Now what a story this is! ..what a doctor said infront of an abortion

page: 3
58
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Why do you think this "spirit" enters the body at the moment of conception? Why not when brainwaves first appear (5-6th month)? I think its far more logical.




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

But what defines the individual? If solely consciousness, then tell me if you were conscious when you were 2 months old, when you were 3 years old, or even yesterday? When did YOU become "aware"? Personally I can't recollect anything prior to 5 years of age, does that mean before then I wasn't considered a living being? No, I believe you've had consciousness since conception.. but the amount, or "level" of consciousness varies.

Regarding the insects.. I believe that all animals, creatures, etc have a 'soul', it's the 'life-essence' if you will, but I do not believe they have a 'spirit', in fact, I believe Humans are the only ones who have this. That said, "more precious" isn't really the right word for it. However, if I got into that, it would become a 'religious' debate.



You were both concious and aware even before your birth, thats not the same as you can remeber it. I'm not sure i would like to remeber my birth if I got the choice.

The real question would be, when does conciousness start to evolve. In my eyes that "day" would be the day when abortions no longer is ok except in the extreme cases.
I can tell you It is not within the first 6-8 weeks...but not exactly when it starts.
Around 6th week you get the first brainwaves, but the brain aint developed enough to call it conciousness.

You can't compare the conciousness on a 6 weeks old fetus to a tree...but I'll try anyways. The tree act acording to its surroundings, like the position of the sun and so on. The young unborn child doesn't respond to sounds, light or pressure at 6 weeks. They are both lifeforms, but the tree appears more intelligent and concious compared to the "child" at this state in the pregnancy.

So you'r actually "pro-spirit" and not "pro-life"....or in other words using religious argumentations to say it is ok to kill some lifeforms....that ask for some comparison I would say...

but yes I dont have the energy to discuss religions today, so lets make that wait for another day.


edit on 9-11-2011 by Mimir because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I agree completely, with one caveat.

I definitely think there are only one narrow exception, the mother's life that should make 3rd trimester abortions legal. All others should be banned. I think 2nd trimester abortions should be only with some extenuating circumstance, but maybe a little more broad area for the Doctor's to choose from.

For 1st trimester abortions, I still don't like it, but if we implement some kind of mandatory counseling or education, and both parents are represented in the decision making when possible, and everyone is in agreement, then I wouldn't be totally against it.

I think in Abortion, Euthanasia, and Death Penalty, it should always take a unanimous decision before ending a life. I think any lone dissenting opinion should stop the action. If anyone is willing to take responsibility for that life, they should be allowed to do so. The recent Florida Execution had the appeals board at 3-2 and they killed him anyway. The Terri Schiavo case in Florida had her loving parents more than willing to care for her, but the husband had the authority to end her life anyway. For abortion, mother's and juveniles are making the decisions without fully understanding all the implications.

So, I could support some level of abortion, but only with strict guidelines and unanimous agreement.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Why do you think this "spirit" enters the body at the moment of conception? Why not when brainwaves first appear (5-6th month)? I think its far more logical.

First off, brain waves first appear at 6 weeks, with the heart beating 3 weeks in. Secondly, it has nothing to do with the "when", it matters not if the spirit enters at conception, or when they take their first breath of air. They still grow up to become a child, a teenager, a young adult, etc.

Denying life at any point in the womb, denies the entire life they could have had.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Natame
 


Uhhhhhhhhh the time for that CHOICE

is BEFORE conception.

The baby is the father's as well.

Walling off HIS CHOICE about HIS CHILD

is horrific.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mimir
You were both concious and aware even before your birth, thats not the same as you can remeber it. I'm not sure i would like to remeber my birth if I got the choice.

Neither would I, friend



The real question would be, when does conciousness start to evolve. In my eyes that "day" would be the day when abortions no longer is ok except in the extreme cases.
I can tell you It is not within the first 8 weeks...but not exactly when it starts.

