3 ms·

Then why do we abort so many more babies than dogs ? While foetuses obviously don't have optical processing (you know, no eyes and all), the brain actually "bo

by waps 14y ago

Then why do we abort so many more babies than dogs ? While foetuses obviously don't have optical processing (you know, no eyes and all), the brain actually "boots up" on the 18th day after conception. So just before/just after a woman will start to suspect she's pregnant, there's an brain actively processing information in her womb. If we took that as the standard, you know, that'd be more conservative than any religious grouping even asks for. (the reason for this is that a human foetus "is not human". Our DNA is only human in that it contains a set of instructions that will transform an ape foetus into a human foetus. But the ape foetus isn't grown from scratch either, it's grown from some four legged animal. Basically the first recognizable animal you start out as is a bilobite (which is extinct, it's essentially a hollow ball of cells), grow into a trilobite (a 2-part ball of cells), grow into something that looks a lot like a tadpole, grow into ... and a tadpole requires a functioning brain, and so a human foetus at that development stage has a functioning brain) The point is we don't protect life at all. We protect ways to make the life of the decision makers (which are nearly all adult humans) easier/more enjoyable. Kids, dogs and abortion are merely parts of that, as is freely killing dogs, intelligent or otherwise. Really the reason we don't kill kids is because humans would rebel. You can try to explain the problem, like stating that a kid, even a small one represents a massive investment of time, money, sweat, and (I'm sure any mother will be glad to remind you) inconvenience and pain, and I'm sure that's a rather good explanation. But in the end it comes down to adult, mostly male, humans vetoing it. We support abortion because it's a way to vastly limit that investment and get rid of both "the product" and the investment (and, frankly, because without abortion anything remotely resembling today's nightlife would be completely out of the question). So really "us humans" don't rule the world. Too bad, not really. A small number of adult, mostly but not all male humans rule the world.

