"Unborn Child"

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...As a human being you look foward at what 'will be' all the time, including but not limited to matters of law. That's what a conspiracy charge is, isn't it? Charging for something that 'will be'?..

WTF?! That's not even slightly the same thing.

And no, a conspiracy charge is not charging for something that 'will be', it's charging for the intent. The intent is something that is.

...Secondly, 'human' is only ever a biological label. 'Human consciousness' is a biological process that begins well before birth...

I think you're confusing the development of the brain with the development of consciousness, they're related but not the same thing.
Brains are the hardware - but what of the software? OK, some of it comes 'pre-installed', but enough for a newborn baby to be conscious? That's disputable, and I for one am inclined to dispute it.
You may also be confusing consciousness with basic perception. Again they're related but not the same thing. Cows have perception - are you a vegetarian?

... Why would a premmature child be considered concious while an unborn child not be at equal weeks of development?..

Actually I've always had a problem with that one myself as it happens. Personally I feel that at the moment of it's birth the premature 'baby' (as they tend to be called) should not be regarded as having separate status from a still developing foetus in the womb of the same level of development. Except as regards to the fact that it is no longer biologically dependant on it's mother, therefore cancelling out that particular argument for the mother to be entitled to decide it's fate (though other arguments still apply).
However there may be some difference insofar as if the premature 'baby's' senses are sufficiently developed at birth, and it's brain sufficiently developed to learn how to process the information from the senses (yes, your brain does have to 'learn' over time how to see/hear e.t.c) then it may possibly gain a headstart over a foetus still in the womb, with regards perceiving, and taking in information from, the world around it. A process that I would guess is likely necessary to the development of consciousness.

...I happen to think that there's no possible way Twilight could be successful, but reality says otherwise...

You can cite box-office statistics to demonstrate that load-of-shite is successful. What are you citing to demonstrate newborns are conscious?

...So again, why refuse to use the term 'unborn child'? Why refuse to acknowledge that's what you're killing?

Because I regard 'unborn child' as an oxymoron.

[JOZeldenrust]

Oh well, because you say it doesn't that clears everything up. Thank you. Now if you'd like to actually present an argument I'm waiting.

Jesus, stop whining.

If all people who object to the phrase "unborn child" do so because it reminds them of the fact the aborted organisms are human, then they should object just as vehemently to the phrase "unborn human". I don't think they do, partly because fewer people use the phrase "unborn human", and partly because the phrase "unborn child" carries many affective connotations that "unborn human" does not. Otherwise, opponents to abortion wouldn't have chosen the phrase.

Objecting to the phrase "unborn child" is a response to the phraming strategy of the pro-life crowd of stressing the horrific nature of abortion. Part of that framing strategy is to play up the cuddlyness of phoetuses.

I don't think it's a good strategy to respond to framing strategies by changing terminology, but t seemes obvious to me that not all people who object to the phrase do so because they don't want to be reminded of the fact that human phoetuses are human.

[Tero]

Many birds abandon their unborn birds (eggs) if the male fails to provide for the female during incubation. It is not a problem. Relationship failed ---> abort.

[Trolldor]

WTF?! That's not even slightly the same thing.

And no, a conspiracy charge is not charging for something that 'will be', it's charging for the intent. The intent is something that is.

Intent: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"
Intent is a judgement on what 'will be', and has everything to do with it. Every fertilised egg that could ever be carried to term is a human, and has the same potential that I or any other person alive today had at that equal point in time.

You can cite box-office statistics to demonstrate that load-of-shite is successful. What are you citing to demonstrate newborns are conscious?

The fact that an unborn child can react to outside stimuli.

I think you're confusing the development of the brain with the development of consciousness, they're related but not the same thing.
Brains are the hardware - but what of the software? OK, some of it comes 'pre-installed', but enough for a newborn baby to be conscious? That's disputable, and I for one am inclined to dispute it.
You may also be confusing consciousness with basic perception. Again they're related but not the same thing. Cows have perception - are you a vegetarian?

Why are they different? The consciousness is only there because of the brain, not any external magic force. The development of the brain is the development of consciousness.

Cows have perception - are you a vegetarian?

No. But when I eat meat I do full well in the knowledge that I am eating an animal partially aware of its surroundings and capable of rudimentary emotions.
Just like my pro-choice position is taken with the knowledge than an abortion is killing an unborn child.

[Tero]

Stem cells are babies!

[Trolldor]

Oh well, because you say it doesn't that clears everything up. Thank you. Now if you'd like to actually present an argument I'm waiting.

Jesus, stop whining.

lol. You viewed and responded to this thread, I didn't place a pamphlet in your letterbox.

I don't think it's a good strategy to respond to framing strategies by changing terminology, but t seemes obvious to me that not all people who object to the phrase do so because they don't want to be reminded of the fact that human phoetuses are human.

I'm not arguing for a change in terminology to 'frame' anything.

And there's no doubt many "who object to the phrase do so because they don't want to be reminded of the fact that human phoetuses are human."
That would, of course, lead you to the 'why' part of my original query.

[Trolldor]

Stem cells are not babies. Stem cells come from a fertilised egg.

[Sælir]

... Why would a premmature child be considered concious while an unborn child not be at equal weeks of development?..

Actually I've always had a problem with that one myself as it happens. Personally I feel that at the moment of it's birth the premature 'baby' (as they tend to be called) should not be regarded as having separate status from a still developing foetus in the womb of the same level of development. Except as regards to the fact that it is no longer biologically dependant on it's mother, therefore cancelling out that particular argument for the mother to be entitled to decide it's fate (though other arguments still apply).
However there may be some difference insofar as if the premature 'baby's' senses are sufficiently developed at birth, and it's brain sufficiently developed to learn how to process the information from the senses (yes, your brain does have to 'learn' over time how to see/hear e.t.c) then it may possibly gain a headstart over a foetus still in the womb, with regards perceiving, and taking in information from, the world around it. A process that I would guess is likely necessary to the development of consciousness.

In most hospitals premature babies are not considered having more conciousness than a foetus. Their age is counted as it was still a foetus until the baby would have been full term and parents are told to calculate their age from term date when thinking about mental development till the baby is around 2 years old!

[Trolldor]

See, now this ^ is an answer.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...The fact that an unborn child can react to outside stimuli...

Perception =/= conciousness.

Any animals with senses can react to outside stimuli. It does not require any self awareness, or understanding.

[Trolldor]

You're confusing sentience with consciousness.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Why are they different? The consciousness is only there because of the brain, not any external magic force...

Did I say it took an external magic force? I said it takes software as well as hardware. Brains are biological computers. For computers to carry out tasks they must have the required software loaded on them. I happen to think that a newborn baby is not installed with all the software required for full consciousness. It requires further input post-birth.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

... Why would a premmature child be considered concious while an unborn child not be at equal weeks of development?..

Actually I've always had a problem with that one myself as it happens. Personally I feel that at the moment of it's birth the premature 'baby' (as they tend to be called) should not be regarded as having separate status from a still developing foetus in the womb of the same level of development. Except as regards to the fact that it is no longer biologically dependant on it's mother, therefore cancelling out that particular argument for the mother to be entitled to decide it's fate (though other arguments still apply).
However there may be some difference insofar as if the premature 'baby's' senses are sufficiently developed at birth, and it's brain sufficiently developed to learn how to process the information from the senses (yes, your brain does have to 'learn' over time how to see/hear e.t.c) then it may possibly gain a headstart over a foetus still in the womb, with regards perceiving, and taking in information from, the world around it. A process that I would guess is likely necessary to the development of consciousness.

In most hospitals premature babies are not considered having more conciousness than a foetus. Their age is counted as it was still a foetus until the baby would have been full term and parents are told to calculate their age from term date when thinking about mental development till the baby is around 2 years old!

I was only speculating with regards premature babies maybe under certain circumstances having a 'head-start'. Although I would nonetheless like to know who's doing the 'considering' here?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

See, now this ^ is an answer.

To what?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

You're confusing sentience with consciousness.

If we're not talking about a sentient level of consciousness here then what's even the point?