"It's my body"[W:191, 709]

[DA60]

Re: "It's my body"

Embryos, meaning the unborn in the pre-fetal stage, do not have the capacity for sentience. Only fetuses can have sentience. Not a single thing has changed in the understanding of the earliest possible point at which a fetus could develop sentience since this article was published in 1992! -- An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



Thus, the answer is somewhere between 18 and 30 weeks. But according to a reliable site (one which refers to reliable stats), about half of US abortions occur in the first 8 weeks, 88% occur in the first 13 weeks, and less than 2% occur at 21 weeks or later. See: National Abortion Federation: Women Who Have Abortions

So after the earliest time that would answer your question, very few abortions occur and they are usually related to serious health problems for the woman or the fetus (e.g., serious fetal anomaly). The unbiased proof involved has to do with the point in development that the fetal neuronal substrate allows somatosensory information transfer. So for you, I guess the cut-off point for abortion that is not related to serious health issues is 18 weeks.

The above answers nothing factually....it assumes/hypothesizes...but it does not state it as fact (nor would any good scientist ever do so).

So since it is impossible to know that every single whatever-they-are-called is not sentient when brain activity commences...I choose to assume it might.

Now, I admit it certainly might not...even probably does not.

But that is not good enough for me...if I am going to kill something, I want 100% proof that what I am killing is not sentient.

Maybe you do not require such proof...I do.

 

[choiceone]

Re: "It's my body"

The above answers nothing factually....it assumes/hypothesizes...but it does not state it as fact (nor would any good scientist ever do so).

So since it is impossible to know that every single whatever-they-are-called is not sentient when brain activity commences...I choose to assume it might.

Now, I admit it certainly might not...even probably does not.

But that is not good enough for me...if I am going to kill something, I want 100% proof that what I am killing is not sentient.

Maybe you do not require such proof...I do.

Maybe you do not understand science or the word fact. Every fact exists within a theory, and a theory is scientific if it has had a sufficient number of its hypotheses risked in testing, which produces facts. There are no other facts. It is a fact, for example, that there cannot be transfer of somatosensory information without a neural substrate that allows such a transfer. If that's not good enough for you, you really are to be pitied.

 

[DA60]

Re: "It's my body"

Maybe you do not understand science or the word fact. Every fact exists within a theory, and a theory is scientific if it has had a sufficient number of its hypotheses risked in testing, which produces facts. There are no other facts. It is a fact, for example, that there cannot be transfer of somatosensory information without a neural substrate that allows such a transfer. If that's not good enough for you, you really are to be pitied.

So, you believe people that are in your opinion ignorant on this subject need to be pitied?

Lol....whatever lady...I think I just found out what kind of person you are.

I am pleased that your link led me to do further research...so thanks for that.

However, your 'pitied' comment leads me to have very little respect for your attitude towards other people...so I will not waste any more time on you....good day.


Anyway, for anyone else who is interested, after doing some research - because I freely admit I am no expert on this subject - I am willing to admit that sentience for a fetus may not begin until 18 weeks.

'But privately, doctors and nurses, like their women patients, dislike late abortions and many decline to do them.

Peter Bowen Simpkins, a consultant obstetrician at Singleton Hospital, Swansea, said: "Most NHS hospitals stop at 18 weeks. The nurses - and the doctors - don't want to look after patients beyond that limit. I can't speak for every hospital but late abortion is not a very pleasant affair. They are mostly done in the private sector. Many doctors and nurses don't do abortions at all."'

The key question: when is the foetus a sentient being? - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent


The above is just one thing (of many) on the subject (granted, it is from 2005).

So, for legal purposes, I would be willing to look the other way (as of right now) to pre-18 week abortions.

But I will not vote for such a law and I would never want to risk that late of an abortion.
I still believe that once there is brain activity...that is too late for me.


And none of the above changes my original comment:

'A living being that is living inside a woman's body is not part of a woman's body...it is just a human that happens to be living inside a human's body.

The idea that a living, sentient baby that is still in the womb is not a human being but 'part of a woman's body' is pathetic and nonsensical in the extremis.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: "It's my body"

Bluntly, a newborn does not exhibit the higher order awareness (sentience) or judgment (sapience) that a more mature human (*looks around* potentially) exhibits.

We kill and eat cows, we own dogs and have them euthanized when they are not owned or when the owner desires to do so, etc, yet a Homo sapiens neonate has rights enshrined in law.

This makes no sense, but there are a few ways to eliminate this inconsistency.

The pro-abortion folks - if they are consistent and rational - would opine that "abortion rights" should be expanded to far beyond birth. As evidenced by this subforum, they do not mind homicide for convenience, they abhor adoption, and frequently talk about global population and want to see it decline by any means necessary. A neonate is less sentient and less sapient than what many of us ate for dinner last night.

