Abortion

[pgwenthold]

This is why the way questions are worded on polls is so important. And it is why it is important that when poll results are discussed, that the questions that were asked be printed verbatim.

If what I stated above about "overlap" is true, it would explain the confusion. It is possible two people could hold the exact same belief about second trimester fetuses and one consider themselves "pro-choice" while the other considers themselves "pro-life."

Your first statement didn't qualify anything about 2nd semester (at least in the part about the 55%). The statement is that 55% believe abortion should only be allowed when the health of the mother is in danger, or in the case of rape or incest. This applies to 3rd, 2nd, and EVEN 1st trimester! abortions.

I ask, are there really people who think that even 1st trimester abortions should only be allowed in these exceptional cases who consider themselves to be pro-choice? Exactly what _choice_ are they for?

 

[Belz...]

When does a human become a human? What separates us from an embryo or a fetus? It's not when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. It's not when you can see recognizable body parts in a sonogram. It's the ability to think. During those first two trimesters the brain is barely developed, certainly not enough to allow thinking as we think of it. Therefore I have no problem with abortion in the first two trimesters. In the case of risk to the woman's health I am in favor of allowing abortions in the third trimester. Why? The woman was here first...she's got dibs on living.

and as an aside...when I once presented this view to friends they objected..."but you could see the baby's hands!". True, but we could also see Terry Schiavo's hands. She was fully developed but all of us who were discussing it were in favor of pulling the plug on her. Why? No brain activity.

I tend to agree, too, though I'm still fuzzy on the issue as a whole. One question, however: in the third trimester, the brain is more develloped... but is the baby sentient ? I doubt it. So, no harm done, right ? So, what's the argument against abortion in late-pregnancy ?

 

[toddjh]

I tend to agree, too, though I'm still fuzzy on the issue as a whole. One question, however: in the third trimester, the brain is more develloped... but is the baby sentient ? I doubt it. So, no harm done, right ? So, what's the argument against abortion in late-pregnancy ?

Erring on the side of caution, I'd say. It's a smooth transition from "blob of tissue" to "sentient adult." We have to draw the line somewhere, and we should do it reasonably conservatively.

 

[KingMerv00]

I tend to agree, too, though I'm still fuzzy on the issue as a whole. One question, however: in the third trimester, the brain is more develloped... but is the baby sentient ? I doubt it. So, no harm done, right ? So, what's the argument against abortion in late-pregnancy ?

Caution I suppose. A 6 month fetus may not be sentient but better safe than sorry. Best to figure out when the brain will develop and say that abortion should be illegal a little before that.

 

[JamesDillon]

I have not settled on when I believe it is human. But even if I arbitrarily decided it isn't human until Day 90, and could be aborted prior to that, I would still call myself "pro-life" because that position is in opposition to Roe v. Wade.

How so? Roe adopted a view very similar to that which you described in its trimester system.

 

[Luke T.]

The issue of consciousness is not resolved. 6 months is not a sure thing.

The impetus to ban the partial birth abortion procedure was triggered in large part by growing scientific evidence that the unborn child feels pain. Dr. K. S. Anand, the world’s foremost authority on research into pain perception in fetal and neonatal children testified as an expert witness at another Partial Birth Abortion trial in New York, saying that the fetus feels pain by 20 weeks, possibly even earlier, and that the pain endured by the child during a partial birth abortion would be “prolonged and excruciating.” “Such evidence is very damaging to the abortion industry,” Dr. Johnston noted.

Referring to the study itself, Dr. Johnston pointed out that this study did not involve any new research to assess fetal pain; rather, this study was an interpretation of the results of previous studies. “And a number of those interpretations are just not scientifically grounded,” Dr. Johnston said. The researchers refer to one study of 102 premature newborns which used an electrical recording method (evoked potentials) to record the brain’s responses to stimuli. That study found that signals are present at 29 weeks. “The researchers of this study use that as evidence to support their claim that pain is not felt until 29 weeks—yet they failed to inform the reader that that study of newborns involved only two who were under 29 weeks, but even they evoked a response, although slightly delayed compared to the rest.”

Another weakness involves interpretation of studies which used electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain activity. The researchers refer to a study which found normal EEG signals appear at 24 weeks which they dismiss in favour of another study which found that EEG signals representing wakefulness appear around 30 weeks and conclude from this that pain is not felt until 30 weeks. “They are assuming wakefulness is needed before pain can be felt,” Dr. Johnston said “Wakefulness is a red herring. Preemies sleep a lot, and their EEG—like ours—is markedly different in the waking or sleeping state. But if I hurt someone while they’re asleep, they will immediately wake with pain. The key is that normal EEG waves were recorded as early as 24 weeks and this finding is discounted by the researchers.”

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05082607.html

 

[Belz...]

Caution I suppose. A 6 month fetus may not be sentient but better safe than sorry. Best to figure out when the brain will develop and say that abortion should be illegal a little before that.

I guess so.

My father's pro-life; and the only argument he could come up with is viability of the foetus. I retorted that a separated egg and sperm still constitute a viable foetus by that definition. Then he caricatured the pro-choice camp by saying that abortion should be legal up until child birth...

Ah, the utter joy of arguing with people who don't understand their own position.

