• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hey defenders of killing unborn children.

DHard3006

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Location
AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why do people that defend abortion get so mad when people say they have a right to defend themselves against rape, robbery, and murder? Why is killing a person that is going to rape, rob, or murder you so wrong when the defenders of abortion chant killing an unborn child is ok? Why is killing an unborn child ok and killing a convicted murderer wrong?
 

DHard3006

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Location
AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
You do know that it's not a fact that a fetus is a child, right?
What else comes out? Animal? Plant?
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Why do people that defend abortion get so mad when people say they have a right to defend themselves against rape, robbery, and murder? Why is killing a person that is going to rape, rob, or murder you so wrong when the defenders of abortion chant killing an unborn child is ok? Why is killing an unborn child ok and killing a convicted murderer wrong?
That puzzles me that one can advocate the murder of innocent unborn children,but yet think it is wrong to execute someone who is guilty of certian crimes.
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Executing the person isn't the major moral concern: the efficiency, cost, and other undesired consequences are. If you could find a cheap way to execute people and make money off of it, while being equitable in it's use and SURE not to kill innocents, then be my guest.

Why do people that defend abortion get so mad when people say they have a right to defend themselves against rape, robbery, and murder? Why is killing a person that is going to rape, rob, or murder you so wrong when the defenders of abortion chant killing an unborn child is ok? Why is killing an unborn child ok and killing a convicted murderer wrong?
They don't get mad. You are making a huge generalization. Not all pro-abortion people are anti-death penality and self-defense, you know. Further, the reasoning for each is completely divorced from each other.

What else comes out? Animal? Plant?
An animal comes out, yes. Humans are primates, primates are animals, therefore, (logically) an animal must come out.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
galenrox said:
You do know that it's not a fact that a fetus is a child, right? There is no consensus on whether a fetus is alive or not, and thus it's a matter of opinion. And thus, if you DON'T believe that a fetus is a child, like the MAJORITY of America, then you don't see any problem with abortion.

I understand your position, and I'd be rabidly opposed to abortion if I thought a fetus was a child, but just based on the fact that we know that the rapist, the thief, and the murderer are human lives, the crossover logic just simply doesn't exist.
What you write qualifies as an "ostrich" viewpoint. You confirm this by your use of the weasel words believe, opinion, and thought.

Here are a few credentialled folks who disagree with you. Can you furnish similar sources who support your unfounded contention?

"WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?"​

On April 23-24, 1981, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on this very question? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who all affirmed that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.”
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why are people arguing if the fetus is a child? Of course it is. It doesn't matter one bit regardless of its humanity or child-nature. Not calling it a child is a silly notion that's alltogether pointless anyway. OF course the doctors are correct. That's hardly in dispute among most people; that's no major philosophical question. Even braindead individuals are human--child or otherwise adult.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
DHard3006 said:
Why do people that defend abortion get so mad when people say they have a right to defend themselves against rape, robbery, and murder? Why is killing a person that is going to rape, rob, or murder you so wrong when the defenders of abortion chant killing an unborn child is ok? Why is killing an unborn child ok and killing a convicted murderer wrong?
Gee, I don't know. I guess 60% of Americans just have a soft spot for the murder of innocents. It couldn't be that most people simply don't agree with your conclusion that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a child. :roll:

I double-majored in biology and psychology. And there is NO evidence - from either of those fields - that leads me to believe that a fetus has any kind of self-awareness.
 

DHard3006

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Location
AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Further, the reasoning for each is completely divorced from each other.
The question was how do you defend killing an unborn child and then defend not allowing people to defend themselves against criminals or executing convicted criminals?
What is the reason for killing an unborn child?
Is the reason for killing an unborn child better then a reason for a person to kill a criminal in self defense?
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
An animal comes out, yes. Humans are primates, primates are animals, therefore, (logically) an animal must come out.
So what happens when two people conceive a child by sexual intercourse? Does anything other then a child come out?
Kandahar said:
It couldn't be that most people simply don't agree with your conclusion that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a child.
What else comes out?
Kandahar said:
I double-majored in biology and psychology. And there is NO evidence - from either of those fields - that leads me to believe that a fetus has any kind of self-awareness.
Is not this the same reason the courts use to not execute insane people? You know insane people are not aware of what they are doing.
 

