Bourne on the brain
Here’s what we did on Labor Day. We watched the first two Bourne movies on dvd at home and then drove to the theatre and watched the third. Ooh la la, they were great.
And never mind that Matt Damon is a flaming liberal who tosses around the word misogynist. He was born to play Bourne. Wish there were more to come, but alas, he says no. Bad abortion joke: My husband quipped #4 could be Bourne Alive.
At any rate, I guess we were not alone in our analysis. Moviefone took a poll on Summer movies 2007, and out of 14 categories (click to enlarge):
And the theatric bane of pro-abort existence, Knocked Up, was popular, too….
Click to enlarge:
Sep.06, 2007 4:27 pm |
Pop Culture |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Haha! The best date movie was “Knocked Up”??!! Actually, maybe it is the best date movie.
Rosie, I was thinking the same thing!
Great minds and all…
Movin’ Doug here:
The constitution.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The point I have been trying to make is that just like women, midgets, 5 fingered men, and blacks are protected by the constitution (albeit we had to fight for women and blacks) the unborn should be considered citizens and be protected in the same way…
I understand, that as of now there is no law that does this, and that is my problem with Roe V Wade. They based a law on the fact that the unborn are NOT considered persons, before they even addressed whether this was so or not.
If tomorrow, Smith vs. Lalowski provided an avenue that said it was alright to kill midgets, we’d be up in arms. Unless it was “first” determined that midgets were not persons.
I believe that they jumped the gun here.
Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:19 AM
**************************************************
Which brings me to point number 2…Hah! I remembered.
You say that nowhere in the constitution is it explicitly stated that the unborn are persons.
Fine. I agree. I think it should, but I agree that it doesn’t.
Well where in the constitution or anywhere else is the “Right to Bodily Autonomy” mentioned? I don’t see it? And yet your entire argument is based on it. Perhaps it is implied, but just like the unborn, “implied” doesn’t seem to matter…
So where is this “right” that carrying a pregnancy to term violates, written. Where did you and other prochoicers come up with it?
Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:24 AM
**********************************************
Doug,
The fetus continues to move in distinct motor patterns, picking up new patterns such as localized movement of the arms and legs, hiccups, breathing-like movements, and stretches and yawns .[8][12] The breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.[13] At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object.[14] The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance. Eyelids close and remain closed for several months. The different appearance of the genitals in males and females becomes pronounced. Tooth buds appear, the limbs are long and thin, and red blood cells are produced in the liver. A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head. The gastrointestinal tract, still forming, starts to collect sloughed skin and lanugo, as well as hepatic products, forming meconium (stool). Fetal skin is almost transparent. More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder. The first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week.[9][15] By the end of this stage, the fetus has reached about 15 cm (6 inches).
the above came from wikipedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:36 AM
***********************************************
Doug,
means in general “capacity for survival” and is more specifically used to mean a capacity for living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. The word is especially used in the following contexts: * pregnancy, viability refers to either: an early stage pregnancy that has a chance of reaching full-term and a live birth (as opposed to, for example, an ectopic pregnancy); or
the shortest length of pregnancy after which a child born prematurely has a chance of survival. Generally, this ranges from 20-27 weeks.
also from wikipedia…
Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 6:39 AM
***********************************************
Doug,
According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions
Right on Jill — great movies.
Doug,
From Bethany:
Doug said: “Because I said the right to life for the unborn wasn’t absolute.”
I replied: Based on what?
Doug responded: Bethany, based on what I say. That was the deal in MK’s hypothetical
Doug, please just answer the question. I know it is based on “what you say”. That is obvious. What I am asking is what you personally base that “what you say” on. What makes a sentient being in the womb have a NON absolute right to life? What do you base that on? If they are viable, and could just as easily birthed as aborted, what is the reasoning behind not giving them the ABSOLUTE right to life?
I had written: What I meant was, bringing up the point that the unborn baby DOES have feelings in the womb after viability, hasn’t been a successful way to convince you that the fetus after viability deserves to live.
Doug responded: I don’t know why you say that. I’ve said I’m fine with the restrictions on abortion we have then. I’ve said that if it’s viable, it can be delivered versus aborted.
Doug, being “fine” with it is not the same as wanting it to be the case. A slave owner could be “fine” with other people not owning slaves. Or a person who didn’t own slaves could be “fine” with it if slavery were overturned, but unless they are actively against the slavery, they are not really doing anything to help it, are they? And slavery will go on until someone has the courage to step up and go against the grain and do what is right.
Your answer of “fine with it” obviously isn’t what I’m looking for. And I know you know that! That’s what makes it so frustrating to debate with you. You pretend not to understand the questions I ask you and then you act like you’re surprised when I get frustrated.
If you asked someone back in the slavery days to please help you do something to stop slavery, and they said, “Eh, well I’m fine with it if one day things change”, but did nothing more to help or at the very least, make a stand, do you think anything would ever change for those people who were suffering? Of course not. Apathy is a monster, as I said before.
You, Doug, are fine BOTH with it happening OR not happening. It is a cowardly response…it is a way to for you to not have to take a stance on anything. It is the easy way out.
Also, it contradicts your idea of “ending suffering”, because it allows the suffering of many, many young infants, by your choosing not to take a stand to protect them from it!
Oh sure, it’s easy to say, “Well , I’m really not to blame, because I am not actually HAVING abortions, and I am not actually PERFORMING abortions,…but in reality, Doug, you are partially to blame in that you are not part of the solution to this problem. You are part of the problem…you are here at this blog DEFENDING what is happening to these young infants in the womb.
You are a part of it, whether you want to admit it or not. I realize it’s easy for you to say you’re not to blame, because it makes your conscience feel better. Which is why you said that a woman who didn’t call and do what is right for the dog isn’t just as guilty, or at the least partially guilty, as the woman abusing her dog.
You’re pretending that it is only the woman’s perception and her feelings that make it her duty to help the dog, and that if she didnt care, then it isn’t her fault and she isn’t to blame if the dog isn’t saved?? Doug, if she had the change to save the dog, and she decided not to, I’m sorry but she made a choice which resulted in the dog’s prolonging of abuse and THAT makes her partially to blame for the dog’s suffering.