Is there a way to measure "consciousness"? If not, it would seem a bit unfair to gamble with the off-chance that it does or doesn't 'evolve', or take form, within the first 8 weeks or not.


So you'r actually "pro-spirit" and not "pro-life"....or in other words using religious argumentations to say it is ok to kill some lifeforms....that ask for some comparison I would say...

You could say that, but personally, I'm not exactly okay with killing life for selfish or pointless reasons.. I would, of course, be a hypocrite in saying this, whether (for example) I was a Vegetarian or not, as cattle are living organisms as much as plants are.

But that's why I said for selfish or pointless reasons.. Killing mosquitoes because they carry the West Nile Virus is justifiable, in order to save lives. Killing ants with a magnifying glass just "for fun", what's the point..?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mimir
Nothing, not even a child can be defined as a individual before it developed a consciousness,


Why? Because you said so? What exactly is consciousness? Chemical reactions in your brain? So, if you have a certain group of chemical reactions in your brain, you shouldn't be killed, but absent those, it is ok to kill you? Can you point me out exactly which chemical reactions are relevant to this decision?


Originally posted by Mimir
which doesn't happen in the first weeks of pregnancy.


Prove.


Originally posted by Mimir
I would agree the unborn chield reach a certain age (weeks not months), abortions should be illigal, unless offcause you find serious complications that might kill the mother or child at birth.


Why? Why is the life of the mother more important than the life of the child? Why should the child die so the mother lives?


Originally posted by Mimir
I fully agree they should have tought of that before engaging in unprotected sex, but thats not always the case.


Over 90% of the abortions are done for the convenience of the mother, where the pregnancy carries absolutely no risk to them or to the baby. It may not be always the case, but it is damn close.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


You know there are many decaffinated brands that are just as tasty as the real thing.


Perhaps you think every woman should be like Octomom with 8 children at a time at taxpayer expense.
Fine. Put your money where your mouth is. N suleman (AKA Octomom) even has a website that takes paypal post a copy of the reciept after you have made your donation.



edit on 9-11-2011 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Natame
Ok im sorry but i guess i have issues with this... a womans body is hers and hers alone. I have had three wonderful children and i know i would never have aborted them. But i also believe a woman has the right to choose her fate. I do understand the fact that a baby once conceived is alive. But knowing that there is alot of different reasons that a woman could or would want to terminate that said pregnancy is her CHOICE. I would never dictate to anyone that wanted to have a tattoo or plastic surgery, to have a cancer removed or life threatening surgery..Your body belongs to you... only you have that choice to do what you will with it.


Great, let her have her "Choice". And she can spend all of eternity living with the consequences of that "choice". Whether you believe in God or karma matters very little to me. Taking a human life for your own convenience, and ANY reason is a matter of convenience - nothing more, nothing less - leaves black marks on your soul. Such selfishness as to kill a defenseless child for mere convenience of self will NEVER sit right with the Universe!



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


LOL! I've been on both sides of this argument. When I was in high school, the girl I was dating had an abortion. We justified it because she was taking some strong anti-ulcer medicine, and it had a known risk of birth defects and complications, and we made the decision early in the first trimester, but afterwards I still regretted it.

Then I was married to a woman for 10 years, and we never tried to have any kids, and I began to wonder if I ever would have kids. We got divorced eventually.

Then, I got remarried, and my first baby came 1 month premature, and weighed less than 5 lbs. He turned out to be perfectly healthy, but initially I wondered if it was some kind of Karma?

Then, I experienced the birth of my second child, I was there in the operating room as they removed him through the C-section and worked to make him live, and I saw him squirm and cry as they loaded him up with wires, electrodes, and IV's. I held him and I connected with him, and I can guarantee he was fully aware and feeling everything. He was at 26 weeks, and many states allow abortions up to 30 weeks. I can't imagine killing that infant in the womb and sucking it out through a vacuum hose after seeing what I saw with my baby. It is definitely not a "fetus," it is a full-fledged baby!

