Question: Does life start at birth or conception?

No, I was referring to this """"""" I don't believe a fetus should be made to suffer for choices that someone else made,"""

OK, what do you mean by that? That it shouldn't be aborted? If that's a "yes, it shouldn't be aborted"..." then you believe women should be forced to give birth.


And , why would the fetus resulting from a rape be different from a fetus resulting from consensual sex?

In either circumstances the fetus is the same, the procedure (abortion) is the same.

 

I would contend that most of the objective evidence would support somewhere in between and that seems to be where a significant percentage of the science community lies.

 

The morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It is an emergency contraceptive.

 

I read the story you gave the link to and it had nothing to do with abortion, I consider it murder.


I do not agree at all with a 7-9 week limit.

And I can't decipher why you think an abortion due to rape is OK but not abortion due to consensual sex....maybe if ya left out the handcuffs .

 

I think the confusion is coming in because you think the limit is 7-9 weeks and it's 23-24 weeks.

And most women don't wait that long.


As to pregnancy due to rape I am not/have not been addressing late term abortions in cases of rape.

Maybe you could answer my question by stating why you believe a legal abortion due to rape is different from a legal abortion due to consensual sex because.... ???

 

Whatever the law says, I think it's 23-26 weeks.. I could google the scientific reasoning behind this but it's been discussed in here forever...

after the legal limit, it's murder.

 

That's when a fetus becomes viable.

I'm sure you can google Roe v Wade, too.

 

Okey dokey then, here's my personal belief. I am NOT a scientist/doctor/biologist ( and neither are you)...I will take their word for when a fetus is viable.
My (and YOUR) personal beliefs won't, and shouldn't, change a thing...

 

You take yourself and the whole issue waaaayyy too seriously...I think it's perfectly OK for a woman to have a legal abortion and there is NO difference whether she was raped or not., the procedure is the same in both cases...

And you don't write like a scientist...it's rather rambling....and has no point that I (being a humble non-scientist) can discern.

 

I'd love to see your certifications to back up this claim that you are in fact a Scientist.

 

You know...just to demonstrate how silly this topic is as well as how silly this argument is here are a few FACTS.

LIFE....exists BEFORE an Human Egg Cell is even Fertilized by a Sperm Cell.

Both the Egg and Sperm Cells are INDEPENDENT LIFE FORMS and although these cells are Human in origin they cannot be classified as a HUMAN BEING either independently or together as a Fertilized Egg.

As I have posted before a Living Human Being is classified as a Multi-Cellular Multi-Species Biomechanical Construct and that along with Billions of various completely independently classified groups of Human Cells which serve specific purposes both individually and as a group to enable the entire Biomechanical Construct to live and have abilities but as well a MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT NON-HUMAN SPECIES exist and MUST EXIST as part of a Human Being in order for a Human Being to live, develop and survive.

As example....with a variety of Bacterial Species which exist in a SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP within and as a part of a Human Beings Biomechanical Construct in the Intestinal System and many other systems and such species of Bacteria MUST exist in a Fetus even to allow Fetal Development as without these other Life Forms Humans could NOT REPRODUCE as a Fetus would die early on in the pregnancy without them.

So the FACT is that a LIVING HUMAN BEING exists as MORE THAN ONE SPECIES....as if only Human Cells were present a Human Being could neither live nor could it even EXIST.

THIS IS A FACT THAT DICTATES THE FOLLOWING.

Since a Fertilized Human Egg Cell on it's own and without the introduction of a large number of various Species of Life Forms with completely different Genomes than that of Human Cells CAN NEVER DEVELOP INTO A HUMAN BEING..... a Fertilized Human Egg Cell CAN NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A HUMAN BEING.

This is a simple truth that most people simply either don't know or don't understand.

AboveAlpha.

 

I haven't avoided your question. Several posts ago , using your link to a story of a woman killing her baby two days before her due date I stated I thought it was murder...you , being an observant scientist and all , should've seen that.



I stated , "I think it's perfectly OK for a woman to have a legal abortion """

And you respond,
"""And I think know that it is a logical fallacy to justify something based purely on its legality.""


Which has nothing to do with , "I think it's perfectly OK for a woman to have a legal abortion """

You think I can't have an opinion because it's a "logical fallacy" ?

Then why ask anyone about their opinion on anything. ?

Your comments on rape are confusing because of you use of the word "guilt" which has nothing to do with a woman getting an abortion due to rape.
I guess when I saw "guilt" introduced I quit reading...

 

Consistent brain wave activity starts at week 25 of gestation. The rationale for this starting point is based on our definition of death. The definition of death is not disputed, and is considered the time when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. EEG measures brain activity and must demonstrate regular wave patterns to be considered valid. Therefore, by this rule the onset of life would be the time when fetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave patterns, which occurs fairly consistently around week 25. Previous to that time, the EEG only shows small bursts of activity without sustained firing of neurons.

