Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?

Post Reply New Topic

Everyone opposite you is asking you to provide a definition of Human and to provide evidence to support your platform, and thus far you seem to be refusing to do so. So what exactly are you trying to do? Talk at us? This is a forum. If I wanted to read about the "Pro-Life" standpoint I would go read some page on the web. We are interacting, and if you're going to make claims, you have an obligation to those on your side and those against you to back them up.
It really doesn't give me any pleasure getting into mud slinging with you

Asking me to define what a human being is and then try to set me up so you can claim I don't know what a human being is when I sourced something. Excuse me, I've seen this tactic before. Though you may be right about you not being the individual that attempted to pull that stunt.

As for humans unless you are from outer space, you are a human, I am a human. Women do not give birth to cows, goats, dogs or cats from their womb. We are dealing with a human from the moment of conception, we are dealing with a human life the moment we have brain activity and a heartbeat (which starts before brain activity). Brain activity can be detected at day 40 after conception. From the moment the neurons first start firing, we are dealing with a human life, it doesn't matter how well they can process things at that moment, their processing ability improves rapidly.

My sister was a premie, and she turned out to be perfectly normal after a few rough spots in the first few weeks. You can't tell me they don't feel pain. Years earlier doctors had to do a C-Section to get me out because I was a frank breach and somehow managed to get my head stuck in my mom's ribs my head size was also in the 98 percentile (translation abnormally large), I was overall an abnormally large baby.

Part of the reason human babies don't have a full brain size is because they have to be able to fit through the birth canal.

Inuyasha, the claim that zefs have brain waves before the 3rd trimester has been thoroughly debunked. Your continued repeating of the claim is along the lines of a YEC claiming that all of the other universes out there are just 'spiral nebulae' because they're still looking only at data from primitive telescopes.

There are two uses of the word 'human,' as an adjective and as a noun. No one debates that the adjective 'human' applies to a human woman's zef; of course it is human, as is the hair that we cut regularly, the tumor that we extract, or the heart that we transplant (the latter even has a heartbeat). The question is not whether the zef is human, but whether (unlike the other examples I just cited), it is also a human being. To make that determination, we have to decide what the qualities of human beings are.

I personally look at what differentiates us from all of the other animals, and what allows us to say that we deserve rights that they do not: most people would say that it's our intelligence and mental complexity. The zef has no capacity for intelligence or mental complexity before the 3rd trimester. Therefore, I personally beleive that it doesn't start becomming a human being until the 3rd trimester at the earliest. Other people have different views of what makes a human.

If you want to argue that a new human being exists at conception, then you're going to have to define 'human being' in a way that includes zygotes and disincludes cows, tumors, hair, and transplanted hearts.

I have only asked you this definition in this thread, it had to have been someone else.



So the eventual Human Martians won't be Human to you... Just kidding, I get what your saying



Ever notice how similar all fetus' look between species?

[img][800:720]http://maria911.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/embryos1.jpg[/img]

Essentially it is in template form at this point. Given the right push it could actually turn into anything, with the right tools. At this point it is an amalgamation of genetic material



What you're dealing with is a zygote which is almost indistinguishable from that of other species



What exactly does this brain activity represent? It certainly isn't consciousness. What makes us Human is our consciousness which is partly a by product of an 'overgrown' cerebrum. Additionally by stating that heart beat exists before brain activity we here establish that heart beat is not a defining factor



I'm really glad that everything turned out well for her. AG might have stated he doesn't consider newborns Human (or maybe I am misunderstanding him) but I do. At the third trimester it is almost completely developed. If you think I would support an abortion at this stage you would be mistaken. If it is capable of living independently and developing then it is a person and not part of the mother


I should add that your heart has more neural tissue then a Fetus at 40 days. Is your heart an independent organism? Does it think?



Our brains clearly evolved much faster then women's vaginas. I would say vaginas are pretty perfect the way they are, so I don't blame them for not wanting to change

It's not the vaginas with a problem, but the hip bones and the upright posture.

That's true. Vaginas are never a problem, except maybe once a month

I actually didn't. To restate what I had stated earlier: " I am more sympathetic to the idea that newborns are not actually persons than the idea that fetuses are."