So, decaf won't help, LOL!



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Try to think in terms of protection of mind (or sentience), and you realise what I have said is not paradoxical at all, but logical.

Only harming mind is bad, not life. That means causing it to suffer, or terminating it when it already exists.


Why? Why is your criteria the correct one to be used? Why is it even a valid one? What exactly is mind, and why is it that important?


Originally posted by Maslo
But there is no reason to not allow abortions in the first trimester, when you base your right to protection on presence of mind


Again, why should I base it on such criteria? What makes this criteria superior to any other criteria? What makes it even a valid criteria?


Originally posted by Mimir
The real question would be, when does conciousness start to evolve. In my eyes that "day" would be the day when abortions no longer is ok except in the extreme cases.
I can tell you It is not within the first 6-8 weeks...but not exactly when it starts.
Around 6th week you get the first brainwaves, but the brain aint developed enough to call it conciousness.


Please, fully define consciousness for me, so I can verify your claim that the brain isn't developed enough by the 6th week in order to be conscious.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I dont think the ultimate decision should be made by anyone except the mother. Even if father or anyone else wanted the child, he has no right to force the mother to carry and give birth to it if she does not want.
On the contrary, father should have a right to opt out of child support entirely, before abortion limit has passed, if he does not want the child.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


I don't need to prove every single statement i bring forth, if you dont believe it's your call. If you think you know better prove it....

I will answer one of your questions...trying to prove conciousness doesn't evolve in the first weeks:


The embryo’s muscles start to build and by the seventh week of life the first embryonic movement can be detected using ultrasound. Fingers and toes also appear. Fetal development presentation

Indicating you dont have brainwaves before.


Some bioethicists, such as Baruch Brody, believe that full humanness begins when the brain starts functioning, which can first be detected by the electroencephalogram (EEG) at about 40 to 43 days after conception. ChristianAnswer.net 42 days = 6 weeks



6 weeks - The embryo itself is about a 1/4 inch (6mm) long. Major organs, including the kidneys and liver, have begun to develop, which connects the brain and spinal cord closes. The brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible. The arm and leg buds are visible. The physical sensations of pregnancy start -- nausea, fatigue, sore breasts and frequent urination.

11 weeks - The vital organs - the liver, kidneys, intestines, brain and lungs are almost fully formed and beginning to function, while the the head is almost half the length of the entire body. first trimester fetal details


So you dont have a developed functioning brain before somwhere between 6th and 11th week. Do you think conciousness develop before the brain?

You can find a lot of links that claim brain develop later, but i would stick to my initial judgement that say around 6-8 weeks top before abortion should be marginalized to extreme cases only. That also means that the 12 week abortionwindow in Denmark is a few weeks to much acording to me.....I have to add that I'm not a doctor, but doctors, "etical assembly" and the Danish government decided on this "long" abortion_

If you want fact on my other claims, you know what to do...

edit on 9-11-2011 by Mimir because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I'm not a devout religious man, and I could probably deal with knowing about the abortion rationally, but what about a father, with a devout faith that is entirely against abortion? It will cause immeasureable suffering to him. What about a father that desperately wanted a child, and conceived a child with a willing mother, and then something happens in the relationship and she changes her mind? Or, what about a mother that would use the baby as leverage against a father?

And, what about the manslaughter charges filed against mothers and fathers for harming a fetus? How can the law say it is ok to abort, but it is murder of someone crashes their car into your driver's door and accidentally kills an unborn child. Conceivably, a mother could be on her way to an abortion clinic to kill a fetus, but halfway there, she is crashed into by a drunk driver and the fetus dies in the accident. Now the person is going to jail for a very long time for killing something that would have been dead in 30 minutes anyway and isn't considered "alive?"

Nope, I definitely think it must be a unanimous decision in all cases.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




Why? Why is your criteria the correct one to be used? Why is it even a valid one?


