thats fine, point it out. u know much more about this than i do. but the point im tryin to get at is that even tho it's not concrete that a baby can "feel" at a certain point in it's development, web sites claim that certain things are"sensitive". it seems to be that even tho they never actually say it, it can be inferred that these babies can feel. here is the site i am quoting: http://www.abortiontv.com/Growth/How...BabiesGrow.htm
You're useing the same argument a million pro-lifers have used.
There are plants that can react to sound and touch. Brainless growing in the dirt plants that if you touch one, it will close it's leaves. If a sound is made, it will close it's flowers. This has nothing to do with a thought process or intelligence, it is instinct and reaction to stimuli.
Does this mean this plant has feelings and thoughts and emotions? No, it means it's evolved to react to stimuli in order to survive. Is it unbelievable to think that a human, or any other mammal, for that matter, might have the same instinct?
Watch the video. It's reacting much like a fetus would at being stimulated.
Last edited by MollyJean; 11-10-2009 at 05:07 AM..
Mm...I'm not 100% sure on this, so this is just a question. Don't you need nerves to have any sort of stimulation? Also, wouldn't that then mean they could feel things, to some extent at least? I realize that pain is something that is sent to our brain from our nerves and the brain processes it as painful, and that a fetus at a certain stage doesn't have the brain development to process this. On the other hand though, how is a fetus receive any sort of stimulation without nerves? Not really sure how that works.
Think of flowers that open during the day and close at night or when it rains. Flowers have no nerves, but they can react to those stimuli.
ok, that's fine. but if that's the case, then y do they mention "sensitive" areas on the baby? wouldnt that imply that it would have to be able to feel?
I generally try to foster understanding before debate, but sometimes people jump head-first into the debate and I just assume they have understanding (or else, why would they debate?).
I generally try to foster understanding before debate, but sometimes people jump head-first into the debate and I just assume they have understanding (or else, why would they debate?).
hehe i hear ya. i try and go into them with at least an idea of whats goin on and try to learn things as i go. but unfortunately in some cases if you enter the debate at all you need to be ready to be drawn and quartered at every turn
About your website, I think some of the information is false. I've been to alot of "how babies grow" websites and each of them show different pictures and descriptions -- who's to say that yours is correct?
About your website, I think some of the information is false. I've been to alot of "how babies grow" websites and each of them show different pictures and descriptions -- who's to say that yours is correct?
maybe it's not. but if it is, it brings a new point to the table. if not, then once again, i am wrong. no harm, no foul.
Hmm...do plants actually react to the sun, or is it that it's more set in them like a timer, so that they know when to open and close to get the best nutrition. I've seen flowers that are supposedly only supposed to open in the sunlight/during the day open up just fine on a cloudy day. Then again though, venus flytraps have stimuli so I guess that question is moot. lol
I can see the point of it being in plants, that makes sense. Though why would it be in a human fetus? There isn't really a POINT to it, is there? I mean, why would a fetus have any reason to react to stimulation? Human nerves react to pain because it's our brains way of telling us that it's something bad happening to us. A plant reacts to try and hide, or to gain its nutrition. What reason does a fetus have? Just an interesting thought.
Why does a fetus need a "reason" to react to stimuli? We have plenty of vestigial organs already--who is to say that a fetal reaction isn't part of that?
I wish it were that simple. Having once been an anti-choicer myself, though, it's often not. With many anti-choicers, it's not that they believe they have a right to control your life based on their morals, but rather that they see fetuses as people, and genuinely believe that they are on a "rescue mission" to save innocent lives. To them, it's like saying "Don't like killing children? Don't do it."
Plants move to reach sunlight. If there is something directly above them blocking it, they will grow to the left or right of whatever it is to reach the sunlight. They will also follow sunlight across the sky to catch the most rays.
Climbing vines will circle around and round til they catch something they can grow up. I've seen this one in action, it's just awesome to watch.
But let's move away from plants and get into animals, mammals and most of all, humans.
