What should abortion laws be?

[☭proletarian☭]

The religious aspect did not "determine" my opinions on this

FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way.

Ugh.. I do make a lot of errors when I am typing. I meant "And", rather than "because".

Then why didn't you object in the first place?

Well... if that's your reasoning, we know to never take you seriously again

I never took you seriously to begin with.

You had the chance to deny that was your reasoning. You didn't because, as you proved here, your entire argument is that it must be true because the bible says so.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.

The actual text reads:

"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD."

Writing it as though it means breath comes before life is just wrong and a misrepresentation.

The actual text?? Are you seriously implying that there is only one translation of the bible??

Actually, my linked verses were compiled from a variety of sources, but I believe the one I listed that one from was NIV.

And PS-

Sinews = TENDONS
"bring up flesh upon you"= cover you in skin
Put breath into you = breathe into you
And you shall live= After all that other stuff listed BEFORE.


Split hairs all you want, baby girl- it is not the bible's translation that amounts to a fetus being either a person or alive. ;-)

IT ALSO LISTS THE EXISTENCE OF GRASS BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE SUN.

Care to try again?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct

The medical journals prove that I am correct. ;-)

Would those medical journals be showing that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply? That a fetus is merely an organ of the mother's body, rather than an organism with a separate genetic structure? Or that humans and dogs can interbreed? Tell us, please, exactly which fascinating biological absurdity you've asserted here the medical journals prove correct.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The actual text?? Are you seriously implying that there is only one translation of the bible??

Actually, my linked verses were compiled from a variety of sources, but I believe the one I listed that one from was NIV.

And PS-

Sinews = TENDONS
"bring up flesh upon you"= cover you in skin
Put breath into you = breathe into you
And you shall live= After all that other stuff listed BEFORE.


Split hairs all you want, baby girl- it is not the bible's translation that amounts to a fetus being either a person or alive. ;-)

This is amazing.

If it wasn't alive, you wouldn't have to KILL it, would you.

It is alive.

It is human.

And everything about who he or she will be is mapped out at conception.

He or she already is a fact, the only thing that will stop it is death.

Wombs of death was not the Creator's intention.

Apparently, considering the science and the verses and orders from God himself, that is not altogether true.
.

These two are almost amusing

 

[JD_2B]

I'm gonna parse this down some cause these are getting too long. If I cut out something you just gotta know, feel free.

So, in other words, you can be specific to the T as to when personhood begins, in your own mind, which you know is entirely subjective, but if the courts were to make a ruling that said the exact same thing I have been saying throughout this whole thread, that a woman has a right to privacy, regardless of any perceptions of sentience involved, then the courts would be wrong???
And at the same time, THE RULING that IS IN EXISTENCE is not good enough for you, either, because it allows for abortion on demand during the 4th month also???
Yeah I think I would want you to at least be clear with what the charges would be. To want something to be illegal, and criminal, you should at least know what fucking law was broken first.

I never defined when person hood begins , not 'to a T' anyway. If you need it cleared up for you yet again. I have simply stated that it is not logical to believe that someone attains person hood in some physiological sense immediately after conception. From that same physiological perspective, it is not logical to believe that a baby attains person hood, AGAIN from a physiological perspective, in the mere seconds of taking it's first breathe of O2.

So, you cannot, from a physiological perspective, claim that a woman is killing a person, at any specific point prior to birth, because neither you nor anyone else can claim to know at what exact moment personhood begins. Our best bet, so far, has been with once it takes a breath, and legally speaking, that decision should stand.

Under what fucking circumstances??? And why the fuck would a 30 week gestated fetus get fucking RIGHTS that a 29 week fetus should not also enjoy?? That, a fetus who, at the 29th week, 6th day, 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second, did not also have?
Do you SEE how your argument is illogical?? Do not apply some rhetoric to emotional appeal to MINE, if you cannot apply that to your own.

THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING YOU ARE ARGUING. How can you be so blind as to not see that? YOU are arguing that a baby developed to 8 months, 7 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes (that would be pre-birth) has less rights than a baby that is developed to 9 months and 1 minute. OF COURSE I get that there would be no perceptible difference between 29 weeks and 6 days and 30 weeks. that isn't how development works. THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. And for god knows what reason you can't see that you are using the EXACT same argument you attribute to me as defense of abortion at a different specific point in time, that there is some measurable difference in physiology from one second to the next that makes abortion okay prior to that second, but not okay after it. YOU get the fucking grip and think for a damn second.

I am merely illustrating that the argument you gave me, initially, that a fetus becomes human and thinking at some arbitrary point, which is completely unknown to you, even, is AS difficult to explain as what you claimed was illogical in my own arguments.
As such, if it is unknown and impossible to perceive the exact moment of personhood in any other timeframe during gestation, then there is no need to try to expand our laws on this lack of knowledge, and mere PERCEPTION (emotion based) of quickening.
As such, this body is still mine, and legally, a person is not a person until they are born.

oh yes it could. You could still be convicted of vehicular manslaughter. If it were shown that you committed some gross negligence (i.e drive drunk, was speeding, driving recklessly, etc.) you most certainly would be open to prosecution. If you drive drunk and kill your friend, regardless of your intent, you most certainly will be tried and probably do time.

Noooo.. If the person did not know that their actions were negligent, then nothing will happen. Maybe a civil trial, that is all.
Tort negligence is a FAR CRY from criminal court!! Also, with the pregnant woman, how could anyone charge someone with murder or manslaughter, or any other homicide charge, when nobody can say with any objective clarity that her fetus was a person, and when speeding is a common occurrance, the simple fact being that some areas happen to have lower speed limits than others. In Europe, people can drive as fast as they want! That has nothing to do with breaking the laws or negligence!!!

