My take on the abortion issue.

[jallman]

What about the heartache of handing over a child she carried and bore, not to see him/her again for years - if ever?

yes, and thats just one of the less concrete consequences the pro oppression side would like to dismiss and sweep under the rug. Instead they bog the issue down with smoke and mirror tactics like debating when human life begins. The fact is an embryo is not a human life, it is simply a conglomerate of cells belonging to a human. It more closely resembles a tadpole than anything. The gender isnt even differentiated for quite some time even into the fetal stage.

But just like ignoring adoption statistics, poverty stats, and all the other logical arguments for not oppressing a woman by taking away her dominion over her body, this too is ignored and less important questions will be brought to the fore in an effort to haze the issue.

 

[Fantasea]

Exactly. A woman feeling the need to go have an abortion is obviously having some kind of issue in the first place. The pro oppression side would like to depict these women as simply irresponsible, heartless, loose women having abortions at will as a means of birth control. However, this is a very emotional decision for a woman to begin with, and it usually stems a lot from the factors that lead her to this decision. You cant blame the depression and the emotionalism on the abortion alone. Thats small minded idiocy.

In a lot of cases, I think the abortion and its related feelings were probably preferable to the lifetime of feeling unwanted that the baby who doesnt get adopted feels. Or even the lifetime of regret and remorse that a mother might feel when she knows she brought a child into this world whom she could not care for.

Life means nothing. Feelings are everything. Typical liberal drivel calculated to rationalize the nearly fifty million aborted US children since Roe v. Wade.

 

[Alex]

Life means nothing. Feelings are everything. Typical liberal drivel calculated to rationalize the nearly fifty million aborted US children since Roe v. Wade.

Typical conservative drivel calculated to rationalize interfering in someone else's personal life. When you get a life of your own and are content with it, other people's business will not affect you so much.

 

[Fantasea]

Typical conservative drivel calculated to rationalize interfering in someone else's personal life. When you get a life of your own and are content with it, other people's business will not affect you so much.

Perhaps you can furnish some scientific or medical fact which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million children in the US since Roe v. Wade.

Not just some touchy feely liberal opining which says it's OK to terminate human life, if one feels like it, but some scientific or medical fact.

That's the business being discussed, the personal life is that of the child.

 

[Alex]

Perhaps you can furnish some scientific or medical fact which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million children in the US since Roe v. Wade.

Not just some touchy feely liberal opining which says it's OK to terminate human life, if one feels like it, but some scientific or medical fact.

That's the business being discussed, the personal life is that of the child.

Perhaps you could furnish some scientific or medical (even logical or reasonable) fact which justifies interfering in someone's personal life.

Not just some touchy feely conservative opining which says its OK to interfere, if one feels like it, but some scientific or medical fact. I have already discredited the so-called "medical facts" that you posted thus far. Try again.

That's the business being discussed, the unjustified interfering in someone else's life. The only logical explanation for this is that the person interfering has no life of their own or they just are not content with it. What else could it possibly be?

 

[Fantasea]

Perhaps you could furnish some scientific or medical (even logical or reasonable) fact which justifies interfering in someone's personal life.

Not just some touchy feely conservative opining which says its OK to interfere, if one feels like it, but some scientific or medical fact. I have already discredited the so-called "medical facts" that you posted thus far. Try again.

That's the business being discussed, the unjustified interfering in someone else's life. The only logical explanation for this is that the person interfering has no life of their own or they just are not content with it. What else could it possibly be?

You have discredited nothing. You simply regurgitate the pro-death position based upon emotion and privacy. These are not valid reasons for killing children in the womb.

When you mention logical explanation, try making a BIOlogical explanation.

Thus far, your reasoning would not pass the test of a first year biology course.

 

[vergiss]

Well, can you furnish some scientific or medical fact which proves that it is murder?

Nope.

 

[jallman]

Well, can you furnish some scientific or medical fact which proves that it is murder?

Nope.

He wont because he cant. He will simply dismiss and points you make and will parrot back "show me scientific evidence." its a pointless debate with him...you cant argue with a broken record.