A dead human can continue to react to stimuli up to 20 minutes after death. Pokes, prods, tickles. The muscles will still contract when they are stimulated. This isn't the brain reaction, but the body and the muscles themselves. Yes, we need the brain for fine motor skills, but a simple twitch can be totally involuntary.
A little morbid;
Quote:
Brain death is a legal definition of death that refers to the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of blood flow and oxygenation
A person who is brain dead can still move their eyes to follow motion, and may react to touch, muscle twitches, finger and toe movements. All of this happens without any connection to the brain, actual thought or emotion.
Obviously I can't find a video of that one, but how about we look at other animals?
Anyone ever found a dead snake or lizard? Or maybe killed one? I remember when I was little we found a snake in a parking lot with it's head cut off. Someone poked it with a stick and it tried to wrap itself around the stick.
This can happen to just about any animal, but I find snakes most fascinating, because they've been know to attack after death. reacting to stimuli by attempting to bite the stick that touched it. Even though there is no thought process to tell it "Threat! Bite!" and no fine motor skills to move the mouth or fangs, so it just hits it's dead head against a stick.
[/b]WARNING: Dead animal, watch at your own risk![/b]
This little guy lived for over a year without a head. His owner fed him with a syringe. He continued to move, scratch, walk and attempt to peck at the ground as if he where any normal chicken. For 4 years he lived without the ability to feel emotion or pain, and simply ran on instinct.
Last edited by MollyJean; 11-10-2009 at 07:30 PM..
Just wondering, and I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but did anyone else see Huckabee the other day? He had a woman on there who had worked for an abortion clinic as an assistant during the procedures. Towards the end of her stay they began using ultrasounds to monitor the fetus' position. She recounted watching the fetus twitch as the abortion was being preformed. I know that 'twitching' and other involuntary movements have been mentioned in this thread before, but I just felt like mentioning this woman's story.
Also, in reading MollyJean's post, I feel compelled to mention her very valid points. Living things run on instinct and impulse when you get to the bare roots of it. Of course, I don't think this is still a debate on what's living and what isn't. Abortion is more about a lack of accountability. The woman does not want to take responsibility for her actions. She wants the 'freedom' to do with her body what she pleases. That means, her parents, spouse, or anyone else, can not tell her not to kill her unborn child. Why? Because why should a woman have to do something she doesn't want to do? -sigh-
I think you missed the point of Molly's posts, which was that having an abortion is being accountable.
And just because a woman has an abortion does NOT mean that she did NOT take other precautions.
I have three methods of birth control that I use every time I have sex (two of them are constant, the other is, doy, a condom). If I were to get pregnant, would you tell me to just suck it up and have a baby, drop out of school with no way to pay off my student loans, and live under the poverty line for the rest of my life and call it responsible?
Just wondering, and I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but did anyone else see Huckabee the other day? He had a woman on there who had worked for an abortion clinic as an assistant during the procedures. Towards the end of her stay they began using ultrasounds to monitor the fetus' position. She recounted watching the fetus twitch as the abortion was being preformed. I know that 'twitching' and other involuntary movements have been mentioned in this thread before, but I just felt like mentioning this woman's story.
Also, in reading MollyJean's post, I feel compelled to mention her very valid points. Living things run on instinct and impulse when you get to the bare roots of it. Of course, I don't think this is still a debate on what's living and what isn't. Abortion is more about a lack of accountability. The woman does not want to take responsibility for her actions. She wants the 'freedom' to do with her body what she pleases. That means, her parents, spouse, or anyone else, can not tell her not to kill her unborn child. Why? Because why should a woman have to do something she doesn't want to do? -sigh-
The_Good_Kid_13 I've had 2 abortions. And not because I was being selfish and didn't want to deal with a kid.. In fact, I wanted children very much. I did it because I knew the kid would suffer, and, havening a VERY bad childhood myself, I wanted to make sure that the children I DID have would live a better life then me. That's exactly what happened. my daughter, who is 8, is happy, healthy, and will never have to worry about being homeless or hungry, something the fetuses I aborted would never have.