And now it is you that is maybe starting to get it. That's exactly why I can't tell you what the punishment would be. Follow the parallel; sure we may know someone had, a late term abortion/was in a car accident and the passenger was killed. We don't know why, we don't know whether it was intentional or not, we don't know the level of negligence on the part of the mother/driver. Every case is different.

Tort Law... Look it up. Negligence does not equate to mens rea. (intent)

I have no problem with someone getting SUED for causing a woman to miscarry.. I just do not see the point in treating someone like a criminal, unless something criminal (intentional and unlawful) actually happened.

And AGAIN- in the life of the mother scenarios- WHY would it be somehow BETTER for the doctors to save a woman's life, when they can just as easily C-Section the fetus?? YOU are the one calling THIS VERY FETUS a person, and wanting it to have the rights of citizenship.. Why do YOU think that there is a "Health" RIGHT that women have, that their "fetus-people" suddenly LOSE, just because the women's lives may be in danger???

It is absolutely ridiculous!!!

You're really not comparing a decision about life and death and make the best possible decision in a bad scenario to making a decision based on what would be most convenient for you, are you?

You support this in the first trimester...

You are not telling us that this was just a lie, are you?

Why are you dodging the question? You love stalling.

Then take some fucking responsibility and DO something about it BEFORE it gets to the point where you would even have to entertain the notion of whether or not you're choosing to kill another human being. You have every opportunity in the world to keep that thing you don't want from being in you.

Why should anyone do that, when the only reason why anyone would claim personhood exists is at some point that is completely subjective.

Subjective ALSO means that it is up to the individual to decide. Deal.

But at least you have cleared one thing up. I am safe in saying at this point it really doesn't matter to you whether it would a human life you are killing or not from a legal perspective, correct? That is even if you conceded that it was a human life that you were killing before it was born you would still say that a woman should not be prosecuted for that?

Why do you keep asking me the same question over and over again?? I have answered this for you a million times.
I have agreed that it is human. I would not ever concede that any woman should have to be a state sanctioned baby oven for 9 months, for any reason, much less the emotional hyperbole that you spew on here daily about some perceived sentience, which, in your own words, cannot be determined to a "T", before birth.
Personhood, by your own admission, even, cannot be established before birth, without subjectivity.
Ring around the fuckin rosey.

Further it would be fine with you if we continued this conversation with me referring to the child is a human life at some point pre-birth because again that is not an aspect you are concerned with legally where abortion is concerned. I want to be crystal clear on this because I have a suspicion and if it can be confirmed we can move on without going in circle

I could care less from a legal standpoint, as I have very clearly repeated to you a hundred fucking times already, whether it is sentient or not.
From a physiological perspective, it being a "life" should not be measured based on sentience, and it could just as easily be said that because (square fucking one again) it was growing since conception, then the "life" is just as easily perceived that way.
NEITHER indicated personhood, or some ability for it to survive without the woman being alive, and therefore the woman's personhood takes priority.

If you want to call it "an almost person" I can go along with that..

Furthermore, you should not feel so triumphant here. You have, in no way, changed my opinions on personhood or when life begins other than the first breath, sentience, etc.. None of this has any consequence to me in my beliefs about abortion or any miscarriage or stillbirth, either induced or otherwise, being a non punishable act.

The only thing you have succeeded in doing is proving to me your lack of understanding of my position, over the course of this thread, and constantly asked me to repeat it. Whoop tee fucking doo. FYI- I hate repeating myself over and over again. Start reading for comprehension.

You kinda got real perturbed when you presumed that I was claiming to know the basis of your beliefs. Yet here you are doing the same to me. I try to refrain from name calling unless it's objectively accurate, so i feel safe in calling you a hypocrit.

Considering you don't even know how to SPELL hypocrite, I will now LAUGH in your FACE.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

.

I think we should just argue sentience for sentience sake rather than using it as a legal basis for abortion. I think that because unless I'm wrong in what I stated above whether the child is sentient or not pre-birth doesn't matter to you in terms of the legality of abortion. Agreed?

Good fucking GOD. This again??? How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself you fucking moron?????

This is because premature infants lack the antioxidants needed to be able to survive the birth, so they need a special mixture of oxygen and other components which give them antioxidant powers, or else they will suffer from chronic pulmonary toxicity disorders, lung injury, etc, which can also happen in full term infants who are treated with high concentrations of O2, as shown in the PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLE BELOW:

Discordant Extracellular Superoxide Dismutase Expression and Activity in Neonatal Hyperoxic Lung -- Mamo et al. 170 (3): 313 -- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

I don't see anything disagreeable there. What's your point?

This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow.

Also, it appears that breathing for newborns IS something that IS labored, just like someone with emphysema (who exerts as much as 75% of their energy, focusing on breathing) for the first 3 to 8 days after birth. HENCE, breathing is, right after birth, a VOLUNTARY, or at least, MORE VOLUNTARY THAN NOT, activity. You can see THIS medical journal peer reviewed article as MORE fucking proof.

Perinatal development of N-acetyltransferase in hepatic and extrahepatic tissues of guinea pigs.

Ummm Guinea Pigs? Really? Your argument is on a house of cards, JD. Breathing seems to be one thing that actually does matter to you in terms when a child can be killed. But you see breathing, in of itself, doesn't make a lot of sense. If it were just breathing that mattered I could hold my breathe and it would then it be legal for someone to kill me. So there must be something else that you think breathing triggers that somehow makes abortion okay before that point, but not okay after. What would that be?

Strawman. All you have done is try to negate the BEGINNING POINT of when someone becomes alive, by saying that a person who has already breathed, and hence, is already alive, were to hold their fucking breath, would be "allowed to be killed". That is not even a logical argument in the first place.
First, you want to try to misrepresent the study on breathing to claim that "holding ones breath" (in ones lungs, no less) somehow makes them no longer alive, and at the same time, that killing them is even possible, if they were no longer alive by this fucking EPIC FAIL ludicris standard.

