Abortions.

[Harambe]

So I read the article in psychology today. The crux of their argument is that they don't see "evidence" of self-awareness until 1-3 years. And everything they mention as evidence has to do with communication.



Absence of evidence (as in a 1 month old that cannot communicate) does not mean absence of self-awareness. It just means we can't see it or identify it in any way we can confirm. Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that we have no way to prove it. Just because we cannot prove it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Human are notoriously fallable. Another quote.



Just because they do not seem to recognize it doesn't mean they are not self-aware. If you had never seen your reflection before, or only rarely, then the first time you ever did you would not be inclined to first respond "hey that's me" since you would have no idea what that image was to begin with. You would have to learn that. Just because they haven't learned that yet doesn't mean they are not self-aware. Even their summary is a nod to the possibility that self-awareness is still there, just perhaps not fully developed.



And in the second article it is far from definitive. It again relies on seeing the evidence in the same way we would expect from an adult. But they do acknowledge there is still a ways to go in this.



So the best these say is that the earliest we can DETECT something similar to consciousness or self-awareness (not necessarily the same thing) is at maybe 5 months. Just because we cannot detect does not mean it definitively does not exist.

Here is an article with somewhat similar, yet contrasting, viewpoint.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise



Who is to say that true self-awareness doesn't start when the physical constructs are in place, yet the motor abilities and cognitive abilities to manifest it to our observation and understanding are simply not yet in place.


But I guess in context of this thread, the argument is that it isn't a "person" or a "human" until it is shown to be self-aware. In that context we could justify all kinds of things. Someone who is incapable of showing their self-awareness could then be determined to no longer be a "human", instead simply an animal, and therefore there would be no moral qualms about terminating that life (someone who is catatonic due to injury perhaps, or severely mentally handicapped, for example). Seems to be a slippery slope. If the organism is going to become a human being, then it is such at conception, for all intents and purposes.

But that is the age-old debate in this particular issue, one that I suspect will never be resolved. When is the baby "alive", when is it a "person" when is it ok to kill and then suddenly after it crosses some (largely) arbitrary finish line NOT ok to kill it?

I personally have no idea what the truth is to this. I doubt anyone does.

My opinion is that if it has the capability to become a human being left to its own devices and with reasonable care (as in, unaborted, or unabused by drug intake by the mother or similar) then it is, in essence, human from the get-go, and should be treated as such.

And I can totally understand and respect this. It's not my belief, but I understand how some could think that way. Besides, who am I to say I'm right and they're wrong? All I know is what my reasoning skills have led me to.

Thank you LogGrad. You've summed a good portion of this up pretty well. Now that we're back on topic, everyone please continue to share your beliefs and opinions on this subject.

 

[green]

This is such a STUPID thing to talk about. You can't win either way. Here is what we know:

People will get abortions.
Abortions kill fetuses which we don't know if they could or could not become adults.
Some people like them. Other's don't.
Women have control over whether or not they want a child, but men don't get the same benefit (for example, if a man wants to have the baby, and the woman doesn't, she can get an abortion. BUT, if a woman wants the baby and the man doesn't, he is stuck with child support payments for 18 years).

Here is my take:

I am against abortion for myself unless there is rape, incest or the health of the mother. In a perfect world, that is what I would want the law to be. BUT, here is the problem:

How do you legislate that? When is a woman raped? What is she says no after penetration, but a split second before ejaculation and she gets pregnant? Is she raped? I dunno. What about the health of the mother? When is a mother mentally unable to care for a baby? I dunno.

And I don't believe anyone should be able to answer those questions other than the person who is pregnant because we will let our biases show. The hard core right wing guy will say it wasn't rape because she allowed penetration. The wacky liberal lefty will say it is rape because she said no, and he didn't get out quick enough. It isn't right to allow one or the other to make that law.

It should be left up to the individual.

Which is why I think abortion should be legal. I don't think any normal human would be against abortion if a girl was raped by her brother. Or a stranger. Or a boyfriend/husband. Or if the girl would die. The arguments come from what defines those situations.

So, make it legal. Let each woman decide what she is going to do, and let God/Allah/Mother Earth judge her when the time comes for that. Let people be accountable for their actions.

