NationStates Jolt Archive

Please (collectively) dump the "parasite" diversion and get back to the topic.

Fail. I never said brain = heart. The fetus does have both form and function of a beating four-chambered heart, just as humans do. The heart starts beating on its own at 6-7 weeks. Once it enters the fetal stage, it also has a brain, and most of its other organs - in the same shape and form as grown humans do, but much smaller of course.

Not just much smaller. The functional capability is also quite different.

However, if 10-12% of all pregnancies have to be aborted for the health of the mother, I think we should ban the practice of getting pregnant altogether. It's clearly far too hazardous.

Medical reasons != health of the mother. There are fetal defects that are also legally permissible reasons for late term abortions.

That said, yes, pregnancy is dangerous. Always has been. Hence the reason that a woman who goes through it needs to have chosen to do so.


yes thats true, but the both of them could of took preventative measures to ensure they wouldn't have a baby.

Maybe both of them did.

i think a man has more obligation to ensure this but still it takes two to tango.

Why does the man have more obligation in this?

i feel that if both parties agree that an abortion should be made then fine but when one agrees and the other doesn't thats when it becomes unfair.

No, that isn't when it becomes unfair. It became unfair at the beginning of sexual reproduction. Only women get pregnant. That's unfair. And it leads to all sorts of other things - including the fact that only a woman can decide whether or not to have an abortion.

Um. No. You haven't. I'm still waiting for that publication that asserts fetuses are parasites. The one we both know doesn't exist.

It's the same argument. Calling a human fetus a parasite is both incorrect, and offensive. Where's the contradiction?

"IF YOU think comparing a fetus to a parasite is unkind, think again. "

Actual first line of article about chemical control systems, "New Scientist", November 03, 2007.

All I have to say is dont kill the babies.
no problem.

abortion doesnt kill any babies.

no problem.

abortion doesnt kill any babies.

I was just going to say the same thing myself. :wink:

I was just going to say the same thing myself. :wink:
i have the urge to qualify it but it is true for all elective abortions anyway. im not sure what you would say about a 9th month abortion done on a dying fetus in an effort to save the life of the mother. she would certainly consider the dead body a baby.

No, you don't have a martyr complex at all.

No, I don't. And this is an ad hominem. Kindly drop it.

So women have the right to cut off penises that are inside them?

Man or woman if there is a penis inside you against your will I would encourage you to do just that.

Leaving aside the aptness or not of the parasite comparison, and the question of whether the word parasite has negative connotations, I don't understand why the alleged negative connotations should be so troubling.

In some parts of the world, women have a 1 in 7 chance of death during pregnancy or childbirth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7830900.stm) and all pregnancies carry the risk of death and have significant effects on the mothers health, well being and social and financial status, and on that of her existing children. Pregnancy is a hugely risky business that women should only ever undertake by choice.

I would guess that most people regard fetuses fairly neutrally, even when a pregnancy is unwanted, as long as they can take the actions necessary to secure the right outcome. Even in wanted pregnancies, the positive feelings are focused on the child that will be, not the fetus that is. Being forced to go through pregnancy with all its risks and give up the most fundamental human right on the dodgy premise that the few cells clinging to your inside have greater rights than any born human is bound to promote negative emotions towards fetuses and pregnancy.

So why is it unreasonable to feel or express negativity in regards to entities that kill people and ruin lives?

Depends on the basis for comparison, now doesn't it?

Suppose you want to abort a pregnancy because you don't want an organism living inside you, leaching nutrients from your body, and potentially causing you health problems.

As a general rule, people want to have intestinal worms removed for the same reason.

Well, white paper, white door sounds like a harmless silly comparison. However, race related colour comparisons may not be that harmless and can be quite ignorant. So depends on the basis and also the relative importance of the comparison.

Despite your position on abortion, u should admit that its an important issue so I'll maintain that within the context of abortion and given its importance, parasite comparison is ignorant.

That's the point though, isn't it?

Indeed. Its much much easier to do unethical things after dehumanization. Well proven method, used a lot by people from all sorts political, religious, whatever inclinations.

Exactly my point, and because they are so unequal, your comparison was flawed.


Dont you friggin get it? Equality is supported by facts. Comparisons are subjective. So saying my comparison was flawed was silly. Cause it is subjective.


My whole point is that they are NOT equal, and they are so dissimilar in that regard, that your parallels are unsound. You are the one that keeps predicating a conclusion relating to one based on "similarity" to the other, when the properties and dynamics of biology vs. economics are sufficiently distinct that the mere "similiarity" that your analogies rely on is erroneous.

What? Biology and economics are completely discrete areas? Most of our economics are based on our biological needs. Food, shelter. Even our psychological needs like companionship are based on our biology (eg: evolutionary psychology).

Heaven forbid we "dehumanize" non-persons.

Next thing you know we will be dehumanizing pork, beef, and cabbages.

:eek:

You already did "dehumanize" (in quotes!) them, Einstein.

Pork = pig

beef = cows

You know, it'd prolly be quite a graphic event to show kids where beef actually comes from, with all the blood and struggling, if there was no electric shock (eg: muslim style slaughtering).

The difference between animals and veggies were already explained.

"more sophisticated as you evolve" . . .oh dear god. I should definitely have stayed away from this thread lol oh well. A little crash course in evolution here and maybe debating as well.
Evolution(stripped to the very very basics)
Evolution is simply a process by which the members of a species most suited to an environment thrive and reproduce while those less suitable do less well in the same environment and thus reproduce less (not. This trends so that the most suitable members eventually become dominant in the species and the species has "evolved". The mechanism for the original change is genetic mutation (essentially I know I know but im trying to keep it simple!) if the mutation is beneficial to the animal it will do better than its competition and reproduce where is competition does not. Thus the trait is passed on and becomes proportionally higher and higher until the entire species (again I know. . . simple rember) has this trait. One example is as follows, you have ten small birds. Two have slightly short beaks, 6 have "normal" beaks, and two have extremely long beaks. On the island that these ten birds are living there is a sudden change in climate and the fruit they used to eat all but disappears. Luckily the birds can still feed but they have to feed on the nectar of a flower and that plant has a very long flower. Suddenly the long beak, which was a neutral trait, had become a positive trait and while the other birds can't feed the long beaked birds can. Within a few generations all you will have are Long beaked birds. If the climate were to "shift back" and the flower were to die off a few generations later you would find an entirely short beaked race. A side point here, its is theorized that everything on the planet evolved out of a single "original" organism. Thus everything has evolved for an equal period of time if you take the long view.

Debating(Stripped to basic)
-Make sure you define you view of what certain things mean. Pain, for example, is a very broad term unless you define it.

-Make sure you think over your argument before you answer people. Have a coherent argument and instead of trying to "score points" by answering peoples questions instantly, try thinking through how your answer will fit into your argument as a whole.

-You should have done some research into the field your arguing (or at least read up on it on wiki) if you don't have an extensive background into it already. Don't use technical terms if you don't really know what they mean.

-Read up on typical logical fallacies and don't . . .use. . .them. Most NSGers (especially the long timers you've managed to get into an argument with) know these fallacies and will call you on it.

The main idea still stands though. Is killing a human ethically equal to cutting a tree?

Edit: I was talking about physical pain which is not broadly defined and can be observed. Again, plants dont feel pain.


The presence of pain in an animal, or another human for that matter, cannot be known for sure, but it can be inferred through physical and behavioral reactions.[32] Specialists currently believe that all vertebrates can feel pain, and that certain invertebrates, like the octopus, might too.[33][34] As for other animals, plants, or other entities, their ability to feel physical pain is at present a question beyond scientific reach, since no mechanism is known by which they could have such a feeling. In particular, there are no known nociceptors in groups such as plants, fungi, and most insects,[35] except for instance in fruit flies.[36]

Veterinary medicine uses, for actual or potential animal pain, the same analgesics and anesthetics as used in humans.[37]

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

Leaving aside the aptness or not of the parasite comparison, and the question of whether the word parasite has negative connotations, I don't understand why the alleged negative connotations should be so troubling.

In some parts of the world, women have a 1 in 7 chance of death during pregnancy or childbirth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7830900.stm) and all pregnancies carry the risk of death and have significant effects on the mothers health, well being and social and financial status, and on that of her existing children. Pregnancy is a hugely risky business that women should only ever undertake by choice.

I would guess that most people regard fetuses fairly neutrally, even when a pregnancy is unwanted, as long as they can take the actions necessary to secure the right outcome. Even in wanted pregnancies, the positive feelings are focused on the child that will be, not the fetus that is. Being forced to go through pregnancy with all its risks and give up the most fundamental human right on the dodgy premise that the few cells clinging to your inside have greater rights than any born human is bound to promote negative emotions towards fetuses and pregnancy.

So why is it unreasonable to feel or express negativity in regards to entities that kill people and ruin lives?

"entities" LOL

Adult people kill adult people too "in some parts of the world".

"entities" LOL

Adult people kill adult people too "in some parts of the world".

yes they do - I have no idea why you chose to mention it here?

You know, it'd prolly be quite a graphic event to show kids where beef actually comes from, with all the blood and struggling, if there was no electric shock (eg: muslim style slaughtering).

You mean the one that severs both carotids, causing near instantaneous death?

Dont you friggin get it? Equality is supported by facts. Comparisons are subjective. So saying my comparison was flawed was silly. Cause it is subjective.

A comparison can still be consistent enough with the facts as to be a more cogent parallel. Or in your case, enough of a departure from the facts as to be less.


What? Biology and economics are completely discrete areas? Most of our economics are based on our biological needs. Food, shelter. Even our psychological needs like companionship are based on our biology (eg: evolutionary psychology).

As biology defines a parasite, and the physical relationship thereby described, it is distinct from economic transfer of money. A comparison can be so broad as to be distortive.

Heaven forbid we "dehumanize" non-persons.

Next thing you know we will be dehumanizing pork, beef, and cabbages.

You already did "dehumanize" (in quotes!) them, Einstein.

Pork = pig

beef = cows

You know, it'd prolly be quite a graphic event to show kids where beef actually comes from, with all the blood and struggling, if there was no electric shock (eg: muslim style slaughtering).

The difference between animals and veggies were already explained.

What exactly did you take the quotes to mean? Or the phrase "Heaven forbid"?

His whole point is that those things are already not human, and thus cannot be dehumanized, "Einstein".

The fact that pork refers to pig (a non-human) only proves Cat's point.

Heaven forbid we "dehumanize" non-persons.

Next thing you know we will be dehumanizing pork, beef, and cabbages.

:eek:

you already did "dehumanize" (in quotes!) them, einstein.

pork = people

beef = people

soylent green = people!

you already did "dehumanize" (in quotes!) them, einstein.

pork = people

beef = people

soylent green = people!

You accomplished that in a far better manner than I did.

Please don't do that.

