measurable brain activity?

9/10/2005 11:15:33 PM

Quote :

"Username : GGMon Age : 28 "

I guess 29 is the magic number.

9/10/2005 11:19:52 PM

hahaha

9/10/2005 11:20:43 PM

My mom would know this.

But I'm guessing the internet will know it first.

9/10/2005 11:24:04 PM

Does sperm have a soul?

9/10/2005 11:33:16 PM

Objection. Irrelevant. Sustained, minus 19 points for the defense, next question.

9/10/2005 11:40:07 PM

I don't know about measurable brain activity, but brain tissue (and other organs) are present in an undeveloped form after about a month.

9/10/2005 11:42:23 PM

^^mix metaphors often?

[Edited on September 10, 2005 at 11:42 PM. Reason : sf]

9/10/2005 11:42:24 PM

Yea, most of the time purposefully.

9/10/2005 11:44:00 PM

When Stone Cold says so.

9/11/2005 12:35:36 AM

Brain activity might not be the question, the question is might be, "at what point in development is a human cognizant of it's own existance?' (i.e. able to feel pain, or even know it exists) ... The general consensus is, after about the first trimester ...

René Descartes:

Quote :

"cogito, ergo sum" (traditionally translated as "I think, therefore I am," but more accurately "I am thinking, therefore I exist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

Bobo:

Quote :

"If a man with no senses falls out of a boat, does he drowned?"

::floodgates open::

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 12:47 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

9/11/2005 12:46:47 AM

actually, Bobo, that logic would very much allow a child under a certain age to be considered "not alive," as we all know that actual cognizance/memory is not obtained until a couple years after birth. Namely, I can't remember being one year old. I can't remember much up until I was about 2 and a half...

now, I could feel pain, I suppose, but one can't really say I was "thinking" then, as if I were, I would most certainly remember it...

9/11/2005 12:50:55 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16118385&dopt=Citation

This study was released only a short time ago.

9/11/2005 12:51:47 AM

Quote :

"but one can't really say I was "thinking" then, as if I were, I would most certainly remember it..."

Nope. Suppose I gave you a drug that caused you to lose memory of a moment of time after it, does that mean you didn't "think" when you were under the effect of that drug, although you would have been in the exact same state? Self-awareness isn't the same thing as memory.

9/11/2005 1:00:36 AM

well, there's a bit of a difference. I was capable of forming the memory, only a drug prevented me from doing so. Thus, in my "natural state," I was able to form a memory, thus I would be thinking.

although, I suppose the logical extension of "memory = thinking" would suggest that, yes, i am not alive. Thank you for helping me prove my point

9/11/2005 1:10:30 AM

So then you came back to life?

That's an impossiblity. If you are dead you can't come back. I murdered your ill-formed arguement.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 1:17 AM. Reason : ]

9/11/2005 1:17:46 AM

Quote :

"Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA. School of Medicine, Department of Anatomy, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0648, USA. CONTEXT: Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe and effective techniques exist for providing direct fetal anesthesia or analgesia in the context of therapeutic procedures or abortion. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Systematic search of PubMed for English-language articles focusing on human studies related to fetal pain, anesthesia, and analgesia. Included articles studied fetuses of less than 30 weeks' gestational age or specifically addressed fetal pain perception or nociception. Articles were reviewed for additional references. The search was performed without date limitations and was current as of June 6, 2005. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures."

9/11/2005 1:33:17 AM

when will morons stop pretending that human life is sacred?

9/11/2005 1:34:39 AM

When will morons stop pretending that human life is not sacred?

9/11/2005 2:58:26 AM

The same time we stop shooting, stabbing, beating, or killing each other in any way, and embrace socialism.

9/11/2005 3:00:43 AM

i have read around 20 days before.

google it to verify.

9/11/2005 7:12:34 AM

Thank you johnny57 for actually providing supporting data. You earn an A+.

aaronburro, your argument is indeed dead. You killed it when you equated cognition with memory. The two are not one. Memory is a recallection of the past while cognition is an awareness of the present.

OEPII1, 20 days before what? ...

Of course the debate is a philosophical/religious one and doesn't just relate to medicine. For me (and Decartes apparently), the human experience begins with cognition - awareness of oneself. Before that, it's just dividing cells.

I'm reminded of what God said when Moses asked Him His name: "I am that I am" (hey, now that I think about it, that's what Popeye says too). I am, the start of all cognition, and the start of the human experince. Hey, if it's good enough for God, and Popeye, it's good enough for me.
/tongue_in_cheek

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 10:41 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

9/11/2005 10:40:41 AM

Quote :

"now, I could feel pain, I suppose, but one can't really say I was "thinking" then, as if I were, I would most certainly remember it..."

[No].

9/11/2005 10:49:45 AM

New federal legislation would offer anesthesia administered directly to a fly before killing it because a fly feels pain.