I took responsibility by looking at how it would effect my life AS WELL as their lives and the lives of any children I might have later. This is something that most people don't bother to look at. They simply see a woman getting an abortion because they don't wanna have a kid, "it would ruin their fun"! Or some such nonsense. Most women look at every aspect of their life and make a very hard and heavily thought out choice on whether they can care for a child, what's best for them, what's best for the future, and what's best for the people around them.
Most women who get an abortion, which is painful and expensive, feel they are taking responsibility for their actions. It's not a choice made lightly, and a lot of women suffer depression because of the choice, even if they felt it was the right thing to do.
Last edited by MollyJean; 11-10-2009 at 07:41 PM..
The_Good_Kid_13 I've had 2 abortions. And not because I was being selfish and didn't want to deal with a kid.. In fact, I wanted children very much. I did it because I knew the kid would suffer, and, havening a VERY bad childhood myself, I wanted to make sure that the children I DID have would live a better life then me. That's exactly what happened. my daughter, who is 8, is happy, healthy, and will never have to worry about being homeless or hungry, something the fetuses I aborted would never have.
I took responsibility by looking at how it would effect my life AS WELL as their lives and the lives of any children I might have later. This is something that most people don't bother to look at. They simply see a woman getting an abortion because they don't wanna have a kid, "it would ruin their fun"! Or some such nonsense. Most women look at every aspect of their life and make a very hard and heavily thought out choice on whether they can care for a child, what's best for them, what's best for the future, and what's best for the people around them.
Most women who get an abortion, which is painful and expensive, feel they are taking responsibility for their actions. It's not a choice made lightly, and most women suffer depression because of the choice, even if they felt it was the right thing to do.
So abortion is a selfless act? What about adoption? That's 9 months [well, more like 7, since most women don't find out until roughly 2 months along] that you couldn't sacrifice? You promote your acts as these 'selfless sacrifices that saved children', why couldn't you have just given them up for adoption?
@The_Good_Kid_13: in response to that...I have one thing to say. I think it's better, because, as I've said a MULTITUDE of times, we have too many people on the planet. We need to do something about population control or else we are going to get to a point where the planet won't be able to support us anymore, even with all the technology we have. We can't just keep on putting kids up for adoption because of an accidental pregnancy. I believe people have to be more careful about sex and making sure to have safe sex so it limits the chance of pregnancy. If people were giving children up for adoption in small numbers, that would be a different story, but somewhere on this thread, somebody said that in the US, we have something like half a million children who are up for adoption. Do you think we need more children up for adoption when there are so many kids who already need families? And probably a large number of these kids wouldn't even get adopted, so they'd spend their lives in orphanages and/or foster families. How is that not a terrible life? I'd say there needs to be a balance of abortions and kids being put up for adoption. Not just one or the other, because neither of them are entirely realistic.
EDIT:
And just so you're not confused, I totally support adoption, I intend to adopt when/if I get married. Though I could have children of my own, I'd rather adopt a child who needs a family. I'm just saying that we have too many kids up for adoption already. There needs to be an equal balance so we don't have so many kids who end up not being adopted and having to live in an orphanage until they're 18. I feel terrible for kids that end up living that life because it's nearly impossible for them to get into college because they don't have a family who can financially support them while they're there. And if they do get into college, they'll spend the rest of their life paying off...probably just about the entirety of their 4 years of tuition and room and board. Which is insanely high I might add. The state can't really put in money to financially support them through college like parents would for their kids.
Last edited by TheYaoiButterfly; 11-10-2009 at 08:06 PM..
o-0 Kill me? Why? Because I think MollyJean is selfish and in denial about it?
And she's working on an appropriate smack-down right now, I'm sure. I've got a mind of my own to give a piece of to you, but she's speaking from experience and I feel she is more authoritative on the matter. As such I am standing back for now and waiting to see her reply, most of which I can probably predict as I've been following her around for about 10 pages or so (something I'm guessing you haven't done, or you'd also know the answer to your question).
