then abandon the cargo to save the ship.
You need to at least be consistent within a paragraph. If you draw the line at a beating heart then lack of brain function is not a reason to unplug someone. See, even you believe that brain function trumps the beating heart claim. If the brain is dead then you can rightfully stop the heart. There is nothing left to save except for parts that might be able to help someone else. If the brain is fine then unnecessarily stopping the heart would result in brain damage and the death of the "person".

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Our society has decided that killing other humans is not acceptable. When the heart stops, life is gone. The brain can go, the breathing can start to trail off, but when the heart stops, that's the moment of death.
You are talking about clinical death, a medical term. You can hook a person up to a heart machine and remove their heart all together. The beating heart is only a means to keep the brain functioning. When a heart stops doctors try to get it going again quickly to minimize damage to the brain. On the other hand, you can decerebrate a person and still have a beating heart and breathing... but that would just be a shell of a person. Under the right conditions, a person can suffer clinical death and be brought "back to life" hours later and be completely normal. Under other conditions, if they ended up with severe brain damage and were brain-dead then we can consider unplugging the machines which are keeping the shell alive. It is the brain, and what it stores, that is the key component that differentiates humans from other organisms. In the case of aborting a developing conceptus which has not yet developed integrated brain function then there is no "person" which is being killed, there is just a shell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
And a conceptus is its own human being from the moment of conception because blood/DNA tests will prove that it is not an extra growth of the mother. It is its own separate entity with human DNA, it is a human entity.
Are you now asserting that whatever has human DNA is a human being? If you sneeze and blow out a million cells with human DNA are you killing a million human beings?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
January 21st, 2011, 11:10 AM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
1. Is it really so hard to post a link to Wiki? Imagine you're a lawyer and I'm a juror. You have to prove your own case. You don't tell me a bunch of stuff without presenting me evidence and then tell me to go look it up on my own if I don't believe you.

2. No.

3. I am a mean person, nobody has ever denied that.

4. I have already defined a human entity. I have also clarified my stance on early abortions which you have conveniently ignored to get me to try to defend myself again. If a scientist were given a fertilized egg, would they be able to extract human DNA that is its own and not just its mother or just its father?

5. Stopping a beating heart of a person who will never regain their brain function is not the same as stopping the heart of a person who will gain brain function. I have already asserted that. Don't tell me what I believe and mince my words.

6. Try to stay on track. We're not talking about what can be done to artificially preserve life. We're talking about when it is and is not acceptable to end a life. You just said yourself that even without brain function the heart can/sometimes will keep going because that means the CNS is still in tact. But we're not talking about the clinical death of a conceptus. A person on life support is physically alive, their heart is beating, tissue is being perfused. Stopping the heart ends the life. Stopping the brain does not end the life. Tissues aren't dead until they are no longer being perfused. That's done by the heart.
WHY is it acceptable to stop the beating heart of an entity that will almost certainly gain brain function? Does even HAVE to be human to deserve the basic respect that all living things deserve?