Breathing is the BEGINNING. Holding breath is ALSO breathing, fucking dummy. And it does not MATTER which animal is chosen to do the research on, either. Plus, it was LAB RATS, not fucking guinea pigs, you fucking ignorant dipshit!!!!! Christ!!!!

Fuck off. If that was not a vicious insult to the kind of person I am, or kind of mother I AM, in spite of you knowing NOTHING ABOUT ME PERSONALLY, just because I take the political and legal position to support a woman's right to choose, and understand a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, then I don't know what is. Fuck off, I say!!! You JUST NEED TO SAY THOSE THINGS TO JUSTIFY YOUR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT A FETUS CANNOT BE CARED FOR BY JUST ANYONE, AND AND AND AND AND AND AND THAT THE MOTHER MUST LIVE FOR IT TO EVEN BE CARED FOR BY ONE.
Tough shit, and fuck off to ya!

What I mean by that is exactly what I mean by dependence. A child has no say in the matter of who it's parents are. All it can do is hope that those parents do what is in their best interests. Your reaction to that proves my earlier point about you lack of objectivism. You claimed to be this rationale objective person. 'Fuck off's and 'asshole' are not the hallmarks of the objective. I told you before that I was the objective one and I proved it. The objective TRUTH can be more powerful than any 'fuck off' or 'asshole' that can be uttered. Being called names doesn't bother me because I know me and know they aren't a reflection of the truth.

Bullshit!! You fucking QUESTIONED MY ABILITY TO PARENT MY CHILD BASED ON MY STANCE ON ABORTION, YOU LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE. What's next? Are you going to question the safety and well being of my 10 year old now too??? claim that I am trying to kill him, just because I fucking support abortion??? How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control of women???????????
The ONLY other people that have said something to me that was demeaning towards my parenting skills are the ones I ended up getting injunctions against, because they were ABUSERS.
You sit here and act like you are reading a relevant medical journal article, after posting medical journal articles yourself (the music study, I believe?) and then turn them around as if only a doctor can read them, and try to shrug them off. THEN, because YOU failed to educate yourself with the information given to you, you ALSO try to discount the study based on the test group mammal used???? Are you on fucking CRACK??????? What is WRONG with you? You want to use ONE inconclusive study about movements to music, as the entire basis of your ridiculous claim that fetuses are people, and women who choose to end the pregnancy are criminals, but NOT criminals if they do it at a certain stage of the pregnancy, or under late term circumstances that YOU deem worthy.. and then you COMPLETELY ignore anything else of factual merit that comes your way. You are SUCH a poster boy for the pro life movement. SO TOTALLY IGNORANT, not to mention a CONTRADICTORY ASSHOLE in the way you present your fucking case. So again, I say- Fuck off. And yes I mean it. I am the only person in this whole dialogue that has even TRIED to keep an open mind, and I have fucking HAD IT.

You think whatever you want to think about us women and abortion. I will pray that God gives YOU a uterus, because if MEN HAD BABIES, things would be a LOT DIFFERENT. Paternity leave for 12 weeks, not just six.. Abortions galore... Same sex marriage would probably be ENCOURAGED, even. LOL!!!

But, in REALITY, Bernie, You got NO FUCKING CHOICE in the matter, and you NEVER REALLY WILL. Too fucking bad for you.. boo to the fucking hoo.

A little more about me; I like to debate as you can see. I also like to be right. What I mean by right is on the side of the truth, which is different from a belief. That being the case there are all kinds of things in the course of conversation that do nothing to persuade people that your position is one of truth, and dear you have displayed an awful lot of those things.

Please see the first line of this very post that you responded to me with.
That is not truth- that is opinion and opinions are SUBJECTIVE.
You have the right to your individual opinion. I am pro choice, and I support the choices of any pro lifer to make for his or her own individual body. THAT is not where the truth ends with me, but it is where this dialogue ends with YOU.

-continuing to assert that someone's position is something other than what they have stated. Either call the person a liar and prove it or take their word for it. If you call them a liar and can't prove it you aren't any closer to showing your side is that of truth and you're probably further from it because from the perspective of everyone else you look childish and beaten.

- calling names and clear displays of emotion doesn't give one any credibility either. Yes I'm guilty of it too.

- an inabilityto objectively scrutinize one's own actions. This is the hardest one by far. People start throwing examples and scenarios around to bolster their argument then one of them hits a little too close to home. I don't believe what little I have stated about you and your situation has been inaccurate. If it has, believe me i want to know, because as I said above trying to argue things that aren't true or atriibute positions that don't exist is a waste of time. If they are factual, they simply are what they are. There shouldn't be any emotion attached to that.

It is YOUR ilk attaching emotion to the debate.. Who on my side of the debate has EVER attempted to use a picture of a fucking six year old to illustrate their point???

Good bye.. You are an idiot. And I state that as a FACT, not as emo rhetoric.

No matter what position one takes on abortion, depending on the crowd in front of them, they are bound to take some fire. Pro life, pro choice.. it does not matter. It is a highly personal decision that should be left to the individual, not the masses, and NEVER to a jury of one's peers.

 

[JD_2B]

I'll keep this short cause I know you're just dieing to get at the other post. The first link you posted I get, didn't know that, but okay, makes sense. Not sure what you think it is evidence of as far as your position.

The paragraph I quoted is from the second link. I said that's all I can read because that's all I can read. I don't have the ability to view the entire article, but it along with the last link at the very least I can tell indicate how lungs develop. Okay, even though I don't really understand all of it, I'll assume those guys no what they're doing. What exactly is that you think these links do for your position that it's okay to kill a baby before it breathes, but not after?

Aw fuck I just saw this..

OK fine. The studies (there are other links you are ignoring also) show that a premature baby of a certain age has far better lung function and response than a fetus still in the uterus of the same age, if you count gestational age as well. I guess you skipped over that part.