Thats is-ought problem (fact-value distinction), or subjectivity of morality, so it probably cannot be justified objectovely if thats what you want. I have my reasons why I consider mind valuable, and mind-containing (sentient) life more valuable as mind-less (unsentient) life. I think utilitarian moral theories, for example Sam Harris and his Science of Morality provide good justification.

I will ask you also. Why is your criteria (being biologically alive + having human DNA) the correct one to be used? Why is it even a valid one?

edit on 9/11/11 by Maslo because: fixed link



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Mimir
 


I have known that factoid pops up in this discussion. The 40 weeks fetal brain waves claim is bogus.

Fetal Brain Development: Myths and Disinformation


Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...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.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mimir
I don't need to prove every single statement i bring forth, if you dont believe it's your call. If you think you know better prove it.


Let me see if I got it right. You don't have to prove what you say, but if I disagree with you, I have to prove it? Hipocrisy much? I don't have to prove you wrong. You are the sole responsible to provide proof for you statements. If you can't provide evidence for your statements, then they should be ignored in the discussion.


Originally posted by Mimir
I will answer one of your questions...trying to prove conciousness doesn't evolve in the first weeks:

So you dont have a developed functioning brain before somwhere between 6th and 11th week. Do you think conciousness develop before the brain?


Again, I will repeat what I said. Fully define consciousness so people can verify your claim. You failed to prove what you said that you would prove. You didn't prove that consciousness doesn't evolve in the first weeks. The only thing that you managed to prove is that the brain isn't fully evolved in the first weeks. If you want to prove that consciousness doesn't evolve in the first weeks, then you must demonstrate that consciousness requires a fully functioning brain in order to exist. Heck, you need to actually demonstrate that consciousness require a brain in order to exist.


Originally posted by Mimir
If you want fact on my other claims, you know what to do...


Yep. Demand that you prove it. Or, in case you fail to prove them, simply declare them as incorrect.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Your first paragraph hinted at the socitall problem that leads to (or is at least a catalyst to it) this argument in the first place.
Sex outside of marraige. You (and many many others I am not picking on you alone) were in 'high school' when you started a family and society condones this.

There should be more shotgun weddings and lot less welfare (only for widows or wives in a dangerously abusive marraige.)

This would make people think about the consequences of their actions. Every child should be a planned child with two parents.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


JOKE or Real Story .. the point is still the same..

LIFE IS LIFE.. !!!!!!!... and to those that scoff and laugh.. well.. you got spared.. didn't you ?



see how funny that is..



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


I agree. It should be more difficult to get married, more difficult to get divorced, and welfare and child support should be a standardized amount and not some kind of reward. I worked for Child Support Enforcement for a couple of years, and my wife still works there, and I don't think anybody working there agrees with what they are doing. Nobody thinks it is fair or just, and nobody wants to be doing what they are doing. It is extremely broken!!

Welfare is just as bad. If someone is receiving welfare, and they get pregnant, they should be penalized, not rewarded. That is an extremely poor decision for someone that already has trouble supporting their self.

On another topic, I heard a Mel Tillis joke on the radio about shotgun weddings,
No source, just the radio:

Mel walked through the lobby at his show one day, and he saw an old man crying. Mel tried to walk on by, but he just couldn't, so he asked the man what was wrong, and the man said it was his 50th wedding anniversary.

Mel sighed, and said, "has your wife passed on." But the man says no, she's in the bathroom.

About that time she comes out, rolls her eyes and tells Mel, "Just leave the old codger alone, nothing's wrong with him."

Mel is concerned, and he says, "whats going on?"

The old man says, "Honey, you remember back on your parent's porch when we were young, and we were smooching and your father caught us." She says yes.

He says, "You remember your father saying if I didn't marry you, he'd put me in jail for 50 years?" She says yes.

He says, "I would've got out today!!"





top topics
 
58
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join