7. Did you just equate kids to boogers?
Ok let me break this down. My boogers have my DNA and mine only. They are not separate from me.
Also, they have my DNA because as I was blasting them out with the force of my sneeze, they took some of my epithelial cells with them.
epithelial cell - definition of epithelial cell by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
None of my bodily secretions will carry DNA from some other person. That was a very silly thing to equate a conceptus to. Blood or tissue from a conceptus will reveal the DNA of another human entity, NOT the same as the mother's own DNA.
Also, boogers don't have a CNS so no, they are not humans-in-production. I'll be sure to let you know though, if I ever manage to gestate a booger so evolutionarily advanced as to have a CNS and DNA apart from my own.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
January 21st, 2011, 01:38 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
1. Is it really so hard to post a link to Wiki?
What's the point? Do you think I am going to lie when I say Wikipedia says something and I know you can check it in about five seconds?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
3. I am a mean person, nobody has ever denied that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
I have already defined a human entity.
I don't know what "human entity" means. I have no problem calling a single fertilized egg a "human entity", as in an individual cell of human origin. That does not make it a human being/person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
I have also clarified my stance on early abortions which you have conveniently ignored to get me to try to defend myself again. If a scientist were given a fertilized egg, would they be able to extract human DNA that is its own and not just its mother or just its father?
Yes, they would be able to extract human DNA. So what? They would not be able to extract a human being. In the same sense, you cannot extract a house from a set of blueprints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
5. Stopping a beating heart of a person who will never regain their brain function is not the same as stopping the heart of a person who will gain brain function. I have already asserted that. Don't tell me what I believe and mince my words.
I agree, but I will mince your words. Stopping the heart of a thing which will never have brain function again is the same as stopping the heart of a thing which has no capacity for brain function. In both cases, no brain function capacity is being lost. The fact that something may develop the capacity for brain function in the future, but never has had it, is not relevant to the issue. This is because we are talking about moral harms relating to the well-being of actual persons, not to potential persons which don't yet exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
6. Try to stay on track. We're not talking about what can be done to artificially preserve life. We're talking about when it is and is not acceptable to end a life.
I am on track. I am using examples that show flaws in your logic. You need to look for the principles involved and not get caught up in why I picked the details of a given example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
You just said yourself that even without brain function the heart can/sometimes will keep going because that means the CNS is still in tact. But we're not talking about the clinical death of a conceptus. A person on life support is physically alive, their heart is beating, tissue is being perfused. Stopping the heart ends the life. Stopping the brain does not end the life. Tissues aren't dead until they are no longer being perfused. That's done by the heart.
There is a difference between autonomous processes of the brain stem and conscious processes of the cerebellum. It is the cerebellum that contains the "mind". Without that we are nothing but a living shell of a person. Relevant to the abortion issue, killing the shell (in absence of the capacity to think) is not killing what it is that makes us a human being. When you unplug a brain-dead body you are not killing a "person", the "person" is already dead. That is why it is not considered murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
WHY is it acceptable to stop the beating heart of an entity that will almost certainly gain brain function?
Because there is no loss of well-being of the "entity". There is no "personhood" there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Does even HAVE to be human to deserve the basic respect that all living things deserve?
Not all living things deserve respect. Certainly, being human and being capable of suffering or experiencing joy are considerable things to take into account. We don't have concerns when we fire up the mower and kill thousands of blades of living grass. If we found that grass blades suffered then that would change everything. If we found that throwing a rock on the ground caused it pain, that too would change everything. When we assign rights to living things it is based upon the capacity for suffering or experiencing joy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Ok let me break this down. My boogers have my DNA and mine only. They are not separate from me.
It doesn't matter. You probably have thousands of cells that contain unique DNA due to transcription errors. That doesn't make them individual human beings. That doesn't mean there is any reason to give them special rights.

Since you are avoiding answering my questions, I will ask them in an easy to answer format:

A) Please define a human being, along with some primary attributes, in a way that differentiates it from other organisms.

B ) Based on your claim that a conceptus is a human being, should a woman who aborts a conceptus (at any stage) be charged with murder? Yes or No

C) If a beating heart is where you draw the line for a living human being deserving of all human rights, then is it murder to unplug a person with a functionally beating heart but is brain dead? Yes or No

D) Does a cell with unique human DNA constitute the existence of a human being? Yes or No
Reply With Quote
  #47  
January 21st, 2011, 02:18 PM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Since you are avoiding answering my questions, I will ask them in an easy to answer format:
It would be more appropriate for you to say I didn't answer the questions with answers you approve of so you're going to pretend I haven't answered them.

A) Please define a human being, along with some primary attributes, in a way that differentiates it from other organisms.

a) A human being is an entity with human DNA and a beating heart. The primary attribute is it's DNA. All organisms start off looking very similar, just as many flower seeds look alike but do not all produce the same flower. It doesn't resemble a fully formed human, that takes a little time. But the basic FACTS are that it has human DNA SEPARATE of that of its mother. Before there is a heart beat, as I've already stated numerous times, I don't mind the prevention of it's progression. Once there is an individual heart beat in an entity made up of human DNA, it is a human being. It is a being with a beating heart, it's made up of human materials. Do deny that it is a human, its own being with its own body is beyond ridiculous in my eyes. What do you think it is, a pony?

B ) Based on your claim that a conceptus is a human being, should a woman who aborts a conceptus (at any stage) be charged with murder? Yes or No

b) At no point in time did I say any and all stages of a conceptus have become a human being. Refer to my answer above. So in short, "no." There are stages and circumstances I find it acceptable. AGAIN, I have clarified that several times, stop saying I said things I didn't or I'm done debating you.