All this means is that I consider newborns not being persons is plausible compared to the idea that 1st trimester fetuses are persons. This is not unreasonable of a position, and I have stated in the past that I think that a third trimester line is conservative but something I am willing to accept. My position is primarily focuses on when personhood isn't than when it begins. I don't know whether third trimester fetuses can be considered persons, but 1st and 2nd are obviously not.

Sorry, I wasn't sure and I tried to look back a few pages but my browser was being a real B**** and not loading, so no offense intended AG. Thus I left it open for you to clarify

Sorry, I know it's kind of off on a tangent, but I can't help it. When I see something like this, my Aspie senses start tingling. I believe, instead of the word "universes", you probably meant "galaxies"? The distinction is pretty large-- galaxies are clusters of stars and planetary systems, and the universe is a vast system of galaxies. There are many, many galaxies outside of our own about which we know, mostly by looking through telescopes as you said. There quite possibly could be multiple universes outside of our own, as well, but there's no hard scientific proof of that yet.

But anyway... yeah. I agree with the rest of what you had to say, about the difference between "noun-human" and "adjective-human".

Wouldn't surprise me.



No, they would be human unless some radical genetic mutation occurred.



Simply cause they look similar doesn't mean they are the same. You realize a Panda Bear looks like a bear but technically there is an argument that it should not be considered a bear for a number of reasons.



Yes and no, short of a complete genetic rewrite you can't switch the species, while it is easier in theory for genetic alterations in the early stages of development last I heard we weren't there yet.



You of all people should know that appearances can be deceiving. It may look like another species briefly, but that's actually just how we develop and a human developing from conception will be a human they won't turn into a Beagle.



Scientists theorize that it is our 'overgrown' cerebrum, that doesn't mean it is from our cerebrum. My point here is that once we start detecting brain wave activity, we can argue the child is alive because as you know our central processing unit so to speak is our brain, the fact we detect brain wave activity means basically that the cpu has been turned on, and unlike a CPU in a Computer this CPU continues to develop at a rapid pace. So therefore, we can say the child is alive.



Actually that opinion is fairly common among some in the pro-Abortion lobby.



No, but your heart doesn't have brain wave activity either.







Well here is the thing that kind of destroys that argument that a baby isn't a person.

1. A Baby has extremely poor eyesight at first because they have never had anything for their eyes to focus on. Their vision is 20:200 if I remember correctly.

2. A Baby has escentially been in a low gravity environment up til that point so they're going to have problems maneuvering in a 1 g environment also have to learn to coordinate motor control to react to the sudden change in environment.

Additionally, there have been instances of twins reacting to each other in the womb, even displaying defense behavior when one of the twins suddenly kicks.

The fact of the matter is that once the brain becomes active we can't say for certain if the child is a person right then



Day 40: Brain waves can be detected and recorded.
http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overvi ... evelopment

Despite its small size, the unborn child by the beginning of the second month looks distinctly ʺhumanʺ (although — as this article maintains — it is human from conception). At this point it is highly likely that the mother does not even know she is pregnant. Brain waves can be detected in the unborn at about forty to forty‐three days after conception. During the second month, the eyes, ears, nose, toes, and fingers make their appearance; the skeleton develops; the heart beats; and the blood — with its own type — flows. The unborn at this time has reflexes and her lips become sensitive to touch. By the eighth week her own unique fingerprints start to form, along with the lines in her hands.
http://www.equip.org/PDF/DA020-3.pdf

Page 3 of 11

The electrophysiologic rhythm of the brain de¬
velops early. Detailed EEG tracings have been
taken directly from the headend of 16 mm ( crownrump)
human embryos at 40-odd days gestation, recovered from termination of pregnancies (Ja¬
pan)8 which revealed irregular slow waves, 0.2-2.0
per second at 10-90^ with superimposed fine
waves of 30-40 per second at 1-5/xv. Recordings from embryos of 45 to 120 days gestation through surface and depth electrodes have shown responses
to sedative and stimulant drugs, normal sleep spin¬
dles, and the effect of lack of oxygen by paroxys¬
mal high voltage slow waves and ultimate electrical
silence.7 The intra-uterine fetal brain responds to
biochemical changes associated with oxygen de¬
privation by abnormal EEG activity similar to that
produced in the adult brain.7 Thus at an early
prenatal stage of life, the EEG reflects a distinctly
individual pattern that soon becomes truly person¬
alized. This is not so the ECG in producing its
various types of records at all ages, many specimens
of each type being identical and lacking any indi¬
vidual quality
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/190/2/ ... l.pdf+html

They could detect these readings back in the 1960s, so this isn't some recent development either.

Oh and if you try to say my sources are crackpots, the source above is the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A few things:

X will eventually develop into Y is not equivalent to X=Y. Thus, the fact that a fetus may eventually develop into a child, does not make the fetus a child, any more than a chunk of coal is the same as a diamond.

Why is heartbeat relevant at all? That just seems like essentialist garbage. I've already pointed out to you that at least one person (Dick Cheney) functions as a human and a legal person without a heartbeat. The purpose of the heart is to distribute oxygenated blood throughout the body; it would be no less arbitrary to take breathing as the marker of what makes a living human, and breathing does not occur until shortly after birth.

LKL explained in depth why your comments about "brain waves" at 40 days are wrong. Simply repeating your prior claim and pasting a link does not add anything, as you haven't addressed any of her points.

Actually you and LKL are wrong, I just debunked both of you with the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The electrophysiologic rhythm of the brain de¬
velops early. Detailed EEG tracings have been
taken directly from the headend of 16 mm ( crownrump)
human embryos at 40-odd days gestation, recovered from termination of pregnancies (Ja¬
pan)8 which revealed irregular slow waves, 0.2-2.0
per second at 10-90^ with superimposed fine
waves of 30-40 per second at 1-5/xv. Recordings from embryos of 45 to 120 days gestation through surface and depth electrodes have shown responses
to sedative and stimulant drugs, normal sleep spin¬
dles, and the effect of lack of oxygen by paroxys¬
mal high voltage slow waves and ultimate electrical
silence.7 The intra-uterine fetal brain responds to
biochemical changes associated with oxygen de¬
privation by abnormal EEG activity similar to that
produced in the adult brain.7 Thus at an early
prenatal stage of life, the EEG reflects a distinctly
individual pattern that soon becomes truly person¬
alized. This is not so the ECG in producing its
various types of records at all ages, many specimens
of each type being identical and lacking any indi¬
vidual quality.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/190/2/ ... l.pdf+html

So actually Orwell and LKL, yes they can detect brainwaves 40 days after conception, in fact they could detect the brainwaves in 1964, over 40 years ago! I think the Journal of the American Medical Association is a higher quality source than the two of you when it comes to medical matters.

Inuyasha is correct in relation to brainwave activity. It is far more substantial than has been presented by some of the posters here. The activity is not some random electricity flowing around the fetal brain that is attempting to wire itself. Studies on animals (due to ethical constrains no similar studies have taken place on human children) have shown a link between motor function and brain activity during early gestation.

The view being put forward here is a bit of a misnomer. The development of the child within the womb is not something that happens in the same way as the assembly of a car. The basic systems are in place very early on during development and they continue to develop within the newborn.

LKL and I both have reasonably good academic backgrounds in biology. Granted, I'm not at all a human physiology guy, but neither of us are morons. The more likely explanation is that you are failing to understand your sources, rather than that LKL and I are the ones who are mistaken. LKL already rejected your interpretation of those readings as meaningful "brainwaves."


Um... right, and 40-year-old data is often thought to be pretty suspect. LKL already explained why those readings are not actually indicative of any meaningful level of neural development.


The paper you quoted is from over 40 years ago, and LKL has given you a long explanation disputing its validity on the basis of later (more recent) results. Please address those comments. Simply repeating your claim and posting a link is not the same as rebutting LKL's counter-argument.

How would you know? You don't know any more biology than he does.

Considering he has put forward some pretty good stuff. I will take that as a compliment. Also, what in this last comment of yours says anything on the subject matter I put forward?