30 replies to this topic

[Roll the Bones]

New take on the abortion topic.Subverting Anti-Choicers with TechnologyA statistic that's oft-repeated in pro-choice circles is that 87 percent of counties in the United States do not have an abortion provider. What this means practically is that even though abortion is legal in this country, if you're a poor woman who lives hours from the nearest provider, it's nearly impossible to obtain one. However, a new service that's available in Iowa—abortion through tele-medicine—could make access a possibility for women in the most anti-choice states. This ABC News story explains how the process works: A woman seeking an abortion via telemedicine has an ultrasound performed by a trained technician, receives information about medical abortion and signs a standard informed consent for the abortion.Once that is complete, a physician steps in via teleconference. The doctor reviews the woman's medical history and ultrasound images, and once it is determined that she is eligible—up to nine weeks pregnant and not an ectopic pregnancy -- she has time to ask questions.Then, the doctor enters a computer passcode to remotely open a drawer at the clinic containing two pills. She then swallows the mifepristone, under the doctor's supervision, and then is instructed to take four additional tablets of misoprostol within the next 24 to 48 hours. The actual abortion happens at home.This makes life incredibly easy for patients, not just because it gives women who are far from a provider access to one, but it also allows women to avoid embattled abortion clinics where they might have to contend with furious protestors. Predictably, some of the most anti-choice states (Arizona, Kansas, North Dakota, Nebraska and Tennessee, according to ABC News) have already passed laws restricting telemedical abortion. Still, for women who need abortions in provider deserts, this is fantastic news.http://www.slate.com...tter_socialflowdiscuss

[BaseJester]

I'm for laws against aborting a fetus that might have a functioning brain. Society has embraced brain death as a legal end to life. It makes sense to likewise acknowledge brain birth. (This was Carl Sagan's position, which I've embraced.) Earlier than brain birth, I'm undecided.I think it's a mistake to label the anti-abortion crowd as "anti-choice". It invites an argument from the start. Let them pick their own name. It's pro-choice vs. pro-life. Whatever. Don't try to win the debate before it's started.If abortion is legal in that location, then attempts to make it a pain in the ass seem disingenuous. I'm against back-door attempts to prohibit anything. That said, I don't think people have a right to avoid exposure to dissenting opinions. The government shouldn't create artificial reasons to make people seeking an abortion face pro-lifers or go out of its way to avoid those confrontations if a valid reason exists for them to visit a physical location.

[brvheart]

So Pro-Baby Murderers are now calling Anti-Baby Murderers "Anti-Choicers"? Interesting.Edit: Dammit BaseJester, I just helped you prove your point.

[brvheart]

Roll the Bones, on Saturday, July 30th, 2011, 2:44 PM, said:

if you're a poor woman who lives hours from the nearest provider, it's nearly impossible to obtain one.

hahaha. Why? because the $25 in gas will cut into the satellite TV bill?Also, your link is broken.

[BaseJester]

brvheart, on Saturday, July 30th, 2011, 4:59 PM, said:

Edit: Dammit BaseJester, I just helped you prove your point.

Join me, and together, we can rule the galaxy.

[vbnautilus]

BaseJester, on Saturday, July 30th, 2011, 1:26 PM, said:

I'm for laws against aborting a fetus that might have a functioning brain. Society has embraced brain death as a legal end to life. It makes sense to likewise acknowledge brain birth. (This was Carl Sagan's position, which I've embraced.) Earlier than brain birth, I'm undecided.

I don't think this works. Part of the problem is that brain death is a discreet moment, but the development of the brain is a slow, continuous process. But more importantly, the reason brain death is a reasonable choice for a place to draw the legal death line is because it involves the permanent end of consciousness. We afford rights to creatures based on their level of consciousness: ants don't get any legal protection, but dogs get some. There is a neural tube very early in development long before the organism has any inkling of consciousness ( and well before it is capable of suffering). Just having any nervous system (the brain is not really separable from the rest of the nervous system) is not enough; I think the brain has to reach some point where we think there is enough of a mind there to warrant legal status as a human.