madcow863

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Saying "What else comes out." is not a valid argument. You and I both know that a human baby comes out. However, a fetus is a potential human baby, it is not one. Also, if you grant a fetus a right to life, then you destroy the mother who carries it's right to make decisions for themselves and their own body.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
DHard3006 said:
What else comes out? Animal? Plant?
In your case, a vegetable came out.....
I agree that abortion is wrong when used as a method of birth control, perhaps even evil. Abortion in case of rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother is acceptable to most who are not educationally deprived.
But using a common argument, 2 wrongs do not make a right. A criminal is a physically mature sentient creature who chooses to do wrong, and is aware of the consequences, and has to expect that he might get shot in the crotch during the commission of his crimes. Just in case that criminals are that way due to defective genes, I would favor sterilizing all violent felons, as a start.

You really like the "defenders of" line don't you? Please, get a new line, this one is getting old.:2wave:
 

DHard3006

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Location
AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
madcow863 said:
is not a valid argument.
Well gee I can say the same for your argument.
madcow863 said:
Also, if you grant a fetus a right to life, then you destroy the mother who carries it's right to make decisions for themselves and their own body.
Do criminals use this logic when they murder some one for money of out of rage?
UtahBill said:
In your case, a vegetable came out.....
Oh golly gee insults from a person rolling for child. LMFAO!
What does it say about keeping it civil? I guess you missed that.
UtahBill said:
A criminal is a physically mature sentient creature who chooses to do wrong,
Now the question was asked what about insane people after a defender of killing unborn children said because they are not aware. Care to address this or just keep trying to disrupt the post?
UtahBill said:
You really like the "defenders of" line don't you? Please, get a new line, this one is getting old
Another lame ass attempt to change the topic! LMFAO!
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Why are people arguing if the fetus is a child? Of course it is. It doesn't matter one bit regardless of its humanity or child-nature. Not calling it a child is a silly notion that's alltogether pointless anyway. OF course the doctors are correct. That's hardly in dispute among most people; that's no major philosophical question. Even braindead individuals are human--child or otherwise adult.
As Justice Blackmun wote in Roe v. Wade (paraphrased), if the occupant of the womb is a living human, then it would be entitled to the protections of the fourteenth amendment. He went on to write that the court need not 'speculate' on the answer to the question of when life begins.

This failure to resolve the essential question is the cause of the dichotomy. That is why we have these disagreements and discussions.

If one reads a recent analysis of Justice Blackmun's papers, additional questions arise. Ir would appear that unrestricted 'abortion on demand' is not what he had in mind. Find it here:

http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/SavageLATimes091405.html

Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of what happens when the laws of unintended consequences crank up.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
DHard3006 said:
Oh golly gee insults from a person rolling for child. LMFAO!
What does it say about keeping it civil? I guess you missed that.

Now the question was asked what about insane people after a defender of killing unborn children said because they are not aware. Care to address this or just keep trying to disrupt the post?

Another lame ass attempt to change the topic! LMFAO!
And another dumbass thread originated by you should receive what? intelligent discourse? You try to connect an apple and an orange and we should respect your intelligence? you want civil responses to your inane input, but accuse others or "rolling"? Most of your input here is just so much mental masturbation, very repetitive in nature, and only a limited variation in strokes.
But I suppose that you are one of the "lonely" and don't have much choice.:confused:
 

DHard3006

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Location
AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
UtahBill said:
But I suppose that you are one of the "lonely" and don't have much choice.
Hey hateful bigot you got nothing to say so now you will just disrupt the thread!

LMFAO!

Hey and you went to college.


LMFAO!
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I could have sworn I read this thread.....and the other 12 just like it.

They all say the same freakin thing....I am right, You are wrong....and here is the evidence to back me up. Gimme a break....its all based on Emotion or Dogma, and No One will convince any one else to change stance on this issue.