 

[Fantasea]

Well, can you furnish some scientific or medical fact which proves that it is murder?

Nope.

Under the current definition of legal abortion, the procedure is not murder. It is, however, the intentionally killing of a living human being.

If the occupant of a womb was not alive and growing, it would not have to be killed to put an end to it, right?

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the occupant of a womb was recognized, the world over, as a living human being.

Even Planned Parenthood expressed that sentiment. But later, it changed it's mind. Is that how it goes? "It used to be that it was a living human child in the womb, but now I've changed my mind; it's just an inhuman fetus."

However, it's former stance is still there to haunt it. Read carefully and note the hypocritical inconsistencies. Feel free to dispute whatever you can.

http://www.libertyforum.org/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=news_science&main=293861932&type=post

So, When Does Life Begin? Let's Ask Planned Parenthood!! ​

Back in the 1960's before Planned Parenthood realized that using scientific truths in its literature would lessen its revenue, it was halfway honest.

A 1963 Planned Parenthood brochure actually says "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." That's something we pro-lifers didn't start saying en mass until years later!

A book from 1969 reviewed below states: '... at least one [sperm] will reach the egg, fertilize it, and conception will take place. A new life will begin.'

Eventually Planned Barrenhood saw that for their industry of death to maximize profits, truth would not be their "best policy".

"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!"

While the words won't, the deceitful manipulation and misapplication of words in law has been the greatest cause of death in history.

Pro-Choice Advocates Agree that Abortion Kills Humans.

Many abortion advocates have agreed that abortion kills human life:

A 1963 Planned Parenthood brochure says that life begins at conception: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."{01}

Former Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton admits that the preborn are alive in her 1986 book: "There are many sperm cells in the [seminal] fluid. If one of them meets an egg cell inside the mother, new life can begin to grow... If one of your friends is pregnant, ask her to let your child 'feel the baby move.' ... A baby grows in a special place inside the mother, called the uterus -- not in her stomach. In nine months it is born."{02}

Similarly, Dr. Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood has stated that "[a]bortion is the taking of a human life"{03} and Dr. Alan Guttmacher,{04} former president of Planned Parenthood and founder of the Guttmacher Institute, the research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, has stated "[f]ertilization has then taken place; a baby has been conceived."{05} {06}

While many abortion defenders readily concede that abortion kills human life, it is necessary to expound on this point because examining the nature of the unborn human being at the point of conception shows the inherent dignity that we all share from our biologic beginnings that are hidden from eyes of the world.

Not only have representatives from the nations largest abortion provider agreed that life begins at conception, but others who support abortion have agreed that abortion is murder. Dr. Magda Denes who performed two years of research in an abortion facility and compiled her results {07} told a Chicago newspaper: "There wasn't an (abortion) doctor who at one time or another in the questioning did not say `this is murder.'"{08}

Even Kate Michelman, President of N.A.R.A.L. seems to be moving in the direction of agreeing that abortion is murder by her statement that "[a]bortion is a bad thing." {09}

Others who have at one time been heavily involved with abortion have later agreed, such as "Jane Roe" Norma McCorvey, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, and Carol Everett.

In addition, everyone who uses the term "fetus" unwittingly acknowledges that the unborn human is an unborn child because fetus is Latin for "unborn child." Unfortunately for the unborn child, the term fetus has fallen into use as a way of dehumanizing the unborn child, as shown by the primary use of this term by people when they are arguing for abortion rights, in comparison to when they are discussing a baby that is wanted by the mother.

Planned Parenthood admits: Life begins at conception

IN THE 1960'S, the terminology of medical texts had not yet been changed to dehumanize life in the womb. (The pregnant woman was "the mother" and the fetus was "the child" or "baby.") The legal and political system had not yet corrupted the scientific realities of life before birth.

In 1969 McGraw-Hill Inc. was publishing a book on Conception, Birth and Contraception and needed some input from an authority on the subject. It turned to Planned Parenthood and the Sex Information & Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).

"This book provides a solid base for understanding the anatomy of reproduction," wrote Mary S. Calderone, MD, Executive Director of SIECUS, in her Introduction to the 129-page book. "Access to such fine books as this one will assure our young people that ... finally adults are becoming willing to 'tell it like it is.'"

