Pro abortion or not

[Esquilax]

Framing the situation by calling Pro-Choice people "Pro-Abortion" or "Pro-Murder" is a pretty disingenuous tactic to undermine your opposition before they even have a chance to make their case. Why even bother wasting the effort with people like you?

It's tantamount to me calling Pro-Life proponents, "Anti-Choice fascists".

When you don't care about facts or science, what else is left to you but emotive appeals to ignorance?

[Mystical]

this is the NIH stance.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi-01eITZ...ata_player

I assume you heard someone talking about "the silent scream"? Here is the truth behind it. This was taken off of the NIH (National Institue of Health) website, so it is impartial and neither pro or anti abortion. It is simply medical fact.

Claim: The 12-week fetus experiences pain. Facts: At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26-27 weeks' gestation (24-25 weeks' fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement on Pain of the Fetus We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy. We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain. To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.

Claim: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula). Facts: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case. An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero. What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched. In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

Claim: Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus. Facts: The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.

Claim: The fetus emits "The Silent Scream." Facts: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26-27 weeks' gestation (24-25 weeks' fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.

Claim: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us. Facts: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman's womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.

Claim: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of "crushing instruments" for extraction. Facts: At 12 weeks' gestation (10 weeks' fetal age) and even 1-2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.

So to sum it up, Prior to atleast 24 weeks, it is medicaly impossible for a fetus to "feel" anything. That is not an opinion, it is medical fact. The parts of the nervous system and brain that we must have in order to feel something are not there. They have not developed yet.

---

However I'm anti abortion.
Babies as young as 22-24 weeks have survived and thrived (obviously with hospital care).
I think personhood begins when the two genomes from parents mix.
I also don't understand (Esquilax) how you could dismiss these so easily as just 'bundles of cells'. You were all these little bundles, once.

8wks

---

---

12 wks



22wk survivor twins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q1YVFHIA...ata_player

[Esquilax]

I think personhood begins when the two genomes from parents mix.

Let's assume this to be true, and let's therefore give the fetus every right that a human being has, from that moment forth. Under those premises, abortions are still entirely consistent.

Let me ask you, if you were dying of something, do you have the right to hold another person captive and use them, in any medical capacity, to sustain your life against their will?

The answer is an unequivocal no: you could be on the brink of death and you'd still have no right to use anyone else as a bank of functioning organs. So why would we afford that right to a fetus, even if we accept that they're human?

I also don't understand (Esquilax) how you could dismiss these so easily as just 'bundles of cells'. You were all these little bundles, once.

Yes, we were. And then our mothers consented for us to grow and develop to the stage where we became people. The argument you've just made applies equally to my toenails or hair. For the longest time, the little zygote has no organs, no brain, no nervous system, nothing that could support a consciousness or a personality... they are, for all intents and purposes, a bundle of cells. Where's the cost in getting rid of that if it's not wanted? You might be tempted to say it's in the potential life there, but I'd remind you that nobody applies that logic consistently; you aren't saying I should never jack off for that reason, and you should never ovulate. That logic, dearest, means no blowjobs or protected sex.

Not to mention, this appeal to the past that you've used... it's not very compelling, is it? What I used to be doesn't entail some form of preferred state of being, after all.

[No_God]

Maybe we should treat the symptoms of the disease instead of fighting the disease itself.

The people who want to completely abolish abortion don't have any back-up plan for women... and they don't care either.

Keep abortion available but make birth control and plan B easier and cheaper to get.

[NoraBrimstone]

Birth control and the MAP should be free. It's disgusting that some countries make women pay for their reproductive rights.

[Minimalist]

Framing the situation by calling Pro-Choice people "Pro-Abortion" or "Pro-Murder" is a pretty disingenuous tactic to undermine your opposition before they even have a chance to make their case. Why even bother wasting the effort with people like you?

It's tantamount to me calling Pro-Life proponents, "Anti-Choice fascists".

I prefer the term "meddlesome shitheads" but, to each his own.

[fr0d0]

@ Esq

Do I have the right to harvest another persons body to feed my own? Why not? What defines their rights? Their personhood? How are they then different to the fertilised cells?

Wow the toenail argument is still going? I'm sorry I must just lol at that one. Yeah flakes of dandruff have rights as people too!

[pocaracas]

I wonder... whatever happened to the fish argument?
Oh yeah... catfish got banned!

[Bad Wolf]

You don't have the right to harvest someone else to save your life because no one has the right to live at the expense of someone else. I've always thought personhood involved being conscious, fully self aware, intelligent, able to assess the world around them, able to plan for the future and able to look back on the past. That way, my definition excludes all animals but doesn't exclude intelligent aliens that we may one day find.
How is a person different from fertilised cells? Well firstly, the person has a nervous system, they can feel pain. They would be fully aware of what you are doing to them, causing terror and stress. Killing them would break all social and emotional bonds with that persons friends and family and would damage possibly hundreds of people in the process.

[fr0d0]

I wonder... whatever happened to the fish argument?
Oh yeah... catfish got banned!

Cat was the anti fish argument. His inner paradox defeated him.