Even if we accept a foetus as a living human being, we cannot as a society establish rules dictating that any person be forced to carry another person within them for nine months, and then painfully eject it.

Even if we accept a foetus as a living human being, we cannot as a society establish rules dictating that any person be forced to carry another person within them for nine months, and then painfully eject it.

Right, so we can ban abortion.

I'd probably feel better about making this crack if I wasn't painfully aware of how many people actually hold that position.

That really wasn't what I meant by that statement. I wasn't criticizing your completeness in posting. I meant all the "omgz its like a parasite and it's killing us" thing. It may be factually true (to a point), but there are better ways to put it. You know, you catch more flies with honey and all that.
Actually, you don't. Catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, that is, as the saying goes.

Seriously. Try putting out a dish of honey and a dish of balsamic, and see which one the flies prefer.

Fail. I never said brain = heart. The fetus does have both form and function of a beating four-chambered heart, just as humans do. The heart starts beating on its own at 6-7 weeks. Once it enters the fetal stage, it also has a brain, and most of its other organs - in the same shape and form as grown humans do, but much smaller of course.

Ergo, it has the form of a human - a very small human.


Wahoo, my area of expertise!

I am a neuroscientist, and I study (among other things) embryos!

Allow me to clear some things up for you.

An embryo/fetus does not have the "form" of the mature brain. There are entire areas of the brain that don't exist yet when an embryo passes into the fetal stage of development.

It takes a great deal of energy, a great many complex processes, and a pretty substantial amount of time to get a fetal brain to attain the form of the mature brain. That process has been the subject of lifetime's worth of research and some really freaking sweet science. I'd be happy to bore you to death with embryology papers and references if you like.

Right, so we can ban abortion.

I'd probably feel better about making this crack if I wasn't painfully aware of how many people actually hold that position.

It's scary that it took me to the second line to realize you were joking. :(

Wahoo, my area of expertise!

I am a neuroscientist, and I study (among other things) embryos!

Allow me to clear some things up for you.

An embryo/fetus does not have the "form" of the mature brain. There are entire areas of the brain that don't exist yet when an embryo passes into the fetal stage of development.

It takes a great deal of energy, a great many complex processes, and a pretty substantial amount of time to get a fetal brain to attain the form of the mature brain. That process has been the subject of lifetime's worth of research and some really freaking sweet science. I'd be happy to bore you to death with embryology papers and references if you like.
What, you mean it's not a tiny, perfectly formed and finished little homunculus with all the same parts as a born person, only smaller? Next you'll be claiming that our health is not a matter of properly balancing our humours. And then that having the function of a heart is not the same as having the form of a brain. Pfft. Stupid reality.

Actually, you don't. Catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, that is, as the saying goes.

Seriously. Try putting out a dish of honey and a dish of balsamic, and see which one the flies prefer.

Balsamic. Though they apparently prefer red wine vinaigrette more.

<.<

>.>

...we had a fly problem a while back, alright? sheesh.

There was an old lady on the radio the other day that said "birth starts at conception".....I'm unclear as to what she meant.

Also, she said that "babies are human" and that "fetus is a liberal PC term".

She might have a point.

The part where it's patently not true?

Are you HONESTLY going to pretend you've never seen, nor heard of, the use of the term "parasite" in a negative sense? That the one, and only meaning is "neutral" and "biological," and that all others are invalid, imagined, and exclusive to me, alone?
I've seen and heard the term "media" used in an extremely derogatory manner. In fact, I see and hear that all the time. We must thus conclude that using the term "media" to refer to anything is offensive and horrid.

Or, you know, not.

Look, just because YOU have a problem with parasites doesn't mean much. Parasites are freaking cool. The only marine biology class I didn't sleep through was the one on marine parasitology, and damn are those some cool organisms.

The human embryo/fetus IS a parasite. It's supposed to be. If it's not functioning like a parasite then it's going to die and fail and there won't be cute babies for you to coo over. I started life as a parasite, and so did you! There's no reason to be ashamed of how our bodies come to be. Instead, just thank your mom for being such a spectacular host for you, and for allowing her body to provide every single raw material and energy source and protective mechanism for your little parasite self. Thank your body for doing its job and being a very well behaved parasite.

And if you find your feelings hurt by being compared to "lower" organisms like other parasites, then take a course in parasitology! I promise you'll stop thinking of them in such simplistic and negative terms.

There was an old lady on the radio the other day that said "birth starts at conception".....I'm unclear as to what she meant.

I strongly recommend that anti-abortion folks NOT adopt this line of thinking, because telling women that they'll be giving birth for 9 months, starting from the moment of conception, is not a good selling point.

Though it would work beautifully for abstinence-only education. Gals, the moment he splooges you will BEGIN CHILDBIRTH and it won't stop for NINE WHOLE MONTHS.

I strongly recommend that anti-abortion folks NOT adopt this line of thinking, because telling women that they'll be giving birth for 9 months, starting from the moment of conception, is not a good selling point.

Though it would work beautifully for abstinence-only education. Gals, the moment he splooges you will BEGIN CHILDBIRTH and it won't stop for NINE WHOLE MONTHS.
Yeah, but you can abort it as long as it's a fetus because that's just liberal PC crap. It won't be a human until it's a baby, which it won't be until it's born. So get it early while it's still a leftwinger!

Actually, you don't. Catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, that is, as the saying goes.

Seriously. Try putting out a dish of honey and a dish of balsamic, and see which one the flies prefer.
How much the phrase applies literally is irrelevant to the phrase's figurative sense, though. The point is that people will be even less inclined to support you if they percieve you as being rude to them. And for what it's worth, I don't think the use of the word "parasite" has as much reason to be regarded as offensive, but it might be worthwhile try to go for some understanding as to where they're coming from here. Technically, we were all fetuses at one point, so it could be regarded as referring to our own past selves as parasites. I suppose our parents wanted us, though it might be worth considering that for all we know, some members of this site might not have been wanted at the time of pregnancy. The point is, as long as we talk about what for most of human history as what our life came from as being parasitic, it's understandable that they'd perceive it as dehumanizing.

Anyway, I think it's better to focus on the reasons people think of abortion as being wrong in the first place, such as that it ends a "human life"; it ends a human "life" that while being "life" in a biology-centric sense (just like anything applying force that results in motion is "work" in the physics-centric sense) in the first or second trimester, likely doesn't have a consciousness to lose being ended, and in terms of the notion of "life" being the sum of one's epxeriences, their life would be ended before it began; equivalent, as such, to not being conceived in the first place.

Some people believe that it is still human life and should still be protected, even if at the expense of other human beings; I say we should challenge such an arbitrary notion of what human life is. Some people believe that a fetus might have a "soul" but until they can say, scientifically speaking, what exactly a "soul" is, we should not have to bend over backwards for such beliefs.

Yeah, but you can abort it as long as it's a fetus because that's just liberal PC crap. It won't be a human until it's a baby, which it won't be until it's born. So get it early while it's still a leftwinger!
:headbang:

Did it ever occur to you that there are options other than "life begins at conception" and "life begins at birth" such as "life begins at the beginning of consciousness in the fetus"?

:headbang:

Did it ever occur to you that there are options other than "life begins at conception" and "life begins at birth" such as "life begins at the beginning of consciousness in the fetus"?

And how exactly does one track the beginning of consciousness of a fetus in the womb?

What exactly did you take the quotes to mean? Or the phrase "Heaven forbid"?

His whole point is that those things are already not human, and thus cannot be dehumanized, "Einstein".

The fact that pork refers to pig (a non-human) only proves Cat's point.

you already did "dehumanize" (in quotes!) them, einstein.

pork = people

beef = people

soylent green = people!

You accomplished that in a far better manner than I did.

Please don't do that.

Dehumanize is not in its primary meaning in my post because its in quotes. Look up usage of quotes. :rolleyes:

A comparison can still be consistent enough with the facts as to be a more cogent parallel. Or in your case, enough of a departure from the facts as to be less.


What are you mumbling? What facts? Comparisons are subjective, dont repeat yourself.


As biology defines a parasite, and the physical relationship thereby described, it is distinct from economic transfer of money. A comparison can be so broad as to be distortive.

You are repeating yourself.

What are you mumbling? What facts? Comparisons are subjective, dont repeat yourself.



You are repeating yourself.
So, to you, it is subjective and not factual to compare rain to a lake and say that one is just as wet as the other?

And how exactly does one track the beginning of consciousness of a fetus in the womb?
Last neuroscientist I asked said it's not until the 3rd trimester.

In any case, drawing the line DURING the development of the fetus makes more sense to me than drawing the line at conception OR at birth.

Last neuroscientist I asked said it's not until the 3rd trimester.

In any case, drawing the line DURING the development of the fetus makes more sense to me than drawing the line at conception OR at birth.

But isn't this already done? Isn't elective abortion already illegal (at least in the US) somewhere mid-3rd trimester?

(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not as well read up on this subject as I should be)

Though still, I'm wondering how neuroscientists determine consciousness during fetal development. Maybe Bottle has the answer to this one?

So, to you, it is subjective and not factual to compare rain to a lake and say that one is just as wet as the other?

Some people who are on welfare are dependant too. Fetuses are also dependant. Those are different kinda dependencies, but still they areboth dependant. You may disagree with this comparison but saying that its wrong is quite silly cause as I said, it is subjective. To me, the comparison is valid on the basis of dependency.

You ever had a condom split on you? You'll know it's not redundant if this is the case.

Some people who are on welfare are dependant too. Fetuses are also dependant. Those are different kinda dependencies, but still they areboth dependant. You may disagree with this comparison but saying that its wrong is quite silly cause as I said, it is subjective. To me, the comparison is valid on the basis of dependency.

Except that you're equivocating financial independence and biological independence there. You're right, they ARE different. By definition.

But isn't this already done? Isn't elective abortion already illegal (at least in the US) somewhere mid-3rd trimester?

(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not as well read up on this subject as I should be)

Though still, I'm wondering how neuroscientists determine consciousness during fetal development. Maybe Bottle has the answer to this one?

Noones debating that tho. One side is omg what goes on inside my body is my right and the other side is like lord jebus says abortion is wrong.

I should discuss this without too many Americans present since their "battle lines" are so precisely drawn, usually, because of their culture.

Except that you're equivocating financial independence and biological independence there. You're right, they ARE different. By definition.

And?

You ever had a condom split on you? You'll know it's not redundant if this is the case.

Nah all you need to do is have your lady friend wash out her vagina with some coca cola and you're sorted.

I wish this wasn't the actual belief of some of the kids in Dundee

And?

So it's a false comparison. Not subjectively, but very clearly, BY DEFINITION.

There aren't really two kinds of "wet." There ARE several kinds of dependency.

Nah all you need to do is have your lady friend wash out her vagina with some coca cola and you're sorted.
Has to be diet, though. The aspartame kills sperm.
I wish this wasn't the actual belief of some of the kids in Dundee
Aye well that's Dundee for you.