I mean, your logic is just so twisted and I honestly think you’ve just been spending too much time thinking about words and how you can make them sound good, and not enough time actually LOOKING at the suffering that is going on in America and actually realizing the depth of reality behind your words!
“I did not say merely “disfigured.” There are matters of degree here. If the fetus is anencephalic, for example, I would go with the desire of the mother, whenever. What purpose does it serve to continue the pregnancy, there, against her will?
To stop her from murdering her child! Duh huh!
Many times, with the kind of deficiencies I’m talking about, the fetus won’t be sentient. There are conditions where sentience can be there, and the prognosis is for a very short life with a lot of suffering. Even in those cases, I’d let the mother/parents decide. IMO in those cases it’s not worth it to force the continuation of the pregnancy.”
Define sentient, according to your personal definition.
I had written: You don’t think there’s any physical suffering involved in the abortion itself at that late term, Doug?
Doug responded: There may be, Bethany. In some cases I still think it serves no good purpose to continue the pregnancy. If pain is a concern, anesthesia can be done.
That doesn’t make it right to kill a human being.
By the way, this reminds me. I know you responded to that point I made about shooting a homeless man who had no family, if he asked me to shoot him. You said that I would have done no wrong.
Doug, why is it that you see killing him as an acceptable solution???
What if the man had had a bad day? What if he didn’t really want to die, but he just thought he did that day? What if he was depressed and needed someone to care about him? What if he just was crying out for help? What if he had desires to have a house, wife, and family, but he just didn’t know how to get there? All he needed was a friend to help, but instead, I looked at him and implied by my actions that, “Yes, you are as worthless as you think you are. Yes, you aren’t worthy of living anymore. I’ll take your life, because I think it’s okay to play God with people’s lives. ”
DOUG, it is WRONG to kill human beings! It is NOT okay to kill them just because they are anesthetized! It is not okay to kill them just because they don’t have family (why not GIVE them that family? Why not CARE about them and BECOME that friend they so desperately needed????? ) HAVE A HEART!!!!!
I don’t think I was commparing it to abortion, but you’re right – there certainly is a difference.
Thank you for understanding me on this one.
Dont’ see anything there where I’d say no good purpose is served by continuing the pregnancy, and this is just for gestation, let alone after birth. It’s up to the parents, first and foremost, and it’s not up to me to tell anybody to have an abortion.
If it is a viable baby, a baby who is sentient and you have attributed person hood to it, WHY DO THE MOTHERS AND FATHERS RIGHTS TRUMP IT’S BASIC RIGHT TO LIFE? And don’t tell me it doesn’t have “absolute” personhood unless you are willing to tell me “Why”.
I’ll respond to the rest later. I’m pretty irritated right now. I’ll have to wait to cool off a little.
Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2007 9:00 AM
**************************************************
Well where in the constitution or anywhere else is the “Right to Bodily Autonomy” mentioned? I don’t see it? And yet your entire argument is based on it. Perhaps it is implied, but just like the unborn, “implied” doesn’t seem to matter…
So where is this “right” that carrying a pregnancy to term violates, written. Where did you and other prochoicers come up with it?
Thank you, MaryKay~ That’s what I’ve always wanted to know! Where is this right to bodily autonomy??
Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2007 9:49 AM
**************************************************
Doug, I really don’t buy into this type of argument. It’s like a cat chasing it’s tail. Takes me back to the “Diana days.” I just can’t do it. It goes nowhere. This is just another feeble attempt to cheapen the life of the unborn child. I can’t help but wonder, what some of these women put these poor gyn’s through. I wonder if a woman who chooses to abort, has ever jumped down a doctor’s throat for not entertaining her PC lingo.
Posted by: Heather at September 6, 2007 10:24 AM
**************************************************
Marykay, TERRIFIC post about sentience.
Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2007 4:11 PM
Let me also say that the Jason Bourne character comes from the immortal Robert Ludlum – one of the greatest “spy novel” writers of all time.
I miss that dude.
Doug
MK: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Okay, MK, the personhood of the unborn still to be determined, there….
……..
The point I have been trying to make is that just like women, midgets, 5 fingered men, and blacks are protected by the constitution (albeit we had to fight for women and blacks) the unborn should be considered citizens and be protected in the same way…
I understand, that as of now there is no law that does this, and that is my problem with Roe V Wade. They based a law on the fact that the unborn are NOT considered persons, before they even addressed whether this was so or not.
MK, the Roe decison addresses the personhood issue. It acknowledges that should the personhood of the unborn be established, then the case would collapse, i.e. anti-abortion laws would be okay. As of 1973 and now, and in fact all of US history, the unborn haven’t been attributed personhood, and the court decision took note of that.
……..
If tomorrow, Smith vs. Lalowski provided an avenue that said it was alright to kill midgets, we’d be up in arms. Unless it was “first” determined that midgets were not persons.
Agreed. Yet what amount of sentiment is there for any such thing? The midgets are not in the body of a person, are sentient, etc. And who all wants to gegt rid of them? Also, I imagine that deeming personhood to not be present, where before it was attributed, is even harder than granting it in the first place.
Doug
MK: Which brings me to point number 2…Hah! I remembered.
All ‘ight den….
……
You say that nowhere in the constitution is it explicitly stated that the unborn are persons. Fine. I agree. I think it should, but I agree that it doesn’t.
Well where in the constitution or anywhere else is the “Right to Bodily Autonomy” mentioned? I don’t see it? And yet your entire argument is based on it. Perhaps it is implied, but just like the unborn, “implied” doesn’t seem to matter…So where is this “right” that carrying a pregnancy to term violates, written. Where did you and other prochoicers come up with it?
“Carrying a pregnancy to term” doesn’t violate anything. Do it if you want to. The violation is forcing a woman to do that against her will. Liberty: “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.” The concept of “liberty” is hardly unknown, and the Constitution was designed, in large measure, to protect our individual liberty – to let us do what we want to do, to a point.
The woman is a separate entity from all other people, by definition. She is autonomous; independent, also by definition. The Constitution is really not about enumerating specific rights. It’s really about limiting gov’t power to infringe on people’s rights, and the Supreme Court found no sufficient reason to take away the woman’s Constitutional protection in this matter.
