Abortion Clinics....
John D Leister
"Fertility Control Clinic"
By this name where is the fertility being controlled?
I mean that sounds very nice and cosy but what about
the unborn child. Don't they get a say in what happens
to them?
ralph
Hopefully not.
brian ross
Been shopping around, John?
TheMan
"John D Leister" <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3B52A78B...@senet.com.au...
It's not a 'child' it's a little ball of cells which are lifeless without
being in the womb of the mother.
Please get your facts right. Also abortions have been occuring for thousands
of years, so even if you pro-life-anti-living wankers were to close abortion
clinics i'm sure it would still happen through other methods.
-TheMan-
ant
> "Fertility Control Clinic"
>
> By this name where is the fertility being controlled?
>
they offer more hten just abortion, the whole range of birth control options
in fact, so the name is rather apropriate.
> I mean that sounds very nice and cosy but what about
> the unborn child. Don't they get a say in what happens
> to them?
>
about as much of a say as they have in being conceived.
ant
John D Leister
Simon Howson
"ant" <spam...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> about as much of a say as they have in being conceived.
--
Simon Howson
ICQ UIN: 29673608
------------------------
"A lot of the time your worst enemy is your ego"
- John Frusciante
------------------------
www.johnfrusciante.com
superduck
"TheMan" <us...@user.com> wrote in message
news:9iuks5$kf8$1...@corolla.OntheNet.com.au...
>
> "John D Leister" <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3B52A78B...@senet.com.au...
> > Howcome they have nice names like
> > "Fertility Control Clinic"
> >
> > By this name where is the fertility being controlled?
> >
> > I mean that sounds very nice and cosy but what about
> > the unborn child. Don't they get a say in what happens
> > to them?
>
> It's not a 'child' it's a little ball of cells which are lifeless without
> being in the womb of the mother.
Then how do police get to charge an asshole with the murder of an unborn
child? Happened only a couple weeks back. Moron stabbed pregnant lady in the
stomach.
You say the child doesn't exist until born, how can it be murdered?
RMG
> "Fertility Control Clinic"
More like "fertility out of control clinic"
> By this name where is the fertility being controlled?
It wasn't.
> I mean that sounds very nice and cosy but what about
> the unborn child.
they get vacuumed out.
Don't they get a say in what happens
> to them?
When have they ever?
Minotaur
It's her body and her's to do what she likes, it's still an undeveloped
child.
Just like your sperm, when you wank into a tissue, so are we to make that
illegal as well?
Poor sperms, they didn't get a decent chance! That's how pathetic this
argument is about
abortions in the early term. It's more about religion?! well drop the
religion because it has nothing
to do with Politics, or with those that are not Religious nuts.
.
Chris
John D Leister wrote in message <3B52ED38...@senet.com.au>...
No, they don't. It's my position that before the formation of the cerebral
cortex (ie. 10-12 weeks), the mother should have the choice of abortion
available. Before 10-12 weeks, the foetus is not concious and has no mental
activity of any kind. It's a vegetable. It has the potential to become a
human, however, the world doesn't usually operate by treating something that
"may one day be" as something that "is". eg. A smart kid who wants to be a
doctor is not paid a doctor's salary until they actually begin being a
doctor. A foetus doesn't get the same rights as a full human being until
their cerebrum is formed, as they are not yet intelligent life forms.
Abortion after 10-12 weeks basically constitutes murder IMO.
Chris
John D Leister
What about adoption and providing the child to parents
whose only option is adoption?
John D Leister
John D Leister
I never mentioned religion, or religious views...........
How in the world do you deduce that from what I posted
and I'm not religious by the way.
There are other options......
Scott Hillard
> "Fertility Control Clinic"
Coz they control fertility?
> By this name where is the fertility being controlled?
At the womb.
> I mean that sounds very nice and cosy but what about
> the unborn child. Don't they get a say in what happens
> to them?
Nope, they get flushed down the tubes. Tough titties.
You may well be a dumb-as-dogshit anti-abortionist fundie wanker, but I will
respect you having the balls to put your name behind your bullshit opinions.
bjk
"An Abortion Clinic." Not like the Media to play with words to shock people
is it?
Bevan
"John D Leister" wrote in message <3B541398...@senet.com.au>...
