Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh, we are all a "clump of cells." That argument never goes anywhere and does nothing in the end but devalue the meaning of life.
i think it devalues the meaning of life to say we are all a "clump of cells" as opposed to a newly concieved embryo which actually is NOTHING more than just that.
One of the problems with the abortion argument is that just about everyone (though to look at the abortion thread, apparently not 100% of people, which is exceptioanlly disturbing) takes issue with abortion this late.
But people find great difficulty in setting how far back it goes before it isn't wrong any more.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For clarification purposes...This procedure is performed predominantly for late second trimester abortions and is used in a minority of those cases. Current evidence supports that fetal nociception has yet to develop fully.
And, no. Fetal CNS development does not reach the point of what would be defined as consciousness by the third month of pregnancy.
im not saying it does, what im saying is that by that time, the BUNCH OF CELLS, have reconfigured themselves into a being which is defined by the tpe of combination and atleast a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS of the cells can exist{neither you nor i know what a conciousness completely implies/is/can be defined by, and WHEN it actually forms, or forms to a level to qualify as such. what im talkin about is the stage before which it almost definately CANT exist. also{and do correct me if im wrong, im not a doctor after all, just talkin about a phenomenon, if ive got the time frame wrong, let me know} the very basic nervous system can exist by that time, and ive read that traits like, handedness, which are major , sumwhat unique and and persisit through life have been noticed in the third month, but not before.
i think when there is brain activity, thats the line, just imo.
i just cant wrap my mind over the idea of giving a single embryonic cell, at conception, the same regard as an infant?
imho its not belief that screws up this debate till no end, but rather faith (as in believing their view to be fact and trying to admit that as evidence)
Originally posted by UshgarakCurrent evidence suggests fetal consciousness and nociception is not developed until 24-30 weeks, viability is also defined as at this borderline as well, iirc. Which are currently the limits to legal elective abortion without medical justification afaik.
One of the problems with the abortion argument is that just about everyone (though to look at the abortion thread, apparently not 100% of people, which is exceptioanlly disturbing) takes issue with abortion this late.But people find great difficulty in setting how far back it goes before it isn't wrong any more.
Originally posted by leonheartmmDuring gestational week 20-23 thalamocortical afferents accumulate in the subplate zone and ingrowth of thalamocortical afferents into the cortical plate occurs in gestational week 24. Thalamocortical connectivity is generally viewed as relatively central to global neural function and what would be defined as "consciousness." There's some research on subplate connectivity and it's relevance to "consciousness," however there's definitely nothing I'm aware of to suggest the fetus has "consciousness" at week 12 or 13.
im not saying it does, what im saying is that by that time, the BUNCH OF CELLS, have reconfigured themselves into a being which is defined by the tpe of combination and atleast a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS of the cells can exist{neither you nor i know what a conciousness completely implies/is/can be defined by, and WHEN it actually forms, or forms to a level to qualify as such. what im talkin about is the stage before which it almost definately CANT exist. also{and do correct me if im wrong, im not a doctor after all, just talkin about a phenomenon, if ive got the time frame wrong, let me know} the very basic nervous system can exist by that time, and ive read that traits like, handedness, which are major , sumwhat unique and and persisit through life have been noticed in the third month, but not before.
Originally posted by SchecterPartially agree... "brain activity" is probably too broad a term for my liking. "Significant brain activity amounting to sentience and consciousness." perhaps.
i think when there is brain activity, thats the line, just imo.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
im not saying it does, what im saying is that by that time, the BUNCH OF CELLS, have reconfigured themselves into a being which is defined by the tpe of combination and atleast a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS of the cells can exist
What you are talking about is killing a "person."
Taking life is taking life. Take the life of a being with a "a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS" is no better than taking the life of a embryo or a matured adult.
The conscience has nothing to do with the argument. It is just some bullshit thrown in to complicate matters because as said previously....
Originally posted by UshgarakBut people find great difficulty in setting how far back it goes before it isn't wrong any more.
Conscience has nothing to do with "just taking the life" - that is the main issue. Conscience has nothing to do with that.
