(May 25, 2012 at 10:35 am)Shell B Wrote: Nah, it's not true. Phil is the ultimate authority.

When did I say anything about abstract thought? Are you just pissed cause you were shown to be wrong?

(May 22, 2012 at 12:19 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Christians seem to really believe they have the moral high ground on so many different issues, but do they really?

Ever heard of anencephaly? It's a neural tube defect that causes babies to form without a significant part of the brain/skull. It's detected very early on in pregnancy, and babies born with this defect normally only live a few hours, though a very few live just a few days.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002547/

I first read about Heather Walker on cafemom. I was told I have to be a christian to understand, but that is an insult to my intelligence, and the intelligence of non-christians everywhere.

Heather found out her baby would be born with this defect early in her pregnancy. I've counseled several women who have shared her predicament, and all of them, whether "good christian" or not, terminated the pregnancy. It's the merciful thing to do, really. There is just no hope for a baby with this kind of defect, so for a mother to go on with the pregnancy, knowing her baby will be born without the top of it's head, and die shortly after being born, is just too much for most women.

Heather Walker didn't do that. Normally, I wouldn't have a word to say about it. I am pro-choice, after all, but the more I looked into it and realized the morally repulsive reality of the situation, the more infuriated I became.

So because Heather loved Jesus SO much, she thought it would be super virtuous of her to have her baby and use him as a prop in an 8 hour long, smiling-faced photo op, with 40+ members of her friends and family, only ending once her baby was dead. Her virtuous actions didn't end with that. After her baby died, she took those pictures, and is using them to benefit herself and her family financially, and spread the word that she so so unbelievably moral because she chose "life" for her baby.

They even took a picture of his lifeless body holding a small book entitled, "My First Bible".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...JuKJHx69sE

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Benefit-f...6448648145

Now, I thought about this for a while. I thought maybe I was just a bitch, because this woman's "touching story" made me want to hurl. I wanted to share this, and see if I am the only one, or if other people can see how this is exactly the sort of thing Hitchens was talking about when he said "religion poisons everything".

Women out there who find out that their baby has anencephaly are not murderers because they terminate their pregnancy. They're not monsters deserving the wrath of jesus, because they couldn't bring themselves to give birth to a baby with no brain, only to bury it a couple days later.

Heather Walker is not a saint, nor an incredibly moral person for exploiting her son, posting videos of slideshows, depicting a smiling happy family, and a dying brainless baby, who they refer to as "Our Little Servant". Is this what she's teaching her other kids is morally right? If so, I feel really sorry for them.

The truth is, I'm not morally offended by Heather's choice to go to term with her pregnancy, and have the baby. What offends me is the exploitation of the child, the gleeful smiles on the faces of those who participated, and the use of this tragedy to benefit financially. It's like the Hallmark card of christian backwardness.

Anyway, my aunt was also born with a neural tube defect called spina bifida. There were no ultrasounds back then, but my grandmother took excellent care of her, and she lived to be almost 40 years old, passing away when I was 12 years old. She was the spokes-child for The March of Dimes, and helped raised money and awareness for lots of children born with defects. Not one person could bring themselves to smile and pose for a picture as she laid dying. Just sayin'.

Thoughts? What the fuck kind of loving god would allow something like anencephaly to happen to an innocent baby, anyway?

Well, I don't really know much about what kind of a moral high ground either of the side has here.
It's a baby that lives for a very small amount of time. Really, not very different if it were aborted. At the end, they die. Besides, it's not like that there is much of a mercy to be had there. If she were to live for longer than it had to, well, it could be considered merciful, both to the child and yourself to abort that baby.

I found the video incredibly repulsive. The baby was used like a fucking doll, I couldn't even watch most of it. Why would anyone want to see their child like that in the first place? He should have never been born.

(May 25, 2012 at 10:49 am)Phil Wrote:

(May 25, 2012 at 10:35 am)Shell B Wrote: Nah, it's not true. Phil is the ultimate authority.

When did I say anything about abstract thought? Are you just pissed cause you were shown to be wrong?

Where did you show me to be wrong. Honestly? You kept saying I was wrong, but not pointing out what you thought was wrong. You said I didn't read my post about brain stem function. I explained to you that my reasoning was based on what they brain stem was capable of without the rest of the fucking brain. You really are a piece of work sometimes, Phil.

(May 25, 2012 at 3:42 am)Annik Wrote: Sadly, it's true. These children only respond to stimuli and are incapable of abstract thought.

Is any baby a few days out of womb capable of abstract thought?

But the point is there is no possibility of these babies ever acquiring the ability to respond in anything more than simply reflexive way. Being able to respond in a more sophisticated way then simple reflex is the basic component from a which a functional human being able to formulate and excerpt a will is made.

Without it, there is no human in the societal sense. There is only something no better than a Christian.

(May 25, 2012 at 11:01 am)Shell B Wrote:

(May 25, 2012 at 10:49 am)Phil Wrote: When did I say anything about abstract thought? Are you just pissed cause you were shown to be wrong?

Where did you show me to be wrong. Honestly? You kept saying I was wrong, but not pointing out what you thought was wrong. You said I didn't read my post about brain stem function. I explained to you that my reasoning was based on what they brain stem was capable of without the rest of the fucking brain. You really are a piece of work sometimes, Phil.

You forget awfully quickly. You said just missing a forebrain would be like he was lobotomized since the cerebrum is missing also. The cerebrum is part of the forebrain so you were wrong about that. You were also wrong about your claim to know the brain's anatomy (since you didn't know the cerebrum is a part of the forebrain). You were wrong about him being unconscious and the link you provided from the CDC even uses the word USUALLY not it is against the rules of how the cerebrum operates. You were wrong thinking that the wiki link you provided agrees with you when it plainly says awareness (bottom-up) is controlled by the brainstem. You really should quit before you make even more wrong claims.

