Abortion Laws Should by Based on Science; Right?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by CurtisNeeley, Aug 31, 2016.

?

Protect the dignity and/or sanctity of human life?

  1. Human life dignity should be protected

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. Human life sanctity should be protected.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Human life sanctity AND dignity should be protected.

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  4. Neither should be protected.

    3 vote(s)
    50.0%
  1. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Does the beating heart actually make the person? That would create an awkward situation for heart transplantation. When Joe gets a heart transplant from Nancy, does he become Nancy? Isn't it more reasonable to view the heart as part of a complex life support system for Joe's mind?

    Even when the structural foundation for the brain appears, the brain is not functional enough to become an active mind. That is the difference between the fetus and the coma patient. The coma patient had an active mind from the moment of birth. Even when you were asleep, or in a coma, or in a responsive state doing things that you do not currently remember, your mind was active (from the moment you were born) so you are a continuation of the person you have been since birth. You incorporated your experiences (even the ones you do not consciously remember) into your continuing person-hood and those experiences help you grow as a person.

    It seems likely that you were semi-conscious when you were asked about the respirator. The fact that you do not recall that event does not prove that you were semi-conscious while you were inside the womb. In fact, medical science tells us that your brain could only BEGIN neuronal integration in the last few weeks of gestation, and even if it completed that process before birth your brain would have been sedated until the moment of birth (incapable of processing any experience).
    Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
     
  2. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow!
    "Scientific American" is not a peer-reviewed journal and further confused the issue of the beginning of life and consciousness, dreaming, or awareness.

    I was not responsive while in a coma but this testing was not entirely accurate due to paralysis. I continued to digest food delivered by a feeding tube just like Terrie Schiavo. Continuing to digest food is a bodily response and does not require the brain or heartbeats except to continue existing. Simply continuing to exist is not terribly exciting but is not painful. Had Ms. Schiavo been allowed to continue living, there would have been work done to assist her with life. Those providing this support would have jobs they no longer have.

    I appreciate the open mind and the link to the article.
     
  3. Zeffy

    Zeffy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ms Schiavo's brain was practically liquified. The right decision was made but by the wrong person, IMO.
     
  4. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    or the born, the alt-right doesn't like them if they cost tax $$$ either

    - - - Updated - - -

    Pretty Ironic?

    "Playing God"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/04/usa.health

    "But, given the vehemence with which he has been fighting to prolong Terri's life, it is a little surprising to learn that Robert decided to turn off the life-support system for his mother."

    Robert says. "I was very angry with God because I didn't want to make those decisions."



    .

    .
     
  5. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I have always found Scientific American to be in agreement with published research (and easier to read). Do you have a link to a peer-reviewed journal article that refutes the fact presented by Scientific American?

    I do believe the human body will continue to operate (digest food, etc) without an active mind (because the primitive brain stem is functional long before the cerebrum, and may continue to function long after the cerebrum has degraded to a non-functional level). In your case, there may have been damage to your cerebrum but you retained your person-hood. Even if you consciously remembered nothing that happened before your time in the hospital, your prior experiences are still a part of you. For example, you might not remember what you were doing September 15, 1985 but if you happened to learn how to ride a bicycle that day you probably still remember how to ride a bike. You could not, however, incorporate experiences before neural connections have been made.

    There were early indications that the person of Terri Schiavo was no longer present in her body, but many observers were fooled by her autonomic reflexes. The autopsy confirmed that her cerebrum had become non-functional long before "medical experts" were going on the Sean Hannity show to claim they could rehabilitate her.
    Reference: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8225637/n...yshows-irreversiblebrain-damage/#.V9S3unrCzn0

    You retained your person-hood through your ordeal because your cerebrum remained functional... NOT because your stomach kept digesting or your heart kept beating. If you had heart failure instead of a brain injury, a transplant would have also allowed you to retain your person-hood. A brain transplant would NOT have left you with your person-hood. Your body would be occupied by a totally different person after a brain transplant.
     
  6. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just felt the article in SA carried a position. It may be accurate. I know how to emulate digital signal broadcasting on an analog broadcast signal down to the components. Every FM radio station today could sell WiFi at the same time as radio advertisements. This is due to top-secret military schooling I do not recall. I guess that is like the bicycle I could probably ride if I still had legs?

    Science can't solve this issue or detect personhood. The truth will never be agreed upon by science.