There is also the “implied right to privacy” which the Court cited, and obviously that can be argued. “Implied” for the unborn does not matter at this time, no, since personhood hasn’t been attributed.
Really, in large measure the Constitution is saying, “The government isn’t going to mess with people up to a point.” That point IS a matter of judicial opinion, and I’m not saying things could not change in the future. But the implied right to privacy has held up so far, as has the bodily autonomy argument, and of course “liberty” is no foreign concept at all.
Doug
Doug,
Also, I imagine that deeming personhood to not be present, where before it was attributed, is even harder than granting it in the first place.
Well no kidding, that’s why I say they jumped the gun. The first question should have been “is this a person?” NOT can we kill whatever this is. It was SNEAKY.
Looking back it seems hard to believe that we would have had to “define” women and blacks too.
Who’s to say midgets aren’t next? Who’s to say we won’t just start to not like midgets, and we’ll point out that nowhere in US history have midgets been specifically labeled as persons? Who’d have believed that one day we would actually have to spell out that the unborn are actually persons. Some things seem obvious to those of us who are more interested in sapience than sentience, but that’s just me. Could be midgets next. Or guys named Doug…
MK: The fetus continues to move in distinct motor patterns, picking up new patterns such as localized movement of the arms and legs, hiccups, breathing-like movements, and stretches and yawns .[8][12] The breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.[13] At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object.[14] The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance. Eyelids close and remain closed for several months. The different appearance of the genitals in males and females becomes pronounced. Tooth buds appear, the limbs are long and thin, and red blood cells are produced in the liver. A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head. The gastrointestinal tract, still forming, starts to collect sloughed skin and lanugo, as well as hepatic products, forming meconium (stool). Fetal skin is almost transparent. More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder. The first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week.[9][15] By the end of this stage, the fetus has reached about 15 cm (6 inches).
No argument with the above, MK. Reflexive motion and some electrical activity is a given, IMO. There is a “neural tube,” very early on, and there is even more rudimentary electrical stuff there than what the EEG picks up in week 12 (apparently).
Doug
Okay, MK, the personhood of the unborn still to be determined, there….
Thank you for that…
Valuation number one, understood by both Doug and Marykay…
PERSONHOOD OF THE UNBORN IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED
Doug,
No argument with the above, MK. Reflexive motion and some electrical activity is a given, IMO. There is a “neural tube,” very early on, and there is even more rudimentary electrical stuff there than what the EEG picks up in week 12 (apparently).
Does this mean you grant a twelve week old is sentient?
Definitions of liberty on the Web:
* autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
* freedom of choice; “liberty of opinion”; “liberty of worship”; “liberty–perfect liberty–to think or feel or do just as one pleases”; “at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes”
* personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
* autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
# Determined bychance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
I would argue that other than the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother, every other abortion is done arbitrarily. And liberty is protection from arbitrary exercise of authority. A child’s life is on the line. While personhood has not been determined, we have agreed that this is a human being, and I believe it’s liberty should be protected just as much as the womans.
The baby should not be subjected to the arbitrary whims of the woman.
Now if we could only add that “personhood” amendment!
are you comin’ back to finish, or can I go to bed now?
No b/c I am here now :-)
So MK, you never answered my question. Can I come stay with you to protest your protest in Auroa??
P L E A S E ? ?
MK: At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object. Wouldn’t this indicate “valuation”? Since it is clear that the 9 week old fetus does not desire to be touched, and pulls away? Or does desire to “accept” an object? I know that you will say that it is not a conscious “movement”, but why would it be “instinctual” to move away from touch. I would say that “touch” was uncomfortable for some reason and that this might be due to the immature receptors to pain and touch, which might indicate that pain is felt as early as nine weeks. If it isn’t discomfort or pain, then the child is “willfully” moving away from touch. Which would imply sentience, albeit at a very fundamental level. You haven’t met my son, but at 26 I often wonder if he isn’t working at a lower brain function than a 9 week old fetus, and yet I still consider him a person!
Heh heh – you’re right, I’m going to say that’s reflexive motion. It’s not instinct, either. There is consciousness, there is instinct, and then there is reflex – I’d say it’s involuntary, like instinct, but it bypasses the brain altogether, unlike instinct. There’s a stimulus, and nerve impulses that go a little ways, but not to the brain, and then a signal goes to the muscles. No will is involved. No sentience required.
Yesterday, when you said, “I’m so disappointed!” it was a very honest and true thing to say, MK. You said it without fear of making yourself vulnerable, i.e. I had some power to affect you. Thank you – that was some serious honesty there.
How many more years before your son “comes around,” so to speak, do you think it will be?
…….
By the same token, why would this fetus “accept” and object placed in his hands. Why would he reject some things and accept others?
I don’t think there is any consciousness at work, but there’s sure gotta be a rockin’ episode of The Simpsons or South Park in there….. Bill Cosby said that babies in the womb write their names on the walls in there, etc….
……
When you touch a hot item and react by removing your hand, even though you didn’t consciously make the decision to do so, isn’t it still an indicator of sentience? I mean a person with no sense of touch would not pull away from a hot item. So if a 9 week old fetus is “pulling away” doesn’t that indicate that his brain is working at least at the level that his sense of touch is intact?
Therein is the difference between reflexive motion, where the impulses don’t have to go through the brain, and the “hot stove” deal, where the brain indeed is involved. Sensation isn’t nearly there at 9 weeks. The palm of the hand, the bottom of the foot – like the “gripper toes” that newborn babies have for some time – a reflex throwback to our earlier evolutionary time when we were “in the trees” – I know many people argue with that thinking – but that is not sense perception.
…..
You are the one insisting on sentience and not sapience, so he wouldn’t need to understand why he is pulling away, would he?
No, sense perception would be enough, but reflexive motion isn’t “sensing.”
……..
Sentience: refers to utilization of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, “to feel”; and sapere, “to know”.
Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.
No argument there. “Sensate” doesn’t have to have much or maybe any complex mental awareness, but it is more than reflex.
Doug
I did answer Midnite,
Hang on…let me find it…
Here it is…
Midnite,
Will you go to mass the next day? And buy us lunch like Danny did?