All abortion is, is a topic for the left to bring up when they aren't doing so great, because they know the right is full of idiots that will say something stupid that takes away from the lack of production from the left.

 

[Stoked]

I've been jumping in and out (been busy this morning) and it appears I am coming off in a bad way. For that I apologize Roach. If I miscontsrued then my bad. You're good people.

Franklin can go pound sand.

 

[Harambe]

All abortion is, is a topic for the left to bring up when they aren't doing so great, because they know the right is full of idiots that will say something stupid that takes away from the lack of production from the left.

Two things there:
1. Texas tried to provide an unconstitutional law that would shutdown many clinics. That was the right that brought that up, not the left.
2. With the exception of a crappy website, the left seems to be doing fine right now, and it was still brought up.

So I'm not entirely sure how you can say it's the left bringing it up because the right are idiots.

Other than that, I'm with you on the Government should stay out of it pre-birth.

 

[MVP]

I look at it very simply. If you ban something people will do it underground or travel to other countries. There were plenty of Irish women traveling to other European countries to get it done - statistics showed that 4,149 Irish women had abortions in Britain in 2011 . So why fight with windmills? Legalize it.

 

[VINYLONE]

I completely support abortion up to age 18. Some kids do not deserve to live.

 

[♪alt13]

A woman should be able to induce birth whenever she wants. Abortion however should be illegal. A woman has the right to say that she does not want a baby in her and have it removed but from there the doctors have a responsibility to do whatever they can for the child(even if it's just giving it a lot of morphine until it passes). There is no medical reason for the baby to be killed by the doctors before removal(at least that is what I understand).

I used to be full on pro choice but that was before I actually bothered to look into what an abortion is. I am not going to post any links or discuss the procedure but I suggest that any one that is pro choice and doesn't know how an abortion is performed will look into it.

My experience with the effect of abortions on the mother
I do know women that have had abortions and although I hold no judgements towards them they harbor a lot of remorse and guilt. Again this is just my experience.

 

[franklin]

Abortion has been pounded out to such a fine tuned decision that I'm surprised it's still a litmus test. Give us ten years for the angry old white nostalgic Tea Party constituency and it will no longer be a voter talking point.

Time heals all wounds.

 

[♪alt13]

And I can totally understand and respect this. It's not my belief, but I understand how some could think that way. Besides, who am I to say I'm right and they're wrong? All I know is what my reasoning skills have led me to.

Thank you LogGrad. You've summed a good portion of this up pretty well. Now that we're back on topic, everyone please continue to share your beliefs and opinions on this subject.

Wow I thought you were jk on the whole ok to kill a baby thing. You're "reasoning skills" need a little fine tuning if they led you to this conclusion.

 

[Stoked]

AT the risk of replying in a thread and making it all about me...

https://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/20...einstates-most-of-texas-abortion-restrictions

Texas appealed the case and won. Many of the restrictions on abortions went into effect.

 

[fishonjazz]

New born infants are not self aware. In fact self awareness happens somewhere between 1 and 3 years (look it up if you don't believe me). Are you saying that since an infant is not self aware it is no more a human then a pet? That I can put it to sleep if I want?

Dogs are better than infants.

 

[fishonjazz]

So I read the article in psychology today. The crux of their argument is that they don't see "evidence" of self-awareness until 1-3 years. And everything they mention as evidence has to do with communication.



Absence of evidence (as in a 1 month old that cannot communicate) does not mean absence of self-awareness. It just means we can't see it or identify it in any way we can confirm. Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that we have no way to prove it. Just because we cannot prove it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Human are notoriously fallable. Another quote.



Just because they do not seem to recognize it doesn't mean they are not self-aware. If you had never seen your reflection before, or only rarely, then the first time you ever did you would not be inclined to first respond "hey that's me" since you would have no idea what that image was to begin with. You would have to learn that. Just because they haven't learned that yet doesn't mean they are not self-aware. Even their summary is a nod to the possibility that self-awareness is still there, just perhaps not fully developed.



And in the second article it is far from definitive. It again relies on seeing the evidence in the same way we would expect from an adult. But they do acknowledge there is still a ways to go in this.



So the best these say is that the earliest we can DETECT something similar to consciousness or self-awareness (not necessarily the same thing) is at maybe 5 months. Just because we cannot detect does not mean it definitively does not exist.

Here is an article with somewhat similar, yet contrasting, viewpoint.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise



Who is to say that true self-awareness doesn't start when the physical constructs are in place, yet the motor abilities and cognitive abilities to manifest it to our observation and understanding are simply not yet in place.


But I guess in context of this thread, the argument is that it isn't a "person" or a "human" until it is shown to be self-aware. In that context we could justify all kinds of things. Someone who is incapable of showing their self-awareness could then be determined to no longer be a "human", instead simply an animal, and therefore there would be no moral qualms about terminating that life (someone who is catatonic due to injury perhaps, or severely mentally handicapped, for example). Seems to be a slippery slope. If the organism is going to become a human being, then it is such at conception, for all intents and purposes.

But that is the age-old debate in this particular issue, one that I suspect will never be resolved. When is the baby "alive", when is it a "person" when is it ok to kill and then suddenly after it crosses some (largely) arbitrary finish line NOT ok to kill it?

I personally have no idea what the truth is to this. I doubt anyone does.

My opinion is that if it has the capability to become a human being left to its own devices and with reasonable care (as in, unaborted, or unabused by drug intake by the mother or similar) then it is, in essence, human from the get-go, and should be treated as such.

Who is to say that a rock is not self aware for that matter..... we have no way of knowing.
I mean just cause a rock doesnt recognize itself in a mirrir or communicate does not mean it isn't self aware right

 

[fishonjazz]

This is such a STUPID thing to talk about. You can't win either way. Here is what we know:

People will get abortions.
Abortions kill fetuses which we don't know if they could or could not become adults.
Some people like them. Other's don't.
Women have control over whether or not they want a child, but men don't get the same benefit (for example, if a man wants to have the baby, and the woman doesn't, she can get an abortion. BUT, if a woman wants the baby and the man doesn't, he is stuck with child support payments for 18 years).

Here is my take:

I am against abortion for myself unless there is rape, incest or the health of the mother. In a perfect world, that is what I would want the law to be. BUT, here is the problem:

How do you legislate that? When is a woman raped? What is she says no after penetration, but a split second before ejaculation and she gets pregnant? Is she raped? I dunno. What about the health of the mother? When is a mother mentally unable to care for a baby? I dunno.

And I don't believe anyone should be able to answer those questions other than the person who is pregnant because we will let our biases show. The hard core right wing guy will say it wasn't rape because she allowed penetration. The wacky liberal lefty will say it is rape because she said no, and he didn't get out quick enough. It isn't right to allow one or the other to make that law.

It should be left up to the individual.

Which is why I think abortion should be legal. I don't think any normal human would be against abortion if a girl was raped by her brother. Or a stranger. Or a boyfriend/husband. Or if the girl would die. The arguments come from what defines those situations.

So, make it legal. Let each woman decide what she is going to do, and let God/Allah/Mother Earth judge her when the time comes for that. Let people be accountable for their actions.

All abortion is, is a topic for the left to bring up when they aren't doing so great, because they know the right is full of idiots that will say something stupid that takes away from the lack of production from the left.

This is how I feel pretty much

 

[fishonjazz]

A woman should be able to induce birth whenever she wants. Abortion however should be illegal.

So to summarize: you are against abortion but think a woman should be able to induce whenever she wants.

So a woman is 2 months pregnant and decides to induce a way-too-premature-to-survive baby into the world, knowing it has no chance of surviving, and you are ok with that?

How is that better or more humane than abortion?

 

[Cope]

As someone personally affected by Abortion I am against it. I understand it is an individuals decision and that is the arguement but what about the Man in the relationship that has no input what so ever.

Also as an uncle to a nephew and niece who were adopted, they were brought into this world in a difficult setting. One of them was given up and the other taken away (6 children, mother 22 years old, father abusive, and horrible living conditions).

Back to the Abortions stance, right or wrong, the decision shouldn't be solely up to the mother but I know that is difficult as she is carrying the child. I should have a 12 year old child right now but suprising found out one morning that wasn't the case. One part of me is happy that I don't ever have to deal with my ex ever again and the other side of me knows that I would have raised that child on my own and given him/her a great life.

Anyways - rant/off and everyone HAPPY FRIDAY!

 

[Harambe]

Wow I thought you were jk on the whole ok to kill a baby thing. You're "reasoning skills" need a little fine tuning if they led you to this conclusion.

You've made your statement on the subject very clear, and I can appreciate that.

The first step to forcing others to believe the same as you is criticize others belief's. Remember that by going down that road, you reveal your inner nature. I will never be pregnant. No question about that, as I'm a guy.

Since it appears you didn't actually read my stance on it in full, I'll give it to you again:

Would I kill babies? No. Do I see them as people? No. They're crawling, slobbering, crap creators that require your full attention. Should I have one of my own my opinion may change, but as a responsible adult I'm not going to create life before I'm ready to provide for it.

If you are incapable of care, or just do not want that responsibility, you should take that child somewhere responsible (Child services, adoption service, LDS family services). You should not be randomly killing babies, and we should not be "putting them to sleep".

Incase I'm wrong, and you just didn't understand what I was saying I'll re-illustrate it for you in a more simplistic manner:

Abortion before the 6.5 month mark? Sure. Go ahead, it's none of my business, and I really don't think at this point that child is a child anyway.
Abortion after 6.5 month mark? You've had time to think about it.. your decision is skewed by child birth anxiety. Have the child.
Kill babies after birth? Not a real person or not, someone's gone through the trouble of a birth for this child. Put it up for adoption if you don't want it.
Complications(I don't even really know what this would be, maybe severe birth defects) that would prohibit adoption? Fine. You've exhausted your options. Let that be on your head, not mine. Just find a doctor that will do it humanely.

As far as do I know what happens, yeah. It's a secondary part of the reason I don't like the idea of abortion after 6 months.
Here is a not mind safe, arguably not work safe gif of what happens in those situations. Linked to outside, so as not to put it here.

But before that, in the early stages, there are humane ways of abortion.
By far the options everyone should be shooting for

Oh... one more thing bro. Your and You're happen to be two different things.

 

[Harambe]

AT the risk of replying in a thread and making it all about me...

https://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/20...einstates-most-of-texas-abortion-restrictions

Texas appealed the case and won. Many of the restrictions on abortions went into effect.

This is just disheartening.

 

[Stoked]

As someone personally affected by Abortion I am against it. I understand it is an individuals decision and that is the arguement but what about the Man in the relationship that has no input what so ever.

Also as an uncle to a nephew and niece who were adopted, they were brought into this world in a difficult setting. One of them was given up and the other taken away (6 children, mother 22 years old, father abusive, and horrible living conditions).

Back to the Abortions stance, right or wrong, the decision shouldn't be solely up to the mother but I know that is difficult as she is carrying the child. I should have a 12 year old child right now but suprising found out one morning that wasn't the case. One part of me is happy that I don't ever have to deal with my ex ever again and the other side of me knows that I would have raised that child on my own and given him/her a great life.

Anyways - rant/off and everyone HAPPY FRIDAY!

I was very, very close to being aborted. That means none of my children would exist and my family wouldn't exist.

Jazzfanz would be without a mod!

 

[Stoked]

This is just disheartening.

As long as the clinic is adequate in training, cleanliness and equipment I see no need for them to have a doctor on staff with admitting priviliges at a local (within 30 miles) hospital. Unnecessary requirement.

 

[Harambe]

As long as the clinic is adequate in training, cleanliness and equipment I see no need for them to have a doctor on staff with admitting priviliges at a local (within 30 miles) hospital. Unnecessary requirement.

It is, but at the same time it isn't. The only reason I say it isn't is a financial concern.

If they do not have a credentialed admitting doctor at the external facility, there's really not a whole lot the ED(where the patient would need to be admitted through) can use as fact. So they have to do a whole lot of their own tests, which take more time. And then the resident/attending in the ED would need to make the call to send them up to a specialty unit to get the proper care they need. During this time, if it really is an emergency situation, the patient could die.

Why can't they just accept what the external hospital/care facility says without a doctor with attending privileges? There has to be a documented reason for admission from a credentialed physician with admitting rights in the medical record before the admission takes place. A physician may also have to have good reason to admit. Without any of that documented, insurance(obamacare, medicaid, or any other private insurance) can reject any and all charges sent to them.