Babies born prematurely need extra components added to their air in order to antioxidate the air, and keep them alive, thereby avoiding death..

It also says in another study that growing fetal tissue and adding components to a certain group is supposed to give the preemies or full term births the capacity to breathe, but that study still does not understand how the born organism is even CAPABLE of breathing, when they are missing certain components that had been previously shown to aid somehow in breathing.

There is NO scientific explanation for BREATHING.

There are all kinds of scientific explanation for lung ACTIVITY, but ACTIVITY is not the same as breathing.

If they can't explain how newborn babies BEGIN to breathe.. which is one of the oldest questions in the history of man, then maybe, just maybe- there is a greater being amongst us who does unbelievable things, like giving us life, and such. MAYBE.

The difference between the breathing studies and the fetal sentience studies is that with the fetal sentience studies, they cannot EVEN conclude that the fetus is making voluntary movements.
In the breathing studies, it is conclusive that in spite of the components that scientists know about that are supposed to aid in breathing NOT being present in the premature baby, or full term ones, they DO breathe anyways.

You cannot even BEGIN to compare studies that cannot even conclude that the fetus made a voluntary movement in the uterus (as if to be claiming sentience), to one that concludes that in spite of missing certain components that science requires for the baby to breathe, it breathes anyways, and I will explain why here:

IF the study does not even CONCLUDE that the fetus made voluntary movements, then there is no way of even beginning to determine how those movements were made, or WHY.

In the studies I posted, it IS conclusive that babies can breathe even when they lack certain necessary components to do so. Hence, MORE studies can be done on HOW that happened.. It can be ELABORATED on. They can FIGURE OUT how and why a fetus of the same age does not have the same level of response that a newborn has. They can figure out how a born baby who breathes does so like as if it were magic.

There is NOTHING in your study that can be elaborated on. Do you comprende????

 

[Bern80]

Quick correction (er restatement of something I already said.....twice!). I haven't posted a single link/article/journal in this thread. There is no 'your study' where I'm concerned. Do YOU comprehend?

As to the rest of the above, I would probably agree with all of it. Sure I'd entertain the notion that that first breathe is god breathing life into the child. The problem with your postion is that if you believe that's what's happening you would have to admit that is pretty convenient to acknowledge the will of god at one point, but deny it prior to that point. You can have your opinion that nothing, even a human life, has a right to your body at any point, but do you seriously think that would be God's will?

The reason we go round in circles that cause you such frustration is because your arguments make it extremely difficult to define what parameters your argument falls under. I ask you yes or no questions and you reply with paragraph long diatribes. Does sentience matter to you from a legal perspective matter to you?, is a yes or no question. If nothing has the right to your body, 'nothing' would include sentient, concious, human beings, hell even beings that make voluntary actions (which I accept unborn babies probably don't). Yet you continue to argue when sentience does or doesn't begin as if it does matter to you. When sentience begins, when a human being is a human being, all that I believe is a discussion for another time at this point. The only thing I am trying to make sense of is what is so signifcant to you about a first breath that makes killing before that point okay, but not after?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Would those medical journals be showing that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply? That a fetus is merely an organ of the mother's body, rather than an organism with a separate genetic structure? Or that humans and dogs can interbreed? Tell us, please, exactly which fascinating biological absurdity you've asserted here the medical journals prove correct.

Good luck. She lost me when with the link about guinea pigs and I guess it's proof that babies (which are not guinea pgs) have to consciously think about breathing when their born. This is all i could read out of the link.

My link was just as valid, if not MORE valid, as the link that Proletarian gave on slaughtered pigs, and their harvested embryos, during his little bullshit rant about how embryo transfers are possible.
You obviously did not even LOOK at the journal article. At least I read the bullshit you guys post. The fact that you don't read mine is Clue #1 at your own ignorance.

Hepatic and extrahepatic distribution and the perinatal developmental pattern of p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltransferase (E.C.2.3.1.5) in guinea pig liver, lung, and placenta were studied. In adult guinea pigs, kidney and small intestine enzyme specific activities were equivalent to hepatic activity. Lung enzyme activity was about 15% of that in adult liver. No sex differences in hepatic or extrahepatic distribution of enzyme levels were evident. The perinatal development study revealed that fetal as well as neonatal animals are capable of N-acetylation. The peak in liver and lung activity occur between 3 and 8 days after birth. Placenta has about 50% of adult liver activity for PABA-N-acetylation and it declines near term. These data indicate that extrahepatic organs of guinea pigs significantly contribute to PABA-N-acetylation.

Now I'm not med student, Maybe JD is.

Can someone give me the laymans terms for hepatic, extrahepatic, p-amniobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltranferase and how exactly they derived from that that HUMAN babies have to think about taking their first breath? Wrong link maybe? Conclusion I just can't see coming in the part of the paper that you can read that I can't? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Then read the part in BOLD PRINT. As I explained before, those are all scientific terms. If you SIMPLY read the BOLD print, you will understand. You can also find another place, near that sentence, that says (I believe this was what you chose to skip over) all the stuff that I explained to you, as well.

And no I do not need to be a fucking doctor to get the jist of the study. Nobody here needs to understand all the complex enzymatic terms listed, or the medications listed, to understand the plain english that is in this article, that you are choosing to make yourself ignorant of.

Sentence #1:

The role of glucocorticoids in the regulation of vitamin K-dependent carboxylase activity was investigated in fetal and adult lung.


Jump down to results:
The ADX-induced effect on carboxylase activity was paralleled by an overall enhancement of lung growth in the absence of endogenous glucocorticoids; ADX alone led to a 15% increase in lung mass over 6 days (Table 1), but previous studies reported normal lung morphology (34). In contrast, ADX had no significant effect on liver carboxylase activity or liver growth (data not shown), a tissue noted for its synthesis of the coagulation-related Gla proteins. Absolute liver activity was

10-fold higher than that found in lung, as has been previously described

(and a little further down, third paragraph of results)
specific Gla proteins produced by one cell population may influence growth and differentiation in the other cell type. Fetal type II cells isolated from embryonic day 19-20 embryonic lungs also responded to Dex with a 2.5-fold increase in activity

Then down, in the discussion section.. 4th paragraph..