Oh, you can come anyway…hey, you’re in the market for a new guy…have I mentioned that I have a son?
AND
MK, Valerie, Midnite: We have a guest room at our house. What fun it would be to house Valerie and Midnite – together – for the next picket… :)
Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 6, 2007 8:15 AM
I’ll send the hubby and kids to your house, and EVERYONE can come here…We’ll have the house to ourselves. That way he can’t complain about the four thousand two hundred and ninety seven lemmings running around. Nor the smell of mullet pizza!
Regular or DeCaf ladies? Jasper you too! And John, we’ll figure out someway to get you up the stairs. Bobby, you’ll have to come too! Men on the first floor, ladies on the second (It’s got more girly colors upstairs, not to mention the computer AND two bathrooms!).
I’ll even smoke “outside”! Let’s see, I’ll need blowup beds, extra pillows, mints to put on them, fresh flowers for all the rooms, extra toothbrushes, shampoo, (wait, where will I put the midgets?), wine, beer, more blow dryers, we’ll let Bethany cook, Purina Lemming Chow, candles, cheesy novels, a maid, towels (let me know your favorite color), RUM, Johhny Depp movies,…If I leave now, I might be able to get everything by January…
Posted by: mk at September 6, 2007 8:24 AM
hehehe, I can cook too! I can cook all sorts of stuff. Everyone in my family is either a cop or a chef. I promise to be nice and mind my “p’s & q’s”… You might like me better in person actually :-)..
Jill: You might be suprised, I can be very pleasant when the mood strikes me.
MK: Also, I dont know if you’d want me with your son. Remember that I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and against gun control. Did I mention that I am a Southerner? Dont let the hospitality and Southern Belle manners fool you, I am a fiesty, scrappy little girl, who pretends to be innocent :-).
Oh I almost forgot. I take my coffee regular with french vanilla coffee mate.
Also, I shall not go to mass (would be hypocritical) but I will buy you lunch the next day :-)
Early in development, from about 12-18 weeks gestation, there is a complete link from the periphery to the thalamus in the brain, and the fetus shows clear evidence of defensive reactions against tissue damage including hormonal and hemodynamic responses.
Thalamus – It is the relay centre for sensory impulses travelling upwards from other parts of the cord and the brain to the cerebrum. It receives all sensory impulses (except for smell) and channels them to appropriate regions of the cerebrum
Granted this only tells us that it is possible that at 12 weeks a fetus might feel pain, but it also tells us the the thalamus, which is responsible for sensory impulses, is functioning.
While this may not prove that the fetus is sensate, it is evidence that you can no longer rule it out.
I did ask you to show me that it can’t be sensate “beyond a reasonable doubt” and to me, this is a reasonable doubt. Enough to give you pause and admit to the possibility of rudimentary sentience at as early as 12 weeks.
Ah, you can never prove anything to be true MK, you can only prove it to be false. Also everyone MUST REMEMBER that a correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation.
Just my 2 cents :P
Midnite,
hehehe, I can cook too! I can cook all sorts of stuff. Everyone in my family is either a cop or a chef. I promise to be nice and mind my “p’s & q’s”… You might like me better in person actually :-)..
Sweetie, I like you just fine, now.
Your opinions on the life issue could change as well as your theological standpoint, but I’m afraid you just do not seem like a girl that would be happy barefoot, poor, and pregnant in a foriegn country with no running water, no french vanilla coffee creamer and no toilet paper. Alas, my son is destined to a bachelor life…
\But you can still come to Chicago…now about towel colors…
Anything except baby pink. It reminds me of Pepto Bismal(Sp?) and makes me sick to my tummy. Purple, black, lavander, yellow, beige, I dont really care. I’ve always wanted to go to Chicago. And I am looking at a Graduate School there as well. Kill two birds with one stone as they say? Just thought of something. You’re going to think I sound funny, b/c of my accent.
And no, I would not do good ina country that you just described. I think I’d freak the “F” out honestly.
And your son may suprise you one day and call from the court house: “Mom, I just got married”. How old is he any how??
Doug,
That thalamus post was it…I have no brain synapses left…I get up at 5:00am and while I could walk and talk, I am afraid I can no longer think. Sentient? yes. Sapient? not tonight. I’m all out of wisdom…you keep answering. The first thing I do in the morning is get my coffee and come and see what Doug has to say…which is why I was so disappointed this morning… Perhaps I became vulnerable, but while I wouldn’t trust you with my neonate, I don’t believe you would deliberately trash me. My baby? no. My heart…I think I’m safe. But thanks for the compliment.
So until the A.M….*yawn*
But I’m warnin’ you…you better answer…don’t make me use the lemmings…
God-Bless you Midnite….
Midnite,
26. And he ALWAYS surprises me. I only know he’s going to Australia to work with my brother-in-law because my sister told me. He didn’t. Emails me all the time, but didn’t mention that he’s moving 3,000 miles away…
You’re too funny. I will now have to purchase new towels as most of mine are baby pink. So is my bedroom. And my kitchen…and all my pajamas…and my candles and…well, baby pink is my favorite color. I think it’s a reaction to the 5 boys and one husband…I’ve always been a rebel.
Odd thing is, I could live the live Danny wants. But that would be creepy. Of course, I’d have to bring at least on pink towel. Oh well…
Okay, gotta go to bed. I’m old. I’m tired. And I think I hear the alarm already…
You know I love you, and you really can come to Chicago. I live in a madhouse…but what did you expect?
Oh Jasper, STOP IT.
You know I dont like people sying that to me
Oh Jasper,
You troublemaker you…
See Midnite,
We all love you…you’re the only one that has stuck it out through all of it…no more alyssa, no more rae, no more Cameron…but our midnite is still here. And it makes us very happy.
Doesn’t it Jasper?
eh, I can stomach pink. I just dont buy the color for myself. My dad got lucky with me. Only child and a girl, but god I was a tomboy growing up: playing in the mud, burning my barbie dolls, playing with GI Joes. hahahaha, havent thought of that stuff in a while actually.
I will soooo come to Chicago soon. And I really wouldnt protest y’all’s protest. I am too shy for that stuff. Any who, I am off to shower and then to bed.
