Mitt Romney for President - Page 15

Originally Posted by jimmac

No. You've didn't understand ( obviously ) either by mistake or design. That's why I answered your question with a question.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Not at all. The reasoning you gave entailed not being fully formed or having a fully developed brain. I wanted clarification on that.

So as long as the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb, it's "human". Correct?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I best leave before someone realizes what a moron I am for assuming he'd act like an adult.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Your answer was elusive. Please clarify.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Look in my post above for the answer to that.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Your post above is not clear enough. Hence my questions.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well then I guess you didn't read the article huh?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

My question was regarding a statement you made, not the article.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Which you didn't read.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Actually I did read it, and I wanted clarification, which is why I asked questions.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I think I've stated that answer. I don't think it makes a difference if a fetus is in or out of the womb. It hasn't finished gestation. Therefore isn't complete and can't be considered the same as a fully formed human. Get it?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Thank you for finally answering my question in a straightforward manner. The games were really unnecessary.

For the sake of this conversation, can we agree on the Wikipedia definition of the word "fetus"?

According to that definition, the unborn baby is called a fetus up until birth.

In light of that definition, I'd like you to clarify your position: do you believe the fetus is not human if it cannot survive outside the womb? Because babies are born before being carried to full term (premature) and are still very much alive.

Weeks 9 to 16

Humans

Main article: Human fertilization

The term conception commonly refers to fertilisation, the successful fusion of gametes to form a new organism. 'Conception' is used by some to refer to implantation and is thus a subject of semantic arguments about the beginning of pregnancy, typically in the context of the abortion debate. Gastrulation, which occurs around 16 days after fertilisation, is the point in development when the implanted blastocyst develops three germ layers, the endoderm, the ectoderm and the mesoderm. It is at this point that the genetic code of the father becomes fully involved in the development of the embryo. Until this point in development, twinning is possible. Additionally, interspecies hybrids survive only until gastrulation, and have no chance of development afterward. However this stance is not entirely accepted as some human developmental biology literature refers to the "conceptus" and such medical literature refers to the "products of conception" as the post-implantation embryo and its surrounding membranes.[9] The term "conception" is not usually used in scientific literature because of its variable definition and connotation.

Quote:
Does a Fetus Have a Social Identity?

A big part of what makes us human beings is our ability to participate in society, or at least be recognized as a member of society. Fetuses are excluded both by necessity and custom. There can be no meaningful social participation for someone cocooned inside another's body. Fetuses do not even have a social identity, since names are not officially bestowed until after birth. In fact, a birth certificate marks the first legal recognition of a person's existence. And fetuses are generally not given ritualized burials when miscarried or aborted. It is quite telling that the death of a newborn infant is much more of a crushing blow to parents than an early miscarriage. People simply place a higher social value on infants than fetuses, and this convention is ingrained in our culture and history.

In earlier times, even infants may not have been valued members of the society yet. Infanticide has been a common practice throughout history as a way to select for healthy, wanted babies, and conserve scarce resources for the rest of the tribe. The human species is estimated to have killed 10 to 15 percent of its born children13. Plus, infant mortality rates from natural causes were so high that babies were often not officially welcomed into the community until months or even years after birth, when their survival was more assured14. Of course, this is not an advocacy of infanticide. I'm simply saying that personhood, or the point at which one becomes an "official" human being, is a value judgment made by society according to social custom and necessity. It is a social construction incapable of empirical proof. Generally, modern industrialized societies find birth to be the most convenient and logical place to assign personhood, because that's where a person starts an independent existence, but perhaps also because of our low infant mortality rates. Even so, babies do not have an established social identity to the same degree as older children or adults, probably because of their still-undeveloped human abilities and potential.





Quote:
Is a Fetus a Human Being Physically?

The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Are they materially substantial enough to count as human beings? Fetuses cannot breath or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound). They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. Further, fetuses are not just miniature babies. At various stages, fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces. In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus. Finally, the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory (which aren't fully actualized until two or three years after birth). But our complex brains are what set us apart from animals and define us as human beings. The brain is the seat of personhood15.

Considering that the early fetus does not even look recognizably human, cannot engage in normal human perception or thought, and does not have the most basic human body functions, can we call it a human being?