The mechanism whereby dilation of conducting airway structures occurs with Dex treatment is unknown.

If MGP is important for normal branching morphogenesis and perhaps vasculogenesis, it is not clear why the MGP null mice are born with apparently functional lungs.

Does that help any?? I copied and pasted. No need to understand the study in full, to understand that it is an attempt at growing lung and liver tissue, and testing what elements need to be added to the equation for this to be plausible. Apparently, even though they can grow a whole HEART, they can't ever explain why the lungs function.

I realize that this is not specifically saying that God makes everyone breathe, and all that- but the evidence is very strongly in favor of it. Anyways, that is my belief, and my religion and scientific beliefs all go very much hand in hand. The two just cannot exist without each other.

::sigh:: I realize that the differences between species simply don't exist in your mind - because if you ever admit that they exist, you'll have to give up your dream of having puppies - but please do call me when the smokescreen of scientific jargon you're trying to hide behind involves HUMAN BEINGS. I don't really give a flying fuck about the physiology of other animals in a discussion of killing human fetuses, and I doubt anyone else here does, either.

 

[Cal]

I'll keep this short cause I know you're just dieing to get at the other post. The first link you posted I get, didn't know that, but okay, makes sense. Not sure what you think it is evidence of as far as your position.

The paragraph I quoted is from the second link. I said that's all I can read because that's all I can read. I don't have the ability to view the entire article, but it along with the last link at the very least I can tell indicate how lungs develop. Okay, even though I don't really understand all of it, I'll assume those guys no what they're doing. What exactly is that you think these links do for your position that it's okay to kill a baby before it breathes, but not after?

Aw fuck I just saw this..

OK fine. The studies (there are other links you are ignoring also) show that a premature baby of a certain age has far better lung function and response than a fetus still in the uterus of the same age, if you count gestational age as well. I guess you skipped over that part.

Babies born prematurely need extra components added to their air in order to antioxidate the air, and keep them alive, thereby avoiding death..

It also says in another study that growing fetal tissue and adding components to a certain group is supposed to give the preemies or full term births the capacity to breathe, but that study still does not understand how the born organism is even CAPABLE of breathing, when they are missing certain components that had been previously shown to aid somehow in breathing.

There is NO scientific explanation for BREATHING.

There are all kinds of scientific explanation for lung ACTIVITY, but ACTIVITY is not the same as breathing.

If they can't explain how newborn babies BEGIN to breathe.. which is one of the oldest questions in the history of man, then maybe, just maybe- there is a greater being amongst us who does unbelievable things, like giving us life, and such. MAYBE.

The difference between the breathing studies and the fetal sentience studies is that with the fetal sentience studies, they cannot EVEN conclude that the fetus is making voluntary movements.
In the breathing studies, it is conclusive that in spite of the components that scientists know about that are supposed to aid in breathing NOT being present in the premature baby, or full term ones, they DO breathe anyways.

You cannot even BEGIN to compare studies that cannot even conclude that the fetus made a voluntary movement in the uterus (as if to be claiming sentience), to one that concludes that in spite of missing certain components that science requires for the baby to breathe, it breathes anyways, and I will explain why here:

IF the study does not even CONCLUDE that the fetus made voluntary movements, then there is no way of even beginning to determine how those movements were made, or WHY.

In the studies I posted, it IS conclusive that babies can breathe even when they lack certain necessary components to do so. Hence, MORE studies can be done on HOW that happened.. It can be ELABORATED on. They can FIGURE OUT how and why a fetus of the same age does not have the same level of response that a newborn has. They can figure out how a born baby who breathes does so like as if it were magic.

There is NOTHING in your study that can be elaborated on. Do you comprende????

God Dang, I'd hate to hear you talk in real life .

 

[☭proletarian☭]

This is about breathing being the first signs of life.

Where did you go to school?

you fucking ignorant dipshit!!!!! Christ!!!!

How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control

Pop quiz:
Can your dog get you pregnant?
When does life begin in humans?

This test is 65% f your grade for the class.

It is YOUR ilk attaching emotion to the debate..

Cry for us again bout how evil men are oppressing you

 

[☭proletarian☭]

premature baby of a certain age has far better lung function and response than a fetus still in the uterus of the same age

One of the central unresolved questions in mammalian biology is how a mother knows when to give birth. Scientists studying mice have now found evidence that the maturing lungs of a fetus release a protein that initiates the process.

If also true in women, the finding could provide insight into the causes of premature births and suggest ways of preventing them.

Fetal lungs tell mom when to deliver baby. - Free Online Library

There is NO scientific explanation for BREATHING.

GCSE Science/Breathing and Respiration - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks

HowStuffWorks "How Your Lungs Work"

There are all kinds of scientific explanation for lung ACTIVITY, but ACTIVITY is not the same as breathing.

 

[JenT]

Do you honestly call this debate? All you did was quote every verse that had the word "breath" in it, but they had nothing to do with the subject or add a shred of credence to your claims whatsoever.

That is not true- All of those verses are interrelated.

I asked you, where does it say God caused a miscarriage and you put mountains of text up where people in the Bible used the word but not one of them talks about God causing a miscarriage.

Oops I guess YOU missed Hosea. I posted that one also. It is also present throughout Exodus, and don't try to say that this is the exception to the rule.. LOOK at this example of MANDATORY abortion, for women who cheat on their husbands...