And I am used to a mad house. I grew up in one and now have one all to myself :-)
awwwww, MK, you just made me blush :-)
(and that is hard to do)
“Doesn’t it Jasper?”
yes, it does MK. good-night all…
good nite John boy…:)
I’m not a fan of pink either. I grew up playing with trucks and playing basketball. Most of my friends early on were guys.
BTW, I think the best fight scene of the summer was Dumbledore vs. Voldemort in Order of the Phoenix, great special effects. But in all fairness I haven’t seen Bourne, or Die Hard or many others. I’ve seen two movies in theatres since the beginning of June and they are Evan Almighty and Order of the Phoenix.
Doug said: “Because I said the right to life for the unborn wasn’t absolute.”
Bethany: I replied: Based on what?
“Bethany, based on what I say. That was the deal in MK’s hypothetical.”
Doug, please just answer the question. I know it is based on “what you say”. That is obvious. What I am asking is what you personally base that “what you say” on. What makes a sentient being in the womb have a NON absolute right to life? What do you base that on? If they are viable, and could just as easily birthed as aborted, what is the reasoning behind not giving them the ABSOLUTE right to life?
It’s not absolute because sometimes – admittedly rarely – it comes down to choosing between the life of the woman and the life of the unborn. This was my “saying” and I’m leaving it up to the people involved – the woman first, and.or her spouse. If they want to do whatever to most insure the life of the unborn continues, then I say okay, but I would not mandate that the woman’s life be sacrificed for the sake of the unborn. If delivery can accomplish the ending of a pregnancy which needs to be ended, I’m fine with that – I’ve told you that at least three times. The “not absolute” comes from the fact that sometimes it’s a choice between the woman and the unborn.
…….
I had written: What I meant was, bringing up the point that the unborn baby DOES have feelings in the womb after viability, hasn’t been a successful way to convince you that the fetus after viability deserves to live.
“Doug responded: I don’t know why you say that. I’ve said I’m fine with the restrictions on abortion we have then. I’ve said that if it’s viable, it can be delivered versus aborted.”
Doug, being “fine” with it is not the same as wanting it to be the case. A slave owner could be “fine” with other people not owning slaves. Or a person who didn’t own slaves could be “fine” with it if slavery were overturned, but unless they are actively against the slavery, they are not really doing anything to help it, are they? And slavery will go on until someone has the courage to step up and go against the grain and do what is right.
Your answer of “fine with it” obviously isn’t what I’m looking for. And I know you know that! That’s what makes it so frustrating to debate with you. You pretend not to understand the questions I ask you and then you act like you’re surprised when I get frustrated.
Different things, Bethany. I said I’m fine with the legal restrictions on abortion. That’s not the same as “being fine with slavery” if somebody else wants to do it. The similar thing would be to say I’m fine with legal prohibition of slavery, which I am. Post-viability, if the woman’s life is not in danger, and there is not some of the really severe fetal deficiencies like anencephaly, then I’m fine with prohibition on abortion – delivery can end the pregnancy.
……..
If you asked someone back in the slavery days to please help you do something to stop slavery, and they said, “Eh, well I’m fine with it if one day things change”, but did nothing more to help or at the very least, make a stand, do you think anything would ever change for those people who were suffering? Of course not. Apathy is a monster, as I said before.
You, Doug, are fine BOTH with it happening OR not happening. It is a cowardly response…it is a way to for you to not have to take a stance on anything. It is the easy way out.
As above, I think you are not looking at the situations correctly. I’m not saying “have late-term abortions if you want to,” not on that alone.
………
Also, it contradicts your idea of “ending suffering”, because it allows the suffering of many, many young infants, by your choosing not to take a stand to protect them from it! Oh sure, it’s easy to say, “Well , I’m really not to blame, because I am not actually HAVING abortions, and I am not actually PERFORMING abortions,…but in reality, Doug, you are partially to blame in that you are not part of the solution to this problem. You are part of the problem…you are here at this blog DEFENDING what is happening to these young infants in the womb. You are a part of it, whether you want to admit it or not. I realize it’s easy for you to say you’re not to blame, because it makes your conscience feel better. Which is why you said that a woman who didn’t call and do what is right for the dog isn’t just as guilty, or at the least partially guilty, as the woman abusing her dog.
Nope, you’re not going with what I actually have said.
…….
You’re pretending that it is only the woman’s perception and her feelings that make it her duty to help the dog, and that if she didnt care, then it isn’t her fault and she isn’t to blame if the dog isn’t saved?? Doug, if she had the change to save the dog, and she decided not to, I’m sorry but she made a choice which resulted in the dog’s prolonging of abuse and THAT makes her partially to blame for the dog’s suffering.
There really is an argument here – just what the “duty” is. I want the suffering stopped, so I do hope she takes action. To an extent, I do see that she has a duty to help the dog. That is from my viewpoint of being quite an animal lover. I should dig up some of my poetry about a half-Bassett, half-Dachsund my dad had. I hope people will help animals in such situations. I still would not really “blame” her for the suffering, but that’s just you and me having different viewpoints, I guess. She isn’t causing it, she’s just not doing anything to stop it. Not making any moral judgment there, just looking at causation.
……..
I mean, your logic is just so twisted and I honestly think you’ve just been spending too much time thinking about words and how you can make them sound good, and not enough time actually LOOKING at the suffering that is going on in America and actually realizing the depth of reality behind your words!
Well, Bethany, I think that for you and me this is the heart of the argument – where the greatest amount of suffering lies.
……..
“I did not say merely “disfigured.” There are matters of degree here. If the fetus is anencephalic, for example, I would go with the desire of the mother, whenever. What purpose does it serve to continue the pregnancy, there, against her will?”
To stop her from murdering her child! Duh huh!
Okay, you see it that way. Other people see a fetus that will never be conscious, no matter what. Why force the parents to keep going with the pregnancy in that case, if they don’t want to?
……..
“Many times, with the kind of deficiencies I’m talking about, the fetus won’t be sentient. There are conditions where sentience can be there, and the prognosis is for a very short life with a lot of suffering. Even in those cases, I’d let the mother/parents decide. IMO in those cases it’s not worth it to force the continuation of the pregnancy.”