A fetus cannot feel pain until at least 24 weeks, the required 'wiring' is simply not complete enough to pass the nerve messages to the brain, add to that -that pain is also more than just a physical thing it also requires a physiological knowledge of what pain is.. It would be like me asking you to describe how it feels to be strangled when you have never experienced it. Studies that say fetal pain can be felt at 20 weeks have been refuted but organizations such as Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429

The sense is found in the pro-lifer ideology of 'person at conception' this alludes to the right to life of a fertilized ovum .. if, as pro-lifers say, that a fertilized ovum is a 'person' then it's right to life is no different from yours or mine and as such other rights must also be included, not just the ones that offer support to the pro-life ideology but also ones that would refute.
I believe that the right to life is not the paramount right that humans have, after all that right can be removed by a higher authority in cases of executions, war and self-defence .. one right that has NEVER been over ruled is the right of body autonomy, there is no law in existence in the US that allows a person to be forced to allow their body to be used without their consent, which moves me onto your comment about the result of choices .. this I assume alludes to the consent to sex = consent to pregnancy thinking, but I'm afraid this is simply not the case.

Legally consent is seen as 1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations. - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent

This does not apply to pregnancy, unless it can be proven that a woman voluntary agreed to remain pregnant in the unlikely event of it happening from sexual intercourse, at best it would create a 'he said', 'she said' argument .. BTW I say unlikely event of it happening as there is a less that 9% risk of a woman becoming pregnant from a single act of unprotected sexual intercourse, and no one is expected to suffer injury from a risk taken.

There is also implied consent legally seen as n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered. Examples: a) a "contract" based on the fact that one person has been doing a particular thing and the other person expects him/her to continue; b) the defense in "date rape" cases in which there is a claim of assumed consent due to absence of protest or a belief that "no" really meant "yes," "maybe" or "later." - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent

now this would seem to be a strong case for consent to sex is implied consent to pregnancy, however on closer scrutiny it is not. Implied consent is reliant on the acquiescence of the female, the second she seeks an abortion she is explicitly saying 'no' to the pregnancy at that point implied consent is moot. In legal terms no means no.

Furthermore consent is non-transferable unless the person who gave the original consent agrees to the transfer, under the 'person at conception' ideology there is a separate, individual 'person' which requires either specific consent or transferred consent to use a females body in order to sustain it's life and even if there were a contract this does not force the woman to continue the pregnancy. I refer to McFall vs Shimp - http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html - In it's findings the court made the following comments -

The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue. .. Our society, contrary to many others, has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another. .. For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.

While the decision by the woman to abort may be morally indefensible (I disagree, but that is another debate) there is no legal precedence that can force her to remain pregnant. A persons moral perspective does not mean that their desires can be forced upon others.

See above re the consent to sex, consent to pregnancy reply.

Yet a fetus prior to 25 weeks is not self-aware, in fact even a newborn is not self-aware . .so the only other consideration is that it is alive and that applies to many things including non-human things.

no you won't and that is because, as you stated in earlier, is because plants, as far as we are aware, or not self-aware, but neither is a fetus .. as above a newborn is not self-aware either.

Yep they are because they can feel pain and fear, a fetus prior to 25 weeks cannot .. hence why the Roe ruling got it about right with it's progressive restrictions.

no he doesn't however is that because he has other avenues that could be used in order to free himself from the situation without the need for deadly force, and would the same remain true if the other person starting beating him, would he not then be able to defend himself up to and including the use of deadly force if required?

That still does not allow the other person to use more force than is required to free themselves, in this case there is no requirement for deadly force as the handcuffs can be removed by other methods, and although initially the person he hand cuffed himself to would be the victim, if that person were to start beating him, he can defend himself. The victim cam only use as much force as is deemed required to end the imprisonment (ie handcuffed).

Agreed, however if the attacker were not willing to undergo those options, and forcibly tried to restrain the victim from seeking those options the victim can use force in order to attain their release.

Thing is currently the states recognize three distinct scenarios where deadly force can be used.

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnaping, rape, or slavery

unconsented pregnancy meets the requirements of numbers 2 and 3. Given the quantity and quality of the effects of a fetus on a woman's body and liberty, if a woman does not consent, that fetus is massively harming her.

 

I'm not the one sitting here making claims that I know I can't or won't back up on the Internet due to privacy reasons.

That would be you.

 

I am jumping in here so forgive me if I misrepresent anyone's position.

First off - that one is a scientist matters not. Even if one is a scientist in an area of subject matter expertise such as (Developmental biology or Taxonomy if one talking beginning of life or what is a human) "Neurobiology if one is talking when an organism can feel pain" and so on.

It is still and appeal to authority "unless" that authority gives reasons/evidence/proof that back up his or her claim.

I am both scientist and work in the area of applied microbiology. All this means is that I can understand the difference between what is good evidence and what is not a little better because I deal with this on a daily basis.

That's it.

If I want to make a claim (when does that organism feel pain) then I am obligated to provide some evidence that is not fallacy. "The law says so or some Ebryologist or expert said so" is clearly fallacy unless the claim is backed up by reasons that prove or at least make a good case for the truth of the claim.

For example:

This article is titled: Fetal Pain - A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence from the Journal of the American Medical Association.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429

Here we have an "opinion" from experts (capacity for functional pain probably does not exist until 29-30 weeks) but this opinion is back up by reasons why this opinion is valid.

Clearly, from what experts devoted to this area of research know, it is not possible for a fetus to feel pain prior to the development of certain neural connections (thalamocortical connections) which do not appear until 23 weeks. Hence, the 23 week cutoff.

 

"""""""Evidence Synthesis Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks."""""""""



Thanks for posting that...it was just on the tip of my tongue !