C) If a beating heart is where you draw the line for a living human being deserving of all human rights, then is it murder to unplug a person with a functionally beating heart but is brain dead? Yes or No

c) No if the doctors have said the person will not make a full recovery.
Yes if they will recover but you unplug them anyway.
That is of course my opinion based on my morals and not how the law is written. You asked for my opinion and I gave it.

D) Does a cell with unique human DNA constitute the existence of a human being? Yes or No

d) Really, how many times are you going to ask that!!?!? You're asking the same questions over and over, pretending I didn't answer, and then wording them a little different.
I have already answered this one. NUMEROUS times.


Now, if you have some NEW questions for me, fire away. If you're just going to keep going in circles then do not expect anymore responses from me. This is how all debates with you go. You twist things to claim they mean something other than intended, you ask ridiculous questions like "are boogers human beings" and you just go on and on and on. Then everybody gets sick of replying to you because absolutely nothing gets through to you, you pat yourself on the back and do your little victory dance because you got the last word and that obviously means you win.
Keep your crap relevant or you won't be dignified with any more of my time. ALL of your questions have been answered. Several times.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
January 21st, 2011, 03:34 PM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
A Catholic priest, a Baptist preacher and a Jewish Rabbi were sitting around debating when life begins.
The priest said life begins at the moment of conception. The preacher said life begins when the pregnancy is viable to survive outside the womb. The Rabbi says "no, no, no. Life begins when the youngest child moves out of the house and the dog dies."
Reply With Quote
  #49  
January 21st, 2011, 04:58 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
a) A human being is an entity with human DNA and a beating heart. The primary attribute is it's DNA. ... But the basic FACTS are that it has human DNA SEPARATE of that of its mother.
So, that's it? Two attributes define a human being? I disagree and I will explain why.

First of all, it doesn't matter if the DNA is unique or not, so let's put that to rest. You could have a separate person even if the DNA were identical to the mother's DNA. Consider the case of identical twins or hypothetically about a cloned person. You can both have identical DNA and be separate persons. What is it in those cases that actually makes then into people with separate identities? It is their brains and what they experience and store in their brains. Everything else can be identical. What gives them their humanness is their own mind, which is an emergent property of their brains.

Second, DNA is not a human being, it is like a set of plans for a human being. In the same sense, a set of blueprints is a plan for a house, but it is not actually a house. You can't live in a set of blueprints anymore than a person can live in DNA. It is through the set of plans and a long, complex process, that a house or a person later comes to exist. I think you understand this because you also have the attribute of a beating heart which makes up a human being. You understand that there is some process which must take place before a human can come to exist. The line you are drawing at the beating of a heart is an arbitrary one. I might suggest that is is an emotional appeal and I will explain why in my next point.

You are using the beating heart because it is a visual indication of something which is alive. Certainly, we have human tissue, but the fact that the heart is beating does not necessarily make it into a separate being. You could argue that it is alive, but then you can argue that the rest of the cells are alive prior to a heart beating. The heart cells are just another type of cell that is alive, they just happen to quickly contract in unison and be visible on an ultrasound. When you first have a beating heart all you have is a pump that is moving. In fact, blood cells are not even generated until around the start of the second trimester. The heart is not doing anything at this point to facilitate life. What makes up a human being is more complex than having a set of plans and a working pump. It would be like saying a house is a house when you have a set of plans, a foundation and a few walls with pipes in them. No, a house is much more than that, and a person is much more than you are asserting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
b) At no point in time did I say any and all stages of a conceptus have become a human being.
Yes you did. Let me quote you from below: "And a conceptus is its own human being from the moment of conception because blood/DNA tests will prove that it is not an extra growth of the mother." Can I take it that you would now retract that statement? Can you understand my confusion? So, let's not continue to use the word conceptus as a thing with inherent rights to describe a thing which you believe can both rightfully be killed and should not be killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
c) No if the doctors have said the person will not make a full recovery.
What does it matter if their brain is functioning or not? Above, you stated that the two requirements for being considered a human being are unique DNA and a beating heart. If a brain dead person is fully human then unplugging them would be murder according to your own logic. Based on what you have expressed here, it would seem that some degree of brain functioning is a necessary third attribute. If the brain cannot function then you are fine unplugging a person. If the brain can function then you believe it would be wrong to unplug them. This is exactly my position regarding a "conceptus" and abortion. If the brain is sufficiently developed to the point where it can process data then it gains the rights of a human being. Why do I say that? Because that is the point that concerns of well-being can be taken into account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
D) Does a cell with unique human DNA constitute the existence of a human being? Yes or No
d) Really, how many times are you going to ask that!!?!?
I am asking because I am getting conflicting responses (see question B above).
Reply With Quote
  #50  
January 21st, 2011, 05:50 PM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
The blood doesn't form until the second trimester?!?! That's BS. You love Wiki, so here you go. Scroll down to where it talks about human embryos and read week 4-5. Brain function begins and blood starts to flow. Brain function and blood flow, what else do you want? And don't say conscious brain activity. We have no devices to read people's thoughts. If there is activity in the brain, it's working.