Similarly, "Dr. George Langmyhr of Planned Parenthood Federation of America ... reviewed the material on contraception," state authors Robert J. Demarest and John J. Sciarra, MD, PhD, in their Foreword.

Within the pages of Conception, Birth and Contraception, however, the pro-life position is presented with pictorial and verbal accuracy. The book clearly pushes contraceptives, with some faulty information on the safety of the IUD, etc., but the personhood of the unborn is fully supported throughout the text.

In fact, the book's own glossary definition of the term "fetus" begins with: "An unborn child." Pregnancy, likewise, is defined as: "The condition of being with child."

In the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, of course, today's Planned Parenthood -- largest abortion provider in the world -- would never admit that life begins at conception, or depict the infant in utero, in full-page illustrations, as a person. To do so, would suggest not only a violation of rights, but even murder, in the diabolical Roe v. Wade decision.

No doubt today's SIECUS, as well, would attempt to discredit the pro-life (factual) content of this "fine book" which it's leader in 1969 described so positively.

Some excerpts

Following are some excerpts from the book, approved by Planned Parenthood and SIECUS four years before the legalization of abortion:

"... at least one [sperm] will reach the egg, fertilize it, and conception will take place. A new life will begin." (page 15)

"... the egg which, if fertilized, gives rise to a new life." (page 3)

"From fertilization to delivery, mother and child are as one for approximately 266 days. At the end of the period the mother delivers the infant into the world ..." (page 3)

"It is the female who carries the baby during the nine months of its prenatal life." (page 17)

"However small it may be, the egg is about two thousand times as large as the sperm that must fertilize it. ...it carries the food the growing embryo will use during the first few days of its life." (page 26)

"... to grow within the mother." (page 32)

"The inherited characteristics of the baby to be born ... are determined by material within the egg and sperm ... each mature egg contains genetic material carrying the inheritable characteristics of the mother ... the child receives inherited characteristics from both parents." (page 50)

"The placenta ... transfers nourishment from the mother ...." (page 53)

"... ectopic pregnanc[ies] ... are dangerous to the mother and provide no possibility of a live child." (page 53)

"The growth of the baby within the uterus takes nine calendar months." (page 57)

"The sex ... could also be determined by examining under a microscope cells which are present in the amniotic fluid ... however, the doctor would have to puncture the amniotic cavity. This procedure is not undertaken except under very unusual circumstances having to do with the baby's health. So until the baby is delivered, no one knows whether it is a boy or a girl." (page 61)

"... the bloodstreams of mother and fetus ... never touch, and the blood in each remains separate. Oxygen and nutrients pass through the placenta, from the bloodstream of the mother to the fetus, and waste products from the fetus pass in the reverse direction into the bloodstream of the mother." (page 64) [i.e., the fetus is not part of the mother's body]

"... a doctor examining the mother can hear the fetal heartbeat ... The mother can feel the movement ... its arms and legs ..." (page 65)

"... the doctor may perform an operation called a cesarean section and remove the baby ..." (page 68)

".. its head is well down in the pelvic area of the mother -- the ideal position for it when the birth process begins." (page 68)

"The new life that has been growing within the mother for approximately nine months is now ready to enter the world. The passage of the baby through the birth canal is called delivery, and the process by which this is accomplished by the mother is called labor... Occasionally, a baby is born before thirty-eight weeks ... and the baby's chance of survival depends upon its weight and state of development at birth. When it is time for delivery, the mother begins to experience uterine contractions.... felt by the mother in her back ..." (page 72)

 

[vergiss]

What you've quoted are just opinions provided by other people, albeit in articles from other sources. That hardly counds as scientific fact.

 

[Fantasea]

What you've quoted are just opinions provided by other people, albeit in articles from other sources. That hardly counds as scientific fact.

Perhaps you should read it again. This time more carefully.

What I was citing was the position that Planned Parenthood espoused for decades; until NARAL reared its head and began its quest for legalizing abortion. Then Planned Parenthood did a 180 degree turn away from its long held position and joined the "it ain't a baby, it's a fetus" crowd.

