Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?

Post Reply New Topic

But didn't you say earlier that they can't feel pain, furthermore the sensory nerves develop after the brain and spinal cord...

Also reflexes do not control voluntary movement which is seen a lot earlier than you have claimed.

Further don't try to lecture me, right now as far as I'm concerned if you were a doctor, I would be sueing to have your medical license pulled and I'd probably succeed at getting it pulled.



Sounds like you mother had a sense of ethics and actually valued life.



So then you just admitted you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and neither does LKL. We do know cognition is centered in the brain, where in the brain isn't known for sure. However if we use cognition as a basis on whether or not someone is a person, one could argue you are not a person. That is the danger when you start setting arbitrary guidelines with no basis in fact.

dude, a reflex twitch has nothing to do with pain. Pain does not exist without a brain to perceive it. Next time you pull your hand off of a hot stove, note how your arm actually moves *before* you feel any pain.

91 was kind enough to send me his sources, and Orwell and I were correct: the agent used was a general neural suppressant, not a cognitive suppressant.
Here is 91's source:
Toshihiko Suzue, (1996) Movements of mouse fetuses in early stages of neural development studied in vitro, Neuroscience Letters
Volume 218, Issue 2, 1 November 1996, Pages 131-134
and the abstract for that source:
The transplacental perfusion method enables the in vitro maintenance and close observation of live mouse fetuses under conditions free of maternal influences. In the present study, this method was used to detect spontaneous movements of mouse fetuses in early developmental stages. When mouse fetuses at embryonic day (E) 12.5 were isolated together with the uterus and were maintained in vitro, they displayed periodic body movements that occurred every few minutes. Fetal movements were abolished after the application of drugs that depress neural activities. The present results obtained in in vitro mouse fetuses suggest that fetal movements and neural activities may be present during the early stages of motor system development and may play a role in the normal maturation of the motor systems.
{bolding mine}

>Pro Choice not Pro Abortion
>They aren't unwanted babies, they are fetuses.
Stupid Christians...

You're being disingenious again, a neural supressent basically can act as a cognitive depressent in fact they are often one and the same.

That was our point, Inuyasha. Think about it a little.

You are still being disingenious, because moving limbs around without any tactile input does not qualify as a reflex, so you're trying to say that something is simply reflexes when it is not reflexes.

You're right, there's probably some brain stem activity in there as well, and simple ennervate muscle contractions as the body developes.

Isn't motor control located in the frontal lobe specifically the motor strip.

conscious motor control, yes.

Knowing where you want to go topic

Sorry to interrupt here.( A conscious choice. )

Exactly, LKL. (This is how people with mild CP like my son learn to use their limbs better.)

And the reflex response is a primitive, brain stem activity, very useful, but there is no cognition involved.

Much like breathing, and maintaining a heartbeat, if I'm not mistaken.



I was born just before you. My mother was a single and, at that time, it was a big deal. I know she was upset at being pregnant, and the option of abortion was presented to her. Like your mother, she chose to keep the pregnancy.

I, however, take a different position. I would not have wanted my mother to not have had the option of terminating the pregnancy. This gave her a chance to think about what she really wanted, and what she was willing to sacrifice. If she had decided the other way, I wouldn't even know that I had existed and it would not have had any real impact on me as a grown, thinking person.

Being forced to keep a pregnancy that she doesn't want, a woman may end up resenting the child, which could be very damaging to both mother and child.

And again, my point is that two people can be presented with the same moral dilemma, and have two very different interpretations. You don't have to do what the other person decides to do, and no one should force you to do what they decide to do either. Hence, give women a choice, and let each of them decide what they want to do.

PS - I live in Canada

agreed

And THAT race and those who reach of THAT age and those with THAT level of intelligence or THOSE physical problems or THOSE behavioral issues - THEY are not people, you stupid Christians, they are inconvenient lumps of protoplasm.

Only I am a person, but those who are convenient for me for now may live - till I choose.

Everybody knows Christians are delusional apes.

Perhaps the Christians would feel less butthurt about this if they'd listen to the Buddhist view that implies the same soul is going to inevitably born, you just delay it. Since souls are the only thing that this discussion is really about. We tried defining personhood earlier but the "Pro-Life" side conveniently dodged the issue

I have never dodged the issue of personhood.

In material terms ignoring nasty and disputed theologic questions:

human DNA in a living being [as yet undefined, though I would if I had to] implies person. Unless and until we understand cetaceans and other proposed candidates on earth, or unmistakably encounter "Space Aliens", absence of human DNA implies not a person.

I realize serious eugenics freaks could hijack that, but assuming you are not and I am not, may we leave it there?

Assemble a human zygote you got a person. Once a person you cannot lose person status - though a government or individual may deny it - till death. And I mean not revived or revivable death.

That is not dodged, is it?

I wasn't referring to you in particular. But DNA alone is not enough. Our DNA can't even accurately be called 'Human' but rather, the nucleotides are coded in such a manner that a Human is the end result. The consciousness that eventually arises from various processes in our brain and on a quantum level is what makes one Human. Human infants and Chimpanzee infants act very similarly. Though at this stage they are definitely alive, but what makes one Human has still not even developed. The difference being a newborn is capable of surviving outside of the Mother's body, while a fetus in the early stage is still just a template, essentially, of genetic material. In the early stage it is almost indistinguishable from the fetal stage of other species. One could say it isn't Human yet with some accuracy
The zygote-as-Human implies life from conception. So would that mean a Morning After Pill would count as murder?