Mandatory abortions in case of rape

Post Reply New Topic

A fetus is human there is no doubt about that. Does a fetus function; yes, in a limited way, dependent on the mother for survival. Does a fetus have a personality; of course not, there is no need for that, but the research does suggest they interact at fourteen weeks when a twin is present. The value of this functionally limited human fetus is sometimes not compromised when a decision for abortion is made; often it becomes a gut wrenching tearful experience that impacts one's life forever.

Are any of us independent persons, not reliant on others for survival? I think the answer is no. Is a partially functional human fetus valuable; that is a subjective social judgement, not unlike the view that many held on African Americans when they came to this country as slaves, or the way that women were perceived in the past, or how some perceive the elderly or disabled among us.

For those people that held the view that African Americans were not valued as people or as some view women, the elderly, and the disabled; the unborn child for some of those people was and is a more valued human commodity.

The reality of a human's existence in society is determined partly by value, not soley on functionality.

I don't think that study is strong enough to show that they "interact," merely that they 'act differently.'

Well no she asked if Inuyasha's opinion would differ as a woman, I said no and explained why this is so. My opinion might be more susceptible to change but this is irrelevant to any point she could be making, she didn't ever ask if my opinions would change as a woman, as to that I cannot say. A mans opinion isn't invalidated by virtue of him being male.



No he hasn't his only generalizations have concerned women who abort. It wouldn't make any sense for him to generalize women as a whole it does nothing for his argument. I have not seen these generalizations you speak of and do not believe they exist, show them to me. Misogyny is nearly synonymous with sexism, he hasn't shown any hate or contempt for women as a whole and your extensions of his views are unreasonable and baseless.

His limiting of the conversation to women who are pregnant and abort is once again understandable, why would he speak of women who do not abort when his issue is with women who do abort, who would he need to bring up any other group of woemn, your issue now seems to be that he hasn't been praising what groups of women he does agree with while condeming the group he disagrees with, which is silly it would just waste time and only make him look like he was hiding contempt for the gender as a whole, he also hasn't shown the ability to think in such a personally political way, aka he is too young to play your silly games. It is not his duty to appease to women as a gender and that seems to be your only issue.

Or to summarize:

Once again his trivialization of pregnancy is not sexist and can be easily explained by him being so idealogical driven, it is necessary for him to trivialize pregnancies risk because it makes the price of protecting fetuses seem much lesser than it is(Although he doesn't really need to do this as under his reasoning as far as I can see the fetus would be protected under most circumstances regardless of cost). Claiming misrepresenting the troubles pregnancy brings is not sexist as it does not show that he views women as less than men. He believes that the fetus's rights trump the womans rights on the basis that they are 'innocent' and 'alive' this is not a sexist view although it could be argued to be silly or illogical.

Your continuing efforts to paint him as a sexist when no evidence has presented itself that he is indeed a sexist would qualify as slander if they had actually done any damage, as it stands they are just false.

well you can start by putting emphasis on the UP TO 250.000.
and the way i understand this the brain is no bigger nor contain no larger number of neurons than an adult brain.
the adult brain is commonly described as having around 100 billion neurons, 250000 is nothing compared to that, it is around 1 brain cell in the child pr minute, for every 400000 an adult has, since the gestation time is around nine months or 394200 minutes, it is only in the latest stages that a baby brain comes close to the capacity of an adult, and thats asuming that all of those baby cells survive even.
if you read your own article you will also see that this is at peak time and as you pointed out yourself up to 70% will die before birth, both of which simply underscores the point.
yes a baby has the potential to become a human being, but untill the brain really starts firing, it is just a bunch of cells with potential.

this has nothing to do with dehumanizing babies, anymore than it has to do with dehumanizing the mother.

baby brain activity

this article describes the first "adult like" brain wave activity at 20 weeks, this however is almost identical to the rem sleep state of adults.
the brain will have short bursts of activity with longer periods of inactivity, just like an adult sleeping.
the researchers speculate that:

"Scientists still don’t understand what purpose the nerve cell activity serves so early in development. Perhaps it is a flexing of mental muscles to help keep the cells alive, says neuroscientist Srdjan Antic, who led the new study. Having a burst of activity now and again may signal other brain cells that “‘Hey I’m here, look at me, maintain a connection with me,’” Antic says. “During sleep neurons do exactly that.”