>Minotaur wrote:
[snip]
Chris
John D Leister wrote in message <3B53F200...@senet.com.au>...
Before 10-12 weeks, it's up to the mother. After that time, I agree,
adoption is a good solution.
Chris
superduck
"Chris" <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3b53...@news.iprimus.com.au...
well is it 10 or 12 weeks? or 11?
When exactly does 'worthy life' start?
> Chris
>
>
superduck
"Minotaur" <mino...@NO-SPAM.zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:80L47.9644$Xr6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I'm as anti religion as you can get but also anti abortion. Yes, a lot of
anti abortionists are religous nutters but don't assume we all are.
>
>
Chris
superduck wrote in message ...
>>
>> Abortion after 10-12 weeks basically constitutes murder IMO.
>>
>
>well is it 10 or 12 weeks? or 11?
>When exactly does 'worthy life' start?
Well it depends on the individual baby. To be safe, draw the line earlier
(ie. 9 weeks).
Chris
>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>
>
Scott Hillard
superduck <superduc...@spamstopper.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:LTC47.2526$a04....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > It's not a 'child' it's a little ball of cells which are lifeless
without
> > being in the womb of the mother.
"TheBoy" is right.
> Then how do police get to charge an asshole with the murder of an unborn
> child?
The moral charge to apply would be assault occassioning greivous bodily
harm, or similar. Possibly attempted murder (of the mother).
However, in this country, you get a longer gaol term for having a semi-auto
.22 buried in your backyard than you do for either of the above offences.
Only in Australia.
Scott Hillard
> Howcome they have nice names like
> "Fertility Control Clinic"
Howcome plonkers like you keep asking rhetorical questions?
> By this name where is the fertility being controlled?
Um, in the clinic?
> I mean that sounds very nice and cosy but what about
> the unborn child. Don't they get a say in what happens
> to them?
They can lodge a petition if they don't like it.
Scott Hillard
So you would force a 13yo incest victim, carrying her father's child, to
carry a baby to term and have it adopted out?
YES/ NO.
Scott Hillard
> superduck wrote in message ...
> >> Abortion after 10-12 weeks basically constitutes murder IMO.
> >well is it 10 or 12 weeks? or 11?
> >When exactly does 'worthy life' start?
He's got you there.
> Well it depends on the individual baby. To be safe, draw the line earlier
> (ie. 9 weeks).
How are you to determine that point, EXACTLY?
8 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours in your opinion is perfectly moral and legal,
yet if the procedure is delayed for an hour you would commit the mother and
doctor to trial for murder?
Sorry Chris, but this bullshit arbitrary nonsense doesn't wash. If it's in
the womb, it ain't a fully-fledged human being. It's the only line you can
draw that makes sense.
Chris
Scott Hillard wrote in message <5Bo57.94204$Rr4.3...@ozemail.com.au>...
>
>Chris <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3b54...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
>> superduck wrote in message ...
>
>> >> Abortion after 10-12 weeks basically constitutes murder IMO.
>
>> >well is it 10 or 12 weeks? or 11?
>> >When exactly does 'worthy life' start?
>
>He's got you there.
Nope.
>
>> Well it depends on the individual baby. To be safe, draw the line
earlier
>> (ie. 9 weeks).
>
>How are you to determine that point, EXACTLY?
I didn't. From what I've read, a cerebrum never forms at 9 weeks. If it
does, by some freak occurrence, stiff shit.
Chris
Scott Hillard
> Scott Hillard wrote in message <5Bo57.94204$Rr4.3...@ozemail.com.au>...
> >Chris <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:3b54...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> >> >> Abortion after 10-12 weeks basically constitutes murder IMO.
> >> >well is it 10 or 12 weeks? or 11?
> >> >When exactly does 'worthy life' start?
> >He's got you there.
> Nope.
Yup.
Your arbitrary ruling on the commencement of sentient life not only allows
non-sentient life to be preserved, but sentient life to be extinguished. As
morally sound as something "Michael" would advocate.
> >> Well it depends on the individual baby. To be safe, draw the line
earlier
> >> (ie. 9 weeks).
> >How are you to determine that point, EXACTLY?
> I didn't.
Baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?
