chrisd:

Is very interesting. But is difficult to define reasonable margin of error. One needs a quantitative calculation. Perhaps we can come up with a differential equation or something.

Way too complex (maybe I should quote Einstein on this one ):

Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler

A right when--------

1. The mother's life is in danger
2.When the mother's is raped

A crime because------- it's murder

You ensure that there is absolutely no chance that sentience is present (that's why 26 weeks is a reasonable limit)? Weren't we talking of margin or error?

It certainly sounds charitable and fair to say that it is equally good – until you think about it. What would we think of a geologist who said, "Some people believe the world is round and some believe the world is flat, and I think we should let everyone choose the belief with which he is most comfortable"? Would you say he’s an exceptionally wise and tolerant geologist?

chrisd:

You ensure that there is absolutely no chance that sentience is present (that's why 26 weeks is a reasonable limit)? Weren't we talking of margin or error?

It certainly sounds charitable and fair to say that it is equally good – until you think about it. What would we think of a geologist who said, "Some people believe the world is round and some believe the world is flat, and I think we should let everyone choose the belief with which he is most comfortable"? Would you say he’s an exceptionally wise and tolerant geologist?

This has nothing to do with what I was saying. The two are not comparable.

Assume that the neurological wiring that makes sentience possible is available at 27 weeks, but that there are no tests that allow you to measure sentience before 30 weeks. In that case it is reasonable to take a legal limit of 26 weeks, which includes a 27 weeks +/- 1 week margin of error and starts from that fact that it physically impossible to have sentience before that limit, even though it is more likely that sentience only is there after those 30 weeks.

That concept says that the limit is whether we can measure it or not. I thought you said that pain should not be the only criteria. If one still wants to define a threshold base it on cerebrum development than feeling pain or not. That's where consciousness is related to right.

Sentience is not the capacity to feel pain, it is the capacity to perceive sensations, and undifferentiated conscienceness. The ability to feel pain is just an indicator of sentience under specific circumstances (if an organism is capable of feeling pain, we can definitely speak of sentience). This requires specific neurological developments.
So, I think we agree on this treshold

PS; excuse me if I err against specific scientific terminology, correct me, I'm just a lay person.

Never said it was ok.

It is not just the capacity to perceive sensations. The question should me how does the brain generate consciousness. Then we can look to define a when. Till now we cannot even understand how. And we still do not understand the human phyche. Go ask any pshycologist.

Consciousness cannot be said to have a single (or more than one) fixed location in the brain but can be triggered off almost anywhere in the brain and then spread out via the interconnections between neurons. Consciousness must also be a continuum to allow for the possibility of changes in the levels of consciousness. For example, at what stage can a foetus be said to be conscious? The only rational explanation is to think of consciousness gradually increasing, rather than suddenly coming into existence. Physiological behaviour which seems to confirm this is that new-born babies, which we assume have a very low level of consciousness, have fewer connections in their brains than adults. It appears that the amount of inter-neuron connectivity is related to the level of consciousness. Professor Greenfield Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford University explored the idea of different levels of consciousness and the possible physiological reasons for these different levels. For example, people who do activities such as bungee jumping or white water rafting report having a feeling of time standing still i.e. having a lower level of consciousness, which could be because such activities cut out external stimuli.

chrisd:

It is not just the capacity to perceive sensations. The question should me how does the brain generate consciousness. Then we can look to define a when. Till now we cannot even understand how. And we still do not understand the human phyche. Go ask any pshycologist.

Never said it was. We indeed cannot understand how, but we certainly can understand at what moment consciousness certainly cannot be formed yet. This is what the article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947 (although the full text is now requires registration) was implying.

chrisd:

Consciousness cannot be said to have a single (or more than one) fixed location in the brain but can be triggered off almost anywhere in the brain and then spread out via the interconnections between neurons. Consciousness must also be a continuum to allow for the possibility of changes in the levels of consciousness. For example, at what stage can a foetus be said to be conscious?

You can talk about a lower limit of neural development to allow a minimal consciousness. That this does not mean that consciousness stops developing, is quite obvious.

chrisd:

The only rational explanation is to think of consciousness gradually increasing, rather than suddenly coming into existence.