**edit** after reading your article i can see that its written by a psychologist not a neurologist, so it is probably written mainly to give mothers a basic idea, not to describe it in any techinal sense.

Do you mean act differently toward each other, than other factors in their environment like the uterine wall?

Did you notice the following statement in the discussion section of the study?



Does it sound like they are looking to use future research in this area to determine pervasive development disorder (Autism), prenatally?

It would be kind of ironic, if more conclusive results about prenatal social interaction come from further studies, possibly leading to fewer abortions and an eventual prenatal test for developmental disorders involving the social dimension of behavior.

I see nothing in there that is not under what you would expect from animals area. Socialization is not a human-exclusive trait, at least not in the extremely low level claimed by that paper.

First, I think they're jumping the gun wrt. what their own research is demonstrating - they were trying to demonstrate social interaction from the outset, and assumed that a difference in behavior was just that. Second, IIrc the *earliest* I have ever heard of autism being diagnosed was in a baby ~1 1/2 years old. While it's possible that it could be diagnosed earlier, I think it would have to be a pretty extreme case of autism. Keep in mind, too, that this study requires observing the fetuses for a significant length of time to see their behavior, and most women aren't going to go through a long ultrasound to check for autism unless it becomes really, really prevalent.

I agree, I suggested in an earlier post that similiar studies with other social animals pregnant with more than one offspring might provide similiar findings. Social interaction at this low level, though does provide evidence of behavior above and beyond the autonomic responses of a heart rate or brain activity.

We are social animals of the human species variety. There is no question that a fetus is human or an unborn dog is a dog. Some question whether or not a fetus is a person, but that is a psychological or legal construct with different definitions. The most common thing I think that comes to mind is a unique personality.

Cats and Dogs don't have human language but is obvious they have personality traits simliar to humans; along with many other animals. We judge this from their behavior and limited communication abilities.

Not to anthropomorphize, but some animals are calm, nervous, angry, or happy; some show more emotion than humans. Does a fetus have a personality? Maybe also, in some limited way. When we think of person I think we consider our unique language abilities, but it really does go much farther than that.

There is a scale of functionality that every being falls under; the evidence of the low level of social interaction in this study suggests that the level of functionality for a fetus is above and beyond the autonomic functions of heart rate and brain activity. How meaningful that is on a personal level is probably a subjective judgement. But, that subjective judgement could make a difference in a persons choice to have an abortion. I doubt it would be significant enough, though, to measure in a scientific way.

I agree at most it would be a very limited prenatal test. At this point there is absolutely no evidence that social behavior is compromised in the womb, or as you suggest is it even really social behavior as the research suggests.?

At the least, though, there is a level of functionality demonstrated here in a fourteen week infant that had not been demonstrated before. And, this is just the beginning of the research so there is much more to be learned about this phenomenon.

I also remember reading among the other many speculated causes of Autism, that ultrasound might be one of them; another inherent irony in the study.

Personally, I still don't believe there will every be a widely, trusted method of prenatally testing for Autism. Certainly not one that should merit concerns of Eugenics.

Actually, I would argue that you cannot say that the child in the womb is not a person based on activity. They are in a liquid environment where you can't really talk (and their exposure to language is limited with no frame of reference as to what people are saying). Further they are limited in explorations to inside the womb.

The reason the notice of interaction with twins is important is that it proves that they will interact with their twin. The fact that a child in the womb may not have a twin does not mean it wouldn't be capable of interacting if it actually did have a twin.