Of course, there are striking physical similarities between a fetus and a newborn, such as well-developed hands and feet at a relatively early stage, and the overall structural form. As birth approaches, a fetus looks more and more like a newborn, until there is no significant difference by about 30 weeks gestation. But anti-choicers focus exclusively on these similarities, while ignoring the differences. For example, a hugely popular anti-choice photograph shows the perfectly formed, tiny feet of a 10-week old fetus held gently between someone's thumb and forefinger. There is no sign of the rest of the early fetus, which barely looks human at all. Anti-choicers try not to use pictures of embryos and early fetuses precisely because they look far less human than later ones (when they do, they usually enlarge them to make the embryo or fetus look the same size as a baby). Even the more commonly-used photos of later-term fetuses tend to deliberately shield from view anything that detracts from human-like qualities, such as the placenta or the oddly-shaped torso. (Also, women and their uteruses are completely erased from all such pictures.)16




http://www.abortionaccess.info/fetusperson.htm

Originally Posted by jimmac

MJ seems ( that's all you can get ) to think that a human begins at conception because of a soul. However that's not provable.

Originally Posted by jimmac

And personally for myself I believe " human " ( that sets us apart from other creatures ) starts at self awareness. That doesn't happen at conception but much later.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

How can you possibly know that? Is that provable? How is what your saying any different from the concept of a "soul?"

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So now who is putting words in who's mouth?!

What I have said quite clearly is the following:

1. I believe human life begins at conceptions. I provided a quick handful of scientific facts in support of that belief. I know some disagree with this.

2. I also believe there is something we call the "soul" which is more difficult to "prove" from a physical, scientific perspective but that doesn't make it any less real.

3. I also believe that a human does have a soul from the moment of conception.

All that said, the basis of my belief in the humanness is not strictly or exclusively based on the unprovable soul aspect. The thing living inside of a womb is human in many of the other aspects that we can measure objectively and scientifically. And since many would like to limit the discussion to only the scientific (which is pretty simplistic in my opinion)...we can start with the objective facts about this living being's humanity and regard anyone who declares human life to begin at some point after conception to simply be engaging in subjective, possibly arbitrary opinion making absolutely no different than someone suggesting the existence of a soul.

Based on all of this, I believe, it would behoove us as human beings who care about human life to be extremely careful and err on the side of caution in what actions are allowed to be taken against this living thing as we continue to investigation and debate and discovery of what is and is not a human being and when human life begins.

I think it would be safe to say, objectively, that the earliest boundary for the start of human life would be conception. Anything after that is a subjective opinion that, I believe, is only tenuously supportable by facts.

Originally Posted by tonton

I say we err on the side of caution and accept only the aspects of the argument that are provable, especially the well-being of the woman.

Originally Posted by tonton

I say we err on the side of caution and accept only the aspects of the argument that are provable, especially the well-being of the woman.

It's a horrible attack on a person to forego the woman's opinion on the matter for something unknown and contested by science.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I think it's safe to say if a brain isn't formed and developed enough for cognitive thought there's no self awareness.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

OK. Now we're actually getting somewhere.

For you the earliest point would be some brain activity that might suggest the possibility of "self awareness." Is that right?

Since we have no real way to scientifically measure someone's "self awareness" and we want to keep the discussion in the realm of the scientifically measurable, then it seems reasonable to say that as early as 30-40 days of development (1st 3rd to 1st half of the 1st trimester) this might be a possibility since this is the beginning of the brain as we understand it now.

Is that fair to say?

then it seems reasonable to say that as early as 30-40 days of development (1st 3rd to 1st half of the 1st trimester) this might be a possibility since this is the beginning of the brain as we understand it now.

The Road to Awareness
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep.

Invasive experiments in rat and lamb pups and observational studies using ultrasound and electrical recordings in humans show that the third-trimester fetus is almost always in one of two sleep states. Called active and quiet sleep, these states can be distinguished using electroencephalography. Their different EEG signatures go hand in hand with distinct behaviors: breathing, swallowing, licking, and moving the eyes but no large-scale body movements in active sleep; no breathing, no eye movements and tonic muscle activity in quiet sleep. These stages correspond to rapid-eye-movement (REM) and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals. In late gestation the fetus is in one of these two sleep states 95 percent of the time, separated by brief transitions.

