Political Crossfire Forums

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

LostSoul3412 wrote: The embryo does not fully become aware of its own actions until it is born...

So an eight month old fetus has no awareness, and you are confident of this because you know what it must be like to be an eight month old fetus?

Or your proof for lack of awareness is...

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

straw man wrote: How does the existence of a reflex action prove the complete absence of awareness?

Hell fully grown adults have reflex actions too and are we not aware?

As you have said yourself, awareness does not exist "until the doctor slaps them on the butt". The fact of the matter is that nothing can be proven either way, which is why there should be no law put in place to restrict something we cannot gather all the facts on.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

straw man wrote: "Until your newborn can think for himself, most of his movements, from kicking to sucking, are purely reflexive."

That's odd, they said MOST of his movements. This quote is not attesting that fetuses are not self aware. The movements or behaviors of a creature, no matter how much we study them, do not provide insight into the experience of the creature.

The issue was regarding kicking, which is specifically addressed within the quote. As I have already said, we will never know whether or not embryos are self aware, but lack of evidence either way means that we should not pass a law that restricts what we do not know.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

straw man wrote: So an eight month old fetus has no awareness, and you are confident of this because you know what it must be like to be an eight month old fetus?

Or your proof for lack of awareness is...

None. Neither side can prove either way that an embryo is aware, which is why a law restricting abortion should not be passed, because it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an embryo is actually aware.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

I was being sarcastic about the butt slapping thing, picking an arbitrary guess as to when consciousness must turn on like a light switch. It is just as valid as saying they aren't conscious until the moment of birth.

That's good then we agree that we can't prove whether or not they are self aware.

Just like we can't for any other animals besides humans. But I hate when people claim a lack of awareness as justification to do whatever. People argue things like, "it's okay for KFC to maintain and slaughter their chickens the way they do, because chickens don't feel suffering like you or I do etc..." and I say how do you know, are you a chicken?

Believe me I don't propose an abortion ban. I just don't like that argument to condone abortions, that's all.

I think it stands to reason that they are conscious after a certain point, but before birth. But I can't prove that. But I think the default ethical stance should be since we don't know the facts, then we probably must realize we are killing a conscious entity if we choose to abort. The default shouldn't be the other way around, "we don't know the facts, therefore do whatever you want to the fetus without consequences."

And I have heard, and am responding to statements like "it's just a non sentient wad of flesh" or something like that. I have heard presumptious statements like these to argue for abortion and I don't really like that since such statements can't be proved.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

straw man wrote: I was being sarcastic about the butt slapping thing, picking an arbitrary guess as to when consciousness must turn on like a light switch. It is just as valid as saying they aren't conscious until the moment of birth.

That's good then we agree that we can't prove whether or not they are self aware.

Just like we can't for any other animals besides humans. But I hate when people claim a lack of awareness as justification to do whatever. People argue things like, "it's okay for KFC to maintain and slaughter their chickens the way they do, because chickens don't feel suffering like you or I do etc..." and I say how do you know, are you a chicken?

Believe me I don't propose an abortion ban. I just don't like that argument to condone abortions, that's all.

I think it stands to reason that they are conscious after a certain point, but before birth. But I can't prove that. But I think the default ethical stance should be since we don't know the facts, then we probably must realize we are killing a conscious entity if we choose to abort. The default shouldn't be the other way around, "we don't know the facts, therefore do whatever you want to the fetus without consequences."

And I have heard, and am responding to statements like "it's just a non sentient wad of flesh" or something like that. I have heard presumptious statements like these to argue for abortion and I don't really like that since such statements can't be proved.

Then I apologize for misinterperating your post, and I agree that we can't prove whether or not an embryo actually suffers or feels pain. While I can respect your choice to not abort an embryo because we don't have all the information we need, I can also respect that you don't support an abortion ban.

Personally, I am pro-choice. Abortion is something up to the mothers to decide, and since science cannot prove either way if an embryo is actually alive, the government should not get involved.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: that sinteresting cause im sure that the baby kicking inside the womb is not some form of brain function. Normally, it is a reflex. No brain involvement, yes. Don't tell me that you are ALSO ignorant about what a reflex is?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: How does the existence of a reflex action prove the complete absence of awareness?

Hell fully grown adults have reflex actions too and are we not aware? Rather, there are no non-reflexes observable in the fetus. AND notably, the brain's cortex doesn't even RECEIVE signals until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: "Until your newborn can think for himself, most of his movements, from kicking to sucking, are purely reflexive."

That's odd, they said MOST of his movements. This quote is not attesting that fetuses are not self aware. The movements or behaviors of a creature, no matter how much we study them, do not provide insight into the experience of the creature. There is no posibility of awareness until the brain's cortex actuallly can receive signals.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

LostSoul3412 wrote: straw man wrote: So an eight month old fetus has no awareness, and you are confident of this because you know what it must be like to be an eight month old fetus?

Or your proof for lack of awareness is...

None. Neither side can prove either way that an embryo is aware, which is why a law restricting abortion should not be passed, because it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an embryo is actually aware. We CAN (and have long ago) prove that before the 26th week of pregnancy, there is not even the physical connections necessary for awareness to exist.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: I was being sarcastic about the butt slapping thing, picking an arbitrary guess as to when consciousness must turn on like a light switch. It is just as valid as saying they aren't conscious until the moment of birth.

That's good then we agree that we can't prove whether or not they are self aware. I disagree. See above. The scientific evidence is solid. I have posted it several times in these forums.

