Abortion

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

Science checked and rechecked. And it checks out. Here is a detailed study on the development of the fetal brain. Linkie

Take note of the section regarding the 10 stages of brain development. In this particular document the author refers to the cerebrum as the forebrain (same thing). It does not fully develop or start functioning until near term.

Excerpt

---------------------

10. Functional development of the medulla, followed by the pons, then the midbrain, the lastly, the forebrain which does not begin to functionally mature until near term.

---------------------

I suspect the problem here is that the parts of the brain may be in process of being developed. But they do not approach functionality until a later date. The Cerebrum(forebrain) is the last component of the brain to become functional. And actually in some babies (premies) it is not even functioning at all. It is present but not essentially switched on. The baby is presenting autonomic reactions rather than emotionally individual driven actions. Without the cerebrum working there is no person present.

so your arguement is that the lack of a personal Identity means that it's not human?

no, sir....I will beg to differ.....the lack of personal identity makes it not a PERSON...but it is still human, working cerebrum or not....and, as I have stated multiple times before, the definition of homicide is quite clear on the matter.

Your arguement, while very viable on the fact that it doesn't count as having the ability to develop a PERSONALITY till term, falls short on wheither the fetus is to be considered human or not.

[SomeDanGuy]

Just explain this to me... if the cognitive function does not exist until the 3rd trimester... James Elgin Gill. He was born after 21 weeks and 5 days gestation. Thats 2nd trimester. He turned out fine.

Your logic here doesn't make sense. What he said is that cognitive function doesn't develop until the 3rd trimester. Therefore, the example you cite would not have that cognitive function at birth, but would develop it later ex-utero as part of normal development. The fact that he was born early but then later survived and turned out ok does not mean that he had full cognitive development at the time of birth.

Everything in biology is a gradient. A spectrum. Putting up distinct boudaries of any sort will be artificial and get blurry at the borders. Even something like "human DNA" can get very fuzzy. Defining "human" is actually a very difficult thing to do, especially since nearly every trait we used to think was exclusive to us has been found in the animal kingdom.

(Hmm, slightly off topic, but I think relevant to the discussion)

[Michiko_Dreads]

Im done with this thread because I see that a man will never fully understand what it is like to be pregnant or have an unwanted pregnancy and I just think its dumb to tell women that they shouldnt have a choice because you feel it is supposed to be a certain way. I can understand being angry with women who have abortions every year 7 years in a row but come on I bet the majority of the women on this board hasnt even had an abortion but still want to have the right to have one when it is HER OWN CHOICE.

Oh yeah quick question: When doctors ask couples who are pregnant with children with congenital diseases and ask them if they want to have an abortion is the doctor a accomplice to murder or doing his job?

[Az_]

so your arguement is that the lack of a personal Identity means that it's not human?

no, sir....I will beg to differ.....the lack of personal identity makes it not a PERSON...but it is still human, working cerebrum or not....and, as I have stated multiple times before, the definition of homicide is quite clear on the matter.

Your arguement, while very viable on the fact that it doesn't count as having the ability to develop a PERSONALITY till term, falls short on wheither the fetus is to be considered human or not.

No. Not what I said at all. Read the material again. I said lack of identity means it is not a human being. I did not say it makes it not a human. It is as much a human as a corpse. It is as human as a human kidney. It is as human as a toe. But it is not a human being.

And if you wish to quote law then the law firmly states that it is not a citizen until birth. And it is not until birth that it acquirers any rights. That is the law.

Simply answer this question. Would you rather live on as a skin cell sample in a petri dish? Or as a personal identity in some manner? That is all you need to know to understand what we wish to protect. Its not life.

Life is interesting. But it is no where nearly as interesting as identity. How much of relationship can you have with a mold spore? Without invoking your imagination not a lot. You can have a relationship with a human being. But you cannot have a relationship with a 2 month old fetus unless you invoke your imagination. It is a one way street. Without the identity that is yet to form in that fetus any perception of identity comes entirely from your own creation.

[Az_]

Your logic here doesn't make sense. What he said is that cognitive function doesn't develop until the 3rd trimester. Therefore, the example you cite would not have that cognitive function at birth, but would develop it later ex-utero as part of normal development. The fact that he was born early but then later survived and turned out ok does not mean that he had full cognitive development at the time of birth.

Everything in biology is a gradient. A spectrum. Putting up distinct boudaries of any sort will be artificial and get blurry at the borders. Even something like "human DNA" can get very fuzzy. Defining "human" is actually a very difficult thing to do, especially since nearly every trait we used to think was exclusive to us has been found in the animal kingdom.

(Hmm, slightly off topic, but I think relevant to the discussion)

Actually we are not even certain that infants develop cognitive functions at birth even when delivered at full term. The brain is still developing even after birth. Most of what you see a new born infant do are reflexive actions. The cognitive self aware portions of the brain are only just beginning to come online at this time.

