EPTIndiana bans abortion past 20th week - Page 41
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Brutland
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 03:00 teer wrote: More abortions the better. The human race is on an unsustainable rate of growth to continue reproducing as much as we are. All first world societies are either at equilibrium or decline, population-wise. Overpopulation takes place in developing countries, and the abortion debate is completely pointless there because morality aside, no one can afford one. | ||
|
Moochlol
United States456 Posts
| ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:59 Brutland wrote: god, some people. pain is not a function of the brain per-se. it is a function of the nervous system. the brain only recognizes the i/p coming from whatever part and then adjusts blood pressure/heart rate/respiration rate. this can happen and be seen in any creature. any. at all. the pain response has absolutely nothing to do with sentience. absolutely nothing. 2 words: Phantom Limb - can be interpreted to say pain is in the brain or nervous system depending on how you look at it. the problem you have is that the brain / nervous system abstraction isn't very clean when you really start to ask fun questions like this. Eg muscle memory On November 05 2011 03:04 Brutland wrote: allowing abortion is the only rational choice. anything else and you are trying to justify your own ideology with whatever scraps of science you can pretend to know. there are way way too many conceivable situations where abortion is the absolutely right idea logically The problem is rationally you have to allow EVERY choice because you end up in relativism - yet we need a legal system. As for the cost of abortion from above ... abortions are traditionally very cheap ... Just use a nitting needle. Which is a VERY strong argument for legalising. Its like any form of prohibition - harmful. So thrid worldl countries can easily have abortions ... except we gave them all Christianity and other nice religions that say don't use contraception. I would truly love to see an example of prohibition that has had good consequences overall. Things like murder are illegal it doesnt stop people doingit. The reason why we make murder illegal is because of the effect on the rest of society. An abortion is a really personal and private thing imo - people who want one will do it anyway, they need support. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
| ||
|
Brutland
United States92 Posts
you my friend are very very wrong about pain. pain is absolutely not a neurological function of the brain. it is a direct result of substance-p, which is released in response to localized cell damage. substance-p causes a cascade effect in the nervous system that is recognized by the brain as pain. that said, you can feel pain without conscious functioning. i see pain responses in people everyday that are, by all intents and purposes, mostly brain dead. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 03:05 MrTortoise wrote: 2 words: Phantom Limb - can be interpreted to say pain is in the brain or nervous system depending on how you look at it. the problem you have is that the brain / nervous system abstraction isn't very clean when you really start to ask fun questions like this. Eg muscle memory Pain sensation and pain response are completely different things. It's like cortical blindness. The eyes are completely functional, they transmit visual signals, but the person is incapable of seeing because they can't process it. They are for all practical purposes blind, and can't even conceptualize what vision is. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 03:09 Brutland wrote: @ yeint you my friend are very very wrong about pain. pain is absolutely not a neurological function of the brain. it is a direct result of substance-p, which is released in response to localized cell damage. substance-p causes a cascade effect in the nervous system that is recognized by the brain as pain. that said, you can feel pain without conscious functioning. i see pain responses in people everyday that are, by all intents and purposes, mostly brain dead. I said pain sensation, not reflexive response to stimuli by the autonomous nervous system. See my response to Tortoise above. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On November 05 2011 03:10 yeint wrote: Pain sensation and pain response are completely different things. It's like cortical blindness. The eyes are completely functional, they transmit visual signals, but the person is incapable of seeing because they can't process it. They are for all practical purposes blind, and can't even conceptualize what vision is. Yes i agree they are different things, yet both part of what it is to feel pain. you are trying to defefine pain to mean something that required a word pre/postfixed in front of/behind pain to make sense. that is not what is meant by the word 'pain' but a more specialised form of the meaning. | ||
|
Brutland
United States92 Posts
i will agree on relativism for the legal system. as for the pain of phantom limb, the nerves were still sending the signal. the brain is still receiving input that says, "ouchie over here!". its actually very NOT grey where the secondary nervous system and the brain are delineated. one is inside the skull, the other isnt. fun fact, the brain has no sensory neurons to feel pain. | ||
|
missefficiency
Germany105 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:54 MrTortoise wrote: Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk  It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward. Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain. | ||
|
Brutland
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
The brain merley reports in effect. But to describe what pain is you require references to all parts of the system is my point. Anyway i am making a nit picky point ... the problem i really have with this whole thing is proving that a foetus feels pain at some times and not others. The problem is that i think that if you said scientifically that it felt pain you would also qualify that quite heavily. I am not sure that legally that happened - and if it did it took a very narrow view on what pain really means. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 03:13 MrTortoise wrote: Yes i agree they are different things, yet both part of what it is to feel pain. you are trying to defefine pain to mean something that required a word prefixed in front of pain to make sense. that is not what is meant by the word 'pain' but a more specialised form of the meaning. The word "pain" has a very specific meaning, and it should not be used to describe autonomous responses in a vacuum. Pain, like any sensation, is something experienced. Higher animals interpret what we call pain responses as highly unpleasant sensations. Lower animals have similar responses but do not have any capacity to process interpretations, they simply react. When discussing whether a fetus "feels pain", we are explicitly talking about pain sensation, not pain response. | ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On April 28 2011 11:07 Courthead wrote: YES! Someone actually thinks so. I am pro-life, but am an atheist. It is terrible that the most common argument is in the name of someone's religion. The issue goes much more core and it is not do any justice for the unborn child (a term I agree with) leaving it up to "God". Spent years debating this. Abortion is a complex issue and a morally gray area. Both sides have strong argument and weak ones. I'd say the most popular representatives of each side (women's rights vs religion) are both weak. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On November 05 2011 03:14 missefficiency wrote: You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward. Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain. That proves nothing ... you are inferring. you may or may not be right ... is the experience of pain for a foetus the same as for me? Pain is when i burn myself and go 'ouch' - if a foetus does react like that then i stand corrected. People talk of psychological pain - that is clearly not what is being talked about here. My problem is qualifying what we mean against what was legally meant. Saying in a biological context that it feels pain where pain is a refined concept is one thing. Use of the unqualified word pain as quoted is another. Part of sensing is reponse. If something has no effect then how can it be caused? Sorry maybe there is a fact that can simply shut me up. Do foetus have a mechanical response to pain? 'When discussing whether a fetus "feels pain", we are explicitly talking about pain sensation, not pain response.' No i disagree, biologists are talking about this. Lawyers are not, judges are not, most people are not. I am certianly not interpreting pain to be that definition. you may think your right, (and technically you are) however that is not the meaning of the word to the person in the street. If that makes sense? Its a big problem, we all use the same words but mean very different things by them. Your meaning is not more correct than the common sense view - it is just mroe useful in a particular context. We are not in that context though we are in a legal one. But don't let me stop you discussing the biological meaning - its interesting :D I'm just an ass that likes beating things with logical sticks. an out of context example would be laws being put in place regarding IP on the internet. To people in the know its hilarious how little legal beagles understand what they are talking about. | ||
|
Brutland
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 03:17 Brutland wrote: i meant pain as the definition of it without getting tied up in anthropomorphism. pain is a signal sent by sensory neurons in response to substance-p being released. the thing you are describing is the feeling of pain and the appropriate choice of reaction to avoid said feeling. amoeba do that. without being conscious. we dont run around protecting amoeba Okay, first of all, I'm on your side in this argument. Second, when we discuss pain in the context of ethics, we are explicitly talking about pain sensation in higher animals. If anything is anthropomorphic, it is using the same word for the sensation as well as the reflexive response. It muddles the issue and lets people make silly arguments about pain response "proving" that pain sensation is there. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:43 KwarK wrote: A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite. I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I think what you're saying is that it's not, because whatever it's attributes are, it's a parasite. And if I'm understanding you correctly parasites can't be humans. Is that what it is? Or, are you saying that even if it is a human, the mother's rights supersede its rights because it's a parasite? And thus not living? Or are you saying something else? | ||
|
Valashu
Netherlands561 Posts
I am sorry I can't make much more of this, others have said so more elequently than I can atm. | ||
| ||