What a complete waste of time. Much like this post will prove in say....four replys or less.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Kandahar said:
Gee, I don't know. I guess 60% of Americans just have a soft spot for the murder of innocents. It couldn't be that most people simply don't agree with your conclusion that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a child. :roll:

I double-majored in biology and psychology. And there is NO evidence - from either of those fields - that leads me to believe that a fetus has any kind of self-awareness.
With respect to your first paragraph, what has the "agreement" of most people to do with concepts which they may not understand. Should the validity of biological facts be determined on the basis of their popularity?

With respect to your second paragraph, what did your biology text reveal about the product of human conception? Does human life begin at conception? Are the zygote, embryo, and fetus simply the names given to an unborn child to denote chronology? If not, what is it that these names do signify?

What effect, if any has the presence or absence of what you call 'self-awareness' on the continuum of human life which commences at conception and continues seamlessly through many identifiable stages, pre-birth and post-birth,until natural death in old age unless pre-mature death occurs? Bear in mind that there are numerous occasions between conception and old age at which self-awareness may not be present.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
tecoyah said:
I could have sworn I read this thread.....and the other 12 just like it.

They all say the same freakin thing....I am right, You are wrong....and here is the evidence to back me up. Gimme a break....its all based on Emotion or Dogma, and No One will convince any one else to change stance on this issue.

What a complete waste of time. Much like this post will prove in say....four replys or less.
Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.

Are you able to provide any?
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Fantasea said:
Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.

Are you able to provide any?
Scotus says so, and until Scotus reverses the decison, it is so.
I don't like abortion, but I also have no say. I am not a woman, and if any decision should be left to the women, this is one.:(
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.

Are you able to provide any?
This will be my last contribution to this thread....unless Fantasea decides to actually read the article I have linked to the bottom of this post. The excerpt I have provided is but a piece of the quagmire we call "The Abortion Debate", and I have placed it here merely to show my belief in this mess.As I do not wish to rehash the Religious, or "Soul" aspect of the issue, if only because there is no possible way to define what a soul is, let alone when we get one.

I simply ask that you read this document....with an open mind. I have Honestly read the vast majority of your opinion on this, and just cannot agree with what you project. The following should provide both Support, and Justification for a piece of the puzzle, but I do not claim it to be the answer:

If you deliberately kill a human being, it's called murder. If you deliberately kill a chimpanzee--biologically, our closest relative, sharing 99.6 percent of our active genes--whatever else it is, it's not murder. To date, murder uniquely applies to killing human beings. Therefore, the question of when personhood (or, if we like, ensoulment) arises is key to the abortion debate. When does the fetus become human? When do distinct and characteristic human qualities emerge?

We recognize that specifying a precise moment will overlook individual differences. Therefore, if we must draw a line, it ought to be drawn conservatively--that is, on the early side. There are people who object to having to set some numerical limit, and we share their disquiet; but if there is to be a law on this matter, and it is to effect some useful compromise between the two absolutist positions, it must specify, at least roughly, a time of transition to personhood.

Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The momentous meeting of sperm and egg generally occurs in one of the two fallopian tubes. One cell becomes two, two become four, and so on—an exponentiation of base-2 arithmetic. By the tenth day the fertilized egg has become a kind of hollow sphere wandering off to another realm: the womb. It destroys tissue in its path. It sucks blood from capillaries. It bathes itself in maternal blood, from which it extracts oxygen and nutrients. It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus.

# By the third week, around the time of the first missed menstrual period, the forming embryo is about 2 millimeters long and is developing various body parts. Only at this stage does it begin to be dependent on a rudimentary placenta. It looks a little like a segmented worm.

# By the end of the fourth week, it's about 5 millimeters (about 1/5 inch) long. It's recognizable now as a vertebrate, its tube-shaped heart is beginning to beat, something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail. It looks rather like a newt or a tadpole. This is the end of the first month after conception.

# By the fifth week, the gross divisions of the brain can be distinguished. What will later develop into eyes are apparent, and little buds appear—on their way to becoming arms and legs.

# By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeteres (about ½ inch) long. The eyes are still on the side of the head, as in most animals, and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be.