Embryo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And not only is that brain functioning, by 8 weeks gestation (6 weeks embryonic age) there is enough sensory perception that pain can be felt.

Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.

Are you familiar with the events of the progression of a pregnancy? THAT is why I want you to provide links to prove the things you say. Your thought of blood not being formed until the second trimester was way off base.

I'm not going to retract that statement, however I realize I should revise the word "being" to "entity." So yes, I can see your confusion on that and I apologize for choosing the wrong word. I use conceptus because that covers all stages of the pregnancy. I can't remember when it goes from being a zygoat to blastocyst to embryo to fetus. Conceptus also includes the entire thing. The placenta, the amnion, all of it. To the best of my understanding it is always acceptable to call it a conceptus. It is a conceptus from the moment of conception, and even if miscarried or aborted, it's STILL a conceptus.

If a brain dead person has very little chance of waking up, then no it's not murder. I know I've said that before. If a conceptus is allowed to progress a little while longer, it has a pretty good chance of gaining conscious brain function. And we don't know what data is being processed in a conceptus's brain. We know there is activity. Maybe it's thinking "how much longer until I get to suck on one of those thumbs...."

And as for equal rights, no I do not believe all humans inherently have equal rights at all stages of life. I can't think of any instances right off where minors have the same rights as adults. But I do believe a conceptus, at any point in time, deserves respect. It is not just a pile of boogers.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
January 21st, 2011, 09:53 PM
KiwiMommy's Avatar Ashlynn's Mama
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by smt View Post

Yes, they would be able to extract human DNA. So what? They would not be able to extract a human being. In the same sense, you cannot extract a house from a set of blueprints.
There is a huge difference between blueprints and a fertilized human egg.
HUGE difference.
A fertilized human egg can create a breathing human child with only one person "helping", and by helping I don't mean putting this human together consciously (as in putting the leg on the fetus, etc) but unconsciously creating this child simply by breathing, having a beating heart, etc. It doesn't even take a functional brain to gestate the fetus/child.
Blueprints, on the other hand, would take quite a few people to turn into a house. In theory, it could take hundreds. Say.. 10 people to make the wood for the house. Chop down, process, create the boards, package, ship, unpackage.. Then another 10 for the paint, and so on. Even if all materials were at hand and the previous makers of these items not counted (I predict you'd bring that up as "Grandparents, great grandparents, etc), you still need people to put together the house, put in electricity, install appliances.. That's still quite a few.

And yes, I consider the electricity and appliances as part of this house. The house is not "functional" without them. As a fetus is not "functional" without the nerves firing off signals and organs developing and working.

A child can be unconsciously created, as well. Though the act itself is a choice, the conception is not.

I had to add. I find you comparing a fertilized egg to blueprints to be a bit silly.

Anyways..
I agree, you're walking in circles.. Your questions are continuously repeated and all answers to them ignored. So I'm pretty much done.
__________________
Kailey(21) Cloth diapering, breastfeeding, babywearing, extended RF'ing, slightly crazy mommy to Ashlynn (3 1/2 * 1/28/10) and Matthew (13 months * 6/20/12)


Thank you peimum for the gorgeous siggy!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
January 22nd, 2011, 11:19 AM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by smt View Post
What's the point? Do you think I am going to lie when I say Wikipedia says something and I know you can check it in about five seconds?
Apparently, yes you will. D&C is being phased out as a method of abortion.
Dilation and curettage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the section of just "abortion" it does not say how early a D&C can be done, but on the graph on the right it shows the procedure at the end of the first trimester. This is why I asked you to provide a link to this magical page you are referencing. Or are you just pulling this out of your crack as you go along, hoping that if you sound intelligent then people will automatically believe you?
Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You said an earlier post that an aspiration abortion could be done as early as 3 weeks. Sorry pal, at 3 weeks a woman won't even know she's pregnant. At 4 weeks, lots of women still don't know. And look! They Mayo Clinic article refers to the fertilized egg as an entity! Just like I did, and then you claimed you didn't understand the meaning of entity. lol
Fetal development: The first trimester - MayoClinic.com

So, you were saying that Wiki says vacuum abortions can be done as early as 3 weeks? I want you to show me that page.