robbiep 14y ago
Do you really think more human foetuses are aborted than dog? I'm a medical student and never seen an abortion performed (even though I know they're commonly performed), however I grew up in a country area and know dozens of stories of people who have drowned puppies or kittens (whole litters) because they were not wanted. Way more stories than the 1:3-1:4 females that supposedly have abortions during their lives. Anyway it's an anecdote so doesn't mean anything really. I am more interested in where you heard that the brain 'boots up' on day 18. The neural tube doesn't close until day 23-27, and until quite some time after this point the 'nervous system' is essentially a hollow tube of neurons only a few layers thick, that doesn't contain the identifiable layers of cortex. In fact it isn't until week 4 that there is proliferation of the layers resulting in an alar and basal plate (representing sensory and motor neuronal pathways respectively) and it is not until after this differentiation that the neural tube begins to divide into the 3 vesicle and 5 vesicle stages- the 5 vesicle stage being essential for the differentiation into what will eventually be cortex and various regions etc. Even if there is neural activity at such a young stage, you just have spontaneous depolarisations of action potential, not any information processing
- waps 14y ago
  Given the figures (1 in 50 women has an abortion, per year, CDC figures), yes, I would find it very hard to believe that humans killed more dogs (whether in North America or the world) than they abort human fetuses. I doubt vets put down 1 dog per 200 people per year. The shape of the container of the neurons does not really influence whether they fire or not. 18 days is simply the earliest that I've seen neural activity reported (actual firing neurons, after receiving signals). It's actually more of a "at the latest" figure, not a lower bound. There is no even a compelling theory going either way as to whether these signals are random (I assume that's what you mean by "spontaneous depolarisations of action potential", otherwise it'd make no sense : that happens in fetuses, you and me, and granddads. For that matter, it happens in corpses weeks after death. They are neither an indication of consciousness, nor an indicator of it's absence). Given how neural cells work, and that there are actual living animals that have shapes very similar to fetuses in this stage of development whose movements are definitely not random, my guess would be that these signals are anything but random. I would even say that it's extremely likely that these neurons are capable of sensing their environment in some way and attempting to come to grips with it, because in the animals they are. Here's a picture of the human embryo at 18(-21) days after conception : http://mybrainnotes.com/human-embryo-brain.jpg http://mybrainnotes.com/human-embryo-brain.jpg Is it really so hard to believe that an animal that complex has functioning senses and a working brain, and is contemplating, maybe not it's existence, but definitely it's environment ?
skrebbel 14y ago
I believe you're tripping over semantics. If you split all the living things in this world into groups by species, and then check which groups have the biggest say over what's going on, then it's clearly the humans. That's what I meant when I said that the humans rule Earth. I didn't say that all the humans have an equal say. I even didn't say that every human has a bigger say than any animal. It's like saying that the mafia rules southern Italy. They do, but the underlings who do the families's shit jobs don't have a whole lot of input as to how and when, even though they're part of the mafia. Really, it's the obvious interpretation of "group X rules place Y". Oh, and, what does the whole pro-life rant have to do with any of this? In fact, the fun part of being the species that rules the planet is that you get to change the rules, or freely go somewhere where the rules match your opinion. You can't do this for your personal perfect cocktail of rules, but you could get rather close. I, for example, currently live in the Netherlands, where there are 37 pro-life people in total and the rest thinks they're lovely people but a bit odd. I share the majority view so I'm good here. If it'd make me very angry however, I'd move to Kentucky. Did you consider something like that, rather than rant on a forum, knowing that you're not going to convince a single person who wasn't convinced already?
- humanrebar 14y ago
  "If it'd make me very angry however, I'd move to Kentucky." Abortion is very legal in Kentucky and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. If someone moved from the Netherlands to escape a pro-choice government, I could only see him becoming more angry in Kentucky. Especially when you consider how pro-choice American laws are and how pro-life the average Kentucky resident is. I'm not sure there is a developed country a pro-life person could move to out of moral disgust with abortion. The Vatican? Can someone just move there?
  - skrebbel 14y ago
    Oh, hm. Ok, that kind of debunks part of my argument. Iran has nuclear power these days though, does that count as developed then? :)
    - 14y ago
jimktrains2 14y ago
>While foetuses obviously don't have optical processing (you know, no eyes and all), the brain actually "boots up" on the 18th day after conception. So just before/just after a woman will start to suspect she's pregnant, there's an brain actively processing information in her womb. If we took that as the standard, you know, that'd be more conservative than any religious grouping even asks for. I would like to introduce you to the Catholics. They're a small group, don't get much press and aren't terribly vocal about their view that life starts at conception.
- humanrebar 14y ago
  Catholics are very vocal about that point. I wouldn't call them provocative as a whole, but I think it's fair to say it is universally understood what the Catholic position on abortion is.
  - waps 14y ago
    You forget that this is before a woman would realistically be sure she's pregnant, and definitely before she would be able to get a doctor's appointment. It would effectively mean no abortion, except maybe morning-after pill, but certainly nothing else. I forget, are catholics OK with morning after ?

by waps 14y ago

robbiep 14y ago

Do you really think more human foetuses are aborted than dog? I'm a medical student and never seen an abortion performed (even though I know they're commonly performed), however I grew up in a country area and know dozens of stories of people who have drowned puppies or kittens (whole litters) because they were not wanted. Way more stories than the 1:3-1:4 females that supposedly have abortions during their lives. Anyway it's an anecdote so doesn't mean anything really. I am more interested in where you heard that the brain 'boots up' on day 18. The neural tube doesn't close until day 23-27, and until quite some time after this point the 'nervous system' is essentially a hollow tube of neurons only a few layers thick, that doesn't contain the identifiable layers of cortex. In fact it isn't until week 4 that there is proliferation of the layers resulting in an alar and basal plate (representing sensory and motor neuronal pathways respectively) and it is not until after this differentiation that the neural tube begins to divide into the 3 vesicle and 5 vesicle stages- the 5 vesicle stage being essential for the differentiation into what will eventually be cortex and various regions etc. Even if there is neural activity at such a young stage, you just have spontaneous depolarisations of action potential, not any information processing

