gadgetlady

At 3 weeks, the baby has a beating heart. At 6 weeks, recordable brain waves and the baby responds to touch. A poppy seed? Can you document that for me?

Right, but a d&c used as an abortion technique dismembers the baby while still alive.

Yes, but those aren't generally for baby parts; they're for placenta parts.

Dismemberment isn't needed to miscarry because miscarriage is a natural process. When someone is inducing the death of the baby, they need to do something unnatural -- hence suction abortions and D&Cs. Abortionists empty the sac of stuff that has been removed from the uterus, making sure that they have two arms, two legs, a torso, and a head -- so they know they got everything. I don't make this stuff up.

Unborn babies don't have tails. The end of the spine sticks out and is later surrounded and enveloped by the coccyx. Here's a lovely video showing fetal development: Miracle of Life, fetal development, pro-life - AOL Video. Look at the photo of the unborn fully-developed feet (the baby is complete with fingerprints and toeprints at this point) at 10 weeks. You'll also find photos at http://www.grtl.org/prenataldev.asp/ These are well within the first trimester, with the baby being fully developed with nothing left to do but grow.

First trimester abortions are generally dismemberments, although some are chemically induced. Second and third trimester abortions are generally chemical (acid burns, from the inside out), but can also be a combination of induction and suctioning. Generally after the first trimester, dismemberment is no longer used -- but not always.

All of these situations are very sad -- I am absolutely not denying that. But we shouldn't kill people so other people don't get teased.

Very possibly, if you put an amplification system in there. The uterine wall, fat, and skin of the belly muffle a lot.

How can a body feel pain but a mind can't? That's ludicrous. If your mind can't process pain, you don't feel it. Miscarriages are not generally violent dismemberments, acid burning, stabbing at the base of the neck, etc. They are generally a natural death. Is there pain involved? I don't know. Why would a mother who's had a miscarriage feel any worse than a mother who's had an abortion? (this is a rhetorical question -- to make you think.) The fate of the baby is the same. The only difference is whether the mother "wanted" the baby or not. How horrible a distinction is that? If I want you, you are valued and you get to live. If not, you end up in the trash.

Lobsters are not human beings. Unfortunately, life has the potential to be full of some horrible things. There is evil in the world -- no doubt. There is suffering beyond that which most people can imagine. Killing people does not solve anything.

As have I. After a certain stage of development, the only thing keeping a baby from vocalizing is the fact that he or she is surrounded by amniotic fluid. There have been accounts of air bubbles entering the womb during an abortion, positioning over the baby's mouth, and the baby screaming as the abortion is being performed.

One of the links you posted says: Dr. Derbyshire argues that the mind only starts to develop after the baby is born, as a consequence of the infants' interaction with the outside world and people around him/her. Even though the biological development to support pain experience may be ongoing inside the womb, it is only the environment after birth, so needed for pain experience to develop, that needs to happen. Therefore, a fetus, who is still in the womb, cannot experience pain. Derbyshire said that his study is not looking at whether abortion is right or wrong. He says he is arguing against the use of painkillers during an abortion.

Fetus is the name for a stage of a person's life, just like adolescent and teenager are names for stages. They identify a period of life. It is not a different species. Fetuses do not become human beings any more than toddlers become human beings. They both are human beings.

. . . and they don't reach a consensus. All have different opinions. Which is why I say, WE DO NOT KNOW!!! It could be at 8 or 9 weeks as the one article I posted believes, it could be at 20 weeks as one of your articles believes, or it could be at some other time. One of the articles you posted even said it's sometime after birth (do you really believe that could be the case)? Do we really want to say it's ok to kill people because we think they're not going to feel it?

The website you cited says: "Most scientists believe that pain is experienced in the cortical areas of the brain, which do not develop until the second trimester." That's not a fact. The bottom line is NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. It was brought up because you said it wasn't an appropriate analogy because slaves were mistreated and felt pain. And I said the presence or absence of mistreatment or pain isn't what makes slavery and abortion acceptable. They are both unacceptable because they deny the basic human rights of life and freedom to the oppressed people. There are lots of things that older people can do that younger people can't. Toddlers can't reproduce. Pre-teens can't drive. Seniors can't do gymnastics. Heck -- some men can't cry! These activities don't make one a person. We are not granted membership into the human race by what we can or can't do. Disabled people aren't less than human because there are some things they can't do. There is no such thing as a "full person". Something either is a person or it is not. There's no middle ground.

And I think your articles are incorrect. The bottom line, again, is WE DO NOT KNOW. And IT DOES NOT MATTER. There are a lot of painless ways to kill people from in utero to senior citizens; that doesn't make it right. The Unborn Child When can the unborn child feel pain? By 9 weeks from conception, all the structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning. A 2005 study published in JAMA and widely reported in the mainstream media claimed that fetuses do not feel pain before the third trimester. However, serious questions have been raised about this study, whose authors include a NARAL activist and an abortionists. This conflict of interest was not disclosed by JAMA. I'm not the one who brought up pain, so if it has nothing to do with it then why are we discussing it?

And I have read articles that say they feel pain at 8 weeks. The bottom line is, no one knows for sure, and we will probably never know. But it doesn't matter -- it's still not acceptable to kill someone if we don't think they're going to feel it.

Is it OK to kill someone if we believe they're not suffering (and we may not even be right about that)? Is it OK to enslave someone if we don't beat them or mistreat them? Have you ever seen The Silent Scream, documenting a first trimester abortion where the baby is clearly trying to get away from the implements of his or her death? This ultrasound video, which was new technology at the time, caused Dr. Bernard Nathanson (an atheist abortionist who was one of the leaders in legalizing abortion in the 1970's, co-founder of NARAL, and owned the largest abortion chain in the nation) to change his opinion, walk out of his clinic for good, and become pro-life. I know those in favor of abortion don't like it, but the comparison to slavery is accurate: one group of people defines another group of people as less than human, and subsequently accepts and legalizes any manner of atrocities against the other group.

And in the slaveowner's eyes, the slave wasn't fully human. We shouldn't get to define when other people become "people". They are members of the human race, human beings, living human beings in utero. To say that somehow during that 9 months the mother is judge and jury and has the right to impose the death penalty on her child -- for no criminal infraction, no less -- is ridiculous.

That life is already her child.

We're working on it. As science and technology catch up with nature and pregnancy, you see more and more people realizing the truth. Personhood laws are working their way through the system. Slavery used to be legal because people were convinced blacks were less than full human beings. The law eventually caught up, but sadly only after the atrocities were committed.

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with science. Some of the links I provide may have religious perspectives for those who are religious, but absent religion the reality is that human life begins at conception and when a mother aborts she is killing a human being.

Here's another fascinating discussion I just came across at Marxism and Abortion — The Forerunner (emphases mine): “Human Life and Fetal Images,” an essay by Rebecca Albury, appeared in the Australian publication on August 10 of this year. Albury made the following statements about the teachings of Karl Marx and their relationship to the unborn: A Marxist believes that personality and human value are imparted by the external and economic environment, not by any inherent spiritual value, or even by biological processes. The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by “someone of higher wisdom.” The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the “social relationship” that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she “fantasizes” it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, “it is something else entirely.” Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood. “Biological processes,” says Albury, “do not carry automatic moral values as the Right to Life suggests … Human economic, social, and political relationships create moral values.” According to Albury, “Material conditions of life change, and so do moral values.” This means that, to a Marxist, the unborn baby may be a human being for a time, but may then become depersonified and rendered ‘pre-human,’ all because his or her mother began to think differently about him or her. She adds: “Certainly, many women experience mixed feelings; the fantasy baby may even appear for a while. Women can tell it goodbye forever.” The issue is whether or not a mother should be able to legally decide whether her child lives or dies.

Using the word "choice" does not indicate what choice one is in favor or opposed to. This isn't about government or personal decisions or anything else. It's about whether the thing growing in the womb is a human being. Here's a great website: Case For Life - Only One Issue. Excellent, excellent, excellent (did I say excellent?) presentation of the entire topic.

Which is fine -- but I choose to call those who are in favor of the abortion choice, pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice too. The choice I'm in favor of at this particular time is life. And dinner :purplebananna: