Planned Parenthood

oldstyle00 · September 29, 2015, 10:07pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Matter of factly posts this:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
To get some perspective, the death of a human being is determined by the lack of brain activity. Thus medically and scientifically speaking the life a human being would happen when there is measured brain waves.
[/quote]

Then posts this:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

Its not a scientific paper, but puts in perspective where you guys are with re guard to human life at conception and where I am.

You guys are in the Genetic category of when life begins and I am in the Neurology category.

Hopefully I can post links.[/quote]

Which says this:

"Conclusion
When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical issues surrounding the start of life, the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give."

Your back-up isn’t exactly backing you up… [/quote]

I didn’t post it as a back up I only posted it because it gave a good description and differentiation between the 2 that’s all.

The problem with all of this is even in science there are different thoughts, which is all I was trying to get at by posting that link.

sufiandy · September 29, 2015, 10:19pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, regarding the argument, “Well, they’re going to die anyway so we might as well harvest the body parts for the ‘good’ of science,” I have this analogy:

Circa 1939, “Well, these Jews, Gypsies, and Poles are going to die anyway so we might as well allow Mengele and Co. to perform medical experiments for the ‘good’ of science.”[/quote]

Your equating torture to how the body is handled after its dead?[/quote]

Their bodies were also experimented with post mortem. Did you not know that?[/quote]

I did know that and its really not that big of a deal, but your comparison implied pre mortem. Would you like to complain about them not getting a proper jewish burial too?

oldstyle00 · September 29, 2015, 10:27pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…

[/quote]

Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]

You are trying to defining “personhood” is what you are doing, which we’ve covered like 10 times at this point. In a nutshell it is semantics used to justify whole sale genocide. [/quote]

I am not justifying genocide I am saying “personhood” begins when there is brain activity. You are saying it happens at conception. The main reason why there is so much argument about the subject is because people in the scientific community can’t even agree on when “personhood” begins. A neurologists might agree with my view, while an embryologist would agree with you. Its not black and white hence the debate. That’s why I originally posted was to state a different view.

oldstyle00 · September 29, 2015, 10:36pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, regarding the argument, “Well, they’re going to die anyway so we might as well harvest the body parts for the ‘good’ of science,” I have this analogy:

Circa 1939, “Well, these Jews, Gypsies, and Poles are going to die anyway so we might as well allow Mengele and Co. to perform medical experiments for the ‘good’ of science.”[/quote]

Those 2 things are not the same and you should be able to tell the difference. Since abortions are legal and not considered murder if is legal to use the tissue for research. The research has helped a lot of people I might also add.

Knowingly murdering millions of people and calling it in the name of science is not the same thing. You know it and I know it you are using an example where you both believe they are murder, when they are not, thus they do not equal each other.

anon50325502 · September 29, 2015, 10:39pm

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…

[/quote]

Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]

You are trying to defining “personhood” is what you are doing, which we’ve covered like 10 times at this point. In a nutshell it is semantics used to justify whole sale genocide. [/quote]

I am not justifying genocide I am saying “personhood” begins when there is brain activity. You are saying it happens at conception. The main reason why there is so much argument about the subject is because people in the scientific community can’t even agree on when “personhood” begins. A neurologists might agree with my view, while an embryologist would agree with you. Its not black and white hence the debate. That’s why I originally posted was to state a different view.
[/quote]

You are certainly using the “personhood” fallacy to condone genocide. You absolutely are.

Let’s say for the sake of argument I agree with you that personhood is real and begins at brain wave activity, why is it okay to kill these, I donno, pre-people? We know, if we buy this whole personhood non-sense, that these entities will obtain personhood 99.99999999999999999999% of the time in the very near future (weeks). Why is it okay to indiscriminately eradicate these pre-people?

oldstyle00 · September 29, 2015, 10:41pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]

I’m going to translate your post as if a Democrat from 1855 wrote it:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “a person”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying these slaves aren’t human or that they aren’t living. Obviously the negro is a human and is a living human. I am basing my “a person” on the fact that they aren’t white and were born slaves, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “a person” would be when they are white and not born a slave. I am in no dispute that the negro is a genetic human and that the negro is living. I am defining “a person” as you and I, white people born free from bondage.