Sorry SMT. It is evident to me that you are making up facts as you go along and going on the assumption that if you are assertive enough and sound confident in your presentation, then nobody would have reason to doubt you. Well, I doubt you. You have not presented one single shred of evidence to support your argument. You told me to go look it up myself if I don't believe you so I did and found evidence to the contrary.
What the hell is wrong with you? What pleasure do you derive from coming into debates and saying things that are untrue?
Debating you is a waste of time.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
January 22nd, 2011, 11:32 AM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
The blood doesn't form until the second trimester?!?! That's BS.
The mesodermal cells of the yolk sac manufacturer some immature blood cells early on. It isn't blood that the embryo has made. If you look at the source of the wiki page (Fetal development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia) you will see that it refers to "rudimentary blood". Further down the list you will see that it says the first place that red blood cells are produced is in the liver at 11-14 weeks. Those are the first fully functional red blood cells. The production of mature red blood cells does not happen until the spleen and liver are functional, and eventually production moves primarily to the bones.The heart is also pumping other fluids which are mostly water. There is nothing magical there other than the functions that they support, along with many other components of the body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Brain function begins... If there is activity in the brain, it's working.
I agree if there is any brain function then there is some activity in the brain, but we have been talking about various degrees of brain function. We have been using terms like "some degree of brain functioning", "integrated brain function", "conscious brain function", "diminished brain function", and "coma". I also discussed decerebrating a brain to the point where the brainstem function is running autonomous processes yet there is no means for conscious thought. And lastly, my ultimate argument has been relating to moral concerns of well-being, suffering, happiness, etc. These concerns require higher brain functioning. It is this higher brain functioning which allows the emergent property of our humanness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
And not only is that brain functioning, by 8 weeks gestation (6 weeks embryonic age) there is enough sensory perception that pain can be felt.
Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.
That site is misrepresenting reflex reactions with processed pain sensations and is using many outdated sources (typical of an anti-abortion site). Let's look at some more recent research:

"In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation." 6-2010 Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice | Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

"The review found that a fetus's neurological pathways in its brain that allow for the 'conscious perception of pain' do not function until after 28 weeks' gestation." 9-2005 Journal of the American Medical Association

"A fetus was absolutely aware of pain by 24 weeks." 8-2001 Medical Research Council at Edinburgh University, UK

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Are you familiar with the events of the progression of a pregnancy? THAT is why I want you to provide links to prove the things you say. Your thought of blood not being formed until the second trimester was way off base.
That's fine, ask for clarification on anything I say. That is much simpler than posting a source for every single thing we say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
I'm not going to retract that statement, however I realize I should revise the word "being" to "entity." So yes, I can see your confusion on that and I apologize for choosing the wrong word.
It doesn't matter if you use the term "entity" or "being". Merriam-Webster has "being" as the first part of the definition for "entity". Entity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary The term "entity" is just more confusing because it has a much larger scope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
I use conceptus because that covers all stages of the pregnancy. I can't remember when it goes from being a zygoat to blastocyst to embryo to fetus. Conceptus also includes the entire thing. The placenta, the amnion, all of it. To the best of my understanding it is always acceptable to call it a conceptus. It is a conceptus from the moment of conception, and even if miscarried or aborted, it's STILL a conceptus.
But a conceptus isn't necessarily a person. Consider the case of a blighted ovum, there can be lots of parts but no embryo. So when you say a conceptus is its own human entity... who cares? What does that have to do with personhood? It can mean many things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
If a conceptus is allowed to progress a little while longer, it has a pretty good chance of gaining conscious brain function.
A fertilized egg that is allowed to progress a little while longer, it has a pretty good chance of gaining conscious brain function. But you don't mind terminating that. Why? Because it doesn't actually have conscious brain function. Once it has conscious brain function then things change. Why is that? Because there are then moral concerns related to well-being. Before that there is just a shell of of what makes us a human being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
And we don't know what data is being processed in a conceptus's brain. We know there is activity. Maybe it's thinking "how much longer until I get to suck on one of those thumbs...."
We know quite a bit. We know that before neurological pathways reach the cortex that there is no such sensation.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
January 22nd, 2011, 11:35 AM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
deleted.

