Pro-Choice “Facts”: Fetal Development

a reply to: seasonal

Adoption is not a solution for not wanting to be pregnant.

a reply to: Arnie123

it takes one to know one

at least this fool knows how to properly quote and respond.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

True, the fact would remain if an adoption was arranged.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Neuroscience is the same thing. All it takes is one.

Tell me, what is this religion you speak of? How did you deduce that?

To me, it sounds like figures of speech to make my position clear, of course you simply see it as "religion", thats fine, when your brain is wired to black and white, how can you know? How can you? I pity you. I'll pray for you, but I don't pray.

We can never know what happens at the level beyond what we can already see and TRY to deduce.
Consciousness is beyond any current measure and is still being debates to this day.

a reply to: whismermill

Wow, really? You're using...

"properly quotes and responses"?

As a defense mechanism? You know whats funny? I suspected you might take that angle and surely enough, I was right.

I don't need to explain myself, but since you resort to pathetic and simple attacks on grammar, I'll simply point out that I am on my NOTE 4.

A failing Note 4. Of which I had an awesome Note 7 till they started exploding all over the world.

Again, you're making this too easy.

--INB4ModsRemoveForThreadDriftWorthIT$

a reply to: Hecate666

I think that you're forgetting to think about the other life involved...or the partner, whose DNA half of that fetus consists of, and wouldn't exist without. Where are the rights of those two people in this equation, or does, say, the father get excluded because nature decided that the woman bears the child, which is something that he can't control or change? And does the fetus have zero say just because they can't talk yet, or may need the umbilical chord for substance (per nature's design)?

I fully understand that the baby develops inside of and relies on the mother's body for development, but to pretend that there is only one person and one body involved during a pregnancy and an abortion is disingenuous at best.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Very well said.

That is one thing I don't hear, is the father's rights. Legally it may be an easier thing to just decide that the women is the gate keeper to take a baby to full term or not because she carries it.

a reply to: Arnie123

Neuroscience is the same thing. All it takes is one.

I don't know what you're saying. Paraphrase.

what is this religion you speak of?

What did you mean by that spark talk?

I pity you.

Cool.

Consciousness is beyond any current measure

We know consciousness arises from the brain. We know a fetus doesn't start with a fully formed brain. We know that process takes time in the womb. Denying that most basic of factual observation would be absurd. We don't need to even have a deeper discussion of the neuroscience behind it if you're in denial about that.

and is still being debates to this day.

Again, no idea what you're trying to say. However, neuroscience is a growing field. Its made lots of headway (punny), and isn't slowing down in its discovery.

a reply to: Arnie123

You may find this article rather interesting then. I did not know about this until recently.

Medical expert confirms unborn children feel excruciating pain during abortions

I don't like to label myself when it comes to opinions on personal matters such as these but I'd say I'm more pro-choice because I feel that making it illegal to have an abortion would cause much worse consequences. But at the same time, I think it's wrong to kill the baby.

It's such a tough one for me being a libertarian minded person. It's like I'm stuck in a loop. On one hand it's wrong to create laws to keep people from making personal decisions. On the other hand people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their lives as long as it doesn't harm others...but the decision does harm a baby.
So my mind tends to ping-pong on this issue.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I will tell you that I have never looked at it that way.

I really haven't and that really brings to mind how this whole thing is percieved.

The impression given is it is her and only her choice and so as men, we think, "ok" and saunter off.

Thank you for this enlightening post, I'm not deducing your position, just a genuine thank you for an enlightening post.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Cool story.

a reply to: Arnie123

Cool story.

That's what I thought.

a reply to: Cherry0

Thank you for that article. I have it open on my other tab and have been reading it. Very interesting information within.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

True, the fact would remain if an adoption was arranged.

So what's the solution?

Do you want 14yr olds bleeding out in their bathrooms so you can claim the moral high ground?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think that you're forgetting to think about the other life involved...or the partner, whose DNA half of that fetus consists of, and wouldn't exist without. Where are the rights of those two people in this equation

What would the logistics look like if both had equal say?

Truly, let's be pragmatic here.

Say the mother doesn't want an abortion, but the father does? How does this resolve?

They can't get an abortion until they are both in agreement? What if that agreement didn't come until the late term period of the fetal development? What if the two never came to a consensus at all?

originally posted by: whismermill
So a body with no measurable brain waves (the one requirement to call someone dead for sure) could still be conscious? Really?

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what is your accepted definition of conscious?

I only ask because it's important to note that not everyone is in agreement as to what consciousness really is or when it begins, so since you're strongly implying that one must have detectable brain waves in order to have proper consciousness, I'm just wondering what importance consciousness has for you concerning whether or not a human being (DNA-speaking, since even the zygote has its own unique DNA) becomes its own life force.

Is your stance that it's when brain waves start being detected? Because, keep in mind, before we had electron microscopes and the like, what we couldn't see was only a theory--just because we can't detect brain waves up through a certain point of development doesn't mean that they're not there. What if brain waves actually start during week 11? Or 15? Or at the start of brain development, week five?

All I'm getting at is that it's irresponsible to assume that the knowledge that we have right now is infallible and absolute, and to base comment on such an absolute as 'there is no way that there is conscious thought in a fetus at 14 weeks' is bit extreme. It may be unlikely, but at the same time, we don't really know, we can only assume, like you said. But we all know where assuming is applicable in science...

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

All valid points, but all points worth discussing because the father (if we wants to) should have some sort of say in the matter, regardless if the logistics make it hard. In fact, that's a pretty poor excuse for reasoning in order to support the idea that the father should have no say in the matter.

And speaking of pragmatism, I could flip this conversation and say what is pragmatic about the exclusion of the father in a decision that will kill his developing child through artificial means?

I'm so glad that I am married to a wonderful woman who holds my opinion on everything that affects both of us in high regard, as I do with her. I would hate to be in a situation where one or both of our two children didn't exist because she decided to abort without my consent, yet, there have been many fathers who have experienced this exact scenario. But, yes, let's just disregard what that does to the father (and just completely ignore the dead developing baby) because, you know, the logistic might be hard.

a reply to: seasonal

Right...but for every gatekeeper, there must be a key master. Both are equally important--Ghostbusters taught me that.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

We know consciousness arises from the brain. We know a fetus doesn't start with a fully formed brain. We know that process takes time in the womb. Denying that most basic of factual observation would be absurd. We don't need to even have a deeper discussion of the neuroscience behind it if you're in denial about that.

Hey, you might find this interesting. This guy is missing 90% of his brain, yet is a fully functioning part of society. I don't think science has come far enough in the consciousness realm to make any definitive statements.

www.sciencealert.com...

a reply to: Cherry0

I feel kinda the same way.

I feel that every abortion is taking a life, but why is my big fat opinion being imposed on someone else the right thing? Especially when I believe we all will have to grapple with God's judgement, what ever that may entail.