And how exactly does one track the beginning of consciousness of a fetus in the womb?

I suppose you could track brain activity...

That puts an actual functioning brain at 27 weeks.

And I guess you could compare the brain activity to that of adult humans to determine when actual cognizance happens...

That puts sapience at... some time after birth, IIRC.

I suppose you could track brain activity...

That puts an actual functioning brain at 27 weeks.

And I guess you could compare the brain activity to that of adult humans to determine when actual cognizance happens...

That puts sapience at... some time after birth, IIRC.

Ah, that makes sense.

Some people who are on welfare are dependant too. Fetuses are also dependant. Those are different kinda dependencies, but still they areboth dependant. You may disagree with this comparison but saying that its wrong is quite silly cause as I said, it is subjective. To me, the comparison is valid on the basis of dependency.
Your alternate example of a comparison has already been debunked for being illogical by more than one other poster. I have no intention of either duplicating their work or entertaining your bogus argument. I will only point out that you reveal the invalidity of your own example by stating that the dependencies are different kinds of dependency. In MY example, wet is wet, the exact same kind of wet whether it comes from standing in the rain or jumping into a lake. Likewise, the function of a fetus and the function of a parasitic organism are the same kind of function, the same kind of dependency on a host organism. UNLIKE the dependency of the poor on a social support system, which is not the same in function, as you yourself acknowledge.

Your argument fails for the exact same reason it has been failing ever since you first floated it.

EDIT: I also notice that you did not answer my question. Compare the wetness of rain to the wetness of a lake -- is such a comparison subjective or factual?

So it's a false comparison. Not subjectively, but very clearly, BY DEFINITION.

There aren't really two kinds of "wet." There ARE several kinds of dependency.

Yeah and so what? Some people may compare emotional dependency with the physical one. You may disagree with that but that doesnt make that comparison incorrect.

You mean the one that severs both carotids, causing near instantaneous death?

In which one? Western or Muslim slaughtering or both?

Noones debating that tho. One side is omg what goes on inside my body is my right and the other side is like lord jebus says abortion is wrong.

I should discuss this without too many Americans present since their "battle lines" are so precisely drawn, usually, because of their culture.
Hahaha! Yeah, I guess it would be easier for you to get away with this poor argument if you were debating with people who care less about the issue and have spent less time thinking about it.

Your alternate example of a comparison has already been debunked for being illogical by more than one other poster. I have no intention of either duplicating their work or entertaining your bogus argument. I will only point out that you reveal the invalidity of your own example by stating that the dependencies are different kinds of dependency. In MY example, wet is wet, the exact same kind of wet whether it comes from standing in the rain or jumping into a lake. Likewise, the function of a fetus and the function of a parasitic organism are the same kind of function, the same kind of dependency on a host organism. UNLIKE the dependency of the poor on a social support system, which is not the same in function, as you yourself acknowledge.

Your argument fails for the exact same reason it has been failing ever since you first floated it.

EDIT: I also notice that you did not answer my question. Compare the wetness of rain to the wetness of a lake -- is such a comparison subjective or factual?

Yes it is subjective. One is condensation of atmospheric water vapour and the other is something u can swim in. They arent equal. It is a fact that theres H2O ivolved. But it was a fact that there was death involved in my comparison, from starvation or abortion due to a dependency.

Yeah and so what? Some people may compare emotional dependency with the physical one. You may disagree with that but that doesnt make that comparison incorrect.

Yes, and some people may compare apples and oranges. Comparisons aren't purely subjective, it's very clear, as you've just shown with this ludicrous comparison of biological dependency and financial dependency, how bleeding obvious that lack of subjectivity can be.

I suppose you could track brain activity...

That puts an actual functioning brain at 27 weeks.

And I guess you could compare the brain activity to that of adult humans to determine when actual cognizance happens...

That puts sapience at... some time after birth, IIRC.

Wrong.

"Slow EEG activity (0.5 – 2 c/s) can be demonstrated in the fetus even at the conceptual age of three months."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Wrong.

"Slow EEG activity (0.5 – 2 c/s) can be demonstrated in the fetus even at the conceptual age of three months."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

EEG activity =/= consciousness.

Yes, and some people may compare apples and oranges. Comparisons aren't purely subjective, it's very clear, as you've just shown with this ludicrous comparison of biological dependency and financial dependency, how bleeding obvious that lack of subjectivity can be.

Well, u can compare apples and oranges when the context is fruits or nutrition. That would be a very valid comparison. Duh!

EEG activity =/= consciousness.

No shit. He was talking about brain activity tho. Do you read?

Yes it is subjective. One is condensation of atmospheric water vapour and the other is something u can swim in.
Those are facts, not subjective evaluations.

They arent equal. It is a fact that theres H2O ivolved.
So it is your contention that standing in the rain for half an hour will leave you drier than swimming in a lake for half an hour?

Or is it merely your contention that you will just feel drier...you know, subjectively?

Do you know what the word "subjective" means?

But it was a fact that there was death involved in my comparison, from starvation or abortion due to a dependency.
Of course, another failing of your ridiculously false argument is that abortion always ends in the death of something, whereas dependency on social system actually almost never ends in the death of anything. So that's another way in which the things you are claiming are the same are not the same -- not even close.

But I'm serious, the foolishness of your claim has been more than amply demonstrated. I have no problem reminding you of that for as long as you demand it, but I am not going to get into arguing with you about it as if you still have any credibility.

Well, u can compare apples and oranges when the context is fruits or nutrition. That would be a very valid comparison. Duh!

And now we get to the meat of it. You can in fact make a comparison if there is a valid basis of comparison. If no basis of comparison exists, the comparison is generally incorrect. (i.e. not subjective)

You've shown this rather well this your response to Muray's post:

Yes it is subjective. One is condensation of atmospheric water vapour and the other is something u can swim in. They arent equal. It is a fact that theres H2O ivolved. But it was a fact that there was death involved in my comparison, from starvation or abortion due to a dependency.

You see, you've neglected (either intentionally or just blindly) the basis of comparison that Muray actually stated, that is, wetness. From the basis of comparing wetness, one can draw a valid comparison between lake water and rain water.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

No shit. He was talking about brain activity tho. Do you read?

Actually he was talking about a functioning brain. You might want to get your eyes checked.

Those are facts, not subjective evaluations.


So it is your contention that standing in the rain for half an hour will leave you drier than swimming in a lake for half an hour?

Or is it merely your contention that you will just feel drier...you know, subjectively?

Do you know what the word "subjective" means?


LOL. You wanna talk about facts? Then come up with an operational definition of wetness and measure it and compare the wetness u get from standing in the rain for half an hour to swimming in a lake for half an hour.


Of course, another failing of your ridiculously false argument is that abortion always ends in the death of something, whereas dependency on social system actually almost never ends in the death of anything. So that's another way in which the things you are claiming are the same are not the same -- not even close.

But I'm serious, the foolishness of your claim has been more than amply demonstrated. I have no problem reminding you of that for as long as you demand it, but I am not going to get into arguing with you about it as if you still have any credibility.

:mad:

Actually he was talking about a functioning brain. You might want to get your eyes checked.

:rolleyes:

I suppose you could track brain activity...

That puts an actual functioning brain at 27 weeks.

And I guess you could compare the brain activity to that of adult humans to determine when actual cognizance happens...

That puts sapience at... some time after birth, IIRC.

:rolleyes:


I suppose you could track brain activity...

That puts an actual functioning brain at 27 weeks.

And I guess you could compare the brain activity to that of adult humans to determine when actual cognizance happens...

That puts sapience at... some time after birth, IIRC.

:rolleyes:

LOL. You wanna talk about facts? Then come up with an operational definition of wetness and measure it and compare the wetness u get from standing in the rain for half an hour to swimming in a lake for half an hour.
As soon as you come up with an operational definition of dependency that allows you to claim a valid basis for equating physical dependency on a host organism with financial dependency on a social program. I remind you that you (a) have been failing to do that for a number of days now and (b) just a couple of posts ago acknowledged that they are, in fact, not the same kind of dependency.

:mad:
Is that vein in your temple throbbing yet?

:rolleyes:

His definition of functioning was brain activity. Any brain activity. Get it?

As soon as you come up with an operational definition of dependency that allows you to claim a valid basis for equating physical dependency on a host organism with financial dependency on a social program. I remind you that you (a) have been failing to do that for a number of days now and (b) just a couple of posts ago acknowledged that they are, in fact, not the same kind of dependency.


I dont have to cause I said comparisons were subjective. You were the one talking about facts. Keep track of your own arguments.

His definition of functioning was brain activity. Any brain activity. Get it?

Actually that's not at all what he said.

He said the best way to track consciousness was to track brain activity, and that a fully functioning brain was typically seen at 27 weeks.

Actually that's not at all what he said.

He said the best way to track consciousness was to track brain activity, and that a fully functioning brain was typically seen at 27 weeks.

You misunderstood him. But go ahead, ask him for clarification, since u refuse to listen to me.

You misunderstood him. But go ahead, ask him for clarification, since u refuse to listen to me.

One could say the exact same thing about your assessment. We'll wait.

One could say the exact same thing about your assessment. We'll wait.

LOL. Meanwhile, u can track brain activity after conceptual age of three months.

I think the issue on the National scale is reduntant. No matter the decision made on Capital Hill, there is still going to be a large number of individuals who are unhappy with the decision. I think that domestic issues like that should be decided on the state level. At least then you have a better chance of making the individual happy and citizens are more evenly represented in the legislation. Furthermore, If you don't like the way that the population majority feels in your state then you can simply move to a state that better suits your system of values.

I dont have to cause I said comparisons were subjective. You were the one talking about facts. Keep track of your own arguments.
So, in other words, you are claiming that you can float false comparisons on the claim that since they are "subjective" you can just say whatever you want without opposition? Well, "subjectively" then, I interpret that as a load of self-serving bullshit.

You made an assertion of fact: A fetus is dependent and a poor person is dependent.

You made an additional assertion of fact: Fetal dependency and financial dependency are NOT the same kind of dependency.

Yet you go on to claim that "subjectively" you can still say they are the same, even after you admit they are different.

Put that all together and it adds up to your constant and obvious failure throughout this entire thread. Your argument is bogus on its face. That has been so fully demonstrated that there is no "subjective" slant or twist you can put on it that will make it look less ridiculous.

So, in other words, you are claiming that you can float false comparisons on the claim that since they are "subjective" you can just say whatever you want without opposition?


Thats not what I said. Can you not read? I said u may disagree with it but it was silly to say it was incorrect. Get it now?



Well, "subjectively" then, I interpret that as a load of self-serving bullshit.

You made an assertion of fact: A fetus is dependent and a poor person is dependent.