Quote

I think it's a mistake to label the anti-abortion crowd as "anti-choice". It invites an argument from the start. Let them pick their own name. It's pro-choice vs. pro-life. Whatever. Don't try to win the debate before it's started.

I think pro-choice and pro-life are rhetoric-loaded and argumentative on their own.

[Roll the Bones]

http://www.addicting.....89 -pro-life/Why anti-abortion does not equal pro-life.I have always been in favor of the "okay in the through the 2nd trimester" mostly due to brain activity. VB raises a good point. I suppose even if there is some minute early signs of brain activity it wouldn't seem to be enough to warrant awareness or things approaching the what we consider the difference between human or animal. But I would be open to evidence to the contrary.

[Balloon guy]

Roll the Bones, on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011, 7:54 AM, said:

http://www.addicting.....89 -pro-life/Why anti-abortion does not equal pro-life.I have always been in favor of the "okay in the through the 2nd trimester" mostly due to brain activity. VB raises a good point. I suppose even if there is some minute early signs of brain activity it wouldn't seem to be enough to warrant awareness or things approaching the what we consider the difference between human or animal. But I would be open to evidence to the contrary.

Current laws require abortions up until the entire baby is outside the womb.At any moment including while the baby is half in and half out of the birth canal, a woman can decide to kill the baby and has the full weight of law behind her.Any attempts to restrict viable babies are met with harsh resistance from the pro-abortion crowd.And LOL at that articleThey use a pie chart from planned parenthood to justify their argument that PP isn't just an abortion mill, and the proof they use???That they supply 35 contraception devices for every 3 abortions...Cause an $800 abortion is exactly equal to the $.50 cost of 10 rubbers.Only blind fools would look at that and agree with it's suggestion that they didn't perform 385,000 abortions last year, which is their main purpose ( the killing of minority babies to protect the white communities from the dirty immigrants )

[Roll the Bones]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011, 11:28 AM, said:

Current laws require abortions up until the entire baby is outside the womb.At any moment including while the baby is half in and half out of the birth canal, a woman can decide to kill the baby and has the full weight of law behind her.Any attempts to restrict viable babies are met with harsh resistance from the pro-abortion crowd.And LOL at that articleThey use a pie chart from planned parenthood to justify their argument that PP isn't just an abortion mill, and the proof they use???That they supply 35 contraception devices for every 3 abortions...Cause an $800 abortion is exactly equal to the $.50 cost of 10 rubbers.Only blind fools would look at that and agree with it's suggestion that they didn't perform 385,000 abortions last year, which is their main purpose ( the killing of minority babies to protect the white communities from the dirty immigrants )

Damn, rubbers cost fifty cents now?!

[Roll the Bones]

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."But the human part of the brain—the cortex—is not fully developed, as shown by "brain waves" on an EEG, until very late in gestation; in fact the EEG continues to change and mature into childhood. Indeed, the "individuating" function of a person's brain doesn't start to come into existence until the outer surface of the cortex begins to develop those deep furrows, grooves, and convolutions (sulci and gyri) that make a human brain look like a walnut, unlike the smooth brains of other animals. The furrows and grooves are what enable our brains to have millions more cells and connections between them than other animals, and so create our humanity. And the precise configuration of the grooves and convolutions are part of what determines our individuality; why, for instance, indentical twins have different personalities, and even, perhaps, why Einstein was a genius. However, these structures don't begin to form until the last 2 months of pregnancy. http://eileen.250x.c...Brain_Waves.htm

[brvheart]

Roll the Bones, on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011, 11:59 AM, said:

Damn, rubbers cost fifty cents now?!

If you buy the expensive ones.http://www.google.co...ved=0CHQQ8wIwAQ

[Mercury69]

How about an appropriate definition of "functioning brain"? I mean, moths have functioning brains, as do dolphins, but nobody gets in a snit when a moth gets pounded into dust. Where is the line drawn? What criteria determines function?

