Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have established the criteria for pronouncing somebody dead through the UDDA:
(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem
Reverse them and you have the criteria for pronouncing a fetus as being "alive" and protected from things like at-will abortion:
1) Completion of functional circulatory and respiratory systems
2) Measurable EEG showing regular wave patterns
Especially number 2. Heavy emphasis on number 2. When there is a clear indication that the fetus's brain has developed enough to exhibit a regular and consistent EEG wave pattern; an indicator of both higher and lower brain functionality? There should only be very specific reasons allowing an abortion.
These are decent qualifiers. We know for certain that an unborn baby has a heartbeat at 3 to 4 weeks. The nervous system has formed and there is measurable brain activity by 6-7 weeks of the pregnancy. This one is less ironclad. As technology improves, we're likely to find measurable brain activity earlier than this. You're trying to perform your tests on a very tiny person who is inside another person, so it's tricky. But at present, we can confidently say for certain that there is measurable brain activity by 6-7 weeks. So by your standards, human life legally begins at or before week 7.
The problem is that none of these facts change anything. The Supreme Court has been inconsistent, but tends to strike down any prohibition on abortion if it is 20 weeks or earlier. So the science on the matter is kinda getting ignored.
These are decent qualifiers. We know for certain that an unborn baby has a heartbeat at 3 to 4 weeks. The nervous system has formed and there is measurable brain activity by 6-7 weeks of the pregnancy. This one is less ironclad. As technology improves, we're likely to find measurable brain activity earlier than this. You're trying to perform your tests on a very tiny person who is inside another person, so it's tricky. But at present, we can confidently say for certain that there is measurable brain activity by 6-7 weeks. So by your standards, human life legally begins at or before week 7.
The problem is that none of these facts change anything. The Supreme Court has been inconsistent, but tends to strike down any prohibition on abortion if it is 20 weeks or earlier. So the science on the matter is kinda getting ignored.
Not a very viable definition. Certainly true that one without brain activity is not alive. That the presence of brain activity provides personhood does not follow. Lack of brain waves is dead. But the presence of brain waves does not prove one is a human being.
What you would need is some proof of cogent thought. Or self awareness. There clearly are defects where one can find brain waves where there will never be cogent thought. Such a thing may well be alive but it is not a human being in any normally accepted sense of the word.
The Supreme Court criteria is simply pragmatic. If the creature is not viable outside the womb it is not yet a person. Avoids dealing with impossible criteria such as self awareness.
These are decent qualifiers. We know for certain that an unborn baby has a heartbeat at 3 to 4 weeks. The nervous system has formed and there is measurable brain activity by 6-7 weeks of the pregnancy. This one is less ironclad. As technology improves, we're likely to find measurable brain activity earlier than this. You're trying to perform your tests on a very tiny person who is inside another person, so it's tricky. But at present, we can confidently say for certain that there is measurable brain activity by 6-7 weeks. So by your standards, human life legally begins at or before week 7.
The problem is that none of these facts change anything. The Supreme Court has been inconsistent, but tends to strike down any prohibition on abortion if it is 20 weeks or earlier. So the science on the matter is kinda getting ignored.
Yes, brain waves are capable of being measured by the 6-7th week. HOWEVER, the results are neither continuous nor regular wave patterns. That is the difference and why that requirement is important to understand.
Going back to the other side of the coin, even in patients that are legally classified as dead, an EEG can actually show activity as a result of the sensitivity picking up electrical signals from autonomic functions (occurring even after the brain has shut down) as well as other interference.
All of the EEG's in this document show measurable activity, but none of these patients are alive.
By my standards, human life does not begin at 7 weeks. By my standards, human life would theoretically begin anywhere between 20-26 weeks of gestation.
Yes, brain waves are capable of being measured by the 6-7th week. HOWEVER, the results are neither continuous nor regular wave patterns. That is the difference and why that requirement is important to understand.
Going back to the other side of the coin, even in patients that are legally classified as dead, an EEG can actually show activity as a result of the sensitivity picking up electrical signals from autonomic functions (occurring even after the brain has shut down) as well as other interference.
All of the EEG's in this document show measurable activity, but none of these patients are alive.
By my standards, human life does not begin at 7 weeks. By my standards, human life would theoretically begin anywhere between 20-26 weeks of gestation.
I'd agree that consciousness would be a good measurement for "personhood", especially with viability being a "moving target" based on our level of technological advancement. It is entirely possible that at some point we may be able to gestate a human from fertilization all the way to externally viable without it ever needing to even be inside a woman in the first place.