For decades, Planned Parenthood referred to the occupant of a womb, from conception to birth, as a living, human baby. Overnight, the folks in charge made the determination that the baby suddenly became just a fetus.

Many readers would find this to be hypocritical. How about you?

 

[shuamort]

Perhaps you should read it again. This time more carefully.

What I was citing was the position that Planned Parenthood espoused for decades; until NARAL reared its head and began its quest for legalizing abortion. Then Planned Parenthood did a 180 degree turn away from its long held position and joined the "it ain't a baby, it's a fetus" crowd.

For decades, Planned Parenthood referred to the occupant of a womb, from conception to birth, as a living, human baby. Overnight, the folks in charge made the determination that the baby suddenly became just a fetus.

Many readers would find this to be hypocritical. How about you?

In light of new information, people change their views. If I remember correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong), you have proffered the opinion that Roe V Wade is flawed in light of current information. Does that make SCOTUS hypocritical if they were to find a different view based on this new info?

 

[vergiss]

Perhaps you should read it again. This time more carefully.

What I was citing was the position that Planned Parenthood espoused for decades; until NARAL reared its head and began its quest for legalizing abortion. Then Planned Parenthood did a 180 degree turn away from its long held position and joined the "it ain't a baby, it's a fetus" crowd.

For decades, Planned Parenthood referred to the occupant of a womb, from conception to birth, as a living, human baby. Overnight, the folks in charge made the determination that the baby suddenly became just a fetus.

Many readers would find this to be hypocritical. How about you?

Firstly, I'm hardly Planned Parenthood, so I don't give sod if they are or aren't. Secondly, using words to refer to something is not scientific proof. :lol:

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Perhaps you should read it again. This time more carefully.

What I was citing was the position that Planned Parenthood espoused for decades; until NARAL reared its head and began its quest for legalizing abortion. Then Planned Parenthood did a 180 degree turn away from its long held position and joined the "it ain't a baby, it's a fetus" crowd.

For decades, Planned Parenthood referred to the occupant of a womb, from conception to birth, as a living, human baby. Overnight, the folks in charge made the determination that the baby suddenly became just a fetus.

Many readers would find this to be hypocritical. How about you?

In light of new information, people change their views.

Truths are constant. They do not suddenly become false because someone or some group finds it expedient for them to become false and labors for a change.

When this occurs, variations of the word hypocracy apply.

In the foregoing matter, kindly cite the newly emerged information which enabled persons to correctly conclude that all women who were pregnant with a living human being, who were carrying a baby, who were with child, in December of 1972, a month before Roe v. Wade, simply became the repositories of a valueless fetus on January 22, 1973.

What new information emerged which caused the revision of medical text books to reflect similar conclusions?

I can't wait to have you attempt to make the case that there was really no new information.

All that was necessary was for Justice Blackmun to effectively opine that, since Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers, the attorney arguing for Wade was ill prepared, as shown by the exchange below, there was no need to speculate on whether life begins at conception.

This excerpt is from the October 11, 1972 oral arguments in Roe v. Wade. The entire oral arguments make exceptionally interesting reading and may be found at:

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng2/oa/roeoa2.htm


MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL: Now, you're now quoting the judge, I want you to give me a medical, recognizable medical writing of any kind that says that at the time of conception the fetus is a person.

MR. FLOWERS: I do not believe that I could give that to you, without researching through the briefs that have been filed in this case, Your Honor. I'm not sure that I [*37] could give it to you after research.

With this ill-considered statement, Flowers destroyed his own case.

If I remember correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong), you have proffered the opinion that Roe V Wade is flawed in light of current information. Does that make SCOTUS hypocritical if they were to find a different view based on this new info?

Remember, the decision was based upon a sitting court's reluctance to "speculate" on the question of when life begins.

The finding of a subsequent court, based upon knowledge not available to an earlier court, would be seen as a simple clarification. Had the same knowledge been available to the earlier court, the decision would have been based upon that knowledge, would it not? In the absence of such knowledge, the earlier court had to cobble together an opinion with whatever was at hand.

