When is an abortion NOT an abortion? Focusing on two weeks post conception

Nope. No brain means you are dead. Very dead. Deader than the deadest you can be, in fact.

 

A sure sign that you've got nothing and that I have decimated your silly argument.

 

You are simply and obviously wrong here.

 

I am not the one in denial. I am not the one who knows I have been proven wrong and refuses to admit it.

FACT: If you don't have a brain you are dead. If I removed your brain right now, are you alive? Nope, you are dead. Same if I removed your heart or your lungs. Dead, dead and more dead. People require certain organs to keep them alive, and a brain is one of them. Without it, you are...dead.

 

Beside the point, since we can no more answer for the state of consciousness of a dead person than we can for that of an embryo. All we can be sure of is that neither manifest any signs of consciousness that we can observe.

 

Take it from me - when the EEG has straight lines there ain't nothin going on!!

 

The whole question of abortion, but also questions of keeping irreversibly brain dead patients alive etc.. boils down to why do you oppose murder.

Is it because its killing of a human life, or terminating of human mind?

Human (or non-human) life in itself (with no mind) has no value to me, especially at the cost of suffering of already sentient humans (woman being denied abortion). I oppose murder because of the latter (terminates human mind) and protect life only because its the only way to protect the mind.. yet ).

 

I'm sure that would be a swell idea if I had the slightest reason to think you have any idea what the Hell you're talking about.

 

Yes.







........

 

It is abortion. I recognize that many pro-lifers don't like this position, but logical consistency--MORAL consistency--requires one to see it as such.

 

No--before the late 60s, there was no argument as to when conception took place. Conception is when a new, unrepeatable human lifespan commences.

Never. Miscarriage is something different--it is an unintentional medical event. But, intentional abortion in never acceptable.

dead in 24 hours or less, IMHO.

whenever medical resources can keep a patient alive.

When there is no medical intervention and there is no intent to care for the child when it is separated from the mother.

Ahhhhh...that's sticky considering the social atmosphere. Culpability is mitigated by social acceptance of the killing of babies.

 

YES. Although that situation is very rare, and probably could be treated in a non-abortive way.

 

Bowerbird is a nurse, so she sure as hell DOES know what she's talking about.

 

The birth control pill doesn't always expel an embryo from the womb, so aren't you guys assuming that it will?

 

Umm, if a dead person is conscious, then they are not dead.

 

Mate I have been at the bedside of more brain dead patients than you would ever want to be near -you do not want my memories

 

Sorry but when was that again - because without implantation the "new unrepeatable lifespan" will never commence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

Again let us consider the grey areas - and those are important because they have great legal ramifications. Now it is probable that Pawpaw is a rather powerful abortifacient - in fact so are Saffron, Nutmeg and Goji Berries!! Are you going to examine every woman who has a miscarriage just in case they have eaten something that MIGHT have interfered with the pregnancy

How generous and kind of you to allow so little. Take the case of the woman who had undiagnosed portal hypertension her death was highly probable but could not be 100% guaranteed - are you going to tell her that she just has to "suck it up" and "take the risk" because she "should have kept her legs closed" and deny her an abortion just in case the 10.000 chance of living happens?

Hmmm - now that is a cop out. So you would intervene to try and "save" something under 22 weeks? Despite extremely poor survival rates and immature skin that shreds when you breathe on it?

You are thinking in terms of a fully developed foetus - we are talking about a small group of cells here

Ahhhhh! And further confounded by people who cannot tell the difference between a blastocyst and a baby

 

That it can. --Not that it does every time. We don't want to be guilty of intentionally taking something that makes the uterus inhospitable to the new life--in that way we are guilty of the death of the newly formed life whether we are aware he or she was ever there or not.

 

The life span starts at conception--when the sperm meets the egg and "commences" a new biological creature. That is the start of that being--if you kill it by intentionally interrupting his or her lifespan by depriving him or her of what is necessary for continued life, then you are killing him or her.

If you are responsible for depriving any human being at any stage in his or her lifespan of what is needed to continue living...well, that's called murder under most circumstances.

Yeah...that's what I'm talking about. More specifically, a little further in the article you link to...

It's intent. And as The Hat pointed out--it's a freakin' "truckload." One, two ...FIVE PawPaw aren't going to abort anything.

Again--as The Hat pointed out, if you want a reasonable discussion as your OP suggests, perhaps you should avoid things like your hyperbole and condescension.

If that woman was only 11 weeks pregnant, she was dying before she got pregnant. It's tragic--and nothing good comes from intentionally killing another life as you are exiting your own.

Abortion is not a treatment for hypertension.

Yes. You don't "put down" burn victims--or with hold treatment of terminal cancer patients at the end of life--you give comfort care and allow them to pass. Babies aborted at that stage are often simply dumped as medical waste. It's sick.

No I'm not. The human life--whether it looks like a human to you or not--deserves respect rather than being chucked in the trash as a biohazard and unceremoniously burned in a hospital incinerator.

Clearly you just want to rage and mock rather than intelligently discuss as you repeatedly transgress your own injunction against stupid arguments:

You are guilty of "hijack[ing]" your own thread...

 

I don't give a damm if she's the preeminent neurologist on the planet. She hasn't got a clue about the state of consciousness of the dead or of embryos.

Prove it.

Too bad all that experience hasn't given you the least bit of enlightenment as regards the point of contention, huh?

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

Consciousness is impossible with non-functioning brain (zero brain waves). So before 20 weeks there can be no consciousness.

Death is defined as a state when the brain is not working, so again, when you have consciousness, you by definition cannot be dead.

I support definition of personhood based on the presence of human mind, thus I am OK with abortions before 20th week (actual legal limit should probably be set a bit sooner, to cover for inaccuracies and ensure we wont murder atypical embryos - I think we can safely say that in the first trimester, there is no possibility of mind existing), as well as with disassembling brain dead people for organs.

 

No it's not. Death is when the biological functions that sustain life cease.

One could argue that your analysis of what constitutes life shows your brain isn't working...Don't worry, I would defend you against their justification for killing you.

 

For me if you are attempting to terminate anything (meaning something would have to exist) then I feel it is a form of abortion. I know I could not do it and I don't reccommend people to do it either.

What you have to remember is that "baby" that is growing inside of you did nothing to have its life cut short. It was something that was created and if you are doing anything with the intention of getting rid of it, that is abortion!

 

Modern medical definition of death of a person is based on the concept of brain death. Humans are regularly harvested for organs after brain death and before biological death (after biological death it would be obviously impossible).

I dont consider vegetative life (which does not contain mind) to be worthy of protection (especially at the expense of life with mind), human o non-human.

 

The "possibility" of causing early abortion is also inherent in consuming a wide range of foods as well as indulging in certain activities - so how do you differentiate?