---

(May 25, 2012 at 11:03 am)Chuck Wrote:

(May 25, 2012 at 3:42 am)Annik Wrote: Sadly, it's true. These children only respond to stimuli and are incapable of abstract thought.

Is any baby a few days out of womb capable of abstract thought?

But the point is there is no possibility of these babies ever acquiring the ability to respond in anything more than simply reflexive way. Being able to respond in a more sophisticated way then simple reflex is the basic component from a which a functional human being able to formulate and excerpt a will is made.

Without it, there is no human in the societal sense. There is only something no better than a Christian.

Someone in a coma isn't human?

I said the fucking frontal lobe would be like having a lobotomy. Fucking Christ. I also made no claims about knowing the brain's anatomy, though I certainly have a working knowledge of it. Wiki link? That had to do with what the brain stem does. Remember, the brain stem acts as a messenger for the rest of the fucking brain. Don't be a dipshit. It can't control thought independently.

You really should stop purposely misreading people's arguments so you can go off on one of your daily tangents. Every day, you start ripping into someone with nary a leg to stand on. Honestly, if you took the rational approach, you would have read the entirety of my argument instead of cherry picking it and putting words in my mouth. You should quit before you go off the deep end again, as you so often have.

(May 25, 2012 at 11:09 am)Phil Wrote:

(May 25, 2012 at 11:01 am)Shell B Wrote: Where did you show me to be wrong. Honestly? You kept saying I was wrong, but not pointing out what you thought was wrong. You said I didn't read my post about brain stem function. I explained to you that my reasoning was based on what they brain stem was capable of without the rest of the fucking brain. You really are a piece of work sometimes, Phil.

You forget awfully quickly. You said just missing a forebrain would be like he was lobotomized since the cerebrum is missing also. The cerebrum is part of the forebrain so you were wrong about that. You were also wrong about your claim to know the brain's anatomy (since you didn't know the cerebrum is a part of the forebrain). You were wrong about him being unconscious and the link you provided from the CDC even uses the word USUALLY not it is against the rules of how the cerebrum operates. You were wrong thinking that the wiki link you provided agrees with you when it plainly says awareness (bottom-up) is controlled by the brainstem. You really should quit before you make even more wrong claims.

---

(May 25, 2012 at 11:03 am)Chuck Wrote: Is any baby a few days out of womb capable of abstract thought?

But the point is there is no possibility of these babies ever acquiring the ability to respond in anything more than simply reflexive way. Being able to respond in a more sophisticated way then simple reflex is the basic component from a which a functional human being able to formulate and excerpt a will is made.

Without it, there is no human in the societal sense. There is only something no better than a Christian.

Someone in a coma isn't human?

Someone in a persistent vegetative state resulting from evident excessive brain tissue destruction, and thus manifestly lacking the mechanism to even theoretically regain faculty for more than reflexive action, is considered human only out of courtesy to the relatives.

(May 25, 2012 at 11:14 am)Shell B Wrote: I said the fucking frontal lobe would be like having a lobotomy. Fucking Christ. I also made no claims about knowing the brain's anatomy, though I certainly have a working knowledge of it. Wiki link? That had to do with what the brain stem does. Remember, the brain stem acts as a messenger for the rest of the fucking brain. Don't be a dipshit. It can't control thought independently.

You really should stop purposely misreading people's arguments so you can go off on one of your daily tangents. Every day, you start ripping into someone with nary a leg to stand on. Honestly, if you took the rational approach, you would have read the entirety of my argument instead of cherry picking it and putting words in my mouth. You should quit before you go off the deep end again, as you so often have.

Stop your damn lying.

(May 24, 2012 at 9:06 am)Shell B Wrote: You are completely wrong. If the only thing that was missing was the "forebrain," which includes the "frontal lobe," the baby would simply behave as if it had undergone a lobotomy. It would survive, as all the functions it requires to survive would be possible. Do you know why babies with anencephaly die? It's because even the basic functions performed by the brain stem are not enough. Of course the baby is not conscious or aware of his environment (redundant, but just rehashing your comments). Seriously, read something on the condition and brain function before you try to assert something.

(May 24, 2012 at 7:40 pm)Shell B Wrote:

Quote:However, the lack of a working cerebrum
entirely rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness.

http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/anencephaly.pdf

Chowderhead.Here you failed to include the word usuallyas it was a few short lines earlier and as I said, you failed to understand the cerebrum is part of the forebrain.

Quote:BTW Shell, the forebrain consists of the cerebrum, cerebral cortex and hemispheres thalamus, hypothalamus, among a few other parts. See why I say google isn't science?

Why are you so quick to argue? Fucking read first. I know what the forebrain consists of. Withfuckingout it, the brain stem is only able to handle certain functions. It is like having a telephone that is not hooked up. See why I say rageaholics should think before they type? Well, I only just started saying that. Thank you for setting the precedence.

---

(May 25, 2012 at 11:17 am)Chuck Wrote:

(May 25, 2012 at 11:09 am)Phil Wrote: Someone in a coma isn't human?

Someone in a persistent vegetative state resulting from evident excessive brain tissue destruction, and thus manifestly lacking the mechanism to even theoretically regain faculty for more than reflexive action, is considered human only out of courtesy to the relatives.

So your first statement that an ability to respond is now being modified to include the destruction of brain tissue? I'm confused, how was any brain tissue destroyed in a baby born with anencephaly? Defining a human person isn't too easy is it?

What?! I didn't say brain tissue was destroyed. The child was born without it.

I also said nothing about whether the child was a person or not. I made no comments on its personhood. Why are you pretending I did?