Numbers 5:12-31 (see your Bible for the entire thing)
" . . . If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, . . . and she be defiled, . . . . Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, . . . . And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: . . . and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse . . . and say unto the woman, . . . . if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband . . . . And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter. . . . . . And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot . . . . And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed .

Furthermore, another primary bible based reason why many Christians believe that a fetus (or embryo) is alive, is because of this verse

. . . the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood . . ." Leveticus 17:11

However, it says that the life of the flesh is IN the blood, not that it IS the ACTUAL blood. It took a long time to understand this verse, for many people, after the development of the microscope, to see that the blood carries oxygen and nutrients. There are two types of blood, but I would not think that this verse meant that "the life of the soul is in the type-A antibodies" or "the life of the flesh is because of the coagulating properties of blood".. Nooo, it is said THAT way, because blood carries AIR.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies. They have venom like the venom of a serpent. ... Let them vanish like water that runs away, like grass let them be trodden down and wither. Let them be like the snail which dissolves into slime, like the untimely birth that never sees the sun." (Psalms 58:3-8)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Exodus 21:22-25

Fetuses don't have teeth.. and never in history have.

Furthermore, God called for the MANDATORY killings of all of the FIRSTBORN BABIES..
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"And Moses said, 'Thus says the Lord: About midnight I will go forth in the midst of Egypt and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die; from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne, even to the first-born of the maidservant who is behind the mill; and all the first-born of the cattle.'" (Exodus 11:4-5)[/FONT]

In addition, here is another order from God
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"...go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:3. See also Deuteronomy 2:34 and 3:6; Joshua 10:28-40, 11:10-12, 14, 15, 20 and 21; and Judges 21:10-12.)

And finally, the worthlessness of babies less than a month old, by God:

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"...all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward..." (Numbers 3:40)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver." (Leviticus 27:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]

Are you going to improve or should I just put you on ignore? I have far better things to do than spend time reading Scriptures that are falsely wielded as though they support a pov that they simply don't.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live." (Ezekiel 37:5)[/FONT]


My dear, you are welcome to ignore the bible. It won't bother ME one bit. God, on the other hand, might not be too happy...

I have yet to read all of this because my time is so limited, but I read the part about your claim of the Bible prescribing abortion.

JD, the problem isn't in the Word, the problem is your heart and how you're looking to twist it to what you want it to mean. If Planned Parenthood wants to provide abortions by having the woman go to church, pray and be prayed over asking for God's will and sprinkling some of the dust at the temple in her drink that she would lose the baby if God judged it to be so...well that just sounds a lot different from lying down and having abortion utensils shred apart infants in the womb and forcing them out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Part of the problem here is that so many people confuse the signs by which humans can see that life is present with life itself. This is foolish and shortsighted, given that the parameters change constantly with our growing knowledge and technology. It is especially foolish to attempt to interpret the Bible as some sort of definitive scientific statement on what constitutes life, rather than wording chosen to coincide with the technological level of the people at that time. What truly matters about what the Bible says is the larger context of the lessons and attitudes it is trying to teach.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The bible in all its versions is a piece of poorly written fiction with no place in intelligent discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The bible in all its versions is a piece of poorly written fiction with no place in intelligent discussion.

Also not true on several levels, completely aside from its veracity. Even liberal English professors recognize the Bible as a great work of literature, quite complex and nuanced. In addition, as the basis for the beliefs, morals, and life decisions of millions of people all over the world, it has a rightful place in any discussion of human behavior and morality. To try to ignore it or pretend it away is akin to trying to discuss American jurisprudence while dismissing the existence of British common law, from which much of the founding Americans derived their attitudes toward and understanding of law.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Even liberal English professors recognize the Bible as a great work of literature, quite complex and nuanced

Self contradictory and containing geographical and chronological errors, it is poorly written historical fiction.

In addition, as the basis for the beliefs, morals, and life decisions of millions of people all over the world, it has a rightful place in any discussion of human behavior and morality

That stupid people believe it does not mean it has any place in intelligent discussion. Children believe in the Coca Cola Santa and the Tooth fairy- should we argue over Saint Nick's views on fiscal policy?

 

[JD_2B]

Quick correction (er restatement of something I already said.....twice!). I haven't posted a single link/article/journal in this thread. There is no 'your study' where I'm concerned. Do YOU comprehend?

Si, Of course I comprehend. Unlike you, who has only me posting responses on here, I have to keep up with... what is it up to now, FIVE? people?

There are You, Jen, Cecile, Pro, and a couple of stragglers as well. Can you understand that, and stop being so freaking inflammatory with me, JUST because it takes me longer than 12 hours to respond to YOUR individual post, and stop saying I am ignoring your points, as a result... or not act like I am a FUCKING RETARD just because I do not fucking keep a tally here of who is posting what link?? Can you please practice what you preach???

As to the rest of the above, I would probably agree with all of it. Sure I'd entertain the notion that that first breathe is god breathing life into the child. The problem with your postion is that if you believe that's what's happening you would have to admit that is pretty convenient to acknowledge the will of god at one point, but deny it prior to that point. You can have your opinion that nothing, even a human life, has a right to your body at any point, but do you seriously think that would be God's will?

Absolutely!! I think that even God understands that a miscarried embryo is not a person. I think that bringing God's will into pregnancy arguments forces a person to step back and consider the sheer percentage of pregnancies that miscarry anyways. One should not say "It is not God's will that one CHOOSE to miscarry/ use ones body as they see fit" and at the same time expect someone to believe that the miscarriages experienced in 2/3 of all pregnancies should somehow have anything to do with Gods will. Especially when you refer to it as "killing". How one can say that abortion is killing something, and turn around and lay out in verse how God has this whole plan in store.never considering the miscarriages that happen regularly, is preposterous.
Do you think that in every pregnancy, if it is God's will to breathe life into the born infant, that the woman should go ahead and gestate to full term, in anticipation of seeing God's work be done? Because I say that this is a DUAL willingness issue, and not simply a one way command.
And this may be a completely opposing comment on everything said before, but:
I also CAN not believe or disbelieve that God causes miscarriages, or that God's will has any relevance in a pregnancy.. I don't care how many people say "Oh the miscarriage HE caused was for some good reason, of course!" and invariably dismiss the act of killing, the act that these very same people claim is murder. Whether it is his will that this happens or not, is entirely moot on both points. If he DID cause miscarriages, and it was "for good reason", then that frees the woman to also have "good reasons" to induce miscarriage herself. What would Jesus do? On the other side of it, if God has no will when it comes to miscarriages, then the entire issue of pregnancy being God's will is entirely moot, as this would mean that his will is not in effect until the child is born, anyways.