You made an additional assertion of fact: Fetal dependency and financial dependency are NOT the same kind of dependency.

Yet you go on to claim that "subjectively" you can still say they are the same, even after you admit they are different.

Put that all together and it adds up to your constant and obvious failure throughout this entire thread. Your argument is bogus on its face. That has been so fully demonstrated that there is no "subjective" slant or twist you can put on it that will make it look less ridiculous.

:mad:

I think the issue on the National scale is reduntant. No matter the decision made on Capital Hill, there is still going to be a large number of individuals who are unhappy with the decision. I think that domestic issues like that should be decided on the state level. At least then you have a better chance of making the individual happy and citizens are more evenly represented in the legislation. Furthermore, If you don't like the way that the population majority feels in your state then you can simply move to a state that better suits your system of values.
Ah, a "leave it to the states" person. Please clarify your position:

Do you believe the government (in this case at the state level) should be dictating which people get which human rights?

Or do you believe that the public should vote (in this case at the state level) on which people get which human rights?

Thats not what I said. Can you not read? I said u may disagree with it but it was silly to say it was incorrect. Get it now?
I know that you have been reduced to merely arguing that it's silly to call you wrong just because you have been shown to be wrong time and time again. However, I disagree. I don't think it's silly at all. I think it's obvious that your statements are incorrect.

:mad:
Throb, throb, throb...

Neither, really, I'm simply saying that no matter who decides what, there's still going to be heated disagreements on both sides of the issue. My arguement has nothing to do with human rights per se. I'm simply saying that by putting things on the state level you give people the opportunity to "Agree to Disagree." We live in a very large, very diverse nation and people aren't always (If ever) going to agree on issues of a domestic quality (i.e. morality).

Neither, really, I'm simply saying that no matter who decides what, there's still going to be heated disagreements on both sides of the issue. My arguement has nothing to do with human rights per se. I'm simply saying that by putting things on the state level you give people the opportunity to "Agree to Disagree." We live in a very large, very diverse nation and people aren't always (If ever) going to agree on issues of a domestic quality (i.e. morality).

But when you put your theory into practical effect, you end up with Mur's dichotomy.

How do you see the state resolving the issue, or better yet, allowing a space for the debate?

I'm not familiar with Mur's dichotomy, please elaborate.

27 weeks is when both lobes of the brain demonstrate continuous synchronized electrical activity. In other words, this is when the brain is actually functioning. It's important to note that this isn't what we would consider "brainwaves", which would be indicative of actual thought, so to speak. This is the cerebrum actually doing stuff, in other words, non-reflexive movement and the senses. This is when one would have something that would be known as consciousness in the scientific sense. It'd be important to distinguish this from consciousness in the lay sense. The latter generally implies thought, the former just requires the distinction between self and not-self at some level.*

*This is also known as sentience. Once again, the lay sense implies thought, while the scientific sense does not. An aphid is sentient in the scientific sense. It operates on a level barely above stimulus-response, but it's still sentient.

In other words, Deus Malum's interpretation is right, and I have a habit of going off on tangents.

I'm not familiar with Mur's dichotomy, please elaborate.

Mur is Murayvets. The person who responded to your original post.

Muayvets (hereinafter known as Mur) asked you to choose between two options. This is called a dichotomy.

(I might as well go the whole nine yards.)

The two options aren't really important. Either options creates a situation where a person's human rights are being limited through the government apparatus. This same problem exists if the federal government, or any other government, attempts to limit access to abortion. Moving it to the state level doesn't change that fact.

So, what Mur really wants to know is: what makes the state so special that they're allowed to limit women's rights?

Thanks, GoG. Your work with my post has saved me the same effort and allowed me the time to go run an errand, which I will do while Polletia mulls the question. :D

So, what Mur really wants to know is: what makes the state so special that they're allowed to limit women's rights?

It isn't special. It shouldn't have the right to limit anyone's rights.

It's why we have a republic in the US, not a democracy. No matter what we may all want, the government is limited in its ability to fuck you over, whether it's abortion rights or the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to a fair trial.

That said, our current President thinks that sucks - that our Constitution is in his eyes, a document of negative freedoms - that is, the government is not all powerful enough to make his social changes possible (forcible redistribution of wealth - not just allowing people to eat at the lunch counter, but forcing others to pay for the lunch).

Removing restrictions on government power is a bad fucking idea. Because it means that whoever is in power next will use that as an excuse to fuck someone over. This time, it might not be you. But the next time...

That said, our current President thinks that sucks - that our Constitution is in his eyes, a document of negative freedoms - that is, the government is not all powerful enough to make his social changes possible (forcible redistribution of wealth - not just allowing people to eat at the lunch counter, but forcing others to pay for the lunch).

Oh thanks for adding a bit of threadjack with a generous helping of trolling. Your insight into how to gain negative attention for yourself on the internet is as valuable as ever.

That said, our current President thinks that sucks - that our Constitution is in his eyes, a document of negative freedoms...
I very much doubt a law graduate from Harvard believe rights such as the right to bear arms or the right to a fair trial are negative freedoms.

Perhaps you are mistaken, to give you the benefit of the doubt?

I very much doubt a law graduate from Harvard believe rights such as the right to bear arms or the right to a fair trial are negative freedoms.

Perhaps you are mistaken, to give you the benefit of the doubt?

Those are the words he used. He does not believe that the power of government should be limited in any way.

Those are the words he used.

Yeah, somehow I doubt Obama ever said

"that sucks - that our Constitution is in his eyes, a document of negative freedoms - that is, the government is not all powerful enough to make his social changes possible (forcible redistribution of wealth - not just allowing people to eat at the lunch counter, but forcing others to pay for the lunch)."

He does not believe that the power of government should be limited in any way.

Also he's the Dark Lord of Mordor. He said so.

Those are the words he used. He does not believe that the power of government should be limited in any way.
Cite and context, please. Shouldn't be hard, if those are 'the words he used'.

How much the phrase applies literally is irrelevant to the phrase's figurative sense, though.

For once we agree, sort of.

See, I think the use of that phrase is particularly appropriate. You're arguing that people ought to be "nice" in order to win others over during debate, and thus the idea of using "sweet" honey to attract flies.

The reality, both in the figurative AND in the literal, is that sweetness is not actually the most effective way to win people over.

I'm not interested in sacrificing accuracy and truth in order to convince people to join me. Unlike anti-choicers, I'm not interested in picking emotionally cuddly terms that will dupe people into buying what I'm selling. Indeed, what I'm "selling" is the biological realities, and there's no point in using incorrect terms or shying away from correct terms when your entire point is to talk about things ACCURATELY.

If accurate biology hurts somebody's feelings, then the problem is with them. I will be happy to explain the biology and help them understand it, but at the end of the day there are some people who get pouty over the notion that a conceptus is not a perfectly shaped and complete person. Generally it's boys who are most unhappy about the notion that their magical sperm doesn't, in fact, suffice to create a person, but rather that a yucky soft mooshy girl-body is required to build a baby.


The point is that people will be even less inclined to support you if they percieve you as being rude to them.

People who perceive accurate biological terms as rude are never, ever going to "support" me. Those people are either too stupid or too dishonest to ever come to terms with the realities of human reproduction. The best that can be done with such people is to tell them gently but firmly that no, they may not make other people's medical decisions, and that's the end of it.

Fortunately, the stupid and dishonest people of the world are not my target audience with any of this, so it's really no loss to me if they think I'm rude.


And for what it's worth, I don't think the use of the word "parasite" has as much reason to be regarded as offensive, but it might be worthwhile try to go for some understanding as to where they're coming from here.

It's very arrogant and naive of you to think that I don't already have that understanding. This pearl-clutching horror over the use of accurate terminology has been going on for ages. People have been whining and whimpering over the use of words like "fetus" for ages.

The fact that many of us tell the pearl-clutchers to crack a damn book and get over themselves is not a sign that we lack understanding. It's a sign that we understand exactly what game is being played, and we think it's pathetic.


Technically, we were all fetuses at one point, so it could be regarded as referring to our own past selves as parasites. I suppose our parents wanted us, though it might be worth considering that for all we know, some members of this site might not have been wanted at the time of pregnancy. The point is, as long as we talk about what for most of human history as what our life came from as being parasitic, it's understandable that they'd perceive it as dehumanizing.

It's understandable that people who haven't bothered to learn basic biology might misunderstand some of it, and might even take offense at some concepts or terms based on (inaccurate) lay interpretations of those concepts.

That's why we calmly and clearly explain these concepts to clear up any confusion.

Once that has been done, it's still understandable why some people bitch and moan about the terms...because they're dishonest. Because they're intentionally trying to use emotiveness and ick-factor to distract from reality. They are, basically, liars.


Anyway, I think it's better to focus on the reasons people think of abortion as being wrong in the first place, such as that it ends a "human life"; it ends a human "life" that while being "life" in a biology-centric sense (just like anything applying force that results in motion is "work" in the physics-centric sense) in the first or second trimester, likely doesn't have a consciousness to lose being ended, and in terms of the notion of "life" being the sum of one's epxeriences, their life would be ended before it began; equivalent, as such, to not being conceived in the first place.

Some people believe that it is still human life and should still be protected, even if at the expense of other human beings; I say we should challenge such an arbitrary notion of what human life is. Some people believe that a fetus might have a "soul" but until they can say, scientifically speaking, what exactly a "soul" is, we should not have to bend over backwards for such beliefs.
And I think all that is completely irrelevant.

Yep.

It doesn't matter whether or not an embryo is "life."

It doesn't matter if a fertilized egg is a complete conscious human individual who is capable of doing differential calculus whilst drifting towards the uterine wall.

It doesn't matter in the slightest, in terms of debates over abortion.

Because, you see, no human person has the right to use my body against my wishes. No born human person is entitled to force me to participate in reproduction against my wishes (one of our words for doing that is "rape"). No born human person gets to take my blood, my organs, or my body parts without my consent. They can't take those things even if I'm a convicted serial killer. They can't do those things even if they absolutely positively must have my body parts to live.

No human person has the right to use my body to prolong their own life, unless I give my consent.

So really, it doesn't matter when human life begins, because the "personhood" of a embryo or fetus is irrelevant. All that matters is whether female human beings are entitled to the most fundamental human right there is: the right to ownership of one's own body.

It doesn't matter when life begins, because the only human rights that matter in the case of abortion are the rights of the person who is hosting the pregnancy, and you can be damn sure SHE'S a human person if she's physically mature enough to get knocked up.

In 2001, Barack Obama (then an Illinois State Senator) participated in a radio interview on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM program, Odyssey. Two statements are particularly interesting. The first is Obama’s view that the U.S Constitution reflects the fundamental flaw of the United States:

I think it’s a remarkable document…

The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments…but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.

African-Americans were not — first of all they weren’t African-Americans — the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a ‘nagging problem’ in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK…

…but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that.