I'd agree that consciousness would be a good measurement for "personhood", especially with viability being a "moving target" based on our level of technological advancement. It is entirely possible that at some point we may be able to gestate a human from fertilization all the way to externally viable without it ever needing to even be inside a woman in the first place.
Yep yep~ And when we are capable of removing a fetus completely intact without it being an invasive or extensive surgery, I'd be totally down for making abortion an obsolete procedure of the past.
I also hold hope that eventually we will have birth control pptions that are 100% effective for anyone/everyone... or at least have the ability to measure the effectiveness of birth controls for individuals without needing to be a side effect guessing game and "Trial By Accidental Pregnancy".
This whole "_% effective" malarkey for hormonal birth control isn't a useful statistic when there is no way to measure the effects on each individual person. How does a person know that they're part of the 1-8% that won't be protected? They get pregnant.
Agreed (which is rare with you and me). I too would love when just "honest and blunt" were all it takes to convince people one way or the other regarding issues like this one, but most of these issues and most people are just a tad more complex than that. I suspect you are not one of those people or you wouldn't ask that question...
I don't agree with the participant I commended for their honest reply. Honest isn't necessarily going to make people agree with you but they are honest.
I would rather discuss things with someone I disagree with that are honest than people who say they agree with me but aren't being honest.
Underlying thing: There are a lot of Americans who find abortion morally reprehensible. Those Americans were promised that taxpayer money would not in any way shape or form pay for abortions. That is the only tiny concession that the pro-life movement gets. Planned Parenthood lies and lies and lies. They claim that they are offering services that they actually aren't. Their "non-abortion services" are often pre-abortion processes. Things like ultrasounds. A pregnant woman walking into a Planned Parenthood can expect to receive one and only one service: An abortion.
PP plays a clever game. If they can count 10 different things leading up to an abortion as separate processes from the abortion itself, now they can claim that "only 10% of what we do at PP is abortions." And obviously, they bold-faced lie about what services they offer. I love the call where the recording explicitly says that PP offers prenatal care, then 10 seconds later the worker at the clinic is telling her "we don't offer prenatal care." Kinda fun like that.
I think PP has the right to exist. The Supreme Court gave them that with Roe v Wade. But they do not have the right to taxpayer money. If pro-choicers are so passionate about it, then by all means donate money to PP to keep them up and running.
Agree. If a woman gets pregnant & decides they don't want to be a mother, don't expect others to pay for it. I don't understand how ANYONE would expect others to pay for their problem.
Yes, of course we all know all you say "any idiot knows," yet this thread was started...
I've asked for clarification, because outside what all idiots already know, I'm not sure what you are getting at that might be different. Still not sure how anyone can suggest this is not simply a religious issue, a difference depending largely on what a person believes the Bible teaches or should teach.
I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another outside of direct self defense. That has nothing to do with religion. If God came down and said it really didn't matter, I would still hold this position. I understand that with abortion there is the conundrum of when we have a person to remove their life but I believe it's a person from very early on.
Being a realist I also understand we are not going to ban all abortions so I prefer to concentrate on things we can change.
We would not need P.P. if we had Universal Health Care. *Some* reasons women abort would be less of a concern if we had UHC. I also support things like child care for low income families. I do not have a dog in the hunt per se but I've long supported gay marriage as that opens up more adoption options.
Programs for low income like food stamps? I support.
Quote:
You say you have yet to meet a woman who did not have a lot of regret about having an abortion. Well no kidding! Is that the sort of insight or contribution any idiot can't make?
What is even worse in my opinion, even more sad, is when people make women who have an abortion not only sad for the obvious reasons, but brand them as "morally reprehensible" and/or committing a morally reprehensible act.
It is not "godlike wisdom" that caused the Supreme Court to decide as they did. It was prevailing wisdom that will hopefully not also get reversed with more Religious Right righteousness and intolerance of what or how others believe what they do.
In Naomi Wolf's book Fire with Fire she (is pro choice) argues that society does women a disservice by not understanding that many do have negative psychological issues because of their abortion. You might argue it's because people try and make them feel guilty but all are most certainly not because of that reason.
Agree. If a woman gets pregnant & decides they don't want to be a mother, don't expect others to pay for it. I don't understand how ANYONE would expect others to pay for their problem.
I paid for my own abortion, actually my boyfriend & I. Who is getting free abortions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
