Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, in many ways, DNA is not as clear as one would want. "Species" is a pragmatic category. We can't say how many allele alterations ought to be considered a different species, only say taht at a certain point, it is more useful for categorization to call something a different species.

Then you just admitted that the brain is operating far earlier than you have stated. Movement has been recorded without any stimulus that would have resulted in a reflexive action far earlier than you claim.

@ Xenu & imbatshitcrazy

Isn't the first step towards trying to justify mass murder is to dehumanize the individuals that you intend to kill...

@ Vigilans

Sorry, but I'm not Buddhist, I believe every life is unique and precious. I also think many Buddhists would be rather offended that you tried to twist their philosophy in an attempt to justify abortion.



Arm, leg, head, etc. movement is actually controlled by the motor strip in the frontal lobe. Movement arm, hand, leg, etc. movement can be seen in about 48 days from conception, so therefore we have movement that is not controlled by the brain stem, it is controlled by the frontal lobe (which is also where cognition supposedly takes place).

There are many Buddhist sects, and I'm not twisting anything, those are words I read from them. Nice try though. Buddhism is a much better religion than what you bible thumpers adhere to

In your opinion, quite frankly I could care less. The issue here is when is someone alive, cause quite frankly there is no way to test whether or not someone is self aware because a test would be too subjective.

You have nothing to back up your claims but some obscure 1960s EEG readouts that both people with actual academic backgrounds dispute. You just contradicted your entire posture by saying there is no way to test self awareness, so what exactly are you trying to prove? How cool you are by repeating yourself and ignoring everybody's input?
Buddhism doesn't produce this kind of conflict, thus I will maintain it is superior, though like all religions is inferior to just living life without pretenses

Vigilans:

"The zygote-as-Human implies life from conception. So would that mean a Morning After Pill would count as murder?"

I am not God, but so far as reason takes a mere human, yes. On the other hand, the Sin Of Onan - spilling the seed so as NOT to raise up an heir for your brotherr and his widow, is not murder, just a very mean action.

And Vigilans and AG [Oy, I almost typed Onan!], I was responding to "We tried defining personhood earlier but the "Pro-Life" side conveniently dodged the issue". Vigilans, I appreciate that you were not pointing at me as dodging. Either of you might accuse me of obfuscation [whether willful or not God knows] but not ducking or dodging. I just felt, hey, if they are dodging I will step up to the plate and swing.

And so I took a swing. My intention was not to produce a statement that you would be forced to agree with, or that AG could not pick at - I know his style - or that I could not myself tear to pieces if I got into my argue both sides mode. But there is a draft definition, and knowing me both sides will have problems with it, and if the committee [you know the famous defiition of a giraffe?] ever gets through with it it will be unrecognizable.

And, AG, we both knoe if such a definition got institutionalized my grandfathers' colleagues would fix it with all the assumptions and loopholes and appeal procedures and appeal boards money could possdibly want to buy.

You left out the MIT paper I posted and the nice little video in a website of a hand moving around in the womb.

All your side has is an article written by a pro-abortion crackpot whom claims she is an expert and yet has no medical or science background whatsoever. Further, she is against statutory rape cases being reported.

Then you must be anti-war and anti-death penalty, right? How about the man who murdered George Tiller a few years ago? Surely there's no justification for what he did. Oh, and I'm sure you must be a vegan.

To quote Bill Hicks, "Let's see how committed you are to this premise."

I'm not interested in this discussion enough to read through every page and analyze all of your posts, but since Orwell & LKL have maintained their stance despite whatever sources you have cited I'll maintain my stance. And a hand moving around in the womb means what? That the nerves have slightly developed? How many weeks? Not to mention that it was pointed out the results of said EEG test were not repeated...

What do you mean by statutory rape cases? I don't even know who that woman is, so arguing with me about her is kind of pointless, isn't it? I haven't cited her at all, whoever she is

I am not anti-war because sometimes you do have to fight, there are evil individuals in the world and words don't always work. Look at the situation in Libya for example, you have a dictator whom isn't afraid to commit mass murder of his own people to stay in power.

I'm not anti-death penalty because quite frankly someone on death row has actually murdered another individual or individuals essentially depriving those people of their lives. There are consequences for murder, and the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment in that case.

I am against abortion, because the child has not committed any crimes.

Save the crime of being inconvenient.

And powerless.

And I don't disagree that this is a significant milestone in fetal development. But I don't think that this has the same deterministic value as fetal viability. A brain might be the key factor of what makes us human, but a brain alone cannot survive without a viable organism to support it.



Sorry, but I am going to pull the, "I'm-a-doctor-I-know-what-I'm-talking-about" card here. Reflex is not voluntary movement in the same sense as movement that is mediated by the cerebral cortex. I "decide" to make my fingers move to hit particular keys on my keyboard. I do not "decide" to pull my hand away from a hot pan on the stove. A reflex arc involves sensory neurons firing to ganglia in the spinal cord where motor neurons will fire to initiate a response. Even in an adult there is no conscious action, because the action is mediated before any sensory signal reaches the brain. In an adult the sensory neurons will continue firing through the spinal column to the appropriate receptors, but by that point the reflex action has already occurred.



Precisely my point. Without neural pathways that reinforce the lesson that "this circumstance is painful" there is nothing to cause the anxiety, and to make that contribution to the sensation of pain as we understand it.



But you neglect the fact that I have a different argument. I rely on viability--and the five year old is unequivocally viable because the five year old has been independently alive for those five years.

I want to clarify something--are you content with abortion conducted prior to neural activity?

If that's your goalpost, then I respect your argument, even if I disagree with it. If, however, you maintain that abortion is still wrong even before neural activity, then we are in a different argument.



I find your rhetoric ill-chosen. A person's fundamental right to life, liberty and security of the person (in the Canadian legal conception--the American conception is, of course, different) is not mere convenience. It is one of the most fundamental rights that exists in law.

I am content to disagree with you over whose right to life, liberty and security of the person is more important, but I am not content to see you attempt to justify your argument by downgrading the interests at stake on only one side.



Assuming that we are dealing with delivery after 20 weeks gestational age, then no, it is not okay to kill it, because the fetus is viable.



No, a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy up until the point that the fetus would be viable if delivered prematurely

I've answered both your questions. Have the courage of your convictions to answer mine.

Well considering Orwell and LKL's source is a woman that works for abortion clinics and has no medical knowledge whatsoever, a source from 1964 trumps their source.



She is the woman that wrote the article that LKL is sourcing, so it is relevant because pointing out her background and the fact she is not a doctor nor is she a scientist shows that the source is not a valid source.



And I'm going to pull that in my opinion you are a Quack card. The website I posted with the video in the corner of the hand movements showed that the movement was not from any external stimuli. Therefore it shows that there is activity from the frontal lobe. Furthermore the ability to process visual stimuli is also found in the brain not the brain stem.

Furthermore, there was a study that was all the way back in 1728 that proves what I said about vision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cheselden

The case in question is actually mentioned in one of my College Textbooks.

Furthermore, define when a child is viable because that can be all over the map.

They both pointed out that this 1964 test was never repeated, what have you to say about this?


Well, I invite LKL to find a better source then, which shouldn't be hard.

The woman in question is probably citing the opinions of professionals, she is little more then a spokesperson, much like Bachmann for the Tea Party

So you are not so committed to your premise that killing is wrong. No surprise here.

We know innocent people (including children) will be killed because of war. We know that some innocent people will fry in the electric chair. Why is it acceptable to justify the killing of innocent people (again, no doubt as to whether these are technically people or not) in the name of war and justice? I thought you said it was never acceptable to justify the killing of innocent people, under any circumstances. Or maybe it's just ok if it matches up with your own personal ideology.

Change in ethics rules, and the fact the kind of procedure needed to perform another duplication of this experiment would be quite frankly not only unethical but illegal quite literally.

LKL and Orwell both know this fact (or I would hope they know this), so they are counting on the fact that many people here would not know enough to point the inconveient truth out.

Sorry, LKL and Orwell but I had to have the CITI Certification for my Senior Project. As you know (or I would hope you know), the law is very strict when it comes to any scientific research involving anyone under the age of 18. You are unable to perform any experiment that would jeopardize the physical safety and/or psychological health of a minor. Removing children from the womb to do an EEG would likely be fatal, hence that kind of a test is quite literally illegal, Obama may recind this but under current law unless something has changed recently it is illegal.

Any EEG readings that they get now has to be done on the mother's belly which would kind of mess up the readings.



Doubtful, for the same reason why it would be so hard to duplicate the 1964 experiment, further depending on who conducts the experiment the results may not even be valid (say a "doctor" whom performs abortions in planned parenthood conducts the experiment.



No, she claims she is a medical expert on the subject of abortion, when she just happens to be an abortion lobbyist with no medical background whatsoever.