Because the Constitution is standing in the way of his redistribution of wealth, he thinks it's wrong.

Period.

Well, the Constitution stands in the way of a lot of abuses of power - be glad it's there, no matter what party is in power.

Those are the words he used. He does not believe that the power of government should be limited in any way.
I can only find a reference on this (http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/obama-says-constitution-is-a-charter-of-negative-liberties/) rather unfortunate and excitable blog.

"...generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

Any one of the legal eagles here abouts? Do they challenge Obama's reading?

EDIT: It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, and I understand the way he's framing it; though I intuitively wouldn't say he's correct. However, I'm no Constitutional law expert.

EDIT2: Hotwife, I don't believe Obama's saying that these (negative) freedoms need to go; but that the freedoms need to be expanded.

This...


I think it’s a remarkable document…

The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments…but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.

African-Americans were not — first of all they weren’t African-Americans — the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a ‘nagging problem’ in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK…

…but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that.

Does not equal this...

that sucks - that our Constitution is in his eyes, a document of negative freedoms - that is, the government is not all powerful enough to make his social changes possible (forcible redistribution of wealth - not just allowing people to eat at the lunch counter, but forcing others to pay for the lunch).


Nor this...

Because the Constitution is standing in the way of his redistribution of wealth, he thinks it's wrong.

Period.

Tune in next week for another exciting lesson in basic comprehension.

At any rate, I'm not going to continue with this threadjack. At least "fetus is a parasite" is closer to being on topic, but even that was considered a threadjack.

Neither, really, I'm simply saying that no matter who decides what, there's still going to be heated disagreements on both sides of the issue. My arguement has nothing to do with human rights per se. I'm simply saying that by putting things on the state level you give people the opportunity to "Agree to Disagree." We live in a very large, very diverse nation and people aren't always (If ever) going to agree on issues of a domestic quality (i.e. morality).
Oy, the "state's rights" crap.

Let's be honest, shall we?

You say it should be left up to the states to decide, so people can "agree to disagree." Funny, though, we actually had a rather big tussle over that concept a while back. It was called "the Civil War."

See, some people thought that individual states should get to decide whether or not black people owned their own bodies. They figured that it would totally work for us to have a union of states in which some states recognize the legal personhood of black people, and some states don't.

Let me guess, you're about to whine over how this is too inflamatory because I'm bringing up slavery.

Try not to miss my point, here, stay on track.

When you say "let's agree to disagree" by giving this to the states, what you're actually arguing for is that women who live in some states should be forced to give birth against their wishes. Don't try to sugar coat it or weasel out of it. That's what your arguing.

Well, actually, what you're arguing is that POOR women should be forced to give birth against their wishes. Because, of course, rich women will always be able to obtain abortions, no matter where they live. Putting it to the states will simply ensure that any poor woman who is unlucky enough to live in an anti-choice state will have her civil and human rights stripped away.

This shit isn't theoretical to women, my friend. Any more than integration was a theoretical state's rights issue to all the black people who lived in Jim Crow states.

Read your damn history and stop spouting this ignorant, anti-American garbage about states having the right to decide that certain citizens don't get civil rights. This crap was tired back when Grant took office, for crying out loud.

27 weeks is when both lobes of the brain demonstrate continuous synchronized electrical activity. In other words, this is when the brain is actually functioning. It's important to note that this isn't what we would consider "brainwaves", which would be indicative of actual thought, so to speak. This is the cerebrum actually doing stuff, in other words, non-reflexive movement and the senses. This is when one would have something that would be known as consciousness in the scientific sense. It'd be important to distinguish this from consciousness in the lay sense. The latter generally implies thought, the former just requires the distinction between self and not-self at some level.*

*this is also known as sentience. Once again, the lay sense implies thought, while the scientific sense does not. An aphid is sentient in the scientific sense. It operates on a level barely above stimulus-response, but it's still sentient.

In other words, deus malum's interpretation is right, and i have a habit of going off on tangents.

boooooooooooo ya.

Both parties have the exact same rights to bodily autonomy and the exact same responsibilities to provide for the child. Again, yes, it's horribly unfair that women get to be pregnant and thus decide how their bodies participate in pregnancy and men don't, and as soon as you pass the law requiring men to bleed out of their genitals one week in four, I will be deeply concerned about this injustice.
You and I think along the same lines.

For the anti-choicers, my offer still stands:

I will agree that men should have equal say in whether or not a woman carries to term, as soon as we pass a law requiring that any time a woman has an episiotomy the biological father is required to receive one at the same time.

You and I think along the same lines.

For the anti-choicers, my offer still stands:

I will agree that men should have equal say in whether or not a woman carries to term, as soon as we pass a law requiring that any time a woman has an episiotomy the biological father is required to receive one at the same time.

I do not know what this word means.

I do not know what this word means.

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

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

Wiki says it's gradually being phased out. However, I think it would be impossible to perform a similar procedure due to basic anatomy differences.

Wiki says it's gradually being phased out. However, I think it would be impossible to perform a similar procedure due to basic anatomy differences.
1) Sigh @ people who miss the point.
2) Not impossible at all. Just start at the anus and go forward with the incision, instead of going backward toward the anus as is done for women.

But just so you don't think I'm ignoring your concerns, here's a modified version just for you:

Any time a woman dies in childbirth, the biological father must be immediately euthanized.

2) Not impossible at all. Just start at the anus and go forward with the incision, instead of going backward toward the anus as is done for women.

Sounds unpleasant... also would think it would be a major source of infection.

1) Sigh @ people who miss the point.
2) Not impossible at all. Just start at the anus and go forward with the incision, instead of going backward toward the anus as is done for women.

I would much rather simply recognise women's complete control over their reproductive freedom.

Please keep the scissors away.

Wiki says it's gradually being phased out. However, I think it would be impossible to perform a similar procedure due to basic anatomy differences.

Nah, you guys still have a stretch of skin between your genitals and your anuses that someone could shove a pair of surgical scissors into. Bottle's point seems fair to me - if it's unfair that guys don't get a say in pregnancy, surely it's also unfair that they don't have to receive episiotomies.

I would much rather simply recognise women's complete control over their reproductive freedom.

Please keep the scissors away.
You seem to forget that I'm a castrating, man-hating, placenta-gargling feminist. If I can't take a pair of scissors to a man's genitals at least once a day then...why, what's the point of living?!

2) Just start at the anus and go forward with the incision, instead of going backward toward the anus as is done for women.


Ahh, oh god. I feel horrible after reading that *shudders*.

...placenta-gargling feminist....

Is that possible?

Do you have to, like, make a tea of it first?

1) Sigh @ people who miss the point.

*misses the point of the scissors*
Oh thank god!

Is that possible?

Do you have to, like, make a tea of it first?
Only if you're a wishy-washy lipstick feminazi. Real sisters just pop it in the blender and chug.

In 2001, Barack Obama (then an Illinois State Senator) participated in a radio interview on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM program, Odyssey. Two statements are particularly interesting. The first is Obama’s view that the U.S Constitution reflects the fundamental flaw of the United States:



Because the Constitution is standing in the way of his redistribution of wealth, he thinks it's wrong.

Period.

Well, the Constitution stands in the way of a lot of abuses of power - be glad it's there, no matter what party is in power.
lol He's (in that radio broadcast) talking about slavery yes? And the redistribution of some of the SLAVER's wealth to the slaves on the basis that they worked for it is clearly an abuse of power . . .I mean you can't deprive those poor slaver's after they spent so long forcing the slaves to work for them right? Hot wife are you just continually trolling at this point or do you actually believe everything you post?

Only if you're a wishy-washy lipstick feminazi. Real sisters just pop it in the blender and chug.

Pfft. Blenders.

27 weeks is when both lobes of the brain demonstrate continuous synchronized electrical activity. In other words, this is when the brain is actually functioning. It's important to note that this isn't what we would consider "brainwaves", which would be indicative of actual thought, so to speak. This is the cerebrum actually doing stuff, in other words, non-reflexive movement and the senses. This is when one would have something that would be known as consciousness in the scientific sense. It'd be important to distinguish this from consciousness in the lay sense. The latter generally implies thought, the former just requires the distinction between self and not-self at some level.*

*This is also known as sentience. Once again, the lay sense implies thought, while the scientific sense does not. An aphid is sentient in the scientific sense. It operates on a level barely above stimulus-response, but it's still sentient.

In other words, Deus Malum's interpretation is right, and I have a habit of going off on tangents.

Source? And how "both lobes of the brain" demonstrating "continuous synchronized electrical activity" is measured? With EEG?

You and I think along the same lines.

For the anti-choicers, my offer still stands:

I will agree that men should have equal say in whether or not a woman carries to term, as soon as we pass a law requiring that any time a woman has an episiotomy the biological father is required to receive one at the same time.

Anti-choicers? Who was arguing in this thread for abortion being made illegal?

Nova Magna Germania,

What do you think of Canada's current laws on abortion?

Anti-choicers? Who was arguing in this thread for abortion being made illegal?

at one point, you. Though you managed to change your "original argument" at least twice while demonstrating your complete ignorance of most scientific and philosophical reasoning behind the abortion debate.

Ahh, oh god. I feel horrible after reading that *shudders*.
Lol.

In all seriousness, though, this is a great example of what I was talking about earlier: how ACCURATE information often makes people uncomfortable, and I'm totally okay with that.

Sometimes people need to be uncomfortable. Whenever some ignorant wank says something like, "women shouldn't be allowed to murder babies just to save themselves a few months of inconvenience," I believe it's my moral duty to provide graphic descriptions of episiotomies to said wank. I believe it's important for me to explain exactly what kind of an "inconvenience" pregnancy and childbirth represent.

I believe a lot of people opine on this subject without having ever stood inside a delivery room. Without having learned what "afterbirth" is. Without ever seeing what a woman's body looks like after childbirth (not surprising considering how pop culture teaches that women instantly return to their pre-pregnant state as soon as the baby's feet have left the vag). Without so much as having held an unwrapped tampon, for pity's sake.

A lot of people think that their opinion is a special and unique snowflake, and that women everywhere are urgently in need of yet another person to pass judgment on their reproductive choices. Such people are under the mistaken impression that only pregnant women should be forced to endure unwanted discomfort at the whim of annoying strangers, and hence it is my personal mission to make such people extremely uncomfortable by bringing up all the bloody and mucus-coated realities that pregnant women don't have the luxury of ignoring.

Anti-choicers? Who was arguing in this thread for abortion being made illegal?
Ahh, the innocent eyelash-batting begins.

"Why, whoever has argued that abortion should be illegal? We've only got several dozen pages of debating whether or not abortion is MURDER. That's a totally and completely different subject and I'm shocked--shocked!--that anybody would possibly imply a connection between identifying abortion as murder and pushing for legal bans on abortion!"

Lol.

