Santorum: Doctors Providing Abortions To Rape And Incest Victims Should Be Arrested - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488124]yea, before the fetus develops self consciousness and its senses it is not the fathers or mothers child[/QUOTE] So why'd you pick the arbitrary point of 23 weeks we don't really know when the fetus becomes self aware still painting

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30488131]So why'd you pick the arbitrary point of 23 weeks still painting[/QUOTE] around 23-30 weeks the fetus begins to develop consciousness

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488124]yea, before the fetus develops self consciousness and its senses it is not the fathers or mothers child, because it isnt a child[/QUOTE] It doesn't develop [B]self[/B] consciousness until about 3, even 6 years old after birth... 20 weeks is when the child also starts kicking and is just conscious, not [B]self[/B] conscious. I know this as fact.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488142]around 23-30 weeks the fetus begins to develop consciousness[/QUOTE] so you have a span of nearly 2 months where you're not sure that's a pretty fuzzy guideline to use when you're basically enslaving a woman's womb to the child's father

[QUOTE=J!NX;30488151]It doesn't develop self consciousness until about 3, even 6 years old after birth... 20 weeks is when the child also starts kicking. I know this as fact.[/QUOTE] I've heard from a reliable TV show where the people who are discussing said subject is that the child only develops self conciousness at 2 years old. Show was "The Doctors." where medical information is taken from actual doctors. It was when a woman asked if her and her husband could fuck while the baby is in the crib in the same room. :v:.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30488155]so you have a span of nearly 2 months where you're not sure that's a pretty fuzzy guideline to use when you're basically enslaving a woman's womb to the child's father[/QUOTE] thats why i said around 23-26 weeks, thats a timeline that you can be fairly certain its developing that part and it leaves a lot less to fuzziness [QUOTE=J!NX;30488151]It doesn't develop [B]self[/B] consciousness until about 3, even 6 years old after birth... 20 weeks is when the child also starts kicking and is just conscious, not [B]self[/B] conscious. I know this as fact.[/QUOTE] no actually it develops it around 23-30 weeks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488175]thats why i said around 23-26 weeks, thats a timeline that you can be fairly certain its developing that part and it leaves a lot less to fuzziness no actually it develops it around 23-30 weeks[/QUOTE] Wheres your proof?

[QUOTE=J!NX;30488183]Wheres your proof?[/QUOTE] page 3

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488175]thats why i said around 23-26 weeks, thats a timeline that you can be fairly certain its developing that part and it leaves a lot less to fuzziness no actually it develops it around 23-30 weeks[/QUOTE] you drawing conclusions not suggested by the study is not a good way to argue.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488175]thats why i said around 23-26 weeks, thats a timeline that you can be fairly certain its developing that part and it leaves a lot less to fuzziness[/QUOTE] So is it 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 pretend you're writing a law

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488190]page 3[/QUOTE] I read it. It doesn't state what you state.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30488199]So is it 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 pretend you're writing a law[/QUOTE] 26, because you can be more sure that the part of the brain is developing [editline]16th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30488200]I read it. It doesn't state what you state.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalamus[/url]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30487979]no actually having veto power over a decision gives the person equal power thats not a clean way of doing it because if it ends up killing another persons child that is morally reprehensible[/QUOTE] My god. You honestly have no idea what you're talking about, do you. If one person is the one making the decision in question (that is, abortion or not), and the other person has veto power, then the one with the veto power has more power than the first person. Especially if the decisions being made are in regard to something occurring to / within the first person's body (as in, abortion) Let's see what happens: P1 wants to give birth. P2 does not veto, thereby allowing it. As in, P2 permits P1 to proceed with their decision. P1 wants to give birth. P2 vetoes, forfeiting P1's choice. P1 wants an abortion. P2 does not veto, thereby allowing it. As in, P2 permits P1 to proceed with their decision. P1 wants an abortion. P2 vetoes, forfeiting P1's choice. No matter what P1 chooses, P2 has the final say. Even if you just look at "P1 wants an abortion" cases, P2 still has the power to OVERRIDE P1's choice. And "both having veto power"? How the fuck would that work? "Killing another person's child" -said child is within the "killer's" body, using their nutrients, from their genetic material- What the fuck kind of logic is that.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488217]26, because you can be more sure that the part of the brain is developing [editline]16th June 2011[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalamus[/url][/QUOTE] Where in that does it state your point

So yawmwen, what happens if the two people aren't in a formal relationship or have since broken up? Can the woman get an abortion then? Or what if she doesn't know the father, gets an abortion, the father later finds out, can he press charges?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30488248]Where in that does it state your point[/QUOTE] because around 26 weeks the thalamic connections begin [QUOTE=Zeke129;30488249]So yawmwen, what happens if the two people aren't in a formal relationship or have since broken up? Can the woman get an abortion then?[/quote] no, it should be specifically to protect people who are not in a relationship, which is why i said father should get sole custody of the child [quote]Or what if she doesn't know the father, gets an abortion, the father later finds out, can he press charges?[/QUOTE] no, like i said earlier the father has responsibility to pay for medical costs, extra nutrition, and comfort items for the pregnant mother, if he didnt formally do that he has no rights to the child

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488295]because around 26 weeks the thalamic connections begin no, it should be specifically to protect people who are not in a relationship, which is why i said father should get sole custody of the child no, like i said earlier the father has responsibility to pay for medical costs, extra nutrition, and comfort items for the pregnant mother, if he didnt formally do that he has no rights to the child[/QUOTE] so thalamic connections beginning states that full memory function is there? 10 minutes is not enough. 10 minutes is what the other study states. That's not enough. 10 minutes is not a person, 10 minutes is a flicker of memory function. Who says this function is "humanity" and not just developmental stuff?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30488313]so thalamic connections beginning states that full memory function is there? 10 minutes is not enough. 10 minutes is what the other study states. That's not enough. 10 minutes is not a person, 10 minutes is a flicker of memory function.[/QUOTE] im not talking about memory function im talking about consciousness

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488332]im not talking about memory function im talking about consciousness[/QUOTE] but consciousness requires memory

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30488346]but consciousness requires memory[/QUOTE] source

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488349]source[/QUOTE] how intelligent would you be if you had no attention span? 10 minutes and then you're gone?

I remember thinking as a fetus "man this is a bomb ass uterus, I hope I don't have to leave anytime soon"

This scumbag yawmwen is really grasping at straws. You should should vote for Rick Santorum, he seems right up your alley.

What a totally valid argument, why not just arrest everyone for doing stuff they don't want people to do

One last thing for the night: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Incidence]Less than 1% of abortions take place after 20 weeks.[/url] (Well, 1.5% for the US, but that's still incredibly low) Now: How many of THOSE abortions do you think happen after [b]26[/b] weeks? Not many. At all. And out of those, how many do you think AREN'T because of some maternal risk, emergency situation, or forced lateness (aka cases of rape or incredibly strict parents)?

I love how most of the people arguing this are men and have no idea what it's like to actually have to be in the situation to even think about an abortion, especially after a rape.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30488332]im not talking about memory function im talking about consciousness[/QUOTE] If consciousness dictates what is and is not a human child, then we have a problem. The word as commonly defined is generally close to [url=http://dictionary.webmd.com/terms/consciousness]"the state of being aware, or perceiving physical facts or mental concepts; a state of general wakefulness and responsiveness to environment; a functioning sensorium",[/url] and by these criteria, a cat is conscious, yet clearly cats are not human children.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;30489827]If consciousness dictates what is and is not a human child, then we have a problem. The word as commonly defined is generally close to [url=http://dictionary.webmd.com/terms/consciousness]"the state of being aware, or perceiving physical facts or mental concepts; a state of general wakefulness and responsiveness to environment; a functioning sensorium",[/url] and by these criteria, a cat is conscious, yet clearly cats are not human children.[/QUOTE] Which is why we're not saying "Everything that's conscious is a human child HURR" We're saying "Once the a developing human fetus has developed consciousness it's a human child, before that killing it is significantly (if not totally) more acceptable". I appreciate both sides of this argument, but that was just stupid, christ.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30489948]Which is why we're not saying "Everything that's conscious is a human child HURR" We're saying "Once the fetus inside the human female's body has developed consciousness it's a human child, before that killing it is totally (or at least a LOT more) acceptable". I appreciate both sides of this argument, but that was just stupid, christ.[/QUOTE] The need to prove anyone you can a fool is strong on the internet, so I'll give you jumping at that one, but you're missing the point. I didn't think I needed to talk like you were all morons, but whatever. Because that definition of consciousness has multiple criteria and doesn't require all or even most of them be fulfilled, one could use it to argue consciousness is present almost immediately (the week five to six growth is a clear reaction to environment and as most definitions of "wakefulness" rely on "consciousness" it becomes a circular definition, and secondary definitions of wakefulness as "doing things awake things do" are met by an embryo, which moves in a fashion and consumes nutrients) or not at all until right before birth (as a fetus spends a good 90% of time asleep and newborns are barely "aware" in any meaningful sense.) If you need me to point out other holes in using "consciousness" to determine "human-ness" of a fetus just ask. I want Yam to present his definition of consciousness for our consideration in this discussion. If you've got your own to put forth, go ahead.

Difficulty of definition excluded it is the most logical definition for what is moral to kill and what is not.