I see no hypocrisy here.

 

[Fantasea]

Firstly, I'm hardly Planned Parenthood, so I don't give sod if they are or aren't. Secondly, using words to refer to something is not scientific proof. :lol:

I notice that your obvious tactic, when unable to make a responsive retort because to do so might be damaging to your position, is to post a few sentences which ignore the argument in the post which you are referencing.

Many folks will agree that a non-responsive response is worthlessly hypocritical.

 

[kal-el]

I think everyone should ask themselves this question regarding abortion: Should a select few be allowed to say that society allows children to be born afflicted with physical monstrousities, or a lifetime of sickness and handicap, when we know how to aviod it?

It seems to me that religious conservatives claim that they know better than the mothers about what is best for their children. And, do these people have the right to impose on society the burden of handicapped children, these children being the fruit of their criminal decisions based on outdated religious beliefs? Can religious motivation justify any crime? Happily, we no longer allow human sacrifice under the pretext of "religious devotion", and we are starting to outlaw sexual mutilation that has been based on religious belief. Is'nt it time to prohibit the conception of children afflicted with genetic malformations, as it is a crime against humanity now that we know how to prevent it?

 

[Fantasea]

I think everyone should ask themselves this question regarding abortion: Should a select few be allowed to say that society allows children to be born afflicted with physical monstrousities, or a lifetime of sickness and handicap, when we know how to aviod it?

So you set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner by making the determination that some are worthy to live and the rest should die. Is that correct?

Here's a test for you. Ask the next ten handicapped persons you encounter whether they would prefer to be alive or dead.

It seems to me that religious conservatives claim that they know better than the mothers about what is best for their children. And, do these people have the right to impose on society the burden of handicapped children, these children being the fruit of their criminal decisions based on outdated religious beliefs? Can religious motivation justify any crime? Happily, we no longer allow human sacrifice under the pretext of "religious devotion", and we are starting to outlaw sexual mutilation that has been based on religious belief. Is'nt it time to prohibit the conception of children afflicted with genetic malformations, as it is a crime against humanity now that we know how to prevent it?

You seem to have an obsession with religion. When are you going to get the point that a discussion of abortion is not about religion but about pure and simple secular biology?

Sperm fertilizes egg; a new human life is conceived. Where is the religion in that?

 

[jallman]

So you set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner by making the determination that some are worthy to live and the rest should die. Is that correct?

Here's a test for you. Ask the next ten handicapped persons you encounter whether they would prefer to be alive or dead.You seem to have an obsession with religion. When are you going to get the point that a discussion of abortion is not about religion but about pure and simple secular biology?

Sperm fertilizes egg; a new human life is conceived. Where is the religion in that?

The religion, the philosophy, the calculated human judgement comes in taking note of the fact that a human life is a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. It is about the possession of a will, an intelligence, and a desire, none of which a zygote, or even a fetus have. Biology simply states that the fetus has the characteristics of life, but then, it also states that a bacterium does too. Pure and simple secular biology makes no comment to any other characteristic of this biological material within the womb. If it does, please enlighten us with something other than articles of opinion.

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by Fantasea
You seem to have an obsession with religion. When are you going to get the point that a discussion of abortion is not about religion but about pure and simple secular biology?

Sperm fertilizes egg; a new human life is conceived. Where is the religion in that?

I am not obsessed with religion. I just think that society needs to be pulled out of the murky mess of primitive beliefs that were being used by the religious powers to enslave the people. Even 5- year olds can't swallow what their parents or grandparents of the medevil days took for biblical truth. Fortunately, they are all online instead of going to mass on Sudays. if religion and superstition, which are basically the same thing, had power over science, we would still be living in the dark ages.

I know about basic biology, thank you. Maybe you should direct your last question to all the religious conservatives?

 

[Fantasea]

The religion, the philosophy, the calculated human judgement comes in taking note of the fact that a human life is a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. It is about the possession of a will, an intelligence, and a desire, none of which a zygote, or even a fetus have. Biology simply states that the fetus has the characteristics of life, but then, it also states that a bacterium does too. Pure and simple secular biology makes no comment to any other characteristic of this biological material within the womb. If it does, please enlighten us with something other than articles of opinion.