Define sentient, according to your personal definition.
I think I’ve done plenty of that. Here — http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PEDHTML/PED026.html – I’m saying that there ARE cases where no good purpose is served by forcing the continuance of the pregnancy.
……..
I had written: You don’t think there’s any physical suffering involved in the abortion itself at that late term, Doug?
“There may be, Bethany. In some cases I still think it serves no good purpose to continue the pregnancy. If pain is a concern, anesthesia can be done.”
That doesn’t make it right to kill a human being.
That’s such a general statement that it’s not addressing what we’re talking about here. I would usually agree with you, about “human beings,” per se – but there is more to it than that alone.
……..
By the way, this reminds me. I know you responded to that point I made about shooting a homeless man who had no family, if he asked me to shoot him. You said that I would have done no wrong.
I imagine it is not really that simple, but anyway…
Doug, why is it that you see killing him as an acceptable solution???
I believe I said that if he was of “sound mind” and was suffering to the extent that he really did want to die, then I didn’t see anything necessarily wrong with it. This applies to Doc Kevorkian and some of the laws in other countries too – not that abuse of such is impossible, etc., – but if an adult really wants to die, why should that be illegal?
……..
What if the man had had a bad day? What if he didn’t really want to die, but he just thought he did that day? What if he was depressed and needed someone to care about him? What if he just was crying out for help? What if he had desires to have a house, wife, and family, but he just didn’t know how to get there? All he needed was a friend to help, but instead, I looked at him and implied by my actions that, “Yes, you are as worthless as you think you are. Yes, you aren’t worthy of living anymore. I’ll take your life, because I think it’s okay to play God with people’s lives. “
You have a good heart, Bethany. And hypothetically, if it was me that was to pull the trigger, I’d want to resolve those things, and I hear your suspicion of doubts about it really being the “right thing” for a given person. I will also say that sometimes people really do want to die, and they won’t necessarily enlist the aid of other people. There’s no necessary saying of “you are worthless” from other people. It’s what the individual really desires. I’m also not saying “you should shoot the guy.” You obviously are not going to be okay with it, no matter what (IMO) and so at the least I’d tell him to go elsewhere.
……..
DOUG, it is WRONG to kill human beings! It is NOT okay to kill them just because they are anesthetized! It is not okay to kill them just because they don’t have family (why not GIVE them that family? Why not CARE about them and BECOME that friend they so desperately needed????? ) HAVE A HEART!!!!!
Depends on the situation. No, it’s not *always* wrong to kill human beings. Anesthesia is for where the life is going to be killed anyway, and the concern is suffering. I’m not saying it is justification, alone. Giving family, caring about them, becoming their friend – Bless you, Bethany. Fantastic. But again, that is not always what the given person really wants. I know that sounds hard, and I don’t want to hurt you. So I don’t know…. I guess I would just say that some situations are not as you are thinking about them – sometimes they really do want to die.
….
“Dont’ see anything there where I’d say no good purpose is served by continuing the pregnancy, and this is just for gestation, let alone after birth. It’s up to the parents, first and foremost, and it’s not up to me to tell anybody to have an abortion.”
If it is a viable baby, a baby who is sentient and you have attributed person hood to it, WHY DO THE MOTHERS AND FATHERS RIGHTS TRUMP IT’S BASIC RIGHT TO LIFE? And don’t tell me it doesn’t have “absolute” personhood unless you are willing to tell me “Why”.
I don’t think I said anything about the father, alone, but it might come to that. If it is a case of choosing between the woman’s life and the life of the unborn, (and I know this is a very rare deal), I would first leave it to the woman. Then, to the man. If the woman really would rather die than lose the baby, I’m not going to argue with her. If the man disagrees with her – then I see that as one sticky stituation, especially if born children are involved, but would still give the nod to the woman.
…….
I’ll respond to the rest later. I’m pretty irritated right now. I’ll have to wait to cool off a little.
You have a deal, Bethany.
Doug
Valuation number one, understood by both Doug and Marykay…
PERSONHOOD OF THE UNBORN IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED
Well daggone, MK, cool. Yes – it could change. The Constitution doesn’t attribute personhood to the unborn, but it doesn’t rule it out either. It doesn’t define it.
Doug
“No argument with the above, MK. Reflexive motion and some electrical activity is a given, IMO. There is a “neural tube,” very early on, and there is even more rudimentary electrical stuff there than what the EEG picks up in week 12 (apparently).”
MK: Does this mean you grant a twelve week old is sentient?
No, because sense perception, especially conscious sense perception, is not present then.
Grrr, I’m so mad that I haven’t hardly seen any movies this summer. Though one of the few I did see, Hairspray, was incredible on about a billion levels. I’m a geek, though.
I’ll need… extra pillows, mints to put on them (now that was sweet), fresh flowers for all the rooms, (wait, where will I put the midgets?), wine, beer…. we’ll let Bethany cook, Purina Lemming Chow, candles, cheesy novels…. RUM…
:: laughing and laughing ::
Rock on, MK, rock on! That was awesome. I can see some of your inner joy there.
A week from tomorrow I head down to St. Simon’s Island, GA, where my wife and I and her family and the other assorted in-laws are gathering for my mother-in-law’s 70th birthday – Sunday, Sept. 16.
What you wrote sounds about like our crew, although there’s more to the booze selection than what you mentioned. We did the same thing last year for my father-in-law’s 70th. A big place right on the beach, multi-story, bedrooms for all, two kitchens, 6 bathrooms, roof access – we go up there and play games and sing and laugh and talk and watch the waves. Wireless highspeed internet access, too YEAH BABY.
I didn’t get her a “birthday card,” but rather a “thank you” card. My mother-in-law’s name is Barbara. Rough draft of what I’ll write, for what it’s worth, no pro-choice or pro-life sentiment implied:
Thank you, Barbara, for being yourself.
Somewhere a tired sun rises on the bleak of heart.
Somewhere a hand reaches, to touch only what is lost.
Though not for us, as we are new with every ocean wave.
We are here with you, and the Heavens rejoice for your birthday.
There is a truth in the world, as expressed by you,
So let me expand on what is true.
The future and the past are both with us now, rosy-cheeked as a cherub.