# By the end of the seventh week, the tail is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be discerned (although both sexes look female). The face is mammalian but somewhat piglike.

# By the end of the eighth week, the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human. Most of the human body parts are present in their essentials. Some lower brain anatomy is well-developed. The fetus shows some reflex response to delicate stimulation.

# By the tenth week, the face has an unmistakably human cast. It is beginning to be possible to distinguish males from females. Nails and major bone structures are not apparent until the third month.

# By the fourth month, you can tell the face of one fetus from that of another. Quickening is most commonly felt in the fifth month. The bronchioles of the lungs do not begin developing until approximately the sixth month, the alveoli still later.

So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood? When its face becomes distinctly human, near the end of the first trimester? When the fetus becomes responsive to stimuli--again, at the end of the first trimester? When it becomes active enough to be felt as quickening, typically in the middle of the second trimester? When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air?

The trouble with these particular developmental milestones is not just that they're arbitrary. More troubling is the fact that none of them involves uniquely human characteristics--apart from the superficial matter of facial appearance. All animals respond to stimuli and move of their own volition. Large numbers are able to breathe. But that doesn't stop us from slaughtering them by the billions. Reflexes and motion are not what make us human.

Other animals have advantages over us--in speed, strength, endurance, climbing or burrowing skills, camouflage, sight or smell or hearing, mastery of the air or water. Our one great advantage, the secret of our success, is thought--characteristically human thought. We are able to think things through, imagine events yet to occur, figure things out. That's how we invented agriculture and civilization. Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we've rejected the extremes of "always" and "never," and this puts us--like it or not--on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.



http://www.2think.org/science_abortion.shtml

Please find the article...in its entirety in the link above^^^^^
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
UtahBill said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.

Are you able to provide any?
Scotus says so, and until Scotus reverses the decison, it is so.

I don't like abortion, but I also have no say. I am not a woman, and if any decision should be left to the women, this is one.:(
I asked for factual support; you respond with political support. Apple/Orange? Yes, I would say so.

Care to try again?

Some interesting reading on the lead up to Roe v. Wade that gives rise to head scratching:

http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/SavageLATimes091405.html
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
tecoyah said:
This will be my last contribution to this thread....unless Fantasea decides to actually read the article I have linked to the bottom of this post. The excerpt I have provided is but a piece of the quagmire we call "The Abortion Debate", and I have placed it here merely to show my belief in this mess.As I do not wish to rehash the Religious, or "Soul" aspect of the issue, if only because there is no possible way to define what a soul is, let alone when we get one.

I simply ask that you read this document....with an open mind.
I shall do what you ask.

In the meantime, however, I suggest that you read the author's biography. What it reveals will help you to understand to understand how and why he reaches some of his conclusions.

You will find one version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
I shall do what you ask.

In the meantime, however, I suggest that you read the author's biography. What it reveals will help you to understand to understand how and why he reaches some of his conclusions.

You will find one version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

I am well versed in the life of Mr. Sagan...and in fact, named my son after this scientist, as I found his contribution to society invaluable. This particular article however....differs somewhat from his normal approach (Data before distraction) in that he co-authored it with his wife. I simply found the conclusions sound, and the compilation of both personalities in the finished product created a more ....personal explanation.

Thank you Fantasea, for taking the time to read this....I really do appreciate it.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
With respect to your first paragraph, what has the "agreement" of most people to do with concepts which they may not understand. Should the validity of biological facts be determined on the basis of their popularity?
No, they shouldn't. The point I was making was that DHard seemed to conclude that his view of human life ("How can you support killing a baby but be against killing a murderer?") is accepted as gospel by everyone, and how he couldn't even understand how anyone could possibly disagree with him. Unless he assumes that 60% of Americans are homicidal maniacs, that clearly isn't the case.

Fantasea said:
With respect to your second paragraph, what did your biology text reveal about the product of human conception? Does human life begin at conception? Are the zygote, embryo, and fetus simply the names given to an unborn child to denote chronology? If not, what is it that these names do signify?
It is indeed human life. But that's not enough to award an entity a right to life, as far as I'm concerned. See below.