Quote: Just like we can't for any other animals besides humans. But I hate when people claim a lack of awareness as justification to do whatever. People argue things like, "it's okay for KFC to maintain and slaughter their chickens the way they do, because chickens don't feel suffering like you or I do etc..." and I say how do you know, are you a chicken?

Believe me I don't propose an abortion ban. I just don't like that argument to condone abortions, that's all. But then, the issue of awareness is generally a pro-life argument. When pro-choice argues about awareness, it is in response to pro-life lies about fetal brain capacity. The pro-choice argument is about the woman's right to control her own body. This is independent of any status or skill you seek to assign the fetus. Even if the fetus was aware, even if it was a person 5 times over, it still would not have the right to use the woman's bodily resources against her will. The fetus does not have MORE rights than you do, and YOU certainly does not have the right to use my bodily resources against my will. Thus, the fetus has even less right. So you see, the issue of awareness is utterly irrelevant.

Quote: I think it stands to reason that they are conscious after a certain point, but before birth. But I can't prove that. But I think the default ethical stance should be since we don't know the facts, then we probably must realize we are killing a conscious entity if we choose to abort. Not possible before the 26th week of pregnancy. So you must now have admitted that you have no problem with abortion before that age. OK, fine with me.

Quote: The default shouldn't be the other way around, "we don't know the facts, therefore do whatever you want to the fetus without consequences." But since we DO know, this is not an issue.

[quote]

Quote: And I have heard, and am responding to statements like "it's just a non sentient wad of flesh" or something like that. Until the 26th week of pregnancy, that certainly is true.

Quote: I have heard presumptious statements like these to argue for abortion and I don't really like that since such statements can't be proved. Hmm, I have never seen these statements as an argument for abortion. I have seen them, and used them myself, as evidence against the pro-life lies about fetal development. There is a big difference there to what you claim.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

LostSoul3412 wrote: Then I apologize for misinterperating your post, and I agree that we can't prove whether or not an embryo actually suffers or feels pain. I disagree. We absolutely and guaranteed know that an embryo doesn't feel pain. We also absolutely and guaranteed know that a fetus before the 26th week of pregnancy doesn't feel pain. And we also know that after cortical neurons connect, it takes quite a while for them to "learn" and interpret signals.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

steen wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Then I apologize for misinterperating your post, and I agree that we can't prove whether or not an embryo actually suffers or feels pain. I disagree. We absolutely and guaranteed know that an embryo doesn't feel pain. We also absolutely and guaranteed know that a fetus before the 26th week of pregnancy doesn't feel pain. And we also know that after cortical neurons connect, it takes quite a while for them to "learn" and interpret signals.

Well of course the central nervous system is not even established before the 26th week, and from that the child also does not physically have a brain, let alone the mental capacity to use it. However, in the context of the time after the 26th week of pregnancy, it is impossible to determine if an embryo actually feels.

Regardless, the questionable should not translate into law, and abortion should be an issue for the parents.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

LostSoul3412 wrote: Well of course the central nervous system is not even established before the 26th week, and from that the child also does not physically have a brain, let alone the mental capacity to use it. However, in the context of the time after the 26th week of pregnancy, it is impossible to determine if an embryo actually feels. True (other than it is only an embryo until the 9th week :? )

Quote: Agreed. The only one who can fully make the decision is the pregnant woman.Regardless, the questionable should not translate into law, and abortion should be an issue for the parents.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote:
None. Neither side can prove either way that an embryo is aware, which is why a law restricting abortion should not be passed, because it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an embryo is actually aware. what is awreness?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: Quote:
None. Neither side can prove either way that an embryo is aware, which is why a law restricting abortion should not be passed, because it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an embryo is actually aware. what is awreness? ????

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

exactly. you cannot determine something as abstract as that by science.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

Plodder wrote: exactly. you cannot determine something as abstract as that by science.

My point exactly, which is where there should not be a law restricting something that cannot be proven. The government has no right to regulate what cannot be understood, and should therefore be left to the individual citizen to decide for themselves.

From that, there should be no law that restricts a mother's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: exactly. you cannot determine something as abstract as that by science. As abstract as what? Your babbling makes no sense.

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

although i am pro-choice... my stance has been that until the embryo develops a working brain and heart, it is not "alive". please note the quotations. i will not explain what i mean by "alive" as i would hope that despite your views you understand what i mean.

just to make a quick correction. the human embryo develops a working brain and heart at approximately 55 days after conception. that is about 2 months. i know that legal abortions are allowable up to 3 months and in my opinion, that is stretching it... but i would definitely agree with allowing the termination of pregnancy up to 2 months. from a medical perspective. until that point it does not have a brain (functioning) and does not have a (functioning) heart. in MY opinion (and that is all it is) those are the two main parts of a human being (or any being) and therefore, make you a life. without those two key organs, you will not be alive when you are born.

what i mean by this is.... let's say you are born without.. a liver. you may survive for a time and be given a chance by our modern science to have a liver given to you or a fake liver or whatnot. if you are born without a brain or a heart... you are born dead. it's more complicated than that (and yes, i know there are other organs that could easily lead to your death if not developed or completely omitted.. but we are talking about basic development here and trying to distinguish between a living human in the womb and the point BEFORE that).

so yes.... i agree with the current cut-off point right now although ideally for me it would be a little bit sooner if the choice to have an abortion is made for reasons other than saving the life of the mother due to complications. i had a friend who had an abortion and the choice was very hard for her to make. it still plagues her but she knew it was the right decision for her at the time. she will forever live with the decision she made but that is life....and that is what comes with having choices.