waps 14y ago
Given the figures (1 in 50 women has an abortion, per year, CDC figures), yes, I would find it very hard to believe that humans killed more dogs (whether in North America or the world) than they abort human fetuses. I doubt vets put down 1 dog per 200 people per year. The shape of the container of the neurons does not really influence whether they fire or not. 18 days is simply the earliest that I've seen neural activity reported (actual firing neurons, after receiving signals). It's actually more of a "at the latest" figure, not a lower bound. There is no even a compelling theory going either way as to whether these signals are random (I assume that's what you mean by "spontaneous depolarisations of action potential", otherwise it'd make no sense : that happens in fetuses, you and me, and granddads. For that matter, it happens in corpses weeks after death. They are neither an indication of consciousness, nor an indicator of it's absence). Given how neural cells work, and that there are actual living animals that have shapes very similar to fetuses in this stage of development whose movements are definitely not random, my guess would be that these signals are anything but random. I would even say that it's extremely likely that these neurons are capable of sensing their environment in some way and attempting to come to grips with it, because in the animals they are. Here's a picture of the human embryo at 18(-21) days after conception : http://mybrainnotes.com/human-embryo-brain.jpg http://mybrainnotes.com/human-embryo-brain.jpg Is it really so hard to believe that an animal that complex has functioning senses and a working brain, and is contemplating, maybe not it's existence, but definitely it's environment ?

skrebbel 14y ago

I believe you're tripping over semantics. If you split all the living things in this world into groups by species, and then check which groups have the biggest say over what's going on, then it's clearly the humans. That's what I meant when I said that the humans rule Earth. I didn't say that all the humans have an equal say. I even didn't say that every human has a bigger say than any animal. It's like saying that the mafia rules southern Italy. They do, but the underlings who do the families's shit jobs don't have a whole lot of input as to how and when, even though they're part of the mafia. Really, it's the obvious interpretation of "group X rules place Y". Oh, and, what does the whole pro-life rant have to do with any of this? In fact, the fun part of being the species that rules the planet is that you get to change the rules, or freely go somewhere where the rules match your opinion. You can't do this for your personal perfect cocktail of rules, but you could get rather close. I, for example, currently live in the Netherlands, where there are 37 pro-life people in total and the rest thinks they're lovely people but a bit odd. I share the majority view so I'm good here. If it'd make me very angry however, I'd move to Kentucky. Did you consider something like that, rather than rant on a forum, knowing that you're not going to convince a single person who wasn't convinced already?

humanrebar 14y ago
"If it'd make me very angry however, I'd move to Kentucky." Abortion is very legal in Kentucky and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. If someone moved from the Netherlands to escape a pro-choice government, I could only see him becoming more angry in Kentucky. Especially when you consider how pro-choice American laws are and how pro-life the average Kentucky resident is. I'm not sure there is a developed country a pro-life person could move to out of moral disgust with abortion. The Vatican? Can someone just move there?
- skrebbel 14y ago
  Oh, hm. Ok, that kind of debunks part of my argument. Iran has nuclear power these days though, does that count as developed then? :)
  - 14y ago

jimktrains2 14y ago

>While foetuses obviously don't have optical processing (you know, no eyes and all), the brain actually "boots up" on the 18th day after conception. So just before/just after a woman will start to suspect she's pregnant, there's an brain actively processing information in her womb. If we took that as the standard, you know, that'd be more conservative than any religious grouping even asks for. I would like to introduce you to the Catholics. They're a small group, don't get much press and aren't terribly vocal about their view that life starts at conception.

humanrebar 14y ago
Catholics are very vocal about that point. I wouldn't call them provocative as a whole, but I think it's fair to say it is universally understood what the Catholic position on abortion is.
- waps 14y ago
  You forget that this is before a woman would realistically be sure she's pregnant, and definitely before she would be able to get a doctor's appointment. It would effectively mean no abortion, except maybe morning-after pill, but certainly nothing else. I forget, are catholics OK with morning after ?