Yes, in the same manner that during a day, it requires a certain level of daylight to be called day and no longer night. The exact time when night changes into day is difficult to determine and arbitrary, but a some points you can, with absolute certainty, be saying that it is day and no longer night, just as you can say that at a specific moment it is definitely night and not yet day. The process of speciation works along similar lines. Now, what does that tell you? Only that you cannot define the exact moment at which consciousness starts.

chrisd:

Physiological behaviour which seems to confirm this is that new-born babies, which we assume have a very low level of consciousness, have fewer connections in their brains than adults.

Certain biologists claim that human babies resemble larvae in that regard. They are not yet full humans. the argument makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. The head of the new baby would be too large for a woman to give birth, so the moment of delivery is set earlier, meaning that the baby is still very much undeveloped.
This goes rather in the direction that a newborn baby is not fully human yet.

chrisd:

It appears that the amount of inter-neuron connectivity is related to the level of consciousness. Professor Greenfield Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford University explored the idea of different levels of consciousness and the possible physiological reasons for these different levels. For example, people who do activities such as bungee jumping or white water rafting report having a feeling of time standing still i.e. having a lower level of consciousness, which could be because such activities cut out external stimuli.

Interesting, but how does this observation have anything to do with the discussion we're having?

rtain biologists claim that human babies resemble larvae in that regard. They are not yet full humans. the argument makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. The head of the new baby would be too large for a woman to give birth, so the moment of delivery is set earlier, meaning that the baby is still very much undeveloped.
This goes rather in the direction that a newborn baby is not fully human yet.

Quote from: chrisd on Today at 01:11:23 PM
It appears that the amount of inter-neuron connectivity is related to the level of consciousness. Professor Greenfield Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford University explored the idea of different levels of consciousness and the possible physiological reasons for these different levels. For example, people who do activities such as bungee jumping or white water rafting report having a feeling of time standing still i.e. having a lower level of consciousness, which could be because such activities cut out external stimuli.
Interesting, but how does this observation have anything to do with the discussion we're having?

It has all to do with the discussion. It shows that a lower level of consciousness does not go in the direction that a newborn baby is not fully human yet because of lower level on consciousness.

The head of the new baby would be too large for a woman to give birth, so the moment of delivery is set earlier? What kind of idea is that. You get out because it's your time.

chrisd:

It has all to do with the discussion. It shows that a lower level of consciousness does not go in the direction that a newborn baby is not fully human yet because of lower level on consciousness.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

chrisd:

The head of the new baby would be too large for a woman to give birth, so the moment of delivery is set earlier? What kind of idea is that. You get out because it's your time.

As the humanoid brain increased in size during it's evolution, labour and childbirth became painful and dangerous for women, especially if you compare it to other mammals. Add to that walking upright has some anatomical consequences. Mutations that caused the child to be born earlier proved to be beneficial, but this caused a need for a longer period of care for the newborn.
I can get you the references if you like.

You should not believe everything that is published. I tell you from experience maybe one in 100 or 1000 is a real good one. I also find a lot of mistakes sometimes.

chrisd:

You should not believe everything that is published. I tell you from experience maybe one in 100 or 1000 is a real good one. I also find a lot of mistakes sometimes.

Of course not, but don't forget that you're working in a field that's very different from biology. You cannot apply the same standards and methods anyway. On what basis should I reject these findings?

I was giving a series of freshman physics lectures, and after one of them, Tom Harvey, who assisted me in putting on the demonstrations, said, "You oughta see what's happening to mathematics in schoolbooks! My daughter comes home with a lot of crazy stuff!"

But the next day I got a telephone call from a pretty famous lawyer here in Pasadena, Mr. Norris, who was at that time on the Board of Education. He asked me if I would serve on the State Curriculum Commission, which had to choose the new schoolbooks. You see, there is a law that all of the schoolbooks used by all of the kids in all of the public schools have to be chosen by the Board of Education, so they have a committee to look over the books and to give them advice on which books to take.

It happened that a lot of the books were on a new method of teaching arithmetic called "new math," and since usually the only people to look at the books were schoolteachers or administrators in education, they thought it would be a good idea to have somebody who uses mathematics scientifically, who knows what the end product is and what we're trying to teach it for, to help in the evaluation of the schoolbooks.

I must have had, by this time, a guilty feeling about not cooperating with the government, because I agreed to get on this committee.