[Roll the Bones]

Quote

When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.

Quote

There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record "brain waves" prior to 20-24 weeks. Period.

[vbnautilus]

Randy I have to say that article is kind of off the mark. There is no special significance to the presence of recordable EEG; what really matters is the electrical activity of individual neurons, which may or may not be measurable as EEG (an aggregate measure of electrical activity at the scalp or outside the womb). Also, the relationship between EEG and consciousness (which is what really matters) is sketchy: the earlier developing parts of the brain like the brainstem may actually be pretty important for basic forms of consciousness, (even though conssciousness is surely elaborated by the cerebral cortex). We just can't make the assumption that EEG from the cortex is the crucial factor. Also the claim that "no activity in the cerebral cortex, drug-stimulated or not, has been observed by anyone else as early as 120 days" is pretty misleading, as neurons being firing pretty much as soon as they grow, so there is surely electrical activity in the cortex as soon as it exists, difficulties in measuring it notwithstanding.

[speedz99]

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, 12:36 PM, said:

Also, the relationship between EEG and consciousness (which is what really matters) is sketchy: the earlier developing parts of the brain like the brainstem may actually be pretty important for basic forms of consciousness, (even though conssciousness is surely elaborated by the cerebral cortex).

Actually, the brainstem has nothing to do with consciousness. Zombies still have a functioning brainstem, but they are not conscious, at least as far as we understand consciousness itself. According to Max Brook, anyway, and in terms of zombie science, his opinion is as good as fact.

[phlegm]

I do believe Ive done a 180 on the abortion issue.Why would we want the type of person who would abort a fetus to reproduce anyway.And weneed the availability of the fetus slaughter industry for those who may have a legitamate need for such a service.

[Roll the Bones]

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, 3:36 PM, said:

Randy I have to say that article is kind of off the mark. There is no special significance to the presence of recordable EEG; what really matters is the electrical activity of individual neurons, which may or may not be measurable as EEG (an aggregate measure of electrical activity at the scalp or outside the womb). Also, the relationship between EEG and consciousness (which is what really matters) is sketchy: the earlier developing parts of the brain like the brainstem may actually be pretty important for basic forms of consciousness, (even though conssciousness is surely elaborated by the cerebral cortex). We just can't make the assumption that EEG from the cortex is the crucial factor. Also the claim that "no activity in the cerebral cortex, drug-stimulated or not, has been observed by anyone else as early as 120 days" is pretty misleading, as neurons being firing pretty much as soon as they grow, so there is surely electrical activity in the cortex as soon as it exists, difficulties in measuring it notwithstanding.

Off to check more stuff now. To be clear, I are you saying there is significant nueral activity prior to 24 weeks that is simply undetectable from EEG?

[El Guapo]

I am not sure if abortion is the type of thing you should be able to phone in a prescription for.

[Mercury69]

speedz99, on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, 9:42 PM, said:

Actually, the brainstem has nothing to do with consciousness. Zombies still have a functioning brainstem, but they are not conscious, at least as far as we understand consciousness itself. According to Max Brook, anyway, and in terms of zombie science, his opinion is as good as fact.

OMG, lol, Speedz, that is awesome. Zombies? I totally buy what you're saying, but it's somewhat removed from reality, no?Zombie Science FTW!!!

[Roll the Bones]

Roll the Bones, on Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 3:40 PM, said:

Off to check more stuff now. To be clear, I are you saying there is significant nueral activity prior to 24 weeks that is simply undetectable from EEG?

Okay, complicated stuff and I have a basic understanding but not years to understand fully. I understand the process of nuerons migrating from the neural tube, but what isn't clear is the stage of gestation (other than starting to leave at 4 to 5 weeks) that meaningful synaptic interaction occurs. Or at what stage the intitial synaptic events occcur to let's say, significant occurance.