> From what I've read, a cerebrum never forms at 9 weeks. If it
> does, by some freak occurrence, stiff shit.
So then it's OK by you to extinguish a foetus with a formed cerebrum?
It's OK by me, but then my moral ruling on the topic is pretty clear-cut.
Outside the womb, it's a baby. Inside, it's fair game.
> Chris
>
>
Chris
Scott Hillard wrote in message ...
>
>Your arbitrary ruling on the commencement of sentient life not only allows
>non-sentient life to be preserved, but sentient life to be extinguished.
As
>morally sound as something "Michael" would advocate.
The argument is, the being is sentient upon formation of the cerebral
cortex.
>> From what I've read, a cerebrum never forms at 9 weeks. If it
>> does, by some freak occurrence, stiff shit.
>
>So then it's OK by you to extinguish a foetus with a formed cerebrum?
You need to draw a line. A safe line. Nine weeks is a safe line. Anything
that developed a cerebrum before nine weeks would be a bit of a freak. The
very small percentage of freaks being given the chop is not all that
significant. There should be an allowance for anomalies.
>It's OK by me, but then my moral ruling on the topic is pretty clear-cut.
>Outside the womb, it's a baby. Inside, it's fair game.
Your moral ruling. I believe before it has a cerebrum it is fair game, and
after it is a being with capacity for mental activity, ie. human.
Chris
>
>
>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Wayne Bickley
I quite agree with your first point, but not with your second. We
happily kill and eat animals that have considerably greater mental
capacity than the foetus you describe - why? Surely if was a simple
matter of mental activity, then killing animals should be murder too?
Rather, if we are interested in being morally and logically consistent
about this, I strongly feel that the point a which a foetus can be
ascribed personhood (and most the protections that come with it) is
that point at which it begins to demonstrate *uniquely human-like*
mental activity. The evidence seems to be that brain development of
this kind is not complete until roughly the end of the second
trimester, which, by a happy coincidence, is also the point at which
abortion-on-demand is not longer available.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne Bickley
The problem with this though is the same as you outlined above - how
can it be morally inconsiderable one hour before birth, but be morally
considerable one hour after? It's no less arbitrary.
Perhaps it should be less a process of arbitrary 'dates', and more a
case of refusing abortion once human-like brain activity has been
detected from the foetus (at around the 6 month mark), or some
similarly measurable standard.
Chris
Wayne Bickley wrote in message ...
>"Chris" <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3b53...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>> John D Leister wrote in message <3B52ED38...@senet.com.au>...
>
>happily kill and eat animals that have considerably greater mental
>capacity than the foetus you describe - why? Surely if was a simple
>matter of mental activity, then killing animals should be murder too?
Humans usually aren't on our menu. Animals are. They don't seem to get any
rights, regardless of their mental capacity. My argument is specifically
aimed at human development. Some people draw the line at conception, some
draw it at birth, and I draw it at the formation of the cerebrum. The
problem with my opinion/suggestion is that I worked it on a time limit.
Possibly, it would be better for the mother to have her foetus scanned to
determine if the baby has yet developed a cerebrum. I'm not sure what the
costs/feasibility of this is, which is why I drew a line in weeks.
>Rather, if we are interested in being morally and logically consistent
>about this, I strongly feel that the point a which a foetus can be
>ascribed personhood (and most the protections that come with it) is
>that point at which it begins to demonstrate *uniquely human-like*
>mental activity. The evidence seems to be that brain development of
>this kind is not complete until roughly the end of the second
>trimester, which, by a happy coincidence, is also the point at which
>abortion-on-demand is not longer available.
Yes, I'm not all that upset with the current system. I had heard there was
a time limit on abortions but wasn't sure of the specifics. Thanks for your
sensible response!
Chris
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Wayne
Edmund Esterbauer
unprecedented human rights abuse. Greater carnage than in all the wars
combined.
We are dealing with criminal S.feminazi who are about infanticide, patricide
and laziness.
"Chris" <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3b5b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Chris
Edmund Esterbauer wrote in message
<9XN67.96328$Rr4.5...@ozemail.com.au>...
>The mass murder of the unborn child by the Stalinist feminazi is
>unprecedented human rights abuse. Greater carnage than in all the wars
>combined.