 

[Mark]

Opposing cervical cancer vaccines and saying pro-lifers want to enslave women are unreasonable positions. Fortunateley for everyone, the cervical cancer vaccine opponents and "pro-lifers want to enslave women" bozos are a MINORITY.

Minority? Please provide your evidence. Or am I to be held to a different standard?

Btw, the fact that I am willing to admit when I have overstated something is a good trait, Luke. Try it sometime.

 

[Luke T.]

This debate is interesting. We have already used the EEG as a definition of "death" in the brain death statutes; if there is no EEG activity, then there is brain death. If we stay consistent, we should consider that a fetal EEG can be measured at about 8 weeks, and thus, the fetus is "brain alive" at that point.

http://www.bio.net/hypermail/neuroscience/1997-February/027636.html

 

[toddjh]

This debate is interesting. We have already used the EEG as a definition of "death" in the brain death statutes; if there is no EEG activity, then there is brain death. If we stay consistent, we should consider that a fetal EEG can be measured at about 8 weeks, and thus, the fetus is "brain alive" at that point.

But "brain alive" is irrelevant. A cow is "brain alive," but I'm eating a hamburger right now. While an EEG would definitely establish that the fetus is alive, that fact has never been in dispute. As far as I know, it does nothing to establish whether a fetus's brain is developed enough for it to be considered a person.

 

[Luke T.]

Minority? Please provide your evidence. Or am I to be held to a different standard?

Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

Washington Post

Btw, the fact that I am willing to admit when I have overstated something is a good trait, Luke. Try it sometime.

But do you still believe pro-lifers want to enslave women? And if so, why do you still believe it?

 

[Luke T.]

But "brain alive" is irrelevant. A cow is "brain alive," but I'm eating a hamburger right now. While an EEG would definitely establish that the fetus is alive, that fact has never been in dispute. As far as I know, it does nothing to establish whether a fetus's brain is developed enough for it to be considered a person.

If any brain activity is good enough to prevent someone from being declared dead, and therefore still a human with human rights, then what does the amount of brain activity have to do with whether they are human?

 

[strathmeyer]

But do you still believe pro-lifers want to enslave women? And if so, why do you still believe it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone when they used words against their meaning. You keep pretending that what you think is true. It's obvious that you aren't listening to anyone but yourself.

 

[toddjh]

If any brain activity is good enough to prevent someone from being declared dead, and therefore still a human with human rights, then what does the amount of brain activity have to do with whether they are human?

Because a dying adult has the brain of, well, an adult, and we know that a functioning adult brain means it's a person. A first-trimester fetus has the brain of a lizard, so we have no basis for presuming personhood, even if the brain is functioning as it's supposed to.

ETA: In other words, the EEG doesn't show that it's a human life, it just shows that it's a life. The "human" part is deduced from other evidence -- evidence which doesn't exist in the case of the fetus.

 

[toddjh]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone when they used words against their meaning. You keep pretending that what you think is true. It's obvious that you aren't listening to anyone but yourself.

Come on, now. You deliberately chose the third listed definition, even though you know full well that's not what people mean by "slavery" in normal discourse.

"Subject or addicted to a specified influence?" Who the hell isn't "subject to a specified influence?"

 

[Luke T.]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone when they used words against their meaning. You keep pretending that what you think is true. It's obvious that you aren't listening to anyone but yourself.

Are you enslaved by every law? You are subject to their influence. Is someone who wants you to wear a seatbelt seeking to enslave you?

 

[Luke T.]

My point about slavery is that it is a presumption of the other guy's motives. And if you presume wrong (build a strawman), then you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Luke T.]

Why would someone oppose the cervical cancer vaccine? Is it because they wish to enslave women, or is their motive a belief that it would encourage promiscuity?

Why would someone oppose abortion? Is it because they wish to enslave women, or because they believe a human life is being killed?

How can you debate someone and try to reason with them when you are arguing the wrong point?

You want to debate with them and call them enslavers, fine. You'll get nowhere. You want to show them that a vaccine does not raise the number of teenage pregnancies (ETA: and simultaneously DOES save lives), you might get somewhere.

 

[Luke T.]

Because a dying adult has the brain of, well, an adult, and we know that a functioning adult brain means it's a person. A first-trimester fetus has the brain of a lizard, so we have no basis for presuming personhood, even if the brain is functioning as it's supposed to.

ETA: In other words, the EEG doesn't show that it's a human life, it just shows that it's a life. The "human" part is deduced from other evidence -- evidence which doesn't exist in the case of the fetus.

"Human" is arbitrarily defined. For one extreme of the pro-life position, it is human the second the sperm penetrates the egg.

So their "evidence" would be that the sperm has penetrated the egg.

That is what the abortion debate is about. That's what the "slavery" camp doesn't get.

ETA: The human rights of the fetus supercedes the mother's right to choose life or death for that fetus. It's that simple.

 

[jj]

Why is it that the people who appear to share my pro-choice policy preferences are the less reasonable ones in both threads of this debate?

Well, one of the reasons you could be saying that (your saying it does not make it true, and you've already demonstrated your willingness to build straw men and put them at other people's feet over and over) is because you want to cast pro-choice people in a bad light.

No, beyond your own rather unusual actions I have no evidence, but you've shown more than one or two examples of creative rhetorical malpractice already.

Now, when do you think a human comes about in the process of human conception and gestation?

Let's start with that.