Last edited by AMDG; January 22nd, 2011 at 12:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
January 22nd, 2011, 12:43 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
There is a huge difference between blueprints and a fertilized human egg.
I compared the blueprints to the DNA, not to the fertilized human egg. It was an analogy.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
January 22nd, 2011, 01:12 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Apparently, yes you will. D&C is being phased out as a method of abortion.
What does that have to do with my claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
In the section of just "abortion" it does not say how early a D&C can be done, but on the graph on the right it shows the procedure at the end of the first trimester. This is why I asked you to provide a link to this magical page you are referencing. Or are you just pulling this out of your crack as you go along, hoping that if you sound intelligent then people will automatically believe you?
Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gestation 4-12 weeks Dilation and curettage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
You said an earlier post that an aspiration abortion could be done as early as 3 weeks.
Gestation 3-12 weeks Vacuum aspiration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Sorry pal, at 3 weeks a woman won't even know she's pregnant.
What does that have to do with my claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
At 4 weeks, lots of women still don't know. And look! They Mayo Clinic article refers to the fertilized egg as an entity! Just like I did, and then you claimed you didn't understand the meaning of entity. lol
Fetal development: The first trimester - MayoClinic.com
Hey, look, a one-celled human entity is called a zygote. Something which you have no problem aborting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Sorry SMT. It is evident to me that you are making up facts as you go along and going on the assumption that if you are assertive enough and sound confident in your presentation, then nobody would have reason to doubt you. Well, I doubt you. You have not presented one single shred of evidence to support your argument. You told me to go look it up myself if I don't believe you so I did and found evidence to the contrary.
What the hell is wrong with you? What pleasure do you derive from coming into debates and saying things that are untrue?
Debating you is a waste of time.
see above.

Last edited by smt; January 22nd, 2011 at 05:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
January 22nd, 2011, 02:32 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDG View Post
deleted.
I appreciate that you deleted that post.

BTW, asking questions (in addition to answering them, which I do) in a debate is part of the Socratic Method. It is actually used to stimulate critical thinking and to get the other side to think about ideas rather to to just have someone presenting facts.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
January 22nd, 2011, 03:11 PM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Neither of your links to Wiki worked. And the link you posted about the report from the Royal College of OBGYN, the file on the full findings is inoperable. I get an error message that the file is damaged and cannot be fixed. But in the summary of it, one sentence really stood out to me. That "most" neurologists "believe" brain synopses are complete by a certain week of gestation. So if I were to think about that sentence I could gather that not all of them even believe that to be true, AND the ones that do believe it only "believe" it to be true. It's an assumption, not something they have been able to confirm.

I think it's a real shame she deleted what she said. I prefer to call a spade a spade, and I've seen your true colors. On JM you have to play nice, but remember when you and Sunflower Mommy got banned from the message boards hosted by American Baby magazine because of your vicious verbal attacks to anyone who planned to circumcise their sons? lol Even the anti-circ crowd was glad to see you two get the boot. They said people like you make them look bad, and not everybody anti-circ is a jerk to other people who do circ. I mean, you two managed to get the circ debates closed on JM, not only did the board get locked and then deleted, we're not even allowed to bring up the subject in debate anymore! Thanks a lot!

The Socratic Method of debate? That's the one that Aristotle said is not a suitable method of debate when debating ethics. And ethical debates seem to be your favorite. I've only seen you active in debating circumcision, religion, and abortion. And yes, all of your debates go in circles. It's useless.

I was able to correct your link to Wiki, and the gestational age is 3 weeks, meaning that the age of the pregnancy is called 5 weeks. And what does a woman not knowing she's pregnant at 3 weeks have to do with your argument? Um, everything. If she doesn't know she's pregnant, she doesn't know she needs to have her uterus vacuumed out.
Seriously, get a grip.

Last edited by foxfire_ga79; January 22nd, 2011 at 03:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
January 22nd, 2011, 05:39 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
I fixed the links.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
January 22nd, 2011, 07:05 PM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by smt View Post
I appreciate that you deleted that post.

BTW, asking questions (in addition to answering them, which I do) in a debate is part of the Socratic Method. It is actually used to stimulate critical thinking and to get the other side to think about ideas rather to to just have someone presenting facts.
i've been through law school - very familiar with the socratic method. But yes, my post contributed nothing and so it should not have been posted.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0