The simple secular biological fact is that when human sperm fertilizes a human egg, a new human life is conceived. Left undisturbed, it performs the tasks necessary to reach sufficient maturity, and, on its own time table to make its way through the birth canal to take its rightful place among us.

Regardless of unfounded opinion to the contrary, at no time, once conception occurs, is there a discernable point at which full human life has not existed.

Bacterium is in no way comparable to human life.

You will, no doubt complain about the source. However, it makes interesting reading. What I would like to find, but I've had no luck, is something that expresses the opposite. Can you help?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html

 

[Fantasea]

Originally posted by Fantasea
You seem to have an obsession with religion. When are you going to get the point that a discussion of abortion is not about religion but about pure and simple secular biology?

Sperm fertilizes egg; a new human life is conceived. Where is the religion in that?

I am not obsessed with religion.

Given the tenor of your posts, that comes as a great surprise.

I just think that society needs to be pulled out of the murky mess of primitive beliefs that were being used by the religious powers to enslave the people. Even 5- year olds can't swallow what their parents or grandparents of the medevil days took for biblical truth. Fortunately, they are all online instead of going to mass on Sudays. if religion and superstition, which are basically the same thing, had power over science, we would still be living in the dark ages.

Certainly you must be aware that all of the major religions acknowledge and respect scientific achievement, and agree that there is a legitimate place for science.

I know about basic biology, thank you.

Well then, you must be aware of what happens when conception occurs -- a new, unique, fully human, being is formed.

Maybe you should direct your last question to all the religious conservatives?

I can't help it if some who oppose abortion are not as conversant with the biological aspect of pregnancy as you are.

I would be more comfortable if they would devote some of their zeal to improving their knowledge of biology so that they could discuss the question on secular grounds. Trying to discuss abortion on religious grounds is pointless.

Case in point, there are many atheists and agnostics who grieve that every abortion results in the termination of a human life.

Now you have my answer. How about your answer to that question, which you have evaded?

 

[jallman]

The simple secular biological fact is that when human sperm fertilizes a human egg, a new human life is conceived. Left undisturbed, it performs the tasks necessary to reach sufficient maturity, and, on its own time table to make its way through the birth canal to take its rightful place among us.

Regardless of unfounded opinion to the contrary, at no time, once conception occurs, is there a discernable point at which full human life has not existed.

Bacterium is in no way comparable to human life.

You will, no doubt complain about the source. However, it makes interesting reading. What I would like to find, but I've had no luck, is something that expresses the opposite. Can you help?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html

I have no problem with your article save that again, it is simply opinion...and very biased opinion at that. And since you wont stop parroting with the broken record of "show me scientific proof" that life does not begin at conception, let me show you what a real scientific source is made of. Of course, I know this is a wasted effort as you will simply dismiss what you cannot argue with rationally, but here goes anyway:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

These principles of the neurological view of the beginning of human life are presented in The Facts of Life, a book written by Harold Morowitz and James Trefil in 1992 concerning the abortion controversy. An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a simple medical procedure in which electrodes are attached to different locations on a patient's head and the voltage difference over time is measured between the two points. The voltage data is plotted against time to produce "brain waves" with up and down voltage oscillations that are representative of the organized electrical activity of the brain (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Medical professionals use a patient's EEG pattern to identify a broad spectrum of mental states. Although EEGs are often used as a diagnostic tool, the exact mechanism behind how an EEG pattern is linked to an individual's cerebral neuron activity remains a mystery (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).

Despite lacking a precise explanation for the connection between the EEG and neural activity, there is a strong argument that the unique and highly recognizable EEG pattern produced by a mature brain is a defining characteristic of humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Therefore, the moment that a developing fetus first exhibits an EEG pattern consistent with that of a mature brain is indicative of the beginning of human life. It is from this point and onward during development that the fetus is capable of the type of mental activity associated with humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).