In all seriousness, though, this is a great example of what I was talking about earlier: how ACCURATE information often makes people uncomfortable, and I'm totally okay with that.

Sometimes people need to be uncomfortable. Whenever some ignorant wank says something like, "women shouldn't be allowed to murder babies just to save themselves a few months of inconvenience," I believe it's my moral duty to provide graphic descriptions of episiotomies to said wank. I believe it's important for me to explain exactly what kind of an "inconvenience" pregnancy and childbirth represent.

I believe a lot of people opine on this subject without having ever stood inside a delivery room. Without having learned what "afterbirth" is. Without ever seeing what a woman's body looks like after childbirth (not surprising considering how pop culture teaches that women instantly return to their pre-pregnant state as soon as the baby's feet have left the vag). Without so much as having held an unwrapped tampon, for pity's sake.

A lot of people think that their opinion is a special and unique snowflake, and that women everywhere are urgently in need of yet another person to pass judgment on their reproductive choices. Such people are under the mistaken impression that only pregnant women should be forced to endure unwanted discomfort at the whim of annoying strangers, and hence it is my personal mission to make such people extremely uncomfortable by bringing up all the bloody and mucus-coated realities that pregnant women don't have the luxury of ignoring.

*sigh* I had to read this AFTER I finished eating a jelly donut.

Source? And how "both lobes of the brain" demonstrating "continuous synchronized electrical activity" is measured? With EEG?

The discussion was about coherent brain activity.

You are talking about being able to detect something on an EEG, but that doesn't equate to actualcoherent brain activity.

As a parallel - you are calling the interference on the tv screen 'a movie', when that channel doesn't start showing even cartoons for another two months.

at one point, you.


When?


Though you managed to change your "original argument" at least twice while demonstrating your complete ignorance of most scientific and philosophical reasoning behind the abortion debate.

When?

The discussion was about coherent brain activity.

You are talking about being able to detect something on an EEG, but that doesn't equate to actualcoherent brain activity.

As a parallel - you are calling the interference on the tv screen 'a movie', when that channel doesn't start showing even cartoons for another two months.

You dunno what you cant measure. So how do you measure coherent brain activity?

Nova Magna Germania,

What do you think of Canada's current laws on abortion?

Answered already.

You dunno what you cant measure. So how do you measure coherent brain activity?

I don't have any coherent brain activity. :(

Ahh, the innocent eyelash-batting begins.

"Why, whoever has argued that abortion should be illegal? We've only got several dozen pages of debating whether or not abortion is MURDER.

Who?

When?
In fairness to you, you have not specifically called for abortion to be outlawed. Rather you have spent days and days crying out for the impositions of time restrictions that already exist, crying about a fictitious "baby shortage", and bitching about vocabulary.

When?
You have demonstrated your complete ignorance of this issue in every one of your posts of this entire thread.

Who?
And apparently you have not read your own thread, or you would know who.

Source? And how "both lobes of the brain" demonstrating "continuous synchronized electrical activity" is measured? With EEG?

Source. (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/) And yes, you use an EEG, or just EEG, or whatever the hell the correct grammatical construction is.

Ctrl+F 27 if you're having trouble finding it.

Answered already.

You mentioned the current situation, as far as I can tell, in post 418. But you did not express your opinion on it.

Source. (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/) And yes, you use an EEG, or just EEG, or whatever the hell the correct grammatical construction is.

Ctrl+F 27 if you're having trouble finding it.

or alt+F4. But if your annoying browser keeps popping up just keep tabbing it.

In fairness to you, you have not specifically called for abortion to be outlawed. Rather you have spent days and days crying out for the impositions of time restrictions that already exist, crying about a fictitious "baby shortage", and bitching about vocabulary.
Ouch. Well said though.

It isn't special. It shouldn't have the right to limit anyone's rights.

It's why we have a republic in the US, not a democracy. No matter what we may all want, the government is limited in its ability to fuck you over, whether it's abortion rights or the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to a fair trial.

That said, our current President thinks that sucks - that our Constitution is in his eyes, a document of negative freedoms - that is, the government is not all powerful enough to make his social changes possible (forcible redistribution of wealth - not just allowing people to eat at the lunch counter, but forcing others to pay for the lunch).

Removing restrictions on government power is a bad fucking idea. Because it means that whoever is in power next will use that as an excuse to fuck someone over. This time, it might not be you. But the next time...

I like how even in a debate about abortion, you manage to make it All About You.

I like how even in a debate about abortion, you manage to make it All About You.

He had one last week, you know.

LOL. Meanwhile, u can track brain activity after conceptual age of three months.

So your argument that abortion is unethical focuses only on that 10% of abortions that occur after 3 months? And of those, only those that are not due to medical necessity, rape, severe fetal deformity, or incest?

And your argument is premised on the idea that the destruction of any entity with any brain activity is wrong -- thus abortion, murder, and eating meat are all equally unethical?

So your argument that abortion is unethical focuses only on that 10% of abortions that occur after 3 months? And of those, only those that are not due to medical necessity, rape, severe fetal deformity, or incest?

And your argument is premised on the idea that the destruction of any entity with any brain activity is wrong -- thus abortion, murder, and eating meat are all equally unethical?

Well said. I wish I were half so succinct at getting my point across.

I have never understood why it is so difficult for those who are anti-choice to grasp the fundamental point that a woman has the right to bodily integrity. And that includes removing such things as are unwanted. Regardless of why that choice is made.

We still have abortion legally criminalised in my state. I really wish I were still living in Brisbane, as I would have been more than happy to attend the recent pro-life rally. And point out the ridiculousness of their arguments against decriminalising abortion.

Who?
Tell you what:

I will personally send you a check for $100 if you can provide three examples from this thread of somebody saying that abortion is murder, that abortion kills a full human person, or any variation thereof.

For realz. Find the examples, PM me your address, and the check is yours. Easiest money you'll ever make.

In fairness to you, you have not specifically called for abortion to be outlawed. Rather you have spent days and days crying out for the impositions of time restrictions that already exist, crying about a fictitious "baby shortage", and bitching about vocabulary.

Worth noting that calling for "impositions of time restrictions" is, in fact, calling for criminalization of abortion.

Unless, of course, you're so fantastically stupid that you think it's possible to impose time restrictions on when women can get abortions without having any law or penalty enforcing the restriction that you've just announced.

So, NMG, which is it? Transparently dishonest, or fantastically stupid?

Originally posted by Dempublicents1
No, that isn't when it becomes unfair. It became unfair at the beginning of sexual reproduction. Only women get pregnant. That's unfair. And it leads to all sorts of other things - including the fact that only a woman can decide whether or not to have an abortion.

i never said that only women get pregnant and that it was fair, im saying that for instance:

a man gets women pregnant and she decides to have the Baby. he doesn't want it, can't afford to raise it... But he is bound by law to supply money to the mother and child. How is that fair? and i know that he chose to have intercourse and everything and say he did take proventative measures, because he didn't want a child. there is no way out of it.

but reverse that, except the man being pregnant obviously. and say the could support it. but then she changes her mind and wants to get rid of the baby, he just has to sit there and except it.

i feel that it is just like entrapment really, thats just my opinion on that.

Why does the man have more obligation in this?

to ensure that he doesn't get into the situation above.

i never said that only women get pregnant and that it was fair, im saying that for instance:

No, you tried to say that the law was somehow unfair when it is, in fact, biology that is unfair.

a man gets women pregnant and she decides to have the Baby. he doesn't want it, can't afford to raise it... But he is bound by law to supply money to the mother and child.

Actually, he is bound by law to supply money to the child. Both parents are equally bound by law to support their children.

How is that fair?

See above.

and i know that he chose to have intercourse and everything and say he did take proventative measures, because he didn't want a child. there is no way out of it.

And this is a product of biology. The man's participation in the reproductive process ends at sex, so that is his last chance to make the decision not to participate. Since a woman gets pregnant, she can opt out of the process for a longer time period.

but reverse that, except the man being pregnant obviously. and say the could support it. but then she changes her mind and wants to get rid of the baby, he just has to sit there and except it.

Yes, because it is her body. There is nothing unfair about the fact that he can't use her body to incubate his child against her will.

The unfair part is that he can't get pregnant and bring a child to term on his own - which is, again, a biological "unfairness".

i feel that it is just like entrapment really, thats just my opinion on that.

Entrapment? What, the woman somehow tricks him into have sex specifically to get him into this position?

to ensure that he doesn't get into the situation above.

Ok, I could see that reasoning. The man's last chance to opt out, as it were, is at sex, so he better be damn careful to take preventative measures if he doesn't want to get a woman pregnant. Makes sense.

Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
Yes, because it is her body. There is nothing unfair about the fact that he can't use her body to incubate his child against her will.

The unfair part is that he can't get pregnant and bring a child to term on his own - which is, again, a biological "unfairness".

a very good point, but it is hers and his like you said. but then she can bring a child into this world against his will.

which i believe would make the child a target for resentment and hurt. which they do not need at all. they should be brought into a loving family

Ok, I could see that reasoning. The man's last chance to opt out, as it were, is at sex, so he better be damn careful to take preventative measures if he doesn't want to get a woman pregnant. Makes sense.

i think i sense sarcasim? i could be totally wrong like

Entrapment? What, the woman somehow tricks him into have sex specifically to get him into this position?

i Don't mean that she tricks him into having sex so she can have his baby, what i mean is she could say that she was on the pill so he thinks why bother with a comdom. still that is his own stupidity at that point.

And this is a product of biology. The man's participation in the reproductive process ends at sex, so that is his last chance to make the decision not to participate. Since a woman gets pregnant, she can opt out of the process for a longer time period.

i agree

Actually, he is bound by law to supply money to the child. Both parents are equally bound by law to support their children.


thats what i ment, i added mother as he doesn't give the money directly to the child

No, you tried to say that the law was somehow unfair when it is, in fact, biology that is unfair.

i do find the law slightly unfair, and i would definitely agree that biology can be unfair aswell.

When I was young, and developing into a spammer, there was little to know on-topic posting past the 20th page or so. Occasionally someone new would see the thread, respond to the OP, and all the other spammers would laugh at him or her (okay, him) and then go back to spamming.

It seems that in my absence bits of NSG have changed, alas.

OP

Are you (whoever) basically comparing the adopted to the aborted? If so, then I can see at least see the angle you are coming from.

Some day, we will live in a world where men don't see it as "unfair" that they are not permitted to own other people's bodies.

I am going to keep repeating that to myself until I believe it.

Originally Posted by Bottle
Some day, we will live in a world where men don't see it as "unfair" that they are not permitted to own other people's bodies.