Today all flowers are smiling, and every lost child is returned home.
The stars glow pastel in their appreciation of you.
The element of grace and the touch of love is all about you.
We love your being.
Doug
I meant to see Hairspray, but then I got busy. I seem to always be thinking “I should go see a movie” then I always think of something to justify me not going..
Ooooh, fresh flowers? I should come! I am the biggest sucker EVER for fresh flowers. My mom never keeps them in the house because she thinks they attract bugs. I love them though, they add so much warmth to a room!
Criticism or suggestions to make the card’s text better welcomed from anybody.
Doluug
MK: Early in development, from about 12-18 weeks gestation, there is a complete link from the periphery to the thalamus in the brain, and the fetus shows clear evidence of defensive reactions against tissue damage including hormonal and hemodynamic responses.
Show me the money, I mean, show me the proof. I don’t think that, alone, even if true, indicates conscious sense perception, the ability to suffer, etc.
…..
Thalamus – It is the relay centre for sensory impulses travelling upwards from other parts of the cord and the brain to the cerebrum. It receives all sensory impulses (except for smell) and channels them to appropriate regions of the cerebrum
Granted this only tells us that it is possible that at 12 weeks a fetus might feel pain, but it also tells us the the thalamus, which is responsible for sensory impulses, is functioning.
While this may not prove that the fetus is sensate, it is evidence that you can no longer rule it out.
I did ask you to show me that it can’t be sensate “beyond a reasonable doubt” and to me, this is a reasonable doubt. Enough to give you pause and admit to the possibility of rudimentary sentience at as early as 12 weeks.
How we define “feel” as in “feeling pain” or sensation makes a big difference. Things getting to the thalamus occur relatively early on, compared to the cortex being developed, connected and operational. If there is no mental perception of pain (or other senses), then I’m saying no sentience.
Doug, I may come crash your party since I am in Birmingham Al. I need a break (from life really).
And Erin I must agree with you on the best fight scene: Voldemort and Dumbledore totally win that category in my opinion :-). Now that I am so fresh and so clean clean, I am off to bed.
Good night to all and to all a Good night!!
Luuuurve Knocked Up
Midnite: Doug, I may come crash your party since I am in Birmingham Al. I need a break (from life really).
You’d be great, Midnite, and welcome. My wife’s family is Sicilian – her dad, and Mohawk indian – her mom. They don’t act “ethnic” if there is such a thing, but there are profound links with the past that I love.
…..
And Erin I must agree with you on the best fight scene: Voldemort and Dumbledore totally win that category in my opinion :-). Now that I am so fresh and so clean clean, I am off to bed.
A quote from my dear nephew Carlo when he was 6 years old, an Aquarian lad if ever there was one (and indeed when he was born five planets were in Aquarius):
“I wish everybody in the world was happy and clean.”
From my dear niece Jennica, when she was three, throwing off her clothes as she said it:
I have to be free!
Doug
I passed! I passed! I passed! YAYYYYY!!!
I can now work as an EMT! YAYYYYY!!!
Anyway, how is everyone?
Good for you Stephanie. I was thinking of you the other day.
Doug,
No, because sense perception, especially conscious sense perception, is not present then.
Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.
I did try to give you a way out by using sapient…but since you opted for sentient, you’re stuck with the definition.
Consciousness of sensation is not required.
So tell me again, why would this child, whose thalamus is working to the degree where all of its’ senses (sans smell) are working not be sentient?
Doug,
I mean, show me the proof. I don’t think that, alone, even if true, indicates conscious sense perception, the ability to suffer, etc.
Again, consciousness, awareness of the sensations, is not necessary. Unless you want to rewrite the definition of sentient?
Doug,
Per your poem…no pro life sentiment? HELLLOOOO!
The thing positively reeks of pro-life! It’s filthy with it! And you know it, or you wouldn’t have felt compelled to “qualify” it!
Hah! Just as I suspected…a closet pro lifer.
You’re grandmother would be proud…and a closet Catholic to boot…
” and every lost child is returned home.”
“and the Heavens rejoice for your birthday.”
(Duh, the heavens rejoice for EVERYONES BIRTHDAY!)
“There is a truth in the world” (Well haven’t John and I been trying to tell you that for months now!)
“The future and the past are both with us now, rosy-cheeked as a cherub.”
(Pre-destination my eye! And baby angels? Please, where is Freud when you need him?)
“The element of grace…”
(Good Lord man, your “slip” is showing…)
“We love your being.”
I assume you are asking for our personal “valuations”? Well, it is my valuation, that that is one of the MOST pro-life things I have ever read…
sorry.
And Grandma will love it. Especially if she’s Catholic! and Pro-life!
Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.
I did try to give you a way out by using sapient…but since you opted for sentient, you’re stuck with the definition.
Consciousness of sensation is not required.
So tell me again, why would this child, whose thalamus is working to the degree where all of its’ senses (sans smell) are working not be sentient?
“Knocked Up” is not the bane of anyone’s existence, Jill. Anyone on your opposing side who has said that does obviously not understand what a “choice” is.
Doug,
This was my source for the thalamus post…
http://www.abbysenior.com/biology/nervous_system.htm
*bows*
Woman Sues Planned Parenthood After Abortion
Sep 7, 2007 07:39 AM
Lincoln, NE – A 40-year-old woman has filed a lawsuit saying she almost died after a botched abortion at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Lincoln.
The lawsuit filed this week on behalf of “Jane Roe” alleges negligence and battery by Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs and a clinic doctor.
The lawsuit states that when the woman complained of pain and asked staff to stop the procedure, they refused and forcibly held her down. While in the recovery area, the woman continued to complain of pain and suffered three seizures.
Court documents show the woman was taken to a local hospital, where she underwent emergency surgery, including a hysterectomy. The local Planned Parenthood chapter issued a statement Thursday saying patient safety is its top priority.
http://action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7039349
Botched Abortion Victim Sues Planned Parenthood Abortionist
Operation Rescue’s Truth Truck Protests Severson with Rescue the Heartland
Contact: Troy Newman, President, 316-841-1700; Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor, 316-516-3034; both with Operation Rescue, info@operationrescue.org
OMAHA, Nebraska, Sept. 3 /Christian Newswire/ — As pro-lifers protested on Saturday at the Omaha home of Planned Parenthood abortionist Meryl Severson, news broke that Severson is being sued by a 40-year old woman whose abortion he botched.
