In the Womb: National Geographic Documentary

It isn't your business.

Is there no end to things you want to force women to do?

 

It's the primary business of government; to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and to punish the guilty, to maintain law and order so everyone doesn't go around killing eachother.

I refer you to this thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/282615-why-murder-punished.html

 

Well the Government and States have decided that aborting a Fetus is NOT MURDER.

That's the law. That's the determination.

If you take the time over 1000 studies as well as over 5000 polls have been done and taken upon the population of the United States and EVERY SINGLE POLL TAKEN has determined that the vast majority of Americans feel that Abortion is something to be avoided but should NEVER be made illegal.

The same polls again...EVERY SINGLE TIME...determined the vast majority of American feel that some restraints or laws should prevent late term abortions when neither the Mother or Fetus' life is at risk.

Understanding these polls numbers it is obvious that Abortion will never be against the Law in all cases.

AboveAlpha

 

That's not really true. Only some States have decided it is not murder. New Mexico says it's not murder even in the 8th month, so what does that tell you?

 

Cady doesn't even believe that 8 month old fetuses are persons.

 

New Mexico does allow late term abortions. I would not agree with this but it is their state.

Every state in the U.S. must allow abortion but the states can regulate it.

AboveAlpha

 

I would have to disagree with her as I would think that at the moment the brain of the Fetus switches on it's Higher Brain Functions...even if this is not full sentience it is the very beginning of sentience...I would at that time consider a fetus to be a BABY.

Now in the even this 8 month old baby in the womb has been determined to be either physically or mentally non-viable or the mothers life is at risk...the Mother's life take precedence.

AboveAlpha

 

What if there is no sudden moment? More likely it is a gradual process of development that takes place over the course of several weeks. The brain doesn't just have an on/off switch, you know. It's not like one moment the fetus is a vegetable and the next moment he is a conscious being.

 

Actually there is a moment in the development of a Fetus where Higher Brain Function such as a high level of neural activity such as in the Prerontal Cortex just switches on as this is not a gradual development.

Think of it as in the same way you would get online. You have to plug in your computer...press the start button...wait for it to do a systems check...then you would select an icon to get online as the computer would then connect...and then you would still have to choose a site.

A Fetus is at the....BRING UP INTERNET EXPLORER....point at the beginning of the 3rd trimester. Just like our computers it just takes a single moment to click that icon to connect to our pre-selected search engine.

This analogy is apt as the Fetus is just beginning to be capable of obtaining full sentience as it and it's neural brain connections must organize and learn just as you and I do once we connect to a site.

AboveAlpha

 

I cannot find the reference, but I remember reading a U.K. study which believed intentional grasping movements began at 14 weeks in the womb.
So I am a little reluctant to believe the brain only comes on in the 3rd trimester.

 

You are not getting this.

First of all we are not talking about all brain activity as well the fetal brain would not even EXIST as a working brain at 14 weeks.

I am talking only about HIGHER BRAIN FUNCTIONS occurring in such areas as the Prefrontal Cortex as this indicated sentience.

AboveAlpha

 

We also have to ask ourselves whether the absence of certain brain functions implies that the life has no value. The fetus could be viewed as just being in a state of sleep.
Does the fact that the fetus will become a human being very soon not make any difference?

I see this as if it were a hospital patient in a drug induced coma who will wake up in 3 weeks.

 

It is not an issue of whether or not life has value.

It is an issue at what time is a developing fetus at a point for which it's brain has developed to the extent to obtain the beginnings of sentience.

In a perfect world every pregnancy that would be doomed to failure would be aborted at a stage where it is just a clump of cells or before a fertilized egg has even implanted itself in the uterine wall...but this is the real world.

A person in a coma has Higher Brain Functions...if they did not they would be considered BRAIN DEAD which legally would allow the life support to be shut off to allow the body to die.

The Coma patient is unconscious and in a sleep like state but brain activity at all levels is present.

This is not the case in the early developmental stages of a fetus.

AboveAlpha

 

Sentience is a vague concept, and certainly ambiguous in this situation.

Besides, I would make the argument that the value of human life is not necessarily dependent on a present state of sentience. If one assumed that it did, one could come to absurd logical conclusions.

 

There is a difference between a Sentient Human Being and a Non-Sentient Potential Human Being.

The value of the later would be SCALAR as it can be argued that a 8 month old fetus would have a higher value placed upon it than a fertilized egg cell just implanted in the womb.

AboveAlpha

 

I am just saying that not being in a current state of sentience does not deprive one of their humanity.
Hypothetically, what if there was some way to temporarily take away the sentience of an individual? Would killing then become okay? No, of course not.
What about methods of killing that instantly take away the sentience of the victim? Is killing only wrong if the victim was in a state of sentience just before the killing? If not, when exactly? What if the victim has had sentience in the past, but no longer, or would have sentience in the future?

Just because the fetus is not "sentient" does not make it some vegetable or "human robot".

 

When a person is injured and is determined to be BRAIN DEAD....that person is dead. Their body still lives but usually by assistance of life support and shutting off the life support is done.

You are wrong in that when a person losses their sentience it is NOT TEMPORARY. That is it. The person and all they were is gone. They are effectively dead.

If a fetus has not yet obtained sentience it has not yet become a person.

AboveAlpha

 

Do these fetuses you claim it is okay to abort meet the criteria for brain death?

A drug induced coma can cause temporary lose of sentience.

 

Do not make this personal as I have in no way stated that I find anything...OK...as far as aborting a fetus.

I find abortion abhorrent but I also realize the realities.

If an abortion is to take place it should be done prior to sentience.

AboveAlpha

 

Here's a pro-life doctor who agrees with me:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/01/granting-rights-fetus-cost-mother.html

Historically, a fetus has never been considered a person. Pro-lifers are attempting to change the historical meaning of the word. Why?

 

Even though I tend to side with your beliefs it is a reality that a Fetus in it's later states of development at a time when it's Higher Brain Functions have commenced has become something more than just a potential human life.

I can't see how anyone would consider it to be a non issue or justified to allow a Fetus at that stage of development where both the fetus and the mother are healthy to be aborted.

The abortion should have been done well before this stage of development and I can think of no excuse other than the woman not being allowed to get one that would justify aborting the fetus that late in term.

I know these late term abortions are far and in between and that the Pro-Life Advocates use this as a shock statement...but none the less it should be not allowed.

AboveAlpha

 

It is a primary purpose of government to protect CITIZENS. The unborn are not citizens, and the government can't "protect" them without creating a Gestapo state.

 

Can you cite a case of a healthy woman aborting a healthy fetus at eight months? It just doesn't happen. Women don't endure the misery of pregnancy for months unless it is a wanted pregnancy, not to mention that it is very expensive, a very difficult procedure at that point, and very few, if any, abortion providers who are willing to do it. On the other hand, giving rights to a fetus at that point hurts ALL pregnant women, like Angela Carder, a cancer patient who was forced by the hospital to undergo a C-section "on behalf of the baby." Both she and the baby died.

 

I am well aware that this seldom if ever happens.

Still...if a law was made that only forbid such an abortion if both fetus and mother were not at risk...I think it might do a lot to remove the objections of many people.

AboveAlpha

 

I don't think "removing the objections of many people" is worth the cost of women's lives. Let's try education instead.