Nothing of the sort.

Now, do you accept objective truth, at least in this matter? In other words, can one thing be a human to you, and not to me? Or is there a definition that holds true for everyone whether we like it or not?

"Consensus being from a pro life website? Nice try. "

Learn to read asshat. I said there was *no* consensus the provided botht eh pro life and pro choice websites. But you go ahead and read what you *want* to read, not what I actually worte.

Jesus Fucking Christ! What the fuck do they teach people nowadays? It sure as fuck ain't reading comprehension or intellectual integrity.

@2WL:

I've heard a pitchfork is handy, but I find the tines always get stuck in their tiny little bellies. I've found that that most efficient way in truth when you've got say 30 or more dead babies is with a large and sharp snow shovel. That way you can just scrape them off the ground and load them into whatever is your conveyance of choice. I personally prefer a covered Chevy S-10 on the way to the incinerator, but I know people who have had great success loading them directly into the woodchipper.

Don't worry, Draug, your generation will be dead and buried long before this stops being an issue.

Actually, come to think of it, this will stop being an issue at exactly the moment your generation is dead and buried.

Well, assuming a human brain is one in which basic neuropathic function has begin and is driving a heart beat and brain waves can be detected, then a homo sapiens sapiens fetus is a human being at 8 weeks.

Christ, Draug. Equating arguments by a pro-life website against JAMA hardly means there's no consensus. Among legitimate, scientific sources, there *is* a consensus. Among prolife nutjobs, there is no consensus.

I think that the meaning of a human brain is objective, and is something that can be resolved through science. That said, an element of subjectivity remains. Scientists are not unanimous on their opinions. But the area between one scientist's estimation and another's is very narrow. No scientist believes that a 6-9 month old foetus is viable for abortion, unless another life is at risk etc.

It's really not my area of expertise to make a decision, but yes I believe there is an "answer".
Your move, Socrates.

I compared prolife to prochoice. Again, re4read. As far as scientific consensus. You have provided no such evidence except your word. In short, put up or shut the fuck up.

Draug, you do know that something some asshole said on the internet (your link) doesn't really stand up to something put out by JAMA, right?

You aren't seriously making that claim, are you?

- he asked, hoping for a "no" but expecting a "yes"

@SY

So the possession of a human brain, barring scientific technicalities (hint, I am not a neurologist), is the generally accepted "definition" of a "human?"

Draug,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jama+fetal+pain

Lazy bastard.

Just a technical point here. Surely the best way in this case to tell if some is human is by their DNA. That's a much better measure than their brain.

The pro-life movement cares more about fertilized human eggs than vivisected monkeys. That's why it's a sham.

Anyway all of this is besides the point - pain shouldn't be the sole criteria by which to judge this question. The sole criteria that counts for me is what policy will improve health outcomes and lead to greater access to healthcare. Based on that criteria, opposition to abortion is inexcusable as the pro-life movement seeks to block access to healthcare across the board. As for euthanasia, while the liability issue is complicated, I fail to see why somebody has to live a life of tremendous pain simply because others have hang-ups about death. Neither the pro-life nor anti-euthanasia people seem to have much concern for quality of life.

@2WL - It isn't my job to prop up your argument. You're the lazy bastard who couldn't be arsed to prop it up yourself to begin with and then gets pissed when someone says "put up or shut the fuck up".

@abge - Thak you. And that would make every homo sapiens sapiens fetus a human making SY's argument that a 9 week old fetus isn't human rendered pointless and simply wrong. Now, if he wants to say they aren't contributing to society and therefore aren't human, I will make the same argument about the mass murderer or serial killer. Any argument he can make for a fetus with brainwaves and a pulse not being human, I can make for a mass murderer or serial killer.

Your version of "put up", of course, being prolifeaction.org? I mentioned the study and journal earlier anyway. Sounds like you're just a bit butthurt.

Who cares if it's human?

