A simple question for the pro life

[J Craft]

Yes, let's attempt to look away from killing innocent unborn children, and play gotcha with "shouldn't women be punished"? No, not punished. Admonished, yes- perhaps some community service.

well stated below;

"The abortionist, a man trained in surgery, the professional who knows exactly what he is doing — he knows that he is destroying a human life, either by poisoning a child or dismembering it. And in perfect coolness and detachment, and at a nice price, he makes the killing of the innocent his office-work. Certain women may indeed be guilty of a callous willingness to destroy a child for the sake of their own self-interest. But the law makes a prudent, tempered choice when it makes the abortionist the target of its censure and brings solely upon him the weight of the punishment."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/221742/one-untrue-thing-nro-symposium

 

[CFM]

Well worse, started at a juco
And when I tell you the competition in class was weak
They made my dumbass look like Shakespeare

Many here still make you look like a dumbass.

 

[CFM]

Lol.

You're stupid enough to believe his lie.

 

[The Dude]

easy, brain drain. She's just being honest. You should try it sometime. In fact, you can start by talking about how poor you are.

You spread poison in the real world be ready to be challenged
Stupid skydaddy pagan

 

[The Dude]

Yes, let's attempt to look away from killing innocent unborn children, and play gotcha with "shouldn't women be punished"? No, not punished. Admonished, yes- perhaps some community service.

well stated below;

"The abortionist, a man trained in surgery, the professional who knows exactly what he is doing — he knows that he is destroying a human life, either by poisoning a child or dismembering it. And in perfect coolness and detachment, and at a nice price, he makes the killing of the innocent his office-work. Certain women may indeed be guilty of a callous willingness to destroy a child for the sake of their own self-interest. But the law makes a prudent, tempered choice when it makes the abortionist the target of its censure and brings solely upon him the weight of the punishment."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/221742/one-untrue-thing-nro-symposium

Thanks for helping democrats

 

[CFM]

Thanks for helping democrats

You support the Democrat stance on being baby killers.

 

[patriot66]

It is just this.

If you really believe abortion to be murder then how do you get around not pounishing the mother?
Speaking personally I don't see how you can get around it.

If it was illegal I believe you should, thing is right now baby murder is allowed

 

[patriot66]

Seven years in prison should suffice for the first offense.

Doesn't the US Supreme Court define death as the absence of brainwaves?

Well, yes it does.

Since the fetus doesn't exhibit brainwaves until about 12-14 weeks, then abortions should be permissible during that time period, right?

Once the fetus exhibits brainwaves, then it is a sentient being, and to take its life because it is an inconvenience is murder, right?

Heartbeat!

 

[patriot66]

Burn in hell bitch!

Yeah how dare you have a different opinion than the stoner!

 

[patriot66]

Satan will get you
You brain washing cult bastard

You idiot troll, If you don't believe in God, you can't believe in Satan, what a fool!

 

[Stelakh]

And still, nobody who hasn't made the choice for themselves has stepped forward to answer my simple question:

What does it matter to you if someone ELSE chooses to have a legal abortion?

People who try to answer that by asking a question will be ignored. Just answer the straight question with a straight answer or don't bother.

 

[CFM]

You idiot troll, If you don't believe in God, you can't believe in Satan, what a fool!

He's the dumb son of a bitch that claims to have two degrees but won't show proof of it.

 

[Stelakh]

Seven years in prison should suffice for the first offense.

Doesn't the US Supreme Court define death as the absence of brainwaves?

Well, yes it does.

Since the fetus doesn't exhibit brainwaves until about 12-14 weeks, then abortions should be permissible during that time period, right?

Once the fetus exhibits brainwaves, then it is a sentient being, and to take its life because it is an inconvenience is murder, right?

Actually, it's quite a bit longer than 12-14 weeks for a fetus to develop the necessary constituent bits that permit brainwaves.

Sentience does not begin at conception, and is not available to a fetus that doesn't have certain things.

Things like the thalamo-cortical complex (TCC). This is the physical groudwork that is one of the components necessary for consciousness. The TCC doesn't start to form until between 24 and 28 weeks. But it doesn't provide consciousness. It's just the physical foundation. At 29-30 weeks, a fetus becomes physically capable of feeling pain, but we don't know if it does because it is sedated (see below).

About two months after the formation of the TCC, the fetus starts to develop the beginnings of neural integration (the "brainwaves"), which allows but does not imbue sentience.

In other words, we're looking at the third trimester before a fetus is capable of sentience.

But whether or not the fetus is capable even at that point of being aware of itself is an interesting question, since the mother's body actually keeps the baby in either active or quiet sleep. This is because both the placenta and the fetus itself produce natural anesthetics.

This may not answer the moral implications, or speak on whether or not sentience is achieved at a particular point. All the information does do is tell us that sentience is impossible until the third trimester, and it complicates the question by introducing the fact that the fetus is sedated and as such possibly not conscious.

 

[CFM]

Actually, it's quite a bit longer than 12-14 weeks for a fetus to develop the necessary constituent bits that permit brainwaves.

Sentience does not begin at conception, and is not available to a fetus that doesn't have certain things.

Things like the thalamo-cortical complex (TCC). This is the physical groudwork that is one of the components necessary for consciousness. The TCC doesn't start to form until between 24 and 28 weeks. But it doesn't provide consciousness. It's just the physical foundation. At 29-30 weeks, a fetus becomes physically capable of feeling pain, but we don't know if it does because it is sedated (see below).

About two months after the formation of the TCC, the fetus starts to develop the beginnings of neural integration (the "brainwaves"), which allows but does not imbue sentience.

In other words, we're looking at the third trimester before a fetus is capable of sentience.

But whether or not the fetus is capable even at that point of being aware of itself is an interesting question, since the mother's body actually keeps the baby in either active or quiet sleep. This is because both the placenta and the fetus itself produce natural anesthetics.

This may not answer the moral implications, or speak on whether or not sentience is achieved at a particular point. All the information does do is tell us that sentience is impossible until the third trimester, and it complicates the question by introducing the fact that the fetus is sedated and as such possibly not conscious.

Another baby killer trying to justify how murdering the innocent is OK.

 

[Stelakh]

You idiot troll, If you don't believe in God, you can't believe in Satan, what a fool!

Um. Why?

Of course you can believe in Satan and not in God. They don't rely on each other for support.

 

[Stelakh]

Another baby killer trying to justify how murdering the innocent is OK.

Look, we all know you like disinformation. It's clear in everything you post.

You'll note that I neither advocated or discouraged abortion in that post. All I did was correct some misinformation and provide a little extra.

(I've figured you out, by the way.)

 

[CFM]

Um. Why?

Of course you can believe in Satan and not in God. They don't rely on each other for support.

Yeah, you understand the Bible? Liar.

 

[CFM]

Look, we all know you like disinformation. It's clear in everything you post.

You'll note that I neither advocated or discouraged abortion in that post. All I did was correct some misinformation and provide a little extra.

(I've figured you out, by the way.)

You can't figure yourself out.

 

[Stelakh]

Yeah, you understand the Bible? Liar.

Not only do I understand the bible, I understand that there's more than one interpretation of it. Idiot.

 

[Jarod]

I will try to give my answer to this question the best that I can. First I would say that I would not have an abortion for any reason including if I was raped or if my life was in jeopardy. If I kept the baby that came from being raped is something that I would have to decide at that moment which I pray never comes, but if I didn't keep it then I would put it up for adoption. I do believe that life begins at conception and that an abortion does end that life. When it comes to punishment for having an abortion if abortion one day became illegal then naturally there would and should be a punishment for it.

I wish more people who think that way would be brave enough to admit it.