>
>We are dealing with criminal S.feminazi who are about infanticide,
patricide
>and laziness.
Seems like your type are the ones pulling all of the triggers though.
Chris
Edmund Esterbauer
Wayne Bickley
> Wayne Bickley wrote in message ...
> >"Chris" <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3b53...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> >> John D Leister wrote in message <3B52ED38...@senet.com.au>...
> >
> >I quite agree with your first point, but not with your second. We
> >happily kill and eat animals that have considerably greater mental
> >capacity than the foetus you describe - why? Surely if was a simple
> >matter of mental activity, then killing animals should be murder too?
>
> Humans usually aren't on our menu. Animals are. They don't seem to
> get any rights, regardless of their mental capacity.
Not so - you cannot be needlessly cruel to or neglect animals in your
care. Even non-humans are bestowed some rights.
> My argument is specifically
> aimed at human development.
So is mine - I draw a line where the foetus begins to demonstrate
those qualities that are uniquely human, thus bestowing personhood.
Simple human biology is insufficient (since few make a fuss about
discarded cells like skin and sperm), and simple mental activity is
also not (as demonstrated above) a valid standard. In order to try
and draw a rational point at which personhood begins that is not based
on pseudo-religious or pseudo-spiritual dogmatism, we must exclude
those criteria possessed by other beings that we are prepared to kill.
-snip-
> Yes, I'm not all that upset with the current system. I had heard there was
> a time limit on abortions but wasn't sure of the specifics. Thanks for your
> sensible response!
Always happy to have a reasonable discussion with someone about what
is a fairly polarised issue. :)
Cheers,
Wayne
Chris
Wayne Bickley wrote in message ...
>"Chris" <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3b5b...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>> Wayne Bickley wrote in message ...
>> >"Chris" <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:<3b53...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>> >> John D Leister wrote in message <3B52ED38...@senet.com.au>...
>> >
>> >I quite agree with your first point, but not with your second. We
>> >happily kill and eat animals that have considerably greater mental
>> >capacity than the foetus you describe - why? Surely if was a simple
>> >matter of mental activity, then killing animals should be murder too?
>>
>> Humans usually aren't on our menu. Animals are. They don't seem to
>> get any rights, regardless of their mental capacity.
>
>Not so - you cannot be needlessly cruel to or neglect animals in your
>care. Even non-humans are bestowed some rights.
I should have added "...with regards to being eaten."
>
>> My argument is specifically
>> aimed at human development.
>
>So is mine - I draw a line where the foetus begins to demonstrate
>those qualities that are uniquely human, thus bestowing personhood.
>Simple human biology is insufficient (since few make a fuss about
>discarded cells like skin and sperm), and simple mental activity is
>also not (as demonstrated above) a valid standard.
It is, simply because it is of a human origin. The value of a human life
has always been held above other animal's lives.
> In order to try
>and draw a rational point at which personhood begins that is not based
>on pseudo-religious or pseudo-spiritual dogmatism, we must exclude
>those criteria possessed by other beings that we are prepared to kill.
The fact that they aren't human, biologically, IMO, removes them from the
argument. They've simply never been given similar treatment, so why start
with our foetuses?
>> Yes, I'm not all that upset with the current system. I had heard there
was
>> a time limit on abortions but wasn't sure of the specifics. Thanks for
your
>> sensible response!
>
>Always happy to have a reasonable discussion with someone about what
>is a fairly polarised issue. :)
It's usually not an argument, as such, merely people shouting what they
believe to be right. :)
Chris
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Wayne
Wayne Bickley
> Wayne Bickley wrote in message ...
> >"Chris" <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3b5b...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> >> Wayne Bickley wrote in message ...
> >> >"Chris" <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3b53...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> >> >> John D Leister wrote in message <3B52ED38...@senet.com.au>...
> It is, simply because it is of a human origin. The value of a human life
> has always been held above other animal's lives.
Precisely - so the question I ask myself is this; what quality do
humans possess, that no other lifeform possesses, that makes us more
morally considerable? Once we have delineated that, the rest follows
fairly easily.
>
> > In order to try
> >and draw a rational point at which personhood begins that is not based
> >on pseudo-religious or pseudo-spiritual dogmatism, we must exclude
> >those criteria possessed by other beings that we are prepared to kill.