    It is like running Photoshop with Windows 10 v. MacIntosh. The software is exactly the same.
     
  7. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The Scientific American article just presents the truth (as it was known in 2009). I have found no research since 2009 that disputes these facts.

    Science may not have the tools to measure person-hood itself (e.g. to determine if a "soul" materializes at some point when the brain is operational) but science can certainly address questions like whether a brain has developed enough to process input (or too degraded to process input). If your desktop computer arrives in a kit to be assembled, it is a potential computer until you assemble the parts correctly. Global neuronal integration is like plugging in the CPU so the signals from the sensors can reach the cerebral cortex and messages from one part of the brain can reach other parts of the brain. I don't have to understand all the NAND gates in that CPU to know that it cannot function until it is connected to the motherboard, and by the same token scientists do not have to understand every aspect of person-hood to know that it cannot be present without an operational cerebral cortex.
     
  8. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not sure if any of the papers published since 2009 dispute the SA article.

    In 2013 the SA appears to be generally invalidated.
    "Development of the fetal cerebral cortex in the second trimester: assessment with 7T postmortem MR imaging." - LINK (article abstract)

    PDF <<(article full txt)

    I will not pretend to be able to follow this level of neurological writings but believe the assertion was that there is some cerebral cortex sulci at 12-weeks and 16 weeks is deterministic.

    I know the Fetus is whole by week 12 if a normal heartbeat is heard. It is irrelevant that very little cerebral sulci are present. The claim of 12-16week pain is largely refuted by FactCheck.org. {LINK}

    The lungs are unable to process air at 12-weeks and there is little danger of processing pain or being a person except in the minds of the parents. Black persons are not granted personhood in the U.S. till after 1850. Our nation has a dishonorable history considering human dignity. I could look up the date for the 13th U.S. Amendment but this is irrelevant to my contention that this must be recognized legislatively or it will never occur. Still; looking at U.S. prisons it could be argued slavery has not ended yet.
     
  9. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The referenced study does not invalidate the research described by Scientific American in 2009. The purpose of this referenced study was to learn when the sulci (the grooves and wrinkles of the brain) normally start to appear. This is to improve our ability to identify pathological flaws in brain development as early as possible by creating an index for comparison against other fetal brains. It does not address global neuronal integration at all (since that has been confirmed by EEG to take place about week 32-34 of gestation).

    We all know that the brain does not pop into existence as a fully-functional organ. The appearance of sulci is just one step among many leading to the moment when the brain is first capable of meaningful activity and (about 4 weeks later) when the mind is activated by the profound changes that occur at birth.
     
  10. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except you haven't given any facts, just your opinion, and please do explain how the location of the fetus was determined by the female .. did she instruct the fertilized ovum to invade the uterine wall, did she somehow through force of will make the sperm fertilize the ova, did she aid and abet the incursion into her circulatory system in order to sustain the fetus?

    There is no waiver when it comes to consent, there is no waiver when it comes to the equal protection clause, there is no waiver on the right to who, what, where and when your body is used by another person.

    There are no competing rights, the fetus only has the right to use the females body IF she consents to it doing so and regardless of how long she allows it to use her body she has EVERY right to withdraw that consent for what ever reason she wants .. just as you have EVERY right to withdraw consent from your wife/husband/gf/bf to have sex with you REGARDLESS of how long you have previously allowed them to.

    Great . .so if society determined that you had to give up an organ in your body in order to sustain another person you would be ok with it . .after all you are the one saying that "the desires of society must overrule individual rights" .. good to see you are willing to give up your individual rights to the mob rule.

    Consent pretty much is an absolute rule and is the foundation of almost EVERY law there is ... theft is taking something without consent, rape is forcing sex onto a person without consent .. and you think that consent is for anarchy .. no you are wrong, removing consent as one of the foundations of law and order is the road to anarchy. McFall vs Shimp in fact encapsulates the very foundation of what individual freedom free from state imposition is.

    Pregnancy is the ONLY time that the right to autonomy and therefore consent is not absolute ... there is no other time that autonomy is over ruled.

    I suggest you go look up what FIAT is and then re-visit the common laws and precedences that support the McFall vs Shimp decision, because it is obvious that you don't understand what FIAT really is and means.