For my part, I say that "potential" has nothing to do with it, members of Homo sapiens are members of a sapient species and we innately have rights since the moment our lifespan begins.

 

[Ocean007]

Even though a woman's choices are not my business, the fact is that multiple abortions beyond four place a woman at significant risk of some diseases, just as multiple childbirths beyond four do. People should be advised that moderation is more healthy than immoderation, in these things as so many others.

Definitely agree. I think that's why use of reliable contraception to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy is key, even though at present there is no form of BC that is 100% guaranteed.

 

[Ocean007]

1. Okay, if a woman doesn't want a kid, then she needs to be more careful before having sex.... it cuts both ways.

2. wrongo, boyo. you are the one trying to put all the responsibility on the man. you can't have it both ways. If the woman gets to make all the decisions, then she should have to take all the responsibility. It's a pretty basic concept.

1. So does a MAN, which I am not, by the way. Since I'm a woman who doesn't ever want pregnancy or children, I am VERY careful about using reliable contraception. So far, so good, my BC method has never let ME down, although other women have not been so lucky. ALL birth control methods can and DO fail occasionally, as there is no contraceptive on the market that is 100% guaranteed against pregnancy.

2. And no, I am not "trying to put all responsibility on the man," contrary to your false assertion. I AM saying, however, that IF a man wants to avoid paying child support, then HE needs to be very careful about whom he dates or hooks up with. Once he has sex with a woman, the outcome is NOT something he has any control over.

 

[OscarB63]

1. So does a MAN, which I am not, by the way. Since I'm a woman who doesn't ever want pregnancy or children, I am VERY careful about using reliable contraception. So far, so good, my BC method has never let ME down, although other women have not been so lucky. ALL birth control methods can and DO fail occasionally, as there is no contraceptive on the market that is 100% guaranteed against pregnancy.

2. And no, I am not "trying to put all responsibility on the man," contrary to your false assertion. I AM saying, however, that IF a man wants to avoid paying child support, then HE needs to be very careful about whom he dates or hooks up with. Once he has sex with a woman, the outcome is NOT something he has any control over.

1. all I'm saying is, how unlucky does she have to be to need multiple abortions to end multiple unwanted preganancies?

2. IOW, a woman can have all the sex she wants, because she can just get an abortion. a man, on the other hand, has to be responsible.......

 

[Ocean007]

1. all I'm saying is, how unlucky does she have to be to need multiple abortions to end multiple unwanted preganancies?

2. IOW, a woman can have all the sex she wants, because she can just get an abortion. a man, on the other hand, has to be responsible.......

1. Ask a woman who HAS had more than one abortion. Since I haven't had to have even ONE abortion, I'm the wrong person to ask.

2. Actually, I think a woman who never wants pregnancy or children needs to be just as careful about using contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy as a man does. I don't want to have to get an abortion any more than I want to get pregnant. That's why I use contraception, to avoid unwanted pregnancy to the best of my ability. So far, so good; my BC method has never let me down, although I know other women have not been so lucky.

Bottom line; ALL contraceptive methods, including pills and condoms, can and DO fail occasionally. If a pregnancy results from that, it is still the WOMAN who makes the decision, which is as it should be.

 

[OscarB63]

If a pregnancy results from that, it is still the WOMAN who makes the decision, which is as it should be.

and if SHE chooses to have the kid against the wishes of the father, then SHE should pay for it.....

 

[choiceone]

Re: "It's my body"

So, you believe people that are in your opinion ignorant on this subject need to be pitied?

Lol....whatever lady...I think I just found out what kind of person you are.

I am pleased that your link led me to do further research...so thanks for that.

However, your 'pitied' comment leads me to have very little respect for your attitude towards other people...so I will not waste any more time on you....good day.


Anyway, for anyone else who is interested, after doing some research - because I freely admit I am no expert on this subject - I am willing to admit that sentience for a fetus may not begin until 18 weeks.

'But privately, doctors and nurses, like their women patients, dislike late abortions and many decline to do them.

Peter Bowen Simpkins, a consultant obstetrician at Singleton Hospital, Swansea, said: "Most NHS hospitals stop at 18 weeks. The nurses - and the doctors - don't want to look after patients beyond that limit. I can't speak for every hospital but late abortion is not a very pleasant affair. They are mostly done in the private sector. Many doctors and nurses don't do abortions at all."'

The key question: when is the foetus a sentient being? - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent


The above is just one thing (of many) on the subject (granted, it is from 2005).

So, for legal purposes, I would be willing to look the other way (as of right now) to pre-18 week abortions.