9/11/2005 11:41:14 AM

memory begins around age 3

my first memory is of my 3rd birthday party

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 11:50 AM. Reason : asdf]

9/11/2005 11:49:53 AM

Quote :

"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16118385&dopt=Citation This study was released only a short time ago. "

Quote :

" "Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA. "

That study was widely discredited the moment it came out, and the editor of the journal even apologized for it. Why is that? Hint - it has to do with who Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, and Rosen MA are. Do you know who they are?

Not an A+, more like a D--- for not doing further research.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 12:01 PM. Reason : add]

9/11/2005 12:00:20 PM

I'm giving you an F for vague answers

if you've got something to say, say it, don't be such a prick about it.

9/11/2005 12:23:20 PM

Quote :

"That study was widely discredited the moment it came out, and the editor of the journal even apologized for it. Why is that? Hint - it has to do with who Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, and Rosen MA are. Do you know who they are?"

I know a little about their background. Just because the doctors are pro-abortion doesn't mean their work can be ignored.

With that said, you tell me how this study has been discredited. Just because others disagree with the information given doesnt make the study invalid. There is rarely a concensus by every doctor on every study.

9/11/2005 12:29:07 PM

Wolfpack, anyone who cites data on this board gets an A+.

You, for instance, to get more than a C-, would have to show where the editor of the jouranal apologised, and then site sources discrediting Lee et. al.'s credentials - you don't have your professors research and cite your papers for you, do you? With data and cited sources from each side, people could then determine which sources they believe are more credible.

You should know better, about constructing an argument ...

9/11/2005 12:34:27 PM

So somoene can cite data that is completely made up (haha, sort of like here) and get an A+? That seems a little foolish.

Being pro-abortion is one thing. Being an advocate for the abortion industry is one thing. Consider me as a lawyer - I have motivation to color the facts in such a way that will make them look most favorable to my client. If I were less of an ethical lawyer, I would even have motivation to lie about the facts. If I were someone who had a vested interest in the outcome of a case, I would have even more motivation to lie. (That is why legal ethics rules prohibit the attorney from obtaining a vested interest in the outcome of a case, with some exceptions for contingency fee agreements)

Quote :

"Antiabortion groups began criticising the findings as soon as they were published. The criticism escalated when it came to light that the paper's first author, Susan Lee, is a medical student and an attorney who once worked for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) Pro-Choice America. Another author, Eleanor Drey, is medical director of the Women's Options Center at San Francisco General Hospital, where abortions are done. "

That was widely reported in newspapers.

So it is clear that the "researchers" are either political advocates who have a political interest in making their "research" say what they want it to say, or are abortion profiteers who have a vested interest in performing as many abortions as possible. And if you have a vested interest in performing as many abortions as you can, then you of course have a vested interest in removing anything that might make women think twice about having an abortion.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 12:50 PM. Reason : add]

9/11/2005 12:48:00 PM

^so, you're a lawyer and we should trust you?

9/11/2005 12:50:07 PM

Is that all you got out of that big long post? Go back and reread.

9/11/2005 12:51:23 PM

The study is irrelevant anyway. Slugs feel pain, and I couldn't care less about killing them either.

9/11/2005 12:52:37 PM

Fortunately you are in the extraordinarily small fringe of people who do not view human life as any more valuable than a slug. For the same reason I refuse to address the rape non-argument, I refuse to address your extremely odd belief, because it is just a radical fringe thing.

9/11/2005 12:54:50 PM

In many ways a slug is superior to a baby less than 1 year old. It can feed itself, respond to stimuli and even move away from dangerous situations. Sure the baby might have the potential to become something much more, but if you're talking about a time as early as a few weeks after conception, you might as well compare apples to apples.

Besides, this world is already overpopulated. The fewer surplus/unwanted/poorly raised kids born each day, the better my chances are of living comfortably when I'm 80 and not having to fight for a square foot of land and my next morsel of food. But that's off topic.

^And no, I don't view human life as superior to any other, because the differences are remarkably small. Every time I eat a steak I'm fully aware of the fact that I could just as easily be on that 'dinner plate' for another animal(carnivore or disease). That's just the way the world works. And by the same token, barring the risk of any sort of punishment, I'd have no problem killing you if I was in a situation where you threatened my survival. No offense.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2005 1:04:53 PM

I don't care whether you live comfortably or not. And fortunately neither does moral philosophy. It is more important to me that you live than that you live comfortably.

And the things that you can do do not make you superior or inferior to another. I can make a list of a lot of things that I can do and that people on this forum cannot do, but that does not make me superior to those persons.

9/11/2005 1:11:13 PM

So what does make you superior? God's "Grade A" stamp of approval?

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 1:14 PM. Reason : you=us=humans]

9/11/2005 1:13:47 PM

Ooh sorry I misunderstood before you edited in an explanation.

Again, I'm not getting into explaining why human life is more valuable than lower forms of life. That is an entirely different philosophical discussion - and one that everyone except the very fringes of society accept as a given. And since we seem to have our hands full with the abortion discussion, I don't see any compulsion to get into the side arguments put forth by the fringes.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 1:19 PM. Reason : oops]

9/11/2005 1:17:47 PM

Quote :

"So somoene can cite data that is completely made up (haha, sort of like here) and get an A+?"