    They are trapped within through their own actions, it is not the woman that cause pregnancies, that can only be achieved by the successful implantation of a fertilized ovum into the uterine wall .. an action that is driven by the ovum itself.

    It seems to me you are attempting to yet again promote the incorrect assertion that consenting to intercourse = consenting to pregnancy, and as has been amply proven that simply is not the case.

    Red herring and a strawman, please do show where I have stated anything concerning that "anyone can do anything desired at anytime." - oh and by the way, you can actually do anything desires at anytime as long as it it is within the law and does not violate another persons rights.
     
  11. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or it is neither a potential person or an actual person, but something else which would allow the government to do certain things under the compelling interest ideology ie exactly where Roe is.
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113



    Curtis: ""The right to autonomy and therefore consent is not absolute""




    You: ""The right to autonomy and therefore consent is not absolute. Pregnancy is the ONLY time that the right to autonomy and therefore consent is not absolute ... there is no other time that autonomy is over ruled.""

    This has me confused, can you explain it ? (and you know me, don't use big words;) )
     
  13. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Basically as it stands the only time body autonomy and therefore consent are overruled at the moment is in pregnancy, specifically in the third term .. Roe does this by allowing the states to impose restrictions (wrongly in my opinion) there is no other time that the state over rules body autonomy and consent.

    What I am saying is that it should be absolute.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes to all of the above. Pregnancy is a result of voluntary intercourse where the female hormones instruct the fertilized ovum to remain inside the uterus and begin gestation.

    Yes; Regulating consent among humans is required for society to exist.

    FIAT is the most disparaging/degrading term to use describing a judicial ruling. When a judge elevates a decision to be treated as authoritative law. The fundamental human right to be married FIAT alleged to exist as an inalienable human right. Yes; This FIAT should have been allowed, but only in order to protect the self.


    Pregnancy is a result of voluntary intercourse where the female hormones instruct the fertilized ovum to remain inside the uterus and begin gestation.

    Yes to all of the above. Pregnancy is a result of voluntary intercourse where the female hormones instruct the fertilized ovum to remain inside the uterus and begin gestation. Voluntary intercourse is consent to pregnancy or accepting responsibility for ensuring gestation does not continue beyond 11-weeks.

    ....as long as it it is within the law and does not violate another persons rights.
     
  15. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong. The female has no control over whether the sperm fertilizes the ovum, she has no control over whether the fertilized ovum implants into the uterine wall and she has no control over whether the implanted ovum re-routes her circulatory system.

    The females hormones have zero to do with the fertilized ovum remaining inside the uterus and beginning gestation. That whole process is instigated and maintained by the fertilized ovum. Once the ova is fertilized it starts to release HGC which increases the level of blood flow in the uterine, making implantation easier. The fertilized ova also releases hormones that turn off a key pathway required for the immune system to attack foreign bodies .. which is what the fertilized ovum is, upon implantation, an embryo changes the packaging of certain chemokine genes in the nuclei of the developing decidua's stromal cells. The change in the DNA packaging permanently deactivates, or "silences," the chemokine genes. Consequently, the chemokines are not expressed and T cells are not recruited to the site of embryo implantation. Also of note, the observed change in the DNA packaging was a so-called 'epigenetic' modification, meaning a modification that changes gene expression without the presence of a hereditable gene mutation.

    All of the above - instigated and maintained by the fertilized ovum NOT the woman, if the ovum did not do these things it would be attacked by the females local immune reaction, killed and expelled (or absorbed)

    Examples please .. the only thing one person cannot consent to is to being killed, there is nothing else a person cannot consent to.

    FIAT is "a legally binding command or decision entered on the court record (as if issued by a court or judge)" the McFall vs Shimp decision was not a FIAT ruling, it was a ruling based on common law and precedence.

    100% wrong .. please read a human reproduction biology book.

    Still 100% wrong.

    And your point is . .abortion is within the law and does not violate another persons rights ... not even if the unborn were to be deemed as persons.
     
    Bowerbird and FoxHastings like this.
  16. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed. Additionally, many who scream about the "sanctity and dignity of human life", have no problem advocating putting land mines on our southern border, bombing villages while accepting "collateral casualties" and executing any criminal whose skin tone doesn't pass the paper test.

    Hypocrites, regardless of religion, political affiliation or culture always chap my ass.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
    Bowerbird and tecoyah like this.

Share This Page