What is fascinating is the discovery that the fetus is actively sedated by the low oxygen pressure (equivalent to that at the top of Mount Everest), the warm and cushioned uterine environment and a range of neuroinhibitory and sleep-inducing substances produced by the placenta and the fetus itself: adenosine; two steroidal anesthetics, allopregnanolone and pregnanolone; one potent hormone, prostaglandin D2; and others. The role of the placenta in maintaining sedation is revealed when the umbilical cord is closed off while keeping the fetus adequately supplied with oxygen. The lamb embryo now moves and breathes continuously. From all this evidence, neonatologists conclude that the fetus is asleep while its brain matures.

Originally Posted by jimmac

And your information on this comes from where? Link please. And just because the brain is forming doesn't mean it has cognitive thought. As per the article I've already supplied.

As you can see from this Wiki listing the brain isn't fully formed by week 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_baby

Also :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...iousness-arise

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So the earliest, for you, would be 8-9 weeks (54-63 days)...still within 1st trimester?

Or, instead of me guessing, can you put a time frame on when you consider this living being to be a human?

Also is it only "self awareness"? How would you determine this "self awareness"? Are there other characteristics that, in your opinion, make (or do not make) this living being human?

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Some evidence suggests that self awareness isn't fully in place even after the child is born.

Originally Posted by jimmac

So 3rd trimester would seem to be a good place to consider.

Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So, for you, this living being is not really human until at least the 3rd trimester (beginning?) of gestation and, possibly, not even until after birth?




This statement suggest that at this point only the potential for self awareness exists. Is that how you read that also?

Originally Posted by jimmac

As to your first question I was mearly pointing out that selfawareness might not be the best place to pin this on so we'll go with cognitive thought. Sorry to change the goal posts but I didn't realize that selfawareness still develops to a great degree after birth.

Originally Posted by jimmac

When do you think that the human fetus has thought that sets itself apart from other animals and why?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

That's fine. No need to apologize. So, for you, the first indications of cognitive thought. Fair enough.




I'd say that it's in about the time frames you've suggested for cognitive thought. I'm not prepared to dispute or refute that claim and it seems reasonable enough.

Originally Posted by jimmac

There's a huge debate on this subject and it's because it's so difficult to pin certain things down.

Originally Posted by jimmac

But as I've said to let society function you have to start somewhere.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Agreed.




Agreed. The debate is about where to start and there is a wide range of opinion.

For example, we have discussed some facts here...such as when brain activity happens and when cognitive thought is possible. Those are facts as best as we know them currently. We also know that the living being has human DNA from the point of conception and that, uninterrupted, will grow and mature into what we presently call a human being. These are all facts.

The opinions are about at what point along this timeline this living entity becomes a person worthy of protection under the law.

These are important questions. A women's control over her body is also an important consideration. Reasons for ending of this life should also be a part of the dialogue. What has caused this new life to begin should also be a part of the discussion.

The problem is when people want to terminate the debate by trying to declare opinion as fact and unilaterally declare certain opinions or facts or factors irrelevant or off limits to the discussion.

I believe that since we are talking about human life here and that, I presume, we all value human life...that this should be a serious and full debate continuing until we get more facts and more agreement and not simply end the debate.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What does that mean?

Also, with regard to Paul: Have you been following the stories on he and Romney having some kind of secret (or just unspoken) agreement? I do find that interesting, because if you notice Paul and Romney have not gone after each other at all (debates or advertising). I've also heard that they've formed a friendship, if nothing else.

My thinking is Romney and Paul have come to an understanding: I think both agree Romney is the likely nominee. I think they've agreed not to go after each other, instead focusing on Santorum and Gingrich. Then, Romney has promised Paul that he will have influence in terms of the platform and perhaps, an official presence in the administration if Romney wins the general. What do you think?

Originally Posted by Frank777

Santorum damaged himself with the snob comment, trying too hard to grab blue collar workers.

Romney will probably be the pick. And will then replay the McCain loss at the polls.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Actually, I think I get what he was trying to say there, he just used the wrong word.

College isn't for everyone, and people can be very successful in life without a college degree.

Originally Posted by BR

But President Obama never said college was for everyone.

Santorum was again attempting to run against a straw man--like the vast majority of Republicans have been doing since Obama took office.