The reason we go round in circles that cause you such frustration is because your arguments make it extremely difficult to define what parameters your argument falls under. I ask you yes or no questions and you reply with paragraph long diatribes.

This is not a YES or NO issue. Sorry to have to bust your bubble here, but not everything is Black and White. MANY things deserve an adequate explanation, which I take pride in having and being capable of giving.
If my explanations are hard to fathom, it is only because it is very difficult for someone who has invested this much emotional energy into their beliefs, to be able to even prepare to begin to think in a different way. And that was not a cut down, either- I know exactly how you feel about this, and I understand that emotions play a very strong role in the way we perceive things, or are even capable of perceiving things that go beyond our emotional capability at any given time.
Did you ever fight with someone you love.. someone who was so hurtful, that all of a sudden, that person was just the ugliest thing you had ever seen, and you could not believe that you were ever attracted to them? Or, after doing something bad, like lying to someone, you felt so bad about doing it, that when you looked in the mirror, even your best suit or jeans or whatever, and nicest shirt looked bad on you, and spending all day gelling your hair would not make you an attractive person.. And then telling the truth, you felt better, the person forgave you, etc, and then poof! Its like you are back to feeling normal again- Did you know that if you tell certain people that they have the best jobs for physical fitness, they will naturally be more fit than their counterparts, even if they eat more junk food and skip the gym, and all that? It is all mind over matter.
Emotion CHANGES perception. Again, this stuff is probably a bit obtuse for you, but it is truthful, even though it is another concept that is difficult to explain. I will wait and see if you are on the same wavelength there, before going into any more detail, because you will either understand what I am saying, or not, and I do not want to talk down to you or assume that you wont understand that concept.

Does sentience matter to you from a legal perspective matter to you?, is a yes or no question.

As I said before NO.

If nothing has the right to your body, 'nothing' would include sentient, concious, human beings, hell even beings that make voluntary actions (which I accept unborn babies probably don't). Yet you continue to argue when sentience does or doesn't begin as if it does matter to you.

As I said before, It matters to me PERSONALLY. Legally, no. Personally, I think that I would feel better about a late term abortion, if I absolutely had to have one, if the fetus had some kind of anesthesia first, and that would be only because I do not know how the fetus processes pain. Legally, I don't think any standard of care should be given to fetuses. I have said ALL of this, a hundred and twenty three times before.

PS Every time I go into a "diatribe" as you put it, it is because I am helping you to understand my opinions. There is a simple YES with no understanding, and then there is a YES with an explanation, and understanding of that YES.

When sentience begins, when a human being is a human being, all that I believe is a discussion for another time at this point. The only thing I am trying to make sense of is what is so signifcant to you about a first breath that makes killing before that point okay, but not after?

<sigh>

I am sooooo not repeating the last 20 pages again, for another 20 pages. I do not believe killing is involved. I have explained all of THIS a hundred and twenty times as well. Review the thread if you need clarity, rather than wasting my time, please.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

This is not a YES or NO issue. Sorry to have to bust your bubble here, but not everything is Black and White

Says the woman who posted this:

This is a very odd story indeed... However, it sounds like they just decided to have an abortion a month too late for legal standing.
If the autopsy comes back that the fetus had taken a breath of air, it will (and should) count as a homicide, because the fetus would have no longer been a fetus, but as of taking that first vital breath on its own, it automatically becomes a premature infant baby.

 

[Bern80]

So, you cannot, from a physiological perspective, claim that a woman is killing a person, at any specific point prior to birth, because neither you nor anyone else can claim to know at what exact moment personhood begins. Our best bet, so far, has been with once it takes a breath, and legally speaking, that decision should stand.

Not what I said at all. I indeed can claim that a woman is killing a person during pregnancy. What I can not claim is the exact cut off point of when that would be. I think it is reasonable to believe that it occurs at some point during the pregnancy simply because it is NOT reasonable to believe that all of the qualifiers that would need to be in place for you to consider it a person occurr at a single moment in time. You have defined that moment in time taking the first breath. Since that isn't reasonable deductive logic should tell you it occurrs before that.

You support this in the first trimester...

You are not telling us that this was just a lie, are you?

Why are you dodging the question? You love stalling.

I'm not. I don't think there should be a legal issue invovled for abortion in the first trimester because I am reasonably confident at that point we aren't dealing with a sentient being.

Why do you keep asking me the same question over and over again?? I have answered this for you a million times.
I have agreed that it is human. I would not ever concede that any woman should have to be a state sanctioned baby oven for 9 months, for any reason, much less the emotional hyperbole that you spew on here daily about some perceived sentience, which, in your own words, cannot be determined to a "T", before birth.
Personhood, by your own admission, even, cannot be established before birth, without subjectivity.
Ring around the fuckin rosey.

I think you need consider the subtle difference between determing WHEN something happens and IF it happens. An anology would be that we can't nail to the second either, when a plant seed germinates, regardless we still know it happened by what follows (a plant).