People that are proabortion try to come up with unreasonable expectations to try to dehumanize the child. They are saying that because the child doesn't interact (nevermind the fact there isn't anything to interact with), it is not a person. Well quite frankly how can a child be expected to interact with something when that something is not present to be interacted with?

Twins have been shown to interact with each other, the complexity is irrelevant due to the fact their environment makes interaction on a more complex level extremely difficult. Infants can't be expected to come up with a language on the fly, while still inside the womb because there is very little for a frame of reference.

Real Life Example:

A person blind from birth would have no idea what the color red looks like, he/she would have absolutely no frame of reference or experience to draw on. Red means hot, okay they know what hot is but they can't see the color. It doesn't make them any less of a person.

How the example is relevant:

A child in the womb is like a blind individual in the fact they don't have the experience to conduct more complex behavior. They are in a dim to pitch black environment (i.e. can't see because of lack of light), the temperature is relatively constant, they are in a kind of membrain that restricts their ability to move around and explore, further if they move around too much they run the risk of hurting themselves due to the umbilical cord.

Pro-abortion people are trying to set the bar at a level basically is equivalent to having a person blind from birth describe colors and understand what red, blue, green, yellow, etc. are. They are expecting the child in the womb to do things that it really wouldn't be able to because the environment does not have anything else to react with. The twin study shows they are able to interact, but that interaction is restricted due to the environment.

Additionally the environment the child is in simulates zero gravity relatively well as well, which is part of the reason why they aren't instantly up and crawling after birth.

well the complexity does matter, as stated by others i think animal twins will show similar results.
so it does not neccesarily make them human, for me i must say i think the article mentioning the first real "adult like" thought patterns is on to the start of consciousness, or at least the first possible apearance of a consciousness and ethically after that point i would start to have my own doubts.

Uhhhhhhhhhh....

Mandatory?

How would that make for a better outcome than the opposite? Arent those issues both equal in the way that they include FORCE?

How about everyone does whatever they want with their babies or soon to be babies instead.

There is such a thing as adoption too.
Im not against abortion either, I just wouldnt do it myself but thats a different story and has nothing to do with my opinions.I just am very set in my thoughts of what I want to do with my body and not and baby birth seems more natural to me, regardless of how demanding it is on the human body.
It is however, up to the pregnant woman what she wants to do and not.Should be atleast.

I have 2 kids.That would be 3 if you were to include the little one I have away for adoption.

However, had anyone forced me to an abortion, I would have hit them over the head.
She is someone's miracle today after all.

Now, for some people, abortion is a better option.Not everyone can go through 9 months with a baby either, or keep and raise that child.We're all individuals and different and should be treated that way too.

Last edited by FunnyFairytale on 20 Mar 2011, 3:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Due to the environment in question, the argument of complexity in interaction is disingenious at best.

Usually each twin is in their own membrane, separated from their twin. The amount of interaction they can have is limited. They can't engage in speech because there is no air in their liquid environment for their lungs to use. They can't make signals that the other one can see because of the extremely poor lighting conditions.

Say you were in a plastic ball with no way to exit it and I told you to type something out on a keyboard that is outside the ball. Oh and it had to make sense. You wouldn't be able to do it. Hell you would even have an advantage over the child in the womb because at least you would have light to see what you were doing.



Actually they are human, due to genetics.

Human, yes. Human persons????? That is on open question.

ruveyn

yeah sorry for the simplification.
i meant a full consciousness.

i would judge any consciousness with similar complexity to humans with the same rights as humans, be it a machine, alien or whatnot.
but untill any kind of clear cut definition of consciousness we are not gonna get any further(or at least how it happens in humans)

@ ruevyn
I'm going to pose a similar question to you as I posed to Oodain.

Oh and telling someone else to type on the computer keyboard is not allowed and will be ignored.

Is this a reasonable test? Because that is what you are essentially saying children in the womb would have to do, and they are in a pitch black environment where you couldn't see your hand in front of your face.