Brains take time. More than nine months. However as we cannot be certain to what degree a brain is aware from the moment the cerebrum begins to function it would be immoral to terminate once we have a reasonable expectation of a possibility of sentience.

A baby born prematurely, particularly one still only in the second trimester, is not going to have any cognitive functions what so ever. They will have a functioning lower brain (particularly the brain stem) which means the organs and reflexive systems will be in place. But the brain still needs time to develop. And until it has been able to do so ... there is nobody home within what appears to us physically to be a functional baby.

[Rev.Reverence]

I saw this thread too late to try to read all the things previously posted, so I won't try to add things that may have already been covered. I thought I could add a little-known fact that complicates the position of people arguing for zygotes to have 'souls' or for abortion being 'unnatural':

50-80% of fertilized embryos are spontaneously aborted. Thus the 'natural' course for a zygote is to be aborted and never make it to term.

Yes...it is quite 'normal' from what the Doc told me after it happened to my Lady (in 94)...

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

No. Not what I said at all. Read the material again. I said lack of identity means it is not a human being. I did not say it makes it not a human. It is as much a human as a corpse. It is as human as a human kidney. It is as human as a toe. But it is not a human being.

And if you wish to quote law then the law firmly states that it is not a citizen until birth. And it is not until birth that it acquirers any rights. That is the law.

Simply answer this question. Would you rather live on as a skin cell sample in a petri dish? Or as a personal identity in some manner? That is all you need to know to understand what we wish to protect. Its not life.

Life is interesting. But it is no where nearly as interesting as identity. How much of relationship can you have with a mold spore? Without invoking your imagination not a lot. You can have a relationship with a human being. But you cannot have a relationship with a 2 month old fetus unless you invoke your imagination. It is a one way street. Without the identity that is yet to form in that fetus any perception of identity comes entirely from your own creation.

ok..and using your own words....I again find flaws in your reasoning. You are talking lack of IDENTITY being the reason behind it not considered a human being...but it is still a human....well...the law does not discrimiate between the two, in fact....human and human being are the same in most definitions, and have been consideres so when used to write and construct many of our laws....your splitting hairs on a VERY thin line.

wtf does "being a citizen" have to do with anything??....just because OUR (american) law says that doesn't make that a universal law around the globe.....and there are people with NO citizenship, because of certian events...does that mean they have no right to live?? DO you know that, because of a loophole in the new National Security Laws, that you can have your American Citizenship REVOKED...even as a naturally born Citizen??.....if that happens to many of us...we have no country to legally call home....are we not Human beings then?? because we have no citizenship?? And another point, is that while they don't have many of the rights, a fetus, by way of the mother, is now being given the right to fair representation under the law in certian cases....I think if the law is going to go there...then it should be a blanket. There was a case not that far back where the fetus AND the mother both won a case against a doctor...the FETUS...as in the mother wrote the name of the fetus down on the paper....the FETUS and the mother won the case....

so if the law is going to allow a FETUS to be legally represented in a court of law....and it is an act of HOMICIDE to kill a child in the womb, by way of car accident or another event....then maybe it's time to stop splitting hairs in this country...because we do it WAY too much as is.

and relationships have very little to do on "identity" as a human being and more on the "personality" of the individual person....and before you try to tie the two together....chimps, dogs, cats...most animals have a "personality"...it's what endears us to them, gives us a relationship with our pets....not their identity....but their personality....same with other humans.

[Fin]

...is the doctor...doing his job?

Or her job.

[Rev.Reverence]

Your logic here doesn't make sense. What he said is that cognitive function doesn't develop until the 3rd trimester. Therefore, the example you cite would not have that cognitive function at birth, but would develop it later ex-utero as part of normal development. The fact that he was born early but then later survived and turned out ok does not mean that he had full cognitive development at the time of birth.

Everything in biology is a gradient. A spectrum. Putting up distinct boudaries of any sort will be artificial and get blurry at the borders. Even something like "human DNA" can get very fuzzy. Defining "human" is actually a very difficult thing to do, especially since nearly every trait we used to think was exclusive to us has been found in the animal kingdom.

(Hmm, slightly off topic, but I think relevant to the discussion)

[taysteewonderbunny]

Yes...it is quite 'normal' from what the Doc told me after it happened to my Lady (in 94)...

Yeah, I guess standard practice of OB's to inform their patients that they ought not really get too excited until the second trimester.

[SomeDanGuy]

Actually we are not even certain that infants develop cognitive functions at birth even when delivered at full term. The brain is still developing even after birth. Most of what you see a new born infant do are reflexive actions. The cognitive self aware portions of the brain are only just beginning to come online at this time.

Brains take time. More than nine months. However as we cannot be certain to what degree a brain is aware from the moment the cerebrum begins to function it would be immoral to terminate once we have a reasonable expectation of a possibility of sentience.

That's true. I wasn't commenting on the biology specifically, just the incorrectness of an argument made.

Myelination doesn't finish until just before puberty and full maturation doesn't occur until early 20s.

Perceptual state and development is a much harder question to address than anatomical development though.