Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

So, it becomes based more on our ability to detect their (otherwise meaningless) brainwaves and the better our technology gets, the further back we can move that line and give them more and more rights.

Is that it?

 

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure what you are saying. Brain activity is either on or off there is no varying degree of sensitivity. They have had EKGs for decades now as I had to have one when I was little and that was in the late 80s. It is either on or off there is no in between with brain waves.

 

1. I'm not buying into the brainwave crap, I'm only playing devil's advoacte here.
2. How long has the technology existed - that can detect brainwaves in a prenatal child?
3. Why don't you expect that technology to continue to improve?

 

No it won't improve. Brain activity is a set amount of electrical current that they have been able to detect for decades now. You might get fancier graphics and more sleek UIs but thats about it.

Don't know how long the prenatal EKGs have been around but it is on virtually every site that deals with development of the fetus.

 

It all belays the fact that brainwaves are not required for personhood.

Note the definition in mysignature (from theUnborn Victims of Violence Act). There is no mention of 'brainwaves' in it.

"... the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means
a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." ~ Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Section (d)

 

According to you. As has been established according to me you must have a conscious brain in order to be an actual person. If your brain was transplanted into someone else's body you would still be mostly you.

 

Well, if you think you have enough hard evideence and reason to overturn the UVVA, I think you should do so.

I mean, unless you like the idea of people being imprisoned for crimes they couldn't possibly have committed.

 

Well, if you respect the scientific basis for Roe v Wade being the law of the land, and respect the Constitutional rights of those who thereby have and exercise them, you don't really have a problem.

As I have repeatedly averred, if you wish to believe that a person suddenly appears at the moment of conception, you are entitled to hold that belief, just not to inflict it upon others via State coercion.

 

That may seem obvious, but there are folks who mistake things for what they might only later become.

 

Yes it is, a human being is always a human being to include the zygote state. It can be nothing else, especially with the entire DNA required and it will be nothing else when fully developed. A developing human being is still a human being

 

That's just it.

I don't.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.

 

I think they (some of them) see 'human being' as a title that is earned like 'doctor' or something.

Your take on it is much more factual.

"It is a human being - even while it is developing, growing, etc."

It's not something less than a human being that is growing towards becoming one.

Human beings don't reproduce by first creating one organism that only later morphs into another (like frogs and butterflies do).

Human beings (along with all other mammals) are the same organism from conception until birth.

 

Very much so. I like it when people argue that unborn are potential human beings. They are human beings and can be nothing else. Developing human beings are in fact human beings. It just makes sense.

 

I must say (as a former person on the fence about abortion) I was a lot less reluctant to the facts than most of our opponents seem to be.

 

I've never been a supporter of abortion, but I used to be pro-choice. The more I look into it, however the more sense it makes to me to be pro-life. I've heard lots of arguments for why there should be abortion on demand. I do think abortion should not outright be banned, and should be available for extreme cases where the mother is in grave danger meaning she will die if the abortion does not happen, the fetus has a deformity, or condition that will make life outside the womb impossible, or last a couple agonizing days, or the fetus is already dead.The decision should be left up to the mother in these cases. some also argue she isn't a mother until after birth, but I call even a pregnant woman a mother.

 

I was pretty much indifferent - though I've almost always knew I wouldn't want a child of my own aborted. My view (back then) was "who am I to tell others what they can or can't do with their bodies."

It all changed the more I realized the child has a body too.

 

Yea I had that who am I view as well. Now I am a voice for the 55 million who have no voice and the thousands a day who will never have one.

 

Your welcome.

Throughout history no one has been able to prevent women from practicing abortion, so I see no possible way you can prevent women from doing so. You can make it illegal, but women will still find a way to practice abortion, and one side effect will be dead mothers and motherless children.

 

the ingredients are mixed and it will take time to cook and come out of the oven so to speak

if after 2 weeks nature aborts the process, no human being died, just one was never fully created


.

 

We haven't been able to prevent rape, murder, child molestation, recreational drug use or criminals from getting guns either.

So, what's your point with that?

Sad but true.

I ask again.

What's your point?

Are you trying to say that we should give up on recognizing children in the womb and making it a crime to violate their rights - just because SOME "people are going to do it anyway?"

 

Unlike cakes, organisms (specifically mammals) don't need anything more than a successful combining of the ingredients (reproductive cells) in order to have a new organism created. The gestation period is time for the child to mature a bit... not for it to be constructed or completed.

 

My point is that preventing abortions leads to unnecessary deaths and motherless children while preventing rape, murder, child molestation, recreational drug use or criminals from getting guns doesn't.

 

You seem to have overlooked the numbers of people killed BY abortion.

 

While I understand your position, it is imperative that you make a collection of cells into a giggling baby, I don't buy it, and I never will.

 

That would be an emotional appeal.

We don't need to do that.

All we need to do is establish the fact that a human being in the womb is a human being / 'natural person.'

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act. was a major step in that direction.

Once that is done (once their personhood is established) their Constitutional rights are pretty much automatic after that.