Because the state of modern technology still prohibits EEGs in utero, brain activity data for humans at various stages of development has been gathered using premature infants. Observations to date have led to the conclusion that 25 weeks of gestation is required for the formation of synapses needed for recognizable neural activity. At this point in development, the recognizable signals exist only as intermittent bursts that interrupt periods of random activity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). This conclusion is summarized by Donald Scott who in his book Understanding the EEG wrote, "Attempts have been made to record cerebral activity of premature infants and they have succeeded (only) if the gestational age was 25 weeks or more (Morowitz and Trefil 1992)."

Source: Developmental Biology, Chapter 21 Bioethics "When does human life begin"
http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Note, this is one of 5 different views of when human life begins (all in contradiction to the conception viewpoint), promoted by science professionals across the spectrum of disciplines. And thats just outlined in this book alone. A quick web search would have answered your whinings about scientific backing for the argument for pro choice. Now that I have put up...take your planned parenthood papers, your christian focus essays and your "opining" (gee that word does have a nice ring to it) and scurry on back to the drawing board. Come back at this argument again when you can put up some comparable evidence to support your pro oppression views.

 

[jallman]

Well then, you must be aware of what happens when conception occurs -- a new, unique, fully human, being is formed.
I can't help it if some who oppose abortion are not as conversant with the biological aspect of pregnancy as you are.

Oh I love this one. No, at conception, a new unique human being is not formed. In fact, up to 12 days later, the zygote can still split and become two completely different beings---ya know, that whole twin phenomenon. Guess I cant help it if those who oppose abortion tend to make up their science as they go along.

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by Fantasea
Certainly you must be aware that all of the major religions acknowledge and respect scientific achievement, and agree that there is a legitimate place for science.

At the beginning of the 19th century, anesthics were used alot in surgery, but moralists rebelled against them saying that they were dulling the pain during labor. But is it not written in the good book that a women will give birth through pain? So basically it was pratically impossible to give medication to a woman who was giving birth in order to relieve the pain because it was contrary to God's wishes!

I believe it was Queen Victoria, who helped make this acceptable by taking the medication herself (9 children) in turn, quieting the moralists. It was a big leap forward in light of the ignorance which prevailed in those days and relied heavily on the laws of God every time beliefs were challenged.

I had to crack a smile every time I heard the late Pope John-Paul protest against cloning and stem-cell research using the cliche', "You must not play God". I always found that hipocritical and funny at the same time.

He seemed to forget how surgeons saved his life more than once, and if it wasn't for them and their, "playing God", he would've died much sooner. How could he protest against research on aging when one of his predeccesors , Pope Pius XI, was getting regular fetal ewe injections at the Paul Niehaus rejuvenation clinic in Switzerland?

I can't help it if some who oppose abortion are not as conversant with the biological aspect of pregnancy as you are.

"Ethics" is simply a last-grasp attempt by diest conservatives and orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance, through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and new technologies. As for pregnancy, the sex of a child is defined by the spermatazoon, or the half-plan coming from the male. So when a man transmits his sperm to a woman, if it is a male spermatazoon which combines with the woman's half-plan (ovule), then the child will be a boy, and if it was a female spermatazoon, then a little girl will see the light of day in 9 months.

 

[Busta]

Oh I love this one. No, at conception, a new unique human being is not formed. In fact, up to 12 days later, the zygote can still split and become two completely different beings---ya know, that whole twin phenomenon. Guess I cant help it if those who oppose abortion tend to make up their science as they go along.

How can a Zygote split and become 2 beings, unless it was 1 being before the split? A being with %100 Human D.N.A., is a Human-being. "A Human Being" is exactly the legal definition of "Person".

So according to you, a zygote is a person.
Vergiss will be very displeased.

Since all people have constitutional rights and, according to you, the zygote is a person, the zygote is protected by the Constitution.
Since the 9th. amendmet forbids anyone from invoking a right which violates the rights of another, a Mother may not invoke her 4th amendment right and abort her unborn child, because to do so would violate the zygote's 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendment rights.

Thank you for conceding the debate.

Goodbye:2wave: