SO let me get this straight...

[OlJarhead]

Nerve cells from developing brains as young as 20 weeks old fire in a pattern that persists into adulthood, researchers reported Tuesday in the Journal of Neuroscience.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/baby-brain-activity-sleep/

Perhaps you meant 'adult brain activity'?

[OlJarhead]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090413185734.htm
This one points out that we don't actually know when brain wave activity starts but we are fairly certain it starts before we think it does....

So, 8 weeks?  Possibly and as such you're statement means you would not support abortions after 8 weeks?

[OlJarhead]

t is now well established that the human fetus is capable of some degree of behavioral complexity. In fact, as early as the 9th week of gestation the fetus is able to spontaneously move the extremities, head, and trunk (de Vries, Visser, & Prechtl, 1985)

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

So lots of references to when brain activity begins and it appears more and more likely that it starts at least around 8 weeks.

What about heart beat?  Doesn't a heart beat mean life?

[OlJarhead]

Week 6: The neural tube closes

Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

Just tossing these out there because I think they are relevant.

So 6 weeks and we have heart beat (circulation) and 8 weeks we have brain activity....

[Carla_M]

Heart beat does not count. Brain wave patterns that an EEG show as regular patterns count. At death the heart can continue beating long past brain wave activity. That does make life, IMO.

Did you come across this link?
http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

[NM_Shooter]

Of course an abortion does not 'fix' the crime of rape. But why should a woman who has been raped not be able to use the morning after pill? Or have an abortion performed after she knows she is pregnant and more than likely from the rapist? Seems more than a little unfair to the woman.

Looking at the other end of life, someone mentioned pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state. In many places if a medical expert or panel of experts can testify that there is no brain activity then life support may be removed. The idea being that it takes brain activity to truly make a human being, to make a human life worthwhile. With a dead brain there is no person or personality as far as I am concerned. Many others agree.

I use the logic of brain activity on the beginning end of life as well. Brain activity is first seen at somewhere around 27 – 28 weeks. No brain activity = no person, IMO. A life form yes, but then so is an amoeba.


Just curious.What is your stance on the death penalty? Is the death penalty ever appropriate punishment for premeditated murder?

First of all, I think that a developing brain that has viability to function is a whole lot different than a brain at the end of life which has no ability to further function.  I'm also not one to let "experts" define my morals.  Lots and lots of "experts" have made lots and lots of tremendously immoral decisions. Level of expertise is never a measure of whether or not someone will do the right thing.  Gosnell is an expert.

Secondly, brain activity is NOT a measure of brain health / death alone.  http://www.neurotransmitter.net/braindeath.html

Even WITH an Isoelectric electroencephalogram (no EEG) along WITH no cerebral blood flow, a brain can recover.  Rare, but possible : http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/man_makes_miraculous_recovery_from_brain_death_after_accident/

So using brain function as a metric for start of life is just another hollow metric that people want to use to murder and get away with it. 

Even in the case of rape, murdering someone else (who is additionally a complete innocent), in order to reduce the consequences of the crime is unconscionable.  For a mother to request the murder of her own child boggles my mind.

Fairness?  WTH?  I believe in fairness for the baby!

And even trying to justify abortion due to rape.... the amount of abortions that occur in the case or termination of rape induced pregnancy is statistically very, very small.  Something like 1% or less.  Odd that such a small statistic would be used to support widespread murder in the name of "choice".

And for the record, in spite of my emotional reaction to those who partake in violent or savage actions, I am against the death penalty.  Once someone is capable of being restrained, I will not endorse  their forced death.  I am in support of someone in a malicious and life-threatened situation protecting themselves using whatever means necessary.  Including lethal means of self protection as a last resort.  I am not against making a violent criminal uncomfortable for the next 50 years of their life. 

I'm equally curious... have you ever had an abortion?

[OlJarhead]

Heart beat does not count. Brain wave patterns that an EEG show as regular patterns count. At death the heart can continue beating long past brain wave activity. That does make life, IMO.

Did you come across this link?
http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

Your opinion -- and perhaps a convenient one.

Dred Scott was an opinion too and it was wrong.

The problem is simple to me:  what is the easiest solution?  For those wishing to allow abortion it is easiest to assume life begins AFTER that period in which they are comfortable with abortion.  For those not of that same frame of mind life begins at or shortly after conception and abortion is taking life.

I find usually the easy way is the wrong one.

[NM_Shooter]

I find usually the easy way is the wrong one.

That's the truth. 

[Carla_M]

To satisfy your curiosity, No.  However, the question and answer have absolutely no relevance to the matter at hand. I can be an advocate for the homeless without ever having been homeless.  I can be an advocate for organ donation without ever having received or given an organ. I can be an advocate for disabled American veterans without being disabled or a veteran. And the list goes on.

As for this matter I am an advocate for pro-choice. The decision to made by the woman with input from her physician and anyone else she decides to consult, as well as her conscience and her god, if she is a follower of one.

Have you had a vasectomy?



I also know a dead horse when I see one. Thanks for the insights and conversation.

[NM_Shooter]

To satisfy your curiosity, No.  However, the question and answer have absolutely no relevance to the matter at hand. I can be an advocate for the homeless without ever having been homeless.  I can be an advocate for organ donation without ever having received or given an organ. I can be an advocate for disabled American veterans without being disabled or a veteran. And the list goes on.

As for this matter I am an advocate for pro-choice. The decision to made by the woman with input from her physician and anyone else she decides to consult, as well as her conscience and her god, if she is a follower of one.

Have you had a vasectomy?

I also know a dead horse when I see one. Thanks for the insights and conversation.

But apparently you can't be an advocate for innocent life.  A lot of folks won't.  Because... hey, that would obligate them to a responsibility that might infringe on their ability to get into their jeans in a month or two.  Bummer, dude. 

I've found that those who are most staunch defenders of abortion are those who have participated, and get emotional relief from the endorsement of social acceptance of having the law on their side.  A friend of mine, having been told that she was diabetic and should never have children due to the health risk, chose to have unprotected sex as a young woman.  She became pregnant, panicked, and killed her baby.  To her, it was not murder.... it was the simple removal of a medical threat.  And to this day she is still militantly pro-abortion.  She has to believe that this was socially acceptable.  Who wants to bear the burden of being guilty of a heinous act?  No need to as long as the supreme court backs up the "right" of a woman to choose to scramble the body of her unborn child.

The whole choice thing is nonsense when you are speaking of violent acts towards another person.  Countries have legalized or refused to prosecute those involved in genocide.  I suppose you believe that something like that was between the executioners and their God too?  Once again, allowing a legal system to define when life begins, or how important it is, is merely a convenience for those who practice ending it.  Gotta meet the deadline.  Hmmmm... interesting word, deadline. 

As for me, I will step up and in where I am able to speak / act for those who can not protect themselves. 

Nope!  No vasectomy for me.  I am fully respectful of life when it comes to responsibilities associated with my reproductive practices. 

[NM_Shooter]

Consider for a moment how precious our lives are.

Think really hard for a bit about infinity of time.  It is easy to think of time going forward forever.  But also consider the fact that infinity has already happened.... behind us.  It makes my head hurt to think of infinity behind us.  Where the heck did all these rocks and energy come from??  Really try to wrap your head around something that has ALWAYS been in one shape or another.  No beginning.  Yikes.

So we have infinity behind us, and infinity ahead of us, and through the miracle of life and birth and reproduction, we exist here for a sliver of 85 years or so.  To casually toss out human life under the guise of "choice", given the infinitesimal odds of it even happening in the universe to begin with breaks my heart.