Is there a difference.....

The argument of viability = personhood fails miserably when you consider that a great many post-birth persons are non-viable on their own. If we take the viability position to its logical conclusion, then it is merely "abortion of a non-viable mass of cells" to refuse life support for those who have suffered a major injury or illness. Then you get people redefining "viability" based on other factors in order to encompass rare edge cases, just like they do with murder of the unborn.

Try again.

My nephew who just turned twenty today has a one year old son.

Agreed, my cousin was in a coma, he was only in his 40s. They were going to "pull the plug" so to speak but a nurse thought she saw movement in his eyes when she moved around the room. He is alive and healthy today, but for that nurse and the prayers of my mother.

Happy birthday to your nephew!!!

My twin had a fairly massive brain hemmorage when we were in our thirties. How he came through that is a story of one miracle after another, but the long and the short of it is that they only operated on him as a training exercise, not believing he would survive at all, and after eleven days of being in a coma he woke up and has been for the most part fully functional since then...


Praise the Lord

Amazing!! More and more often we are being reminded that doctors are not God. They can often be wrong. As a Christian, it is simple for me. John the Baptist recognized his Savior in the womb, I'd say that settles the question of when life begins.

We already use the cessation of that brain wave activity as the definition/determination of death, which is why the corollary is to use it for the beginning of brain life that reasonable folks should accept.

The part of the problem I have not stated yet is--supposing society outlaws abortion after two months--what should be the punishment for those who commit murder?

My ex passed of a brain hemmorage. It was his second one. He also cracked his skull in two places when he hit the sidewalk falling down the first time. The second time two years later he was found in his bedroom, still alive but just barely, probably about five hours after it happened, because my daughter thinks she heard him fall but figured it was just his normal stumble bumbling around at two in the morning on the main floor where his room was below. They put him on life support at the hospital but then I suppose the brain scans showed such massive damage they unplugged him and his family stood by and watched his vitals ebb as he departed this world. He was sixty five.

Agreed, my cousin was in a coma, he was only in his 40s. They were going to "pull the plug" so to speak but a nurse thought she saw movement in his eyes when she moved around the room. He is alive and healthy today, but for that nurse and the prayers of my mother.

Brain Death:
I believe the determination of death for an adult is defined as "irreversible" cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem... and this has, I think, little to do with the abortion issue.

We may be missing the problem:
The problem we're dealing with, regarding abortion, is not a problem of life, but of personhood.
1.) The argument the pro-abortionists make is not that a human fetus is NOT ALIVE in some sense, but that it IS NOT A HUMAN PERSON.
2.) So saying that an 8-week-old fetus is ALIVE because it has brain activity is a non issue; the opposition already agrees it is ALIVE. The argument surrounds WHAT is alive.
3.) The whole issue is not about whether or not the fetus is alive, but rather, WHAT IT IS.
4.) The pro-abortion people say it is not a human person... they aren't arguing whether or not it's alive.
5.) CONCLUSION: If the opposition isn't arguing whether or not it's alive, then arguing to prove it's alive becomes a moot point.

If certain pro-abortion people want to argue about the life status of the fetus, then brainwave activity would be a good argument at a certain stage.
But their primary argument is that the fetus is not yet a human person.



I'm not an expert on abortion, or medical ethics - just sharing my thoughts.
Have a great weekend.

.

You make a good point regarding personhood, but now you need to think about how to eliminate abortion. Here are my thoughts:

On one side of the debate are those who believe that pregnant women have the right to kill their fetuses until birth (“birthists”). On the opposite side of the issue are those who believe that fetuses have the right to live from conception (“conceptionists”). The Bible does not specifically address this question, although two passages (EX 21:22-25 & LK 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening. However, if a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb.

This should lead a reasonable person to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding. And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults.

Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins. and they should mourn the death of a miscarried fetus at any stage of development in the same manner they would memorialize the death of a post-birth baby, in order to practice what they preach or believe. Those who adopt the birthist opinion apparently assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. However, learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive.
Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”.

Are there any changes between conception and viability that might more reasonably/logically be viewed as indicative of the beginning of personality? There is one possibility: the counterpart of the basis doctors use for determining when an adult person no longer is alive. This basis is brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalo-gram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, referring to the level of brain activity which indicates the fetus has brain life and is therefore a person, who should be granted the civil right to life. If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life/personhood as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable. Thus, I think every open-minded and truth-seeking person on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. Birthists or viabilists and conceptionists should become “sentientists“.

This is only a partial solution, but it is better than the current consensus that allows abortion throughout pregnancy. It is a big step in the right direction toward no abortion except in order to save the life of the mother. It recognizes that a gray area still exists from conception until sentience, so people may still reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus during this period, which may change as science improves. This view permits some forms of birth control. Implementing this solution requires educating every post-pubescent person about fetal development until society develops a new consensus that when a fetus becomes a sentient person, abortion is a type of murder and should be punished appropriately. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It's amazing that you think that you alone have found the answer to the abortion problem worldwide by using brainwave technology.
You also are unable to register that many people worldwide know this already but they still do it, they still abort.
It's also more amazing that you think that people will be convinced using a rational argument when you don't apply some personal touch to it like Magenta or Daisy and even Maxwell have mentioned in various degrees.
I mean, the laws we have in place say "Don't kill" right?
Yet, people still kill with guns.
So, besides education which can help reduce abortions by talking to young adults about understanding that the fetus is a human being without a voice yet, do you have any other suggestions on how to reduce abortions from a legal or political point of view?

I would say very similar to gun reform major. Very slowly, with baby steps despite all the (almost) monthly school shootings.

I am happy for your cousin, but I do not see why you agreed with Dino that "the argument of personhood = viability fails miserably".

So, you two think it is better not to use that argument for disallowing abortions after the seventh month?

That puts you on the same side as the pro-choice people!

Haven't read through all posts so don't know if this has been mentioned. Something that would dramatically reduce abortions IMO is to require anyone who seeks an abortion to watch ultrasonic videos of their babies alive in their wombs, followed by videos of fetuses being aborted.

I am happy for your cousin, but I do not see why you agreed with Dino that "the argument of personhood = viability fails miserably".

So, you two think it is better not to use that argument for disallowing abortions after the seventh month?

That puts you on the same side as the pro-choice people!

Oh I'm for no abortions, maybe with the exceptions of rape/incest/medical. And really I don't know if I believe even for that reason. I'll have to read back again.

I think the abortion issue is quite simple. But we need to throw light on the lies PP is telling. Abortion is racist. Black women are 3x more likely to abort than any other race. Margret Sanger who started PP was a flat out racist. There is a reason the Dems have quietly gotten rid of streets named in her honor. Dems don't care about a right to choose, they want to get rid of certain races and classes of people.

Even for those events, when a person makes the decision about terminating God's gift of a life they are taking the Creator out of the equation, we MUST take ALL things to Him for His direction and then walk it out.
blessings