>
> The fact that they aren't human, biologically, IMO, removes them from the
> argument. They've simply never been given similar treatment, so why start
> with our foetuses?
In fact, I would argue that animals are given increasingly greater
status according to their perceived intelligence relative to our own;
they are not treated according to a *completely* different scale.
Few think twice about treading on an ant or poisoning a slug, but look
at the trouble people are now going to to try and preserve and respect
animals like monkeys, apes and dolphins. Clearly intelligence is a
factor in these judgements, meaning that increasing intelligence seems
to bestow superior status on somthing like a sliding scale, regardless
of species.
Cheers,
Wayne
Don H
are unavailable; it gives 100% certainty.
Nature itself if both prolific and cruel (Aldous Huxley)
The right-to-life fanatics are unwitting stooges of the RC church, which,
like all supernatural institutions, has a vested interest in human misery:
No one pines for heaven if happy on this earth; hence, a poverty-stricken
and over-populated planet fits in well with the church's plans for humanity.
The Nazis used the Swastika (Hakencruz or crooked cross; Croix gamme) as its
symbol, together with the Iron Cross - religious symbols; the Jews, being
guilty of deicide, were collectively condemned - though the Pope has since
appologised for this.
"Many are called, but few are chosen" ie. most of us a doomed to eternal
hellfire - so being born is a mixed blessing, indeed!
===============================
Chris wrote in message <3b5bb39c$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
Scott Hillard
> Scott Hillard wrote in message ...
> >Your arbitrary ruling on the commencement of sentient life not only
allows
> >non-sentient life to be preserved, but sentient life to be extinguished.
> >As morally sound as something "Michael" would advocate.
> The argument is, the being is sentient upon formation of the cerebral
> cortex.
Despite the lack of any activity that could be described as "consciousness"?
Is a foetus self-aware? Do you have any recollections of your days as a
foetus? Is a foetus capable of independant thought and action? Of course
not.
> >> From what I've read, a cerebrum never forms at 9 weeks. If it
> >> does, by some freak occurrence, stiff shit.
> >So then it's OK by you to extinguish a foetus with a formed cerebrum?
> You need to draw a line.
Preferably an uncomprimising line based on sound moral reasoning. Yours is
absolutely shithouse. You defind sentient life, then say it's ok to
extinguish that life if it doesn't fit your timetable.
Utterly hopeless.
> A safe line. Nine weeks is a safe line. Anything
> that developed a cerebrum before nine weeks would be a bit of a freak.
So it's OK by you to kill freaks.
> The very small percentage of freaks being given the chop is not all that
> significant. There should be an allowance for anomalies.
So why is a small percentage of "late-term" abortions significant? Why no
allowance there?
> >It's OK by me, but then my moral ruling on the topic is pretty clear-cut.
> >Outside the womb, it's a baby. Inside, it's fair game.
> Your moral ruling.
A rational, uncompromising one.
>I believe before it has a cerebrum it is fair game,
You believe it to be fair game even with a cerebrum.
Scott Hillard
> Wayne Bickley wrote in message ...
He's got you - again.
> >I quite agree with your first point, but not with your second. We
> >happily kill and eat animals that have considerably greater mental
> >capacity than the foetus you describe - why? Surely if was a simple
> >matter of mental activity, then killing animals should be murder too?
> Humans usually aren't on our menu.
Speak for yourself.
> Animals are.
Plenty of people don't eat animals.
> They don't seem to get any rights, regardless of their mental capacity.
Which explains various laws against animal cruelty, eating particular
animals, etc - right?
You really should think things through a little more thoroughly Chris,
you're competing with Michael for plonker of the week at this rate.
> My argument is specifically
> aimed at human development. Some people draw the line at conception, some
> draw it at birth, and I draw it at the formation of the cerebrum.
No you don't, you draw it at an estimated timetable of development.
>The problem with my opinion/suggestion is that I worked it on a time limit.
> Possibly, it would be better for the mother to have her foetus scanned to
> determine if the baby has yet developed a cerebrum. I'm not sure what the
> costs/feasibility of this is, which is why I drew a line in weeks.