I could care less from a legal standpoint, as I have very clearly repeated to you a hundred fucking times already, whether it is sentient or not.
From a physiological perspective, it being a "life" should not be measured based on sentience, and it could just as easily be said that because (square fucking one again) it was growing since conception, then the "life" is just as easily perceived that way.
NEITHER indicated personhood, or some ability for it to survive without the woman being alive, and therefore the woman's personhood takes priority.

If you want to call it "an almost person" I can go along with that..

And yet it so damn hard for you to admit that the reality of th above is that you believe there should be no legal or moral objection to a woman taking a human/human being/person/flavor of the week before it takes its first breath.

Because if you don't care if it is a person/human/human being/what you consider life post birth, arguing all this crap about when sentience occurs, when consciousness occurs, when voluntary actions occur, when personhood occurs is irrelevant. There's no point in that discussion anymore. I understand you don't BELIEVE it's any of those things prior to taking it's first breathe, but you have stated it doesn't matter to you what the truth is. Your argument is simply that the woman has autonomy no matter and trumps everything, therefore taking another human life/human/person is okay. We could even give pre-born babies legal status as human beings/human/person etc. What you would really have us do is re-write the laws to saying that killing another innocent human being/person/human is illegal WITH THE EXCEPTION of before it takes its first breath Would you admit that?

This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow.

A heart beat can be considered as being before the first signs of life now? YOU try to follow. Your links are all about lung development. Not mental development. Not sentience. Not personhood. None of them link there studies about lung development to those concepts. That the first breath in of itself, is a first sign of life, that it is the threshold for your legal objection to killing a child given all of the other independent bilogical working of the human body at that point is really utter nonsense.

Bullshit!! You fucking QUESTIONED MY ABILITY TO PARENT MY CHILD BASED ON MY STANCE ON ABORTION, YOU LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE. What's next? Are you going to question the safety and well being of my 10 year old now too??? claim that I am trying to kill him, just because I fucking support abortion??? How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control of women???????????
The ONLY other people that have said something to me that was demeaning towards my parenting skills are the ones I ended up getting injunctions against, because they were ABUSERS.
You sit here and act like you are reading a relevant medical journal article, after posting medical journal articles yourself (the music study, I believe?) and then turn them around as if only a doctor can read them, and try to shrug them off. THEN, because YOU failed to educate yourself with the information given to you, you ALSO try to discount the study based on the test group mammal used???? Are you on fucking CRACK??????? What is WRONG with you? You want to use ONE inconclusive study about movements to music, as the entire basis of your ridiculous claim that fetuses are people, and women who choose to end the pregnancy are criminals, but NOT criminals if they do it at a certain stage of the pregnancy, or under late term circumstances that YOU deem worthy.. and then you COMPLETELY ignore anything else of factual merit that comes your way. You are SUCH a poster boy for the pro life movement. SO TOTALLY IGNORANT, not to mention a CONTRADICTORY ASSHOLE in the way you present your fucking case. So again, I say- Fuck off. And yes I mean it. I am the only person in this whole dialogue that has even TRIED to keep an open mind, and I have fucking HAD IT.

You think whatever you want to think about us women and abortion. I will pray that God gives YOU a uterus, because if MEN HAD BABIES, things would be a LOT DIFFERENT. Paternity leave for 12 weeks, not just six.. Abortions galore... Same sex marriage would probably be ENCOURAGED, even. LOL!!!

But, in REALITY, Bernie, You got NO FUCKING CHOICE in the matter, and you NEVER REALLY WILL. Too fucking bad for you.. boo to the fucking hoo.

Just proving a point is all. Cut the bullshit indignation schtick. I never said anything about or have judged your parenting. I don't know enough about you to credibly do that.

Absolutely!! I think that even God understands that a miscarried embryo is not a person. I think that bringing God's will into pregnancy arguments forces a person to step back and consider the sheer percentage of pregnancies that miscarry anyways. One should not say "It is not God's will that one CHOOSE to miscarry/ use ones body as they see fit" and at the same time expect someone to believe that the miscarriages experienced in 2/3 of all pregnancies should somehow have anything to do with Gods will. Especially when you refer to it as "killing". How one can say that abortion is killing something, and turn around and lay out in verse how God has this whole plan in store.never considering the miscarriages that happen regularly, is preposterous.
Do you think that in every pregnancy, if it is God's will to breathe life into the born infant, that the woman should go ahead and gestate to full term, in anticipation of seeing God's work be done? Because I say that this is a DUAL willingness issue, and not simply a one way command.
And this may be a completely opposing comment on everything said before, but:
I also CAN not believe or disbelieve that God causes miscarriages, or that God's will has any relevance in a pregnancy.. I don't care how many people say "Oh the miscarriage HE caused was for some good reason, of course!" and invariably dismiss the act of killing, the act that these very same people claim is murder. Whether it is his will that this happens or not, is entirely moot on both points. If he DID cause miscarriages, and it was "for good reason", then that frees the woman to also have "good reasons" to induce miscarriage herself. What would Jesus do? On the other side of it, if God has no will when it comes to miscarriages, then the entire issue of pregnancy being God's will is entirely moot, as this would mean that his will is not in effect until the child is born, anyways.

But your argument isn't accidental miscarriages. Your argument is that it is okay to intentionally END the pregnancy because of the woman's autonomy. Autonomy is more of a morality issue than a legal one I would say. Wouldn't you? What do you think god would think about that?

 

[JD_2B]

This is not a YES or NO issue. Sorry to have to bust your bubble here, but not everything is Black and White

Says the woman who posted this:

This is a very odd story indeed... However, it sounds like they just decided to have an abortion a month too late for legal standing.
If the autopsy comes back that the fetus had taken a breath of air, it will (and should) count as a homicide, because the fetus would have no longer been a fetus, but as of taking that first vital breath on its own, it automatically becomes a premature infant baby.

That is the law. Go figure, right. What do you disagree with, here? The fact that this is the law, or the facts I have given you about what happens between gestation and infanthood?