But I will not vote for such a law and I would never want to risk that late of an abortion.
I still believe that once there is brain activity...that is too late for me.


And none of the above changes my original comment:

'A living being that is living inside a woman's body is not part of a woman's body...it is just a human that happens to be living inside a human's body.

The idea that a living, sentient baby that is still in the womb is not a human being but 'part of a woman's body' is pathetic and nonsensical in the extremis.

You don't have to believe that an embryo is part of a woman's body. Even if it were a fully sentient and conscious human being with the capacity to think like a seven-year-old, I would support a woman's legal right to choose.

No person has the legal right to keep any part of his or her body inside another person's body, biologically attach to it, use part of that body' tissue to make an organ to change the functioning of that body, shut down part of its immune system, re-channel that person's blood, transfer oxygen and nutrients from that blood to its own body, and interfere with the normal functioning of that body, all without that other person's consent.

So call it a person in law and endow it with equal rights and it will still not have the legal right to do all that, which means that it will not have the right to exploit the inside of a woman's body in order to extend its life span.

And it is for that reason that abortion will remain legal in the US.

 

[choiceone]

Re: "It's my body"

Bluntly, a newborn does not exhibit the higher order awareness (sentience) or judgment (sapience) that a more mature human (*looks around* potentially) exhibits.

We kill and eat cows, we own dogs and have them euthanized when they are not owned or when the owner desires to do so, etc, yet a Homo sapiens neonate has rights enshrined in law.

This makes no sense, but there are a few ways to eliminate this inconsistency.

The pro-abortion folks - if they are consistent and rational - would opine that "abortion rights" should be expanded to far beyond birth. As evidenced by this subforum, they do not mind homicide for convenience, they abhor adoption, and frequently talk about global population and want to see it decline by any means necessary. A neonate is less sentient and less sapient than what many of us ate for dinner last night.

For my part, I say that "potential" has nothing to do with it, members of Homo sapiens are members of a sapient species and we innately have rights since the moment our lifespan begins.

The legal right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy has nothing to do with the status of the embryo. As I just said in the post above, call it a person in law and claim it has equal rights as a person, and it still will not have the right to be inside and biologically attached to the woman's body and to use that body to extend its life span because the law does not recognize such a right for any persons now. And if such a right were recognized for persons, it would be so dangerous for democracy that the US would implode.

 

[Ocean007]

and if SHE chooses to have the kid against the wishes of the father, then SHE should pay for it.....

She usually ends up "paying for it" anyway, since a lot of guys bail OUT on the woman right after she tells him she's pregnant. If she chooses to have an abortion, she pays the cost for that as well.

Either way, it is still the WOMAN's decision, not the man's choice to make FOR her.

 

[OscarB63]

She usually ends up "paying for it" anyway, since a lot of guys bail OUT on the woman right after she tells him she's pregnant. If she chooses to have an abortion, she pays the cost for that as well.

Either way, it is still the WOMAN's decision, not the man's choice to make FOR her.

and I agree. my point is simply that if it is her choice and she gets to make all the decisions, then she has no right to complain if the man doesn't want to support her decision that was made without his input or against his will.

if she wants an abortion and he wants a child, then she should pay for the abortion.
if she wants the child and he doesn't, then she should pay to raise the child.

no choice should = no responsibility

 

[Penrod]

Re: "It's my body"

Here the pro lifers fails to notice that we have always treated ordinary animals as slaves/property. If you want to claim that a unborn human qualifies as a person, then what about, say, an adult pig, which has more intelligence than the human.

Right now at the moment I own two non persons (two cats) so since the unborn human doesn't even have any of the mental abilities that separate a entity from a ordinary animal should owning pets be illegal as well?

Does a fetus qualify as a human? Every scientist will tell you yes. Its in the genes. Its not a cat now is it nor will it ever be. I quess you favor killing the retarded.

 

[prometeus]

Re: "It's my body"

Does a fetus qualify as a human?

No it does not.

Every scientist will tell you yes.

Then it should be easy enough for you to quote a few.

Its in the genes.

It is not.

Its not a cat now is it nor will it ever be.

Nobody said it was or will be.

I quess you favor killing the retarded.

Nobody said that either. Your problem is that you are guessing instead of knowing.

 

[Penrod]

Re: "It's my body"

Does a fetus qualify as a human? Every scientist will tell you yes. Its in the genes. Its not a cat now is it nor will it ever be. I quess you favor killing the retarded.

I know its human and nothing else. I never said it was a person. In fact the only way to identify it from all other fetuses is to call it a HUMAN fetus. Ask any scientist.

 

[prometeus]

Re: "It's my body"

I know its human and nothing else.

Nobody said otherwise.

I never said it was a person.

Nobody said you did.

In fact the only way to identify it from all other fetuses is to call it a HUMAN fetus.

True

A human is a noun, a human fetus, human is an adjective. There IS a difference ask any English teacher.

 

[Penrod]

Re: "It's my body"

Nobody said otherwise.

Nobody said you did.

True

A human is a noun, a human fetus, human is an adjective. There IS a difference ask any English teacher.

So now you agree its human? Exactly when does it become a human being and not abortable in your world?

 

[prometeus]

Re: "It's my body"

So now you agree its human?

I never said otherwise.

Exactly when does it become a human being and not abortable in your world?

Its not in my world but in the real world absent of dogmatic reasoning, when it can sustain its own life functions with its own organs like all of us.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

1. Does a fetus qualify as a human? Every scientist will tell you yes. Its in the genes. Its not a cat now is it nor will it ever be.

2. I quess you favor killing the retarded.

1. Yes did you even bother to read what I wrote :lol:? I admit the unborn are humans but persons? NOPE I don't agree with that. And if you don't know the difference between ''person'' and ''human'' I suggest you start reading about the topic. Start from these, www.psych.upenn.edu/~mfarah/Neuroethics-Personhood.pdf and Stem cell research, personhood and sentience | Lisa Bortolotti - Academia.edu there are many others out there as well.

2. It depends it does come in degrees you know. Health and psychology: Mental Retardation. Do remember that a lack of a right to life does not equal a death sentence just so you know. If there are those who are welling to take care of what they want then so have it then.

 

[choiceone]

Re: "It's my body"

So now you agree its human? Exactly when does it become a human being and not abortable in your world?

It becomes "a" human being when it is no longer inside the woman, just as there are two distinct cells at the point that the process of cell division is over, not when there are two nuclei but the process isn't over.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

For my part, I say that "potential" has nothing to do with it, members of Homo sapiens are members of a sapient species and we innately have rights since the moment our lifespan begins.

All this talk about ''it's a member of a species where most members have the brainpower necessary for sapience so therefore all members have right to life because of that'' isn't going to cut it Jay.

Try saying that to a intelligent alien species that uses R-Strategy reproduction methods and walk up to a pregnant women from that species and say '' all of the 20,000 you're pregnant with should have right to life since some members of your species process sapience'' and see what type of response you get.

This is why I only care about entities who have actualize the potentials not one's who may actualize them. Without appropriate Nurturing of course, you would be no more than just a clever animal, like a chimp or gorilla. Look up ''feral child'' some time.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "It's my body"

It becomes "a" human being when it is no longer inside the woman, just as there are two distinct cells at the point that the process of cell division is over, not when there are two nuclei but the process isn't over.

It depends.

Some use the word ''being'' differently when attached to another word. It is often used as a synonym for ''person.'' This is why you don't hear ''dog beings'' in normal conversations. Some times (extremely rare though since most humans have no clue what the difference is between ''human'' and ''person'' and pro lifer's often try to take advantage of this and try to eliminate any type of critical thinking in the debate) you may hear someone say, ''If there are entities out there among the stars that are like characters shown in science fiction like Optimus Prime from Transformers or Starfire from Teen Titans; I would grant them right to life since they're rational beings who can do time binding General semantics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia despite the fact they're not humans.'' Something among those lines you may hear.

 

[choiceone]

Re: "It's my body"

It depends.

Some use the word ''being'' differently when attached to another word. It is often used as a synonym for ''person.'' This is why you don't hear ''dog beings'' in normal conversations. Some times (extremely rare though since most humans have no clue what the difference is between ''human'' and ''person'' and pro lifer's often try to take advantage of this and try to eliminate any type of critical thinking in the debate) you may hear someone say, ''If there are entities out there among the stars that are like characters shown in science fiction like Optimus Prime from Transformers or Starfire from Teen Titans; I would grant them right to life since they're rational beings who can do time binding General semantics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia despite the fact they're not humans.'' Something among those lines you may hear.

I'm not going to disagree with that. I'm only concerned about the countability issue here. You can't count possibly count one fetus as an equal to one woman while it's complete inside her body and her body isn't equally inside it. Even with Siamese or conjoined twins, even if we can't count to discrete bodies, we can count two objectively discrete heads, and as long as neither head is parasitic, as long as both heads can contribute to the survival of the body, so that neither depends on the other, we can say there are two actual heads and from there say two humans/human beings.

 

[Penrod]

Re: "It's my body"

I never said otherwise.

Its not in my world but in the real world absent of dogmatic reasoning, when it can sustain its own life functions with its own organs like all of us.

So people on life support should die? And the age where the3y become viable keeps decreasing. So when exactly does this miracle occur? Admit it. You have no idea.