Fantasea said:
What effect, if any has the presence or absence of what you call 'self-awareness' on the continuum of human life which commences at conception and continues seamlessly through many identifiable stages, pre-birth and post-birth,until natural death in old age unless pre-mature death occurs? Bear in mind that there are numerous occasions between conception and old age at which self-awareness may not be present.
Self-awareness is the single most important characteristic in determining a right to life. More important than whether or not an entity is biologically "human," more important than whether or not an entity has a beating heart, more important than whether or not an entity could potentially become self-aware some day.

With that said, you are correct that there may be instances throughout one's life when one is not self-aware. I would say that these entities are ONLY entitled to the right to life if: (A) They've been self-aware at some point in their life, and (B) There is a reasonable expectation that they will become self-aware again (with the same personality) at some point in the future.

This would allow people not to worry that they'll be killed if they're knocked unconscious, but at the same time it would allow humane relatives to "pull the plug" on terminally ill patients, or terrified teenagers to abort an unwanted pregnancy, when the entity in question is not self-aware.

There is a whole spectrum of self-awareness, and I don't believe that a light suddenly goes on in one's brain one day. But since the law requires a cutoff point, the moment of birth seems much more appropriate than the moment of conception, since I don't see any evidence that self-awareness occurs until after birth.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
tecoyah said:
Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we've rejected the extremes of "always" and "never," and this puts us--like it or not--on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible. [/I]
[/B]

http://www.2think.org/science_abortion.shtml

Please find the article...in its entirety in the link above^^^^^
I read the entire piece and the additional information at the several links.

As far as I can see, Mr. Sagan, a giant in his field, has attempted to mediate, as it were, the disagreement between opponents and proponents of abortion.

He realizes that the conflict involves the clash of the physical and the political and agonizes over both.

However, rather than come down definitively on one side or the other, he settles for the middle ground with an attempt to give something to each side. He drew a line and said, in effect, earlier, OK; later, no dice.

What he failed to consider is that when Solomon offered his life or death solution, he knew that the real mother would choose life for her child even though doing so would cause her much pain and distress. Sagan's solution considers the death of one out of three unborn children as a reasoned and acceptable compromise.

Sagan suppresses the physical argument that the continuum of human life begins with conception and continues seamlessly through many stages of life until it ends in old age, and endorses the political argument that a particilar, but inexact point in brain development causes the transformation of a human non-person to a human person. He contends that the humans who are not yet persons are 'expendable'.

One might expect that a person well trained and experienced in one physical science discipline, astronomy, would be a bit distressed if others, similarly qualified in other disciplines, or none at all, seemingly trashed their life's work in favor of a political view of reality.

What Mr. Sagan fails to appreciate is simply this. While middle ground compromise may have applicability in certain situations, abortion is not one of them. Where is the middle ground between allowing a child in the womb to peacefully wend its way toward the journey through the birth canal, and suctioning it out?

Every abortion ends a human life. Therein lies the problem.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Fantasea said:
I asked for factual support; you respond with political support. Apple/Orange? Yes, I would say so.

Care to try again?

Some interesting reading on the lead up to Roe v. Wade that gives rise to head scratching:

http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/SavageLATimes091405.html
Political support? what politics? where are you getting that? out of your own biased opinion bank, of course. Certainly my political leanings are irrelevant in the matter of abortion.
It is a FACT that abortion is legal in the USA. It was a decision made after much discussion over a lot of opinion. Facts, whether opposing or supporting probably had very little to do with the fact that the SCOTUS decides one way or another. That is how the issue got to them in the first place, as there were so many opinions floating around that someone had to settle the issue.
All the arguing that went on before SCOTUS decided can be rehashed for the next decade and it will not change the FACT that it is legal. Once something like this has been made legal, it becomes a right to those who benefit from it, at least in their minds, and they will not let it go easily.
Would I rather see all these children adopted? Hell, yes. But again, it is for the women to decide. Abortion has almost always been done, even in Biblical times. Funny, tho, nothing is mentioned in the bible about it. It was done, historians have found proof of it, but the bible is silent on the issue.
 
Top Bottom