Anyway Draugnar do you think women should be forced to carry fetuses without brains or otherwise non-viable fetuses to term? They're 'human' after all, per abgemacht's definition which you just agreed with.

Witness, as the horrible Draug-monster, having had his bluff called, is in no way prepared to acknowledge that his comparison does not stand up, rather he attempts to deflect the topic to the argument itself. Truly, the beast is a master of misdirection.

Hey pro-lifers, how do you feel about forcing 'dead' women on life support to stay nominally alive in order to carry non-viable fetuses to term. Is this what we should expect under your rule once you successfully destroy abortion clinics and abortion rights in this country, which you are pretty close to accomplishing?

@2WL - and once again your forget the prochoiceaction website I put up...

Quit being disingenuous and admit I presented both extremes. I agree that it isn't s3 or 6 or 8 weeks. I would put it somewhere in the second trimester (as a lay person, not a doctor or scientist, I readily admit) and would prefer choice be taken away after the first trimester, but am happy with the second trimester as a compromise that prevents women saying at 8 months "I changed my mind!"

No, you didn't present two extremes.

You presented one extreme, and you presented scientific research, as if they were equals. Because in your mind, that's what they are. "I would put it...." indeed. Nobody gives a rats ass where you would put it. You aren't allowed to have an opinion on the matter. Every train of thought that follows from this premise is equally silly.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtml

You call that scientific? Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! You are *obviously* trolling (or totally deluded. Even the name is "Pro Choice Action Network". It is just as extreme and left wing as Pro Life Action.

Done debating this now if you are just going to be a stupid fuck and take the idea that "pain inhibitors" and "the quickness of abortion" means the fetus isn't feeling pain in that moment as a reason to be allowed to kill it. Then, I should be able to blow away anyone by holding a gun to the back of their skull while they sleep and pulling the trigger. It is well established (by this very paper) that pain from gunshot would occurs much later after the trauma, so therefore the sleeping victim felt no pain and it was just a 1000 week abortion. That's simply stupid and an argument only a pro-choicer would use to justify killing an unborn human being. Being able to feel pain doesn't mean it has to feel it at the moment of death. The entire article was about if the fetus feels pain when it is being aborted as an excuse, not about if the fetus was *capable* of feeling pain in general. It thewn got into wishy washy "what is pain" lame ass excuses to try and justify it and called a fetal reaction to what we would consider painful stimuli to not be a painful reaction, but a "involuntary" one. Well hell, all reactions to painful stimuli are involuntary. Touch something hot and you jerk your hand back. No, that was a hack job using science about non-relevant topics to justify murder.

"but am happy with the second trimester as a compromise that prevents women saying at 8 months "I changed my mind!""

Late-terms only happen for medical/non-viability reasons and often two doctors have to sign off on it, this is just a pro-life canard.

You clearly only skimmed the article. The quick death issue was a very minor point in the larger scheme of the article, which said that fetuses are not alert or sensate in the womb, and that being self-conscious is required to feel pain, aside from the point that early term fetuses cannot feel pain at all due to lack of brain development.

OIC. You're ignoring the JAMA thing entirely. That way you still "win." I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. You have proven there is no consensus by putting up two equally ridiculous things. That's science, after all.

You might find this informative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ


You are right about one thing though - pain reactions are entirely voluntary. For instance, I'm unable to avoid a headache when I try to deconvolve your arguments.

How about this... From the Pro Choice site's article:

" fetuses between 20 and 32 weeks will experience more pain than full-term infants"

Can we agree that mid-second semester, a fetus can feel pain and that by giving women a choice up through the 26th week, we are giving them carte blanche to commit murder (or order a doctor to commit murder) for 6-7 weeks?

Someone tangentially related to Draugnar, does anyone know if abortions around the 200th trimester are legal?

*shrug* I don't care whether the little parasite has some fleeting pain. I'm not your typical pro-choicer. I acknowledge it is murder at any stage. I just don't give a rat's ass.