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

How many times do you have to be told INTENT?

Normal behaviors do not induce abortion--intentional abnormal/unhealthy activities can.

 

Did you even read the 1st 2 lines of the wiki link you gave?

"Brain death is the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation. It should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state."


too easy...

 

Even the Catholic Church has accepted the definition of brain death - although there is still some controversy among members - but if you are willing or want to I will start a thread on brain death - after all I have had more than a little experience at the bedside with this - and we can debate it.

 

He is not confusing the two but simply stating what many in the medical profession will tell you, that PVS or similar low functioning states should be deemed compatible with life - but like many who hold those views we do not act on them but sorrow for those caught in the situation and hope sincerely that they are NOT conscious

 

Normal behaviours CAN induce abortion and there is such a thing as sub-conscious intent

BTW are you aware that over 50% of fertilised ova fail to implant or abort within days of implantation?

And how exactly are you ever going to prove intent? Would you treat all women who fail to show signs of pregnancy following sex as possibly procuring an abortion until you prove otherwise?

 

I am not talking about persistent vegetative state, but brain death. Embryo before 20 weeks is equivalent to brain death (since there is no functioning brain), not PVS, where the brain is functioning and mind is inside, just not interacting with outside world.

 

The medical definition is clear. Your confusion, thinking it is some sort of compassion, is where there is a lack of clarity.

 

Apparently the human organism at that stage of development does not need a functioning brain as we more developed organisms do. The human organism is alive with out it--and growing.

PVS and immature development are not the same thing.

 

For instance? Secondly, if it is not intentional, it's not intentional.

So? What does that have to do with intentionally killing a successfully growing organism?

Why would I need to prove "intent?" It's a moral question--not a legal one. Further, if it ever were a legal one, there are all sorts of degrees of homicide that outline the nature of the intent.

In general, I think procuring abortion is an act of desperation--an act of "passion" so to speak. Abortionists, however, feed off the vulnerable and should be treated like the swine they are.

 

Why should we value human organisms with no brain (mind)? I think its the mind what gives us ultimate value and rights. I dont see any reason why we should protect mindless human embryos with laws, anymore than protect mindless braindead (but biologically alive) people. Especially at the expense of already sentient persons (mothers, people who could be helped with ESC therapy, organ donations..).

This is ultimately a question of why do you oppose murder, and what exactly is the source of our rights. I think its the mind, not DNA, or being biologically "alive".

 

Of course you do not. Overcoming ignorance, while it is beneficient, it is not mandatory.

As opposed to such luminaries as yourself who do?

Intelligent debate is not centered around idiocy as your request is, but rather around rational discussion and intellectual honesty.

 

A good point. It is also a fact that a fetus does not have the capacity or the function(s) to sustain it sown life. Does that mean that it is not alive, not an individual life or something else?

 

Not on its own it is not.

 

So have we given up on trying to avoid the "it's a baby, it's not a baby" plan--and on the issue of 2 weeks post conception?

I don't think the individual's mind is the thing that makes it "valuable." Nor do I think it's DNA--nor it's simply being alive. If you wish to have a legit philosophical discussion as to why abortion is immoral, I'd be happy to...but, is this the thread to do it in?

 

Lots of human individuals do not have the capacity to sustain his or her own life--they aren't legally killed at the desire of another.

 

Of course they are. Life support is disconnected all the time.
By the way, the comparison is invalid, because what you are referring to is organ failure and there is no instance where person are ever kept alive when ALL their organs shut down. Those are commonly called dead people.

 

The conclusion might be interesting if the premise could be proven - which of course your link doesn't come anywhere close to doing.

Of course it isn't, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to post.

Since I never claimed to have that knowledge, this is just another typically weaselly attempt to divert attention from your own dishonesty.

Which of course is why I don't bother debating people like yourself.

 

Not for temporary situations. A person having a heart transplant is not disconnected because the doctor doesn't want to continue the operation. A person on a ventilator due to pneumonia or open heart surgery is not disconnected--the aim is to get them to a point where they can function on their own. A child in his mother's womb is not in a terminal state.

Dead people don't get born in 9 months. Dead people are DEAD--living organisms are alive.

 

What happens if you are alive at the expense of something else?
Is a brain dead person on a ventilator still alive? No, they are not. Is a fetus alive when it is attached to the mother? Yes, but if it wasn't attached to her, it would be dead.

 

Cancer treatment if you are pregnant will likely kill the fetus. Should a woman not have treatment for an illness if her fetus will die?

 

Sorry - Did you READ that paragraph? Because if conception is considered synonymous with implantation then you cannot "murder" something that has yet to be conceived

And you have evidence to back that assertion?

http://www.drugs.com/npp/papaya.html - and don't even go there with Saffron - because it does not take THAT much

Sorry - you have medical expertise? You fully understand the difference between PULMONARY hypertension and hypertension? You understand the implications of essential hypertension in pregnancy and how it can presage HELLP syndrome??

http://www.gynob.com/htiup.htm

What is sick is people insisting that we cause further trauma to a patient who will never survive - and at 22 weeks that is often what the uninformed do.

Yeah! like that happens ALL the time

Yes indeed I am the one "guilty" of personal attacks and ad hominems - the usual retreat for those unable to carry on a civil debate

 

If the treatment for cancer ends up being lethal to the child, that is a sad circumstance. But as abortion is not a treatment for hypertension, abortion is also not a treatment for cancer.

 

Yah...the medical community CHANGED the definition to "implantation" for that very reason! Up until the mid 60s "conception" was UNIVERSALLY understood to commence at the earliest point when the human organism was know to be in existence. In the 50s/60s medicine had advanced enought to recognize that the sperm meets the egg and a new being comes into existence--but OH NO!!!! Hormonal BC will sometimes flush out those human beings before they can implant--we better CHANGE THE DEFINITION of "conception" so that we aren't accused of wholesale abortion!

Yes. Expertise, no--fully informed, yes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001171/

What do you think they do with "products of conception" (the sanitized euphemism for dead babies).

Wow--you lack personal insight! I showed you where you did it.

 

Why, they let you post?

But out of that ignorance you managed to dismiss what people who actually do have knowledge say.

What was or is dishonest in my post, or is this just a pathetic attempt to divert from what you posted?

With the approach of 'I don't care what scientists say' you could not if you tried...

 

Who said anything about temporary situations? Have you ever seen or heard of any human being that lived for any length of time that "temporarily" had ALL organs shut down?

It really depends on when the last day will be, doesn't it?

True, but then again what is an organism that can not live on its own? Is it "people" and by what definition or measure?