Yes indeed, it is quite acceptable to cite articles from The Journal of the American Medical Association.

From what I've see, criticizims don't seem to address the data or methods, but revolve around the fact that the researchers may be biased. Fair enough.

The discussion of fetal pain, or cognition for that matter, is a moot one from your perspective anyway. From your perspective, from the moment the egg and sperm unite the being is as alive as the parents who united them, and deserving of the same rights.

This discussion is for people who don't always see the world as black and white. Thoughtful creatures, hoping to use their human judgement to weigh the range of interests as best they can.

9/11/2005 1:21:50 PM

Quote :

"This discussion is for people who don't always see the world as black and white."

Quote :

""How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth." "Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error ." "Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching," looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards." "We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires." "

-Pontifex Maximus Benedict XVI

Quote :

"Yes indeed, it is quite acceptable to cite articles from The Journal of the American Medical Association. "

The fallacy of appeal to authority. The article could be written by people with vested interests in the outcome, as it was here.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 1:28 PM. Reason : add]

9/11/2005 1:25:10 PM

Quote :

"Antiabortion groups began criticising the findings as soon as they were published. The criticism escalated when it came to light that the paper's first author, Susan Lee, is a medical student and an attorney who once worked for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) Pro-Choice America. Another author, Eleanor Drey, is medical director of the Women's Options Center at San Francisco General Hospital, where abortions are done. "

Quote :

"That was widely reported in newspapers. So it is clear that the "researchers" are either political advocates who have a political interest in making their "research" say what they want it to say, or are abortion profiteers who have a vested interest in performing as many abortions as possible. And if you have a vested interest in performing as many abortions as you can, then you of course have a vested interest in removing anything that might make women think twice about having an abortion."

Note that you said nothing about the actual SUBSTANCE OF THE STUDY. Furthermore, it's fucking ridiculous to say that just because somebody works for NARAL or a planned parenthood clinic that they "have a vested interest in performing as many abortions as you can." Seriously.

9/11/2005 1:27:05 PM

How is it ridiculous? If I own a Burger King, I have a vested interest in selling as many Whoppers as possible. If I work at Sears, I have a vested interest in selling as many TV's or refrigerators or what not as possible. If I am a dentist, I have a vested interest in cleaning as many people's teeth as possible. I thought this was common sense. What do you think abortion is? It is a business. You commit an abortion, you get paid. And if you commit more abortions, you get paid more. If you commit fewer abortions, you get paid less. And since most people would prefer to get paid more than to get paid less, it should be clear that abortionists want to commit as many abortions as possible. What is difficult to understand here?

The substance of the study is colored if the person doing the "study" has such a bias or a vested interest.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 1:44 PM. Reason : substance is colored by the overarching bias]

9/11/2005 1:32:16 PM

Quote :

"This discussion is for people who don't always see the world as black and white. Thoughtful creatures, hoping to use their human judgement to weigh the range of interests as best they can. "

_______________________________________________________

so i'm seeng everything from 20 days to 6 months...

i find it hard to believe that there isn't a more narrow consensus on the subject than that.

9/11/2005 1:38:07 PM

^^That's where the repetition and corroboration elements of science come in. Their finding certainly seem reasonable to me, but repeated studies are always welcome.


[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2005 1:43:26 PM

Other researchers have come to a different opinion when looking at the development of the fetus. The fact remains that the article has in NO way been discredited. The editor of the JAMA has in no way apologized for printing the article either as you stated earlier.

Quote :

"The substance of the study is colored if the person doing the "study" has such a bias or a vested interest."

Every person that does medical research has a vested personal interest and is bias, dont act like this is some rare occurrence.

Quote :

"so I'm seeng everything from 20 days to 6 months... i find it hard to believe that there isn't a more narrow consensus on the subject than that."

This latest study is the first to concluded that development is that late. Others are closer to 20 weeks. Studies have also shown that babies can react to light during the 20-30 week range. Ive yet to see a study for the 20 day range.

9/11/2005 1:51:03 PM

theDuke, you shouldn't find it hard to believe. Development happens along a continuum, at individually differing rates. The range reflects definitions of development - from the start of electronic brain waves to cognition, and/or pain and sensory awareness.

P.S. to Wolfpack - I am fully aware of the Pope's opinion on relativism. Some would say that he has a vested interest (no pun intended) in seeing that everyone becomes Catholic. The money and power examples would still ring true ...

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 2:02 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

9/11/2005 1:54:01 PM

So now you are attacking the honesty and the morals of the POPE?! lol, interesting.

9/11/2005 2:02:08 PM

(You gave the example of a vested interest ... )

9/11/2005 2:07:55 PM

I just find it amusing that anyone would attack the morals and honesty of the Pope

9/11/2005 2:25:58 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 2:36 PM. Reason : BUT WHAT ABOUT VESTED INTERESTS!]

9/11/2005 2:35:49 PM