I am going to keep repeating that to myself until I believe it.

im not saying i want to own other peoples bodies. im just saying that in abortion it is just one sided. i just wish that we didn't have to get pregnant and stuff and we just found babies in cabbage patches like you were told when you were little. solves everything then haha

im not saying i want to own other peoples bodies. im just saying that in abortion it is just one sided. i just wish that we didn't have to get pregnant and stuff and we just found babies in cabbage patches like you were told when you were little. solves everything then haha
tell THAT to the guy who runs the cabbage picking machine!

a very good point, but it is hers and his like you said. but then she can bring a child into this world against his will.

Not completely against his will. He can choose not to participate in the reproductive process by choosing not to have sex with her.

Once the process moves into her body, his will means nothing.

which i believe would make the child a target for resentment and hurt. which they do not need at all. they should be brought into a loving family

If we lived in a perfect world, there would be no unplanned pregnancies and no unwanted children. We don't, however.

i think i sense sarcasim? i could be totally wrong like

No, not sarcasm at all. Personally, I believe that both men and women are equally responsible for having safe sex - including the use of birth control if they don't want a pregnancy to occur. However, I can understand the point of view that a man would have more responsibility for preventing childbirth at that stage of the game, since he has none later.

i Don't mean that she tricks him into having sex so she can have his baby, what i mean is she could say that she was on the pill so he thinks why bother with a comdom. still that is his own stupidity at that point.

She could, and that would be a horrible thing to do. But it is hardly something that happens every day.

i do find the law slightly unfair, and i would definitely agree that biology can be unfair aswell.

How is the law unfair? It treats both parents equally.

Source. (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/) And yes, you use an EEG, or just EEG, or whatever the hell the correct grammatical construction is.

Ctrl+F 27 if you're having trouble finding it.

Ok. Finally have time to return to this:


First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39

Spehlmann R. In: EEG primer. New York: Elsevier/North-Holland, 1981:159-65.

So, where was I wrong? You did define consciousness by EEG activity. And you were wrong. Your source is contradicted by a newer source:

Wrong.

"Slow EEG activity (0.5 – 2 c/s) can be demonstrated in the fetus even at the conceptual age of three months."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Genetics and the Electroencephalogram (Springer 2000)

So your argument that abortion is unethical focuses only on that 10% of abortions that occur after 3 months? And of those, only those that are not due to medical necessity, rape, severe fetal deformity, or incest?

And your argument is premised on the idea that the destruction of any entity with any brain activity is wrong -- thus abortion, murder, and eating meat are all equally unethical?

Even if it was 10% everywhere (which I doubt, especially in developing countries), thats still a lot:

"The approximate number of induced abortions performed worldwide in 2003 was 42 million, which declined from nearly 46 million in 1995.[1]"

Tell you what:

I will personally send you a check for $100 if you can provide three examples from this thread of somebody saying that abortion is murder, that abortion kills a full human person, or any variation thereof.

For realz. Find the examples, PM me your address, and the check is yours. Easiest money you'll ever make.

LOL seriously, pay pal?

Ok. Finally have time to return to this:

You seem to have missed something somewhere along the line. An EEG can be used to demonstrate consciousness. However, not all EEG activity represents consciousness.

You seem to have missed something somewhere along the line. An EEG can be used to demonstrate consciousness. However, not all EEG activity represents consciousness.

And what have I been missing? I was challenging CthulhuFhtagn's defintion of consciousness, not presenting one of mine.

And what have I been missing? I was challenging CthulhuFhtagn's defintion of consciousness, not presenting one of mine.

...except you weren't.

He never said "Any EEG signal represents consciousness." What he did say was that you can use EEG to determine the point at which consciousness is present.

Worth noting that calling for "impositions of time restrictions" is, in fact, calling for criminalization of abortion.

Unless, of course, you're so fantastically stupid that you think it's possible to impose time restrictions on when women can get abortions without having any law or penalty enforcing the restriction that you've just announced.

So, NMG, which is it? Transparently dishonest, or fantastically stupid?

Neither, I had something like this in mind, and maybe 12th week instead of 18th week:


The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974. This states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever. After the 18th and until the 22nd week a woman needs to get permission from the authorities to have an abortion. Permission for these late abortions are usually granted in cases when the fetus or the mother are unhealthy.

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

And a bit of this:


The Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision a year later maintaining its earlier decision that the constitution protected the fetus from the moment of conception, but stated that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester, providing that the woman had submitted to state-regulated counselling designed to discourage termination and protect unborn life. Parliament passed such a law in 1995. [2]

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

Well, if that is anti-choice, then I am.

...except you weren't.

He never said "Any EEG signal represents consciousness." What he did say was that you can use EEG to determine the point at which consciousness is present.

Whats the difference between EEG signals at the 27th week and 12th week?

And what have I been missing? I was challenging CthulhuFhtagn's defintion of consciousness, not presenting one of mine.

You didn't challenge it, though.

Consciousness =/= a signal on an EEG.

You CAN measure the traces of consciousness with an EEG, but that doesn't mean ANY signal equates to consciousness - that's like saying ANY mark on paper is the Mona Lisa.

Whats the difference between EEG signals at the 27th week and 12th week?

The patterns are different. The activity that can be picked up at the 12th week is largely random firing. One can also pick up signals related to involuntary nervous signals (reflexive actions, etc.)

By the 27th week, the brain is more fully formed. As I understand it, the signals we can pick up at that point follow more of an ordered pattern - including the patterns associated with consciousness.

Bottle could probably explain it better. Neuroscience, particularly in early development, is more her area.

You didn't challenge it, though.


I did:


And how exactly does one track the beginning of consciousness of a fetus in the womb?

I suppose you could track brain activity...

That puts an actual functioning brain at 27 weeks.

And I guess you could compare the brain activity to that of adult humans to determine when actual cognizance happens...

That puts sapience at... some time after birth, IIRC.

By that, he meant:


First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39

Wrong.

"Slow EEG activity (0.5 – 2 c/s) can be demonstrated in the fetus even at the conceptual age of three months."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

So, again,

Whats the difference between EEG signals at the 27th week and 12th week?

Whats the difference between EEG signals at the 27th week and 12th week?

You quoted part of the difference in that very post:

First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39

And, as an addition:

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

Note that the quote above is talking specifically about cerebral development - "a structure within the brain that plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and consciousness. "

In other words, we first see eeg activity from the cerebral cortex at 20 weeks. The activity isn't sustained and fucntional (ie. bilaterally synchronous) until 26-27 weeks.

The patterns are different. The activity that can be picked up at the 12th week is largely random firing.


Source?


One can also pick up signals related to involuntary nervous signals (reflexive actions, etc.)

By the 27th week, the brain is more fully formed. As I understand it, the signals we can pick up at that point follow more of an ordered pattern - including the patterns associated with consciousness.

Bottle could probably explain it better. Neuroscience, particularly in early development, is more her area.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2087/clipboard01uv0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/clipboard01uv0.jpg/1/w496.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img19/clipboard01uv0.jpg/1/)

So, 0.5-2 c/s (Hertz) by conceptual age of 3 months. Adult humans in slow wave sleep also have a similar pattern (up to 3 Hz).

...Whats the difference between EEG signals at the 27th week and 12th week?

What do you think: "Slow EEG activity" means?

Because - in order to show an actual challenge, you're going to have to show that "slow EEG activity" equates, in some way, to: "sustained" signals that are "bilaterally synchronous" - no?

Even if it was 10% everywhere (which I doubt, especially in developing countries), thats still a lot:

"The approximate number of induced abortions performed worldwide in 2003 was 42 million, which declined from nearly 46 million in 1995.[1]"

Um. You started this fucking thread talking about the U.S. If you want to move the goalposts, fine.

Of course, some 70,000 women die every year worldwide from unsafe abortions necessitated by repressive regimes.

And, I notice you conveniently ignored my qualification on the 10% number that they are mostly due to medical necessity, rape, or incest.

Come back when you want to have an intelligent discussion and not play games.

Neither, I had something like this in mind, and maybe 12th week instead of 18th week:


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

And a bit of this:


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

Well, if that is anti-choice, then I am.

First, you were asked repeatedly to give details as to what time restrictions you supported. Don't blame us for thinking you meant something more restrictive than that allowed in the U.S. or other Western nations.

Regardless, other than Canada which has no time limitations in law but does in practice, which nation's pro-choice laws would you restrict?

Thank you George Carlin? If you highlight what he said it says thank you George Carlin! What the heck?

I think abortion is wrong for many reasons, but I'm not interested in debate right now.

I think abortion is wrong for many reasons, but I'm not interested in debate right now.

I think your interest in debate is wrong for many reasons, but I'm not interested in abortion right now.

In other words, we first see eeg activity from the cerebral cortex at 20 weeks.

It would seem to me then, that the obvious cut-off for abortions would be 20 weeks, at 140 days, nearly half a year, it should be plenty enough time to discover, and subsequently decide whether youre going to keep the little bugger...just imo, though...

It would seem to me then, that the obvious cut-off for abortions would be 20 weeks, at 140 days, nearly half a year, it should be plenty enough time to discover, and subsequently decide whether youre going to keep the little bugger...just imo, though...

Some 1.3% of abortions in the U.S. occur at greater than 20 weeks gestation and they are all due to exigent circumstances.

Women don't stay pregnant and carry an unborn for 5 months just to kill the fetus on a whim.

You quoted part of the difference in that very post:

First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39

And, as an addition:

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

Note that the quote above is talking specifically about cerebral development - "a structure within the brain that plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and consciousness. "

In other words, we first see eeg activity from the cerebral cortex at 20 weeks. The activity isn't sustained and fucntional (ie. bilaterally synchronous) until 26-27 weeks.

Wrong.

It would seem to me then, that the obvious cut-off for abortions would be 20 weeks, at 140 days, nearly half a year, it should be plenty enough time to discover, and subsequently decide whether youre going to keep the little bugger...just imo, though...

Wrong.

Cerebral cortex =/= both cerebral hemispheres.

both cerebral hemispheres = the whole brain

Cerebral cortex = outer layer of the brain

Wrong.



Wrong.

Cerebral cortex =/= both cerebral hemispheres.

both cerebral hemispheres = the whole brain

Cerebral cortex = outer layer of the brain

Why should we bother to post intelligent responses when you clearly aren't even reading the material YOU CITE intelligently?

The article about EEG at 3 months specifically deliniates how that is very different from actual brain function!!!

Some 1.3% of abortions in the U.S. occur at greater than 20 weeks gestation and they are all due to exigent circumstances.

Women don't stay pregnant and carry an unborn for 5 months just to kill the fetus on a whim.

Im not saying they do, just that if we can prove there is brain function, if not sustained brain function, then that would be the natural point, for me anyway, that we decide that it is no longer just a mass of cells...

Why should we bother to post intelligent responses when you clearly aren't even reading the material YOU CITE intelligently?

The article about EEG at 3 months specifically deliniates how that is very different from actual brain function!!!

:rolleyes:

Source?