Oh and ...
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For clarification purposes...This procedure is performed predominantly for late second trimester abortions and is used in a minority of those cases. Current evidence supports that fetal nociception has yet to develop fully.
And, no. Fetal CNS development does not reach the point of what would be defined as consciousness by the third month of pregnancy.
That is what I meant to say. The process for it is also different. Thanks for clearing that up
Why is this not part of the abortion thread? It IS abortion, the same as any abortions. How far developed doest even matter, it just makes it look more gruesome to us to see a full-grown baby killed instead of a partially grown fetus sucked out and not seen at all. The difference in nonexistant.
Aboriton is abortion. Fetal conciousness makes no difference -because whether it is "concious or not" it will still forget everything of its environment instantly or within a short span. Why should size, or intelligence, of a growing baby determine its value?
Originally posted by chithappens
What you are talking about is killing a "person."Taking life is taking life. Take the life of a being with a "a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS" is no better than taking the life of a embryo or a matured adult.
The conscience has nothing to do with the argument. It is just some bullshit thrown in to complicate matters because as said previously....
Conscience has nothing to do with "just taking the life" - that is the main issue. Conscience has nothing to do with that.
Oh and ...
That is what I meant to say. The process for it is also different. Thanks for clearing that up
id like to say that that is a very ignorant stance to take. YOU take a life all the time when u breathe in, your inhaling bacteria, thousands of em at a time and killing em. your blood,muscle,skin,hair and internal cells are constantly dying{not your nerve/brain cells though}. every time a woman has a period, her eggs are dying and every time a man has sex/masturbates, his sperm cells are dying. CELL'S life and death have nothing to do with the death of a conciousness{or a SOUL as you call it}. the CONCIOUSNESS/SELF AWARENESS is what is truly important and wrong to kill. its the killing of THAT which i see as wrong, not cells. and the conciousness arises not DUE TO THE CELLs, but due to their CONFIGURATION. that gives rise to pathways which can process and make us self aware. suppose ur speaking from a relegious point of view, which is why it makes little sense. the LIFE your talking about isnt the life of cells or potentail cells, it is the CONCIOUSNESS and thedeath of it, and that is whats really important.
Originally posted by grey fox
A clump of cells does not justify as a 'living being' thus murder doesn't apply. THAT on the other-hand IS blatant murder, why aren't any of the crazy christians arguing against this instead of pre-developed abortion ?
They are numbnuts,In Protesting abortion They are Protesting ALL of Abortion.
Originally posted by BorisA doctor would NEVER kill a baby.
Apparently this guy will 😐
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Haskell
There is no way to justify Partial Birth Abortion
If you support this you're not Pro-Choice, you're Pro-Abortion
Originally posted by leonheartmm
id like to say that that is a very ignorant stance to take. YOU take a life all the time when u breathe in, your inhaling bacteria, thousands of em at a time and killing em. your blood,muscle,skin,hair and internal cells are constantly dying{not your nerve/brain cells though}. every time a woman has a period, her eggs are dying and every time a man has sex/masturbates, his sperm cells are dying. CELL'S life and death have nothing to do with the death of a conciousness{or a SOUL as you call it}. the CONCIOUSNESS/SELF AWARENESS is what is truly important and wrong to kill. its the killing of THAT which i see as wrong, not cells. and the conciousness arises not DUE TO THE CELLs, but due to their CONFIGURATION. that gives rise to pathways which can process and make us self aware. suppose ur speaking from a relegious point of view, which is why it makes little sense. the LIFE your talking about isnt the life of cells or potentail cells, it is the CONCIOUSNESS and thedeath of it, and that is whats really important.
I'm not going to write a long reply to this because obviously I do not mean certain extremes. For life to exist, certain things must happen and "so on" but I am not going there.
Your argument is about killing a "person", not taking life.
Address that and I'll say more.
Originally posted by Grimm22Oh you're a moron
Apparently this guy will 😐http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Haskell
There is no way to justify Partial Birth Abortion
If you support this you're not Pro-Choice, you're Pro-Abortion