Therefore these Negro’s aren’t people like you and I, and don’t have rights like you and I. They are my property.[/quote][/quote]

Counting I have read a lot of your posts through the years and think of you as a pretty cool guy. My post was not even close to stating what you wrote. All I wanted to do in my original post was come from a different perspective, which many people in the scientific community also believe. The science isn’t settled on when a “human life” happens is the main problem and the main reason why there is a huge debate about it.

oldstyle00 · September 29, 2015, 11:12pm

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Voluminous wrote:
For such an aficionado of performing the act of potentially creating children; your stated opinion within the thread is odd. I wonder do you also advocate the non-usage of birth control & condoms; as they both also prevent a human being brought into being. I hazard a guess that you do not; nor does anyone else shouting from the rooftops about PP being so vile & disgusting for offering choice.
[/quote]

Absolutely no rational person in this thread is advocating the prevention of creation of life. We are however advocating the cessation of ending that life once it is created.

I am all for people being allowed to choose if they want a child. However once they create a human being, which is what that fetus is, they have already made their choice. I believe people should have the choice to prevent a pregnancy same as you. I do not believe anyone has the right to end a human life which is what that “thing” with the beating heart that writhes in pain (because its nervous system has developed) when burned or tries to pull away when grasped before being torn from its mother and ripped apart is.[/quote]

Long time lurker on the site first time posting.

To get some perspective, the death of a human being is determined by the lack of brain activity. Thus medically and scientifically speaking the life a human being would happen when there is measured brain waves. Roughly around 8 weeks there is a heart beat, but that is not the definition of life if that is not the determination of death. At around 14 weeks the fetus starts moving to environmental stimuli, but these are reflexes. [/quote]

You might could make a case for the 14 week mark at the latest, as clinical death is not only the cessation of brain activity as measured by an EEG. Clinical death is actually the IRREVERSIBLE cessation of all functions of the brain. As long as their is enough of a brain in the infants body to tell its heart to beat or to react to external stimuli, which it does as early as 7 weeks by some sources, indicates that the lack of brain activity is not irreversible, in fact science tells us that lack of brain activity in a fetus is the farthest thing from irreversible. Your Thalmus connections argument is interesting but also not quite the absolute fact you seem to think. In Essential Reproduction Barry Everitt and Martin Johnson state that fetal pain is something that is “impossible to determine at any fetal age”.

The language of the UDDA makes using the clinical definition of death very problematic for those who would apply it to defining life. Also, most of what we know about fetal brain development and activity is speculation and hasn’t been proven. [/quote]

Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven’t formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, “the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn’t reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain.” Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn’t form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.

Fetuses do have reflex reactions that can make them seem pained, Rosen says. “If you see a fetus in utero react to needle stimulation, then the common conclusion is that it must feel.” But just as with paraplegics, “that’s a reflex that’s mediated by the spinal cord; that’s not a conscious reaction,” he says. It is possible that a temporary structure of neurons that appears in a fetus’s brain during the second trimester allows it to sense pain. But Rosen and his colleagues believe a fetus’s brain doesn’t function coherently enough to be conscious.

oldstyle00 · September 29, 2015, 11:23pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…

[/quote]

Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]

You are trying to defining “personhood” is what you are doing, which we’ve covered like 10 times at this point. In a nutshell it is semantics used to justify whole sale genocide. [/quote]

I am not justifying genocide I am saying “personhood” begins when there is brain activity. You are saying it happens at conception. The main reason why there is so much argument about the subject is because people in the scientific community can’t even agree on when “personhood” begins. A neurologists might agree with my view, while an embryologist would agree with you. Its not black and white hence the debate. That’s why I originally posted was to state a different view.
[/quote]

You are certainly using the “personhood” fallacy to condone genocide. You absolutely are.

Let’s say for the sake of argument I agree with you that personhood is real and begins at brain wave activity, why is it okay to kill these, I donno, pre-people? We know, if we buy this whole personhood non-sense, that these entities will obtain personhood 99.99999999999999999999% of the time in the very near future (weeks). Why is it okay to indiscriminately eradicate these pre-people?[/quote]

I’m not condoning genocide at all don’t tell me what I am or am not doing. Why would you think I am condoning that because I have a different scientific basis for when life begins? I am not for abortions, but I do believe it should be the woman’s choice since the law gives her that choice.

anon50325502 · September 30, 2015, 12:06am