So, 0.5-2 c/s (Hertz) by conceptual age of 3 months. Adult humans in slow wave sleep also have a similar pattern (up to 3 Hz).

:rolleyes:

What do you think you're showing?

If my tires need 32psi for my car to roll, and my tires are at somewhere between 5psi and 20psi... it's nothing like the same. Sure - my tires can be lower than that 32psi... but for how long, and with what effect?

You're (apparently) trying to argue that .5 to 2... is somehow like 3.

I'm not sure what you think the point is supposed to be.


Did you read any of the data about c/s in post-partum offspring? Did you see what is considered normal in a post-partum 'conscious' brain?

Cerebral cortex =/= both cerebral hemispheres.

both cerebral hemispheres = the whole brain

Cerebral cortex = outer layer of the brain

Both cerebral hemispheres =/= the whole brain. There are a number of other structures.

Both cerebral hemispheres =/= the whole brain. There are a number of other structures.

Correction:

whole brain = Both cerebral hemispheres + brainstem + cerebellum

Nova Magna Germania,

Please tell us: what restrictions on abortion would you support??

Nova Magna Germania,

Please tell us: what restrictions on abortion would you support??

LOL, I already did. And you did answer to that post of mine.

What do you think you're showing?

If my tires need 32psi for my car to roll, and my tires are at somewhere between 5psi and 20psi... it's nothing like the same. Sure - my tires can be lower than that 32psi... but for how long, and with what effect?

You're (apparently) trying to argue that .5 to 2... is somehow like 3.

I'm not sure what you think the point is supposed to be.


Did you read any of the data about c/s in post-partum offspring? Did you see what is considered normal in a post-partum 'conscious' brain?

up to 3 :rolleyes:

LOL, I already did. And you did answer to that post of mine.

No, you vaguely cited a couple of different laws that already exist in Sweden and Germany and indicated some support for them.

Why don't you just answer the fucking question?

No, you vaguely cited a couple of different laws that already exist in Sweden and Germany and indicated some support for them.

Why don't you just answer the fucking question?

I said I'd support an altered version of Sweden's law (legal abortions for the first 12 wks instead of 18 and then abortions with permission), with Germany's mandatory counselling and waiting period.

That isnt final tho. There needs to be more studies on this. Studies in which they can determine in what way they can minimize the rate of abortion.

up to 3 :rolleyes:

And down to... what?

It's almost like you don't really know what you're talking about, so you're trying to quibble over the wording.

Studies in which they can determine in what way they can minimize the rate of abortion.

This one's easy. Mandatory sterilisation at birth. It's 100%.

This one's easy. Mandatory sterilisation at birth. It's 100%.

It could probably work....I think the birth rate would plummet however...

It could probably work....I think the birth rate would plummet however...

Well, yeah, eventually. (Of course, not necessarily... because, in reality we'd just use some form of IVF... but it's not as funny).

Correction:

whole brain = Both cerebral hemispheres + brainstem + cerebellum
Way to forget the limbic system.

Scrub.

(If you would, please picture me saying that while wearing a motorcycle jacket over my lab scrubs, and then I totally diss this guy and elbow him dismissively as I walk out the door with a hot lab tech on each arm. There's so few opportunities for a neuroscientist to do this kind of thing, you know.)

There needs to be more studies on this. Studies in which they can determine in what way they can minimize the rate of abortion.
We actually know quite conclusively how to minimize abortion rates.

Educate women and give them full and legal access to contraception and reproductive health care.

Seriously, that's all it takes. Let girls go to school and make it so they can safely buy contraceptives, and you're 75% of the way there already.

Sad, huh? It'd be so easy to remove so much heartache and pain from the world. Yet so many people just won't do it. :(

Way to forget the limbic system.

Well YOU forgot about poland.

Way to forget the limbic system.

Scrub.

(If you would, please picture me saying that while wearing a motorcycle jacket over my lab scrubs, and then I totally diss this guy and elbow him dismissively as I walk out the door with a hot lab tech on each arm. There's so few opportunities for a neuroscientist to do this kind of thing, you know.)

I guess it depends on the lab techs, now doesn't it? :D

We actually know quite conclusively how to minimize abortion rates.

Educate women and give them full and legal access to contraception and reproductive health care.

Seriously, that's all it takes. Let girls go to school and make it so they can safely buy contraceptives, and you're 75% of the way there already.

Sad, huh? It'd be so easy to remove so much heartache and pain from the world. Yet so many people just won't do it. :(

Largely because of the fact that many of the people who oppose choice do so under a worldview that also wraps sex for fun, sex outside marriage, and sex with contraceptives as things to be limited, if not outright banned (as I'd imagine many of them would prefer).

We actually know quite conclusively how to minimize abortion rates.

Educate women and give them full and legal access to contraception and reproductive health care.

Seriously, that's all it takes. Let girls go to school and make it so they can safely buy contraceptives, and you're 75% of the way there already.

Sad, huh? It'd be so easy to remove so much heartache and pain from the world. Yet so many people just won't do it. :(
It almost seems as if removing heartache and pain is not their goal, doesn't it?

I said I'd support an altered version of Sweden's law (legal abortions for the first 12 wks instead of 18 and then abortions with permission), with Germany's mandatory counselling and waiting period.

1. Why 12 weeks, as opposed to 18 weeks or viability?

2. What about cases of a threat to the health or life of the mother, rape, incest, or severe fetal deformity/fetal death?

3. Why mandatory anti-abortion counseling and a waiting period? Do you really have such little regard for the intelligence and ethical decision-making of women?

4. Regardless, of the above, what you are suggesting would -- as I have pointed out repeatedly -- leave abortion practice in the U.S. and Canada unchanged -- with the exception of making women jump through unnecessary and demeaning hoops to get an abortion.

That isnt final tho. There needs to be more studies on this. Studies in which they can determine in what way they can minimize the rate of abortion.

You've apparently discovered The Guttmacher Institute, so you know that studies have been done on what minimizes the rate of abortion. It is not restrictions by law, but rather making sex education, family planning, and contraceptives easily available to all.

It almost seems as if removing heartache and pain is not their goal, doesn't it?
Kinda sorta yeah.

This is also why I have patience to the sum of zero with the "moderates" who want "compromise" on the subject of abortion.

In a sane world, the "compromise" would be simple:

What do anti-choice people say they want, first and foremost? To reduce, if not eliminate, abortion.

Are pro-choice people inherently opposed to the idea of reducing abortion rates? FUCK NO.

Lookit that. Common ground.

In a sane world, pro-choice and "pro-life" people would come together to help reduce abortion rates using the methods that have been proven, time and again, to be effective. Those methods are educating women and girls, ensuring that women and girls are able (legally and practically) to make their own decisions about when/how/if they have sex, providing women and girls with safe and legal health care, and providing everyone with safe and legal contraception.

But in the world we have, the "pro-life" side instead demands criminalization of abortion. Which has been proven, conclusively, to NOT WORK. Indeed, countries where abortion is criminalized have the highest abortion rates out there. They also usually have the highest infant mortality rates, and the highest rates of maternal death due to pregnancy or childbirth.

Odd, that "pro-life" people who claim to care so very much about saving babies are pushing for policies that not only don't save babies, they actually increase the number of dead babies. Odd, that they're so violently opposed to implimenting the policies that have been conclusively proven, for GENERATIONS, to reduce the number of abortions.

And that, my friends, is why you should always put "pro-life" in scare quotes.

Kinda sorta yeah.

This is also why I have patience to the sum of zero with the "moderates" who want "compromise" on the subject of abortion.

In a sane world, the "compromise" would be simple:

What do anti-choice people say they want, first and foremost? To reduce, if not eliminate, abortion.

Are pro-choice people inherently opposed to the idea of reducing abortion rates? FUCK NO.

Lookit that. Common ground.

In a sane world, pro-choice and "pro-life" people would come together to help reduce abortion rates using the methods that have been proven, time and again, to be effective. Those methods are educating women and girls, ensuring that women and girls are able (legally and practically) to make their own decisions about when/how/if they have sex, providing women and girls with safe and legal health care, and providing everyone with safe and legal contraception.

But in the world we have, the "pro-life" side instead demands criminalization of abortion. Which has been proven, conclusively, to NOT WORK. Indeed, countries where abortion is criminalized have the highest abortion rates out there. They also usually have the highest infant mortality rates, and the highest rates of maternal death due to pregnancy or childbirth.

Odd, that "pro-life" people who claim to care so very much about saving babies are pushing for policies that not only don't save babies, they actually increase the number of dead babies. Odd, that they're so violently opposed to implimenting the policies that have been conclusively proven, for GENERATIONS, to reduce the number of abortions.

And that, my friends, is why you should always put "pro-life" in scare quotes.

You should always put "pro-life" in scare quotes, anyway, just because it's a lie.

'Life' isn't just(?) a foetus issue.

*pulls out gun and shoots it at thread* DIE! Die! aghhh why won't you die?!

*pulls out gun and shoots it at thread* DIE! Die! aghhh why won't you die?!

We should have aborted it.

This is a bit off topic, but why are they called scare quotes?

This is a bit off topic, but why are they called scare quotes?

They harken back to a time lodged deep in the limbic system when our ancestors were hunted for sport by roving punctuation marks.

Why should we bother to post intelligent responses when you clearly aren't even reading the material YOU CITE intelligently?...

I was wondering about that. Y'all seem somewhat masochistic.

...
Educate women and give them full and legal access to contraception and reproductive health care....

That would also reduce birth rates to lower than the rate required to maintain population levels. So, from an ecological perspective, it would also make sense.

They harken back to a time lodged deep in the limbic system when our ancestors were hunted for sport by roving punctuation marks.

I wish I had the space to sig that.

That would also reduce birth rates to lower than the rate required to maintain population levels. So, from an ecological perspective, it would also make sense.
Economically speaking, it also makes sense.

Globally, women make up between 40 and 50% of the workforce, depending on which jobs are included in the count. The impact of pregnancy and childbirth and childrearing on women's economic potential should be obvious.

500,000 women die from pregnancy complications and 100,000 from unsafe abortions every year. In sub-Saharan Africa, a woman's odds of surviving her childbearing years is one in six. From a strictly economic standpoint, think about if all those women were still alive and still contributing to their societies.



Just one other thing to keep in mind, though it's not directly related to this:

World-wide, about 50 million abortions take place every year. 30 million of them are illegal.

CRIMINALIZATION DOES NOT WORK.

I wish I had the space to sig that.

I've done it for you.

I've done it for you.

Thanks.

And down to... what?

It's almost like you don't really know what you're talking about, so you're trying to quibble over the wording.

0, since it didnt specify.

0, since it didnt specify.

......seriously?

wow.

0, since it didnt specify.

Zero cycles per second would be NO activity.

I'm curious if you realise the argument you're making here.

Die, thread! DIE!!! :mp5: