I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[NatMorton]

I disagree.

I had a miscarriage at about 20 weeks of malformed little one.

I worried and wondered if had felt any pain before miscarrying.

I try to keep up to date on the fetal brain activity.

A leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, . current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn’t possess enough neural structures to feel pain until about 26 weeks. Before that,the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead.

I made no claim about pain sensation.

 

[NatMorton]

DOI: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181973b0d.

And what would you cite as the relevant passages from that?

 

[Gordy327]

So what?

So that means abortion is necessary, especially after the proposed earlier cutoff points.

 

[Gordy327]

And what would you cite as the relevant passages from that?

Did you bother looking it up? The whole article discusses fetal neuro development.

 

[minnie616]

So what?

So if the fetus is dying from catastrophic defects it must be removed or it cause a septic infection in the pregnant woman.

 

[minnie616]

I made no claim about pain sensation.

You did not mention pain.

I explained that was why I have been closely following medical books and articles about the development of the fetal brain.

The book The Ethical Brain which was written by a doctor that President Bush had on his on his Council of Bioethics, I might add said :

The brainwaves of fetus before 26 weeks are as flat and unorganized as those of a brain dead person.

 

[NatMorton]

So that means abortion is necessary, especially after the proposed earlier cutoff points.

There's certainly an argument for it when the debate returns to the states, yes, but it's still not a justification for preserving Roe.

 

[NatMorton]

So if the fetus is dying from catastrophic defects it must be removed or it cause a septic infection in the pregnant woman.

Then we're clearly in a case where the woman's right to self defense is in play, yes?

 

[NatMorton]

You did not mention pain.

I explained that was why I have been closely following medical books and articles about the development of the fetal brain.

The book The Ethical Brain which was written by a doctor that President Bush had on his on his Council of Bioethics, I might add said :

The brainwaves of fetus before 26 weeks are as flat and unorganized as those of a brain dead person.

I strongly doubt they're flat-lined until week 26 and then, in an instant, recognizably human. There's almost certainly a slow accumulation of ever more intricate brainwave activity from week 6 onwards.

 

[Gordy327]

There's certainly an argument for it when the debate returns to the states, yes, but it's still not a justification for preserving Roe.

Maternal health is absolutely a strong justification.

I strongly doubt they're flat-lined until week 26 and then, in an instant, recognizably human. There's almost certainly a slow accumulation of ever more intricate brainwave activity from week 6 onwards.

I have yet to see you cite any credible scientific sources to support your position. Brainwaves alone do not a person makes. Even the brainstem or base of the brain can produce brainwaves. But those are autonomic or reflexive functions and there is no higher cognitive or conscious function until the 3rd trimester.

 

[Lursa]

What a convenient opinion.

The opposite opinion is the same without moral and judicial reasoning.

I have provided both in support of 'my' opinion in the past. Many times. Havent seen you do so for yours.

 

[Lursa]

Science has proven brainwave activity begins much earlier. Why not draw the line there unless you want to ignore science?

Why is brainwave activity significant? It occurs in all higher animals, even some of the 'not-so high'. We dont accord them any status or recognition for those things do we? Hell, we kill them at will when their brain activity is fully developed.

Well, that's not true...we do recognize a need to protect them from pain. We have quite a bit of legislation regarding protecting them from physical abuse. And that's fine...and consistent. We have many methods that ensure the unborn, at any stage of brain activity, knows no pain.

So please explain why you find brainwave activity significant?

 

[Lursa]

And yet you would have no problem forcing the rest of us to live--or die, in this case--according to your moral values.

Absolutely wrong. Every individual woman that would be affected would make whatever moral decision she wants...that's "choice."

Explain specifically what would be forced on you?

As do I. Nevertheless, at least we agree that abortion is killing.

Never denied it. Drop the self-righteous crap...you have yet to explain why it's acceptable to kill it earlier in the womb but not later. Or do you believe in banning abortion from fertilization?

Fifth Amendment​

No person shall be held to answer ....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Cool. And that applies to women as well. The RvW case was based on states denying women the safer medical procedure; abortion is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.

As required by the Constitution, the govt is obligated to protect women's rights including our lives. SCOTUS found no reason to deny women the safer procedure and also in the same decision, were very clear that the unborn had no rights recognized under the Constitution and thus the govt had no obligation to protect it. The govt, under the 5th, cannot protect pregnant women from dying , and thus cannot force us to take the greater risk with our lives.

Thanks...the 5th is a good one.

Fourteenth Amendment​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why do you ignore the first sentence, which makes it very clear who the rights discuss apply to. And obviously, the unborn are not born. This is very basic English, good lord! Please find any legal source where it is interpreted differently.

I've got one that shows exactly how it's interpreted and to be applied:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

Are you still going to deny? If so, based on what legitimate sources besides your religion or your feelings?

 

[NatMorton]

Maternal health is absolutely a strong justification.

No, it isn't. The authority to govern comes from the consent of a majority of the governed, not from medical consequences.

I have yet to see you cite any credible scientific sources to support your position. Brainwaves alone do not a person makes. Even the brainstem or base of the brain can produce brainwaves. But those are autonomic or reflexive functions and there is no higher cognitive or conscious function until the 3rd trimester.

All I've said is that brainwave activity starts at week 6. You can look that up if you disagree.

 

[NatMorton]

Why is brainwave activity significant?

It's a great question. In fact, it's the question.

Who should get to decide the answer?

 

[Lursa]

It's a great question. In fact, it's the question.

Who should get to decide the answer?

No...it's your opinion that it's 'the question.' It doesnt matter, morally or legally. (Esp. when related to the woman, whom so many seem to want to leave out of the equation.) To 'invent' significance requires more than your opinion.

"Who says" brain activity should be the measure? LOL if that's what you want...the legal representatives are allowed to make life/death decisions for their wards now. Why would that be different for the woman regarding the unborn inside her?

 

[Gordy327]

No, it isn't. The authority to govern comes from the consent of a majority of the governed, not from medical consequences.


All I've said is that brainwave activity starts at week 6. You can look that up if you disagree.

Medical issues come into play and need to be taken into consideration. Even most anti abortion laws have exceptions for health matters.
When brainwaves start is irrelevant. It's simple neuron activity and not higher neuro functioning. It's no more relevant than the "heartbeat" at 6 weeks.

 

[Lursa]

What a convenient opinion.

LMAO ok, my bad. I took your comment seriously the first time I read it.

Even you dont believe that the unborn can have an opinion on existence or anything...right? Come on, preserve some credibility here!

 

[minnie616]

It's a great question. In fact, it's the question.

Who should get to decide the answer?

Science has determined that that a fetus does not have a functional brainwaves until about 26 weeks gestation.

 

[Lursa]

So what?

That's very rude and it demonstrates either a desire to avoid actual reasoned discussion or real cognitive dissonance.

It means that, implied by much of your posting, including 'brain activity development,' that you would work towards standards making abortion illegal by the time that those catastrophic defects were detectable.

Someone here to debate honestly would actually address that...provide their justification or otherwise.

 

[Lursa]

Science has determined that that a fetus does not have a functional brainwaves until about 26 weeks gestation.

He'll come back with "what's functional?" and demand the invention of convenient standards that occur much earlier.

 

[minnie616]

He'll come back with "what's functional?" and demand the invention of convenient standards that occur much earlier.

Thanks …

I strongly doubt they're flat-lined until week 26 and then, in an instant, recognizably human. There's almost certainly a slow accumulation of ever more intricate brainwave activity from week 6 onwards

That’s like saying you doubt a fetus is non viable one week but can be viable the next week.

I do not deny there is a slow growth toward viably or towards Synaptic activity.

 

[NatMorton]

No...it's your opinion that it's 'the question.' It doesnt matter, morally or legally. (Esp. when related to the woman, whom so many seem to want to leave out of the equation.) To 'invent' significance requires more than your opinion.

"Who says" brain activity should be the measure? LOL if that's what you want...the legal representatives are allowed to make life/death decisions for their wards now. Why would that be different for the woman regarding the unborn inside her?

Nope. It is the question on abortion. When is someone human enough to gain rights? Most everything else is noise.

 

[NatMorton]

Medical issues come into play and need to be taken into consideration. Even most anti abortion laws have exceptions for health matters.
When brainwaves start is irrelevant. It's simple neuron activity and not higher neuro functioning. It's no more relevant than the "heartbeat" at 6 weeks.

Exceptions come into play not because of "medical issues" but because of the long standing legal principle of the right of self defense.

You may think when brain waves start is irrelevant. Other people will disagree, and now those other people will have a say.

 

[NatMorton]

LMAO ok, my bad. I took your comment seriously the first time I read it.

Even you dont believe that the unborn can have an opinion on existence or anything...right? Come on, preserve some credibility here!

There's much grey area in this debate, but there is one thing that's an absolute certainty: you're in no position to define my credibility.