Immediately I began getting letters and telephone calls from schoolbook publishers. They said things like, "We're very glad to hear you're on the committee because we really wanted a scientific guy . . ." and "It's wonderful to have a scientist on the committee, because our books are scientifically oriented . . ." But they also said things like, "We'd like to explain to you what our book is about . . ." and "We'll be very glad to help you in any way we can to judge our books . . ." That seemed to me kind of crazy. I'm an objective scientist, and it seemed to me that since the only thing the kids in school are going to get is the books (and the teachers get the teacher's manual, which I would also get), any extra explanation from the company was a distortion. So I didn't want to speak to any of the publishers and always replied, "You don't have to explain; I'm sure the books will speak for themselves."

Mrs. Whitehouse started out telling me about the stuff they were going to talk about in the next meeting (they had already had one meeting; I was appointed late). "They're going to talk about the counting numbers." I didn't know what that was, but it turned out they were what I used to call integers. They had different names for everything, so I had a lot of trouble right from the start.

She told me how the members of the commission normally rated the new schoolbooks. They would get a relatively large number of copies of each book and would give them to various teachers and administrators in their district. Then they would get reports back on what these people thought about the books. Since I didn't know a lot of teachers or administrators, and since I felt that I could, by reading the books myself, make up my mind as to how they looked to me, I chose to read all the books myself. . . .

A few days later a guy from the book depository called me up and said, "We're ready to send you the books, there are three hundred pounds."

I was overwhelmed.

"It's all right; we'll get someone to help you read them."

I couldn't figure out how you do that: you either read them or you don't read them. Crazy. Crazy. Absolutely crazy.

About the head of a new baby. I think so.

In Summary:

Baby's head grew larger. (Ok perhaps true)
That baby could not get out (Ok, but this sounds fishy, something stupid is going to happen)
All babies are born premature
Premature babies are underdeveloped. (I better stop)

Anyway you think biology is different. I tell you what, CT scan, X-ray were invented by physicists and some physicians have no clue how to interpret them.

Another thing. I have heard the government has put a rover on mars. I wonder if there is any way the government can improve the bus service over here or an escalator at Victoria Tube Station.

chrisd,

I'll reply later. i won't forget you

I'm off now. I'll read tomorrow. Have good evening. Was also in a funny mode today especially considering the Victoria Station and the baby thing.

kaylala:

this thread has been left for the two of you,so enjoy while it last

You mean before we get banned?

its a sin no doubt.but if one is under age no body to care for the person and stuffs wat does that person do cant keep the baby?

This is a real tragedy!!!  Roe vs. Wade was all about privacy what about the right to life amendment....  a fetus starts getting a brain at about 5 to 6 weeks.  They have no choice or say in the matter..  There are enough good people out there longing for a child and with all the birth control out there there should never be an unplanned pregnancy can see if a person is raped, there health is at risk.  But other than that it is just wrong...  There are people with terminal illness that would like to terminate there own life and they are not allowed...  Pray and help these angels with no voices..

i have been watching this judicial process on tv and i have been doing some research.. i am 40 and have two children and would have never thought of doing this but i know many people who have and i never thought about it much until lately. i am anti abortion all the way and if there was a way for my voice to be heard in the supreme court or any court i would.

Really

Aren't we really having an argument over nothing.

Since the babies never accepted christ as their lord and savior, they never repented for their sins, they are immediately doomed to hell.

abortion is right. if you know you are enalbe to provide for that kid. give it the support it needs you should have an abortion. people seem to forget not eveyone is able to look after a child and have the mental state to do it. it is a lot of work. men dont really have a say that much. your not really going through anything its the woman.

[color=#770077][/color]  abortion is a crime right? We know that, because it is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, "Thou shall not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away.

GOVERNMENT- CRIME
INDIVIDUAL- RIGHT
NATURALLY- SIN

if u dont want to have the baby, take a lot of lime/lemon during the 1st 2 months of the pregnancy. . u can also indulge in things not healthy or strainous for a pregnant woman. if the kid isnt stubborn, he'll just wash away and we'll refer to it as miscarriage.

dat doesnt mean u should get pregnant stupidly.

What if the unhealthy foods you eat in order to force a miscarriage lead to the birth of a deformed or retarded baby?

the more reason she should keep her head up before it sinks into the river.



GIRLS, RESERVE UR VIRGINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!