The feasability is fuck-all. You can have an ultrasound at 24 weeks and
still not know the sex of the baby, let alone the state of a 12 week old
brain.
Idiot.
Scott Hillard
Some rabid reactionary calling itself
Edmund Esterbauer <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote in message
news:9XN67.96328$Rr4.5...@ozemail.com.au...
> The mass murder of the unborn child by the Stalinist feminazi is
> unprecedented human rights abuse.
Most doctors practising abortion are Stalinist Feminazis?
News to me - and to them, most likely.
>Greater carnage than in all the wars combined.
Nope, wars kill people.
> We are dealing with criminal S.feminazi who are about infanticide,
patricide
> and laziness.
Choose your behaviour, choose your consequences.
In your case, this means choose to root and knock up a stupid bitch, and you
choose to become an embittered loser.
Chris
>
>Chris <ga...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3b5a...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> Scott Hillard wrote in message ...
>
>> >Your arbitrary ruling on the commencement of sentient life not only
>allows
>> >non-sentient life to be preserved, but sentient life to be extinguished.
>> >As morally sound as something "Michael" would advocate.
>
>> The argument is, the being is sentient upon formation of the cerebral
>> cortex.
>
>Despite the lack of any activity that could be described as
"consciousness"?
There is mental activity as soon as it is formed.
>> >> From what I've read, a cerebrum never forms at 9 weeks. If it
>> >> does, by some freak occurrence, stiff shit.
>
>> >So then it's OK by you to extinguish a foetus with a formed cerebrum?
>
>> You need to draw a line.
>
>Preferably an uncomprimising line based on sound moral reasoning.
Well yours isn't based on sound moral reasoning. It's convenience-based
reasoning.
> Yours is
>absolutely shithouse. You defind sentient life, then say it's ok to
>extinguish that life if it doesn't fit your timetable.
Correct, unless the formation of the cerebral cortex can be detected per
individual, though I imagine that to be a costly exercise.
>> A safe line. Nine weeks is a safe line. Anything
>> that developed a cerebrum before nine weeks would be a bit of a freak.
>
>So it's OK by you to kill freaks.
Yes, anomalies would have to be forgotten.
>> The very small percentage of freaks being given the chop is not all that
>> significant. There should be an allowance for anomalies.
>
>So why is a small percentage of "late-term" abortions significant? Why no
>allowance there?
What?
>> >It's OK by me, but then my moral ruling on the topic is pretty
clear-cut.
>> >Outside the womb, it's a baby. Inside, it's fair game.
>
>> Your moral ruling.
>
>A rational, uncompromising one.
Yes it is, but so is mine.
>>I believe before it has a cerebrum it is fair game,
>
>You believe it to be fair game even with a cerebrum.
If detecting the cerebrum is inexpensive, then I would prefer to have each
individual scanned. If not, then the very small percentage of anomalies
would be destroyed.
Better than all of them being destroyed, ala Scott Hillard style.
Chris
>
>
>
Chris
Scott Hillard wrote in message ...
>
>
>Speak for yourself.
>
>> Animals are.
>
>Plenty of people don't eat animals.
Which means fuck all, since plenty of people do.
>> They don't seem to get any rights, regardless of their mental capacity.
>
>Which explains various laws against animal cruelty, eating particular
>animals, etc - right?
Like cows?
>> My argument is specifically
>> aimed at human development. Some people draw the line at conception,
some
>> draw it at birth, and I draw it at the formation of the cerebrum.
>
>No you don't, you draw it at an estimated timetable of development.
Yes, and an enormous majority fit in to that time table. An additional
week's allowance guarantees foetuses will not be killed with cerebrums.
>>The problem with my opinion/suggestion is that I worked it on a time
limit.
>> Possibly, it would be better for the mother to have her foetus scanned to
>> determine if the baby has yet developed a cerebrum. I'm not sure what
the
>> costs/feasibility of this is, which is why I drew a line in weeks.
>
>The feasability is fuck-all. You can have an ultrasound at 24 weeks and
>still not know the sex of the baby, let alone the state of a 12 week old
>brain.
>
>Idiot.
Researchers must have pulled those times out of the air then. If you're so
worried, Scotty, why aren't you on the anti-abortionist team?
Chris