The woman, who filed the suit Friday under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” alleges that Severson so severely botched her abortion that she lost 80% of her total blood volume and required an emergency hysterectomy to save her life.
According to the complaint, the woman reported to the Lincoln Planned Parenthood office on August 17, 2007, for an abortion in the 8th week of pregnancy. During the suction abortion, she felt a sharp, excruciating pain and asked abortionist Severson to stop. Three employees then held the woman down while he completed the suction process in spite of her pleas.
In the recovery area, a friend who accompanied her to the abortion clinic attempted to help her to the bathroom, but the woman, who was in intense pain and bleeding, passed out and suffered the first of three seizures.
The woman was transported by ambulance to the local hospital where doctors treated her for “catastrophic perforation” of the uterus, which would have resulted in her death if treatment had been delayed any longer.
“This is yet another horror story from a Planned Parenthood abortion mill,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “How many women has this happened to that have not filed lawsuits? When we see stories like this, we know it is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Severson lives in Omaha, but splits his time between three abortion mills in Lincoln, Nebraska, Council Bluffs and Souix City, Iowa.
Larry Donlan of Rescue the Heartland led the protest at Severson’s home that included one of Operation Rescue’s Truth Trucks, which circled through the neighborhood showing the consequences of abortion.
“People need to be aware that when they walk into a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, they may not walk out,” said Newman.
Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation. Operation Rescue recently made headlines when it bought and closed an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas and has become the voice of the pro-life activist movement in America. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the pre-born and stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/559784050.html
Midnite, 9:24p, said: “Jill: You might be suprised, I can be very pleasant when the mood strikes me.”
Well, what do you know. Me, too, Midnite. So we have something in common.
Stephanie, 12:19a: Congrats! I’m proud of you!
Leah, 8:14a, said: “‘Knocked Up’ is not the bane of anyone’s existence, Jill. Anyone on your opposing side who has said that does obviously not understand what a ‘choice’ is.”
Can you catch boomerangs, Leah? You haven’t been reading your own side’s reviews of the movie. It is your side who can’t handle the choice to not abort.
Let me also say that the Jason Bourne character comes from the immortal Robert Ludlum – one of the greatest “spy novel” writers of all time.
I miss that dude.
Doug
*****************************
I wish they’d made SOME effort to let the movies have SOME connection to the books though.
“No, because sense perception, especially conscious sense perception, is not present then.”
MK: Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.
I did try to give you a way out by using sapient…but since you opted for sentient, you’re stuck with the definition.
MK, the definition is fine – here are the first two entries from dictionary.com:
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
I do think there is an element of mental awareness to it.
……..
Consciousness of sensation is not required.
I think that it is, per the definition of the word.
……..
So tell me again, why would this child, whose thalamus is working to the degree where all of its’ senses (sans smell) are working not be sentient?
Because there is no conscious awareness. When I’ve seen “sentient” used in literature, it has mental awareness implied in the usage every time.
Doug
MK: Per your poem…no pro life sentiment? HELLLOOOO! The thing positively reeks of pro-life! It’s filthy with it! And you know it, or you wouldn’t have felt compelled to “qualify” it!
I just meant that I wasn’t presenting it as an argument here. I know there are sentiments in it that could be seen as pro-life. They’re Catholic, but don’t go to church. I don’t really know if my mother-in-law is pro-life or not. If I had to guess, I’d say she’s pro-choice.
Duh, the heavens rejoice for EVERYONES BIRTHDAY!)
Really? How do you know? Is that a common saying? Yikes…. I do think she’ll like it, but don’t want to sound trite, banal, etc.
Doug
From Merriam_webster:
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
MK:This was my source for the thalamus post…
http://www.abbysenior.com/biology/nervous_system.htm
Right from that site:
b. Thalamus – It is the relay centre for sensory impulses travelling upwards from other parts of the cord and the brain to the cerebrum. It receives all sensory impulses (except for smell) and channels them to appropriate regions of the cerebrum
c. Cerebrum – The area responsible for consciousness.
When we are talking about actually “feeling pain,” etc., the thalamus alone doesn’t get it. More brain development, connection and operation is necessary, and that comes later in gestation.
Doug
Doug,
If I touch a fetus and it moves away from the touch, then a signal was given to the thalamus. The thalamus must have sent it somewhere or the fetus couldn’t have moved. It must have FELT something, thus it was sentient. If it didn’t “sense” something, then it couldn’t have reacted. It must have been conscious or it would not have moved. You can call it reflex if you want, but it still means that the sense of touch is working and the fetus is reacting…hence it must be conscious. Bricks don’t move when you touch them.
I say it’s sentience. Show me where I’m wrong. What caused the child to react, if not it’s brain and nervous system?
From Merriam_webster:
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
Yes aware…how else could the fetus have reacted. It’s brain was AWARE of the sense of touch….Sentience!
Exactly!
From Merriam_webster:
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : AWARE
Yes aware…how else could the fetus have reacted. It’s brain was AWARE of the sense of touch….Sentience!
No, not sentient. Doesn’t even need the brain for it. Reflex.
If I touch a fetus and it moves away from the touch, then a signal was given to the thalamus. The thalamus must have sent it somewhere or the fetus couldn’t have moved. It must have FELT something, thus it was sentient.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No.
The headless chicken has no thalamus at all, but is still running due to autonomic nerve responses.
This is the the same response generated when you do that gawd-awful pithed frog exeriment that I refused to do in High School Biology.
Oh, “Knocked Up”…
I finally saw that movie (they were showing it for free at the student center at school) and I have to say I can’t see what the hoopla was about.
A) It wasn’t that good of a movie.
B) So what if she didn’t abort? So what that she chose to keep the baby? It was more entertaining if she did keep the baby and have to deal with the idiot that impregnated her due to her own irresponsibility.
C) I think the movie glorified irresponsibility to a point. It seemed to say to me: Have sex with a loser, get preggos and then treat him like crap until he becomes the guy you want him to be.
*shrugs*