Sotomayor compares fetus to brain dead person, says fetal movement doesn't prove consciousness

To sustain...not to grow. The entire point is that we do not stop developing until 25. If this is a gotcha, it's pretty weak.

 

I do not even think that it is necessarily true that the brain stops growing at 25. Maybe physically, but I do not hold the determimistic view that 25 means the end of growing since a person can always change, learn new things and develop their character to the better. The fact that the brain stops developing is largely irrelevant.

Life does not end at 25. Don't give up -- You can still gain knowledge and take control of your life.

But, again, I still do not understand why you even brought this up.

 

There is a difference between that and physical development. Nice try though.

And yes, it is a FACT that we do not stop developing until mid 20's. A process that starts at conception.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8517683/

"We observed an increase in the size of the corpus callosum as long as human mentation expands, up to the middle 20s. Clinical and experimental data about the corpus callosum, together with the present findings, suggest that the corpus callosum is part of the highest order-latest maturing neural network of the brain."

That's why it's not a great idea to smoke weed or any other kind of drug that effects the brain until this development ends...but you do you.

weak gotcha was weak.

 

what non-magic process happens in the moments of birth that give it consciousness?

dumb argument against something I never said.

opposing deatg is anti life? How do you rationalize that?

 

is that how you justify snuffing out potential because it hasn't happened yet?

some made up threshold people created to feel better about exterminating people before they are born

So you think it's magic that people say Life starts at conception? So if a woman isn't pregnant with another human being what is she pregnant with a toaster?

 

Must have been the way you phrased the argument then

 

I'm sure you realize it is nowhere NEAR that simple,

 

What isn't that simple?

 

It's not as simple as your idea that a potential of unknown viability must be considered of ultimate value over all other considerations.

In the end, I think your logic depends on some religious precept, held in the absolute.

And, I'd point out that abortion existed in Biblical times, with no comment from God or Jesus.

 

No my logic depends on biology. I don't think religion says anything about this.

 

Of course biology is involved. No question there.

However, you are going WAY past biology.

Biology doesn't form a basis for laws against the choices women make in confidence with their doctors and other professionals.

 

My argument is based strictly on biology. You are attempting to gaslight.

 

That’s what judges have always done in America.

 

I don’t like that this conversation is being held in a court room and the ramifications involved. Scientists and doctors know far more about these questions than judges, and they should be having these discussions with their patients.

 

Do you think a fertile egg has consciousness? We know which part of the brain needs to developed for consciousness to occur.

 

Biology doesn't give fertilized eggs some right to play through.

You are adding ALL of that from some other source.

 

There is nothing in science that gives a fertilized egg that kind of protection.

One can take a look at nature and clearly see that the natural world really doesn't care that much about embryos.

 

No. A baby give days from being born does.

So is that at birth?

 

No, it takes time after birth.

Consciousness is minimal to nonexistent at birth, growing over the next 5 or 6 months.

Besides, this discussion is not limited to late term abortions.

 

No idea what you are yammering about.

 

The Supreme Court isn’t debating a the state of consciousness in a neonate.

 

And yet life starts with them. That's just how it works. We don't "poof" into being at 3 weeks of growth...that's not how this works.

 

You have stated that biology supports your demand that fertilized eggs must have priority over other considerations.

I'm saying I see NO evidence of that AT ALL from nature.

 

I don't see you forming a logical justification for giving priority to fertilized eggs over all other considerations.

 

even most Republicans think this, at least to 26 weeks

http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
"a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."