Fetuses yawn in womb?

[Adelaide]

The 4D scans of 15 healthy fetuses, by Durham and Lancaster Universities, also suggest that yawning is a developmental process which could potentially give doctors another index of a fetus' health.

The study is published Nov. 21 in the journal PLOS ONE.

While some researchers have suggested that fetuses yawn, others have disagreed and claim it is simple mouth opening.

But the new research clearly distinguished 'yawning' from 'non-yawn mouth opening' based on the duration of mouth opening. The researchers did this by using the 4D video footage to closely examine all events where a mouth stretch occurred in the fetus.



Fetuses yawn in the womb, 4D scans suggest (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121121210334.htm)

This is pretty darn cool. The images of the scans are really fascinating - I found them on a different site earlier but now I can't remember which.

[Chris]

Yea, saw that, pretty interesting.

"We know that unborn babies hiccup, swallow and stretch in the womb, but new observational research concludes that they also yawn."

[Calypso Jones]

Does it change anything about killing them before birth?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Does it change anything about killing them before birth?

I don't think anything about innocent and unborn children could rip the Liberal masses of their primal urge to murder them.

[Chris]

That may be but they will have to abandon claims science is on their side when science is humanizing the unborn more and more. They will be left with simply not believing the unborn are human lives.

[Mister D]

What's interesting to me is that here we have two men who could not be described as religious yet are outspokenly pro-life. Progressives, however, will cotinue to dismiss such a position as religious dogma. I guess it's easier than actually making an argument.

[roadmaster]

I know any they call them blobs.

[truthmatters]

you dont get to tell a woman what goes in inside her flesh

[Carygrant]

That may be but they will have to abandon claims science is on their side when science is humanizing the unborn more and more. They will be left with simply not believing the unborn are human lives.


Which -- sef evidently--- they are not .

[Peter1469]

you dont get to tell a woman what goes in inside her flesh

Really? Go to your local police office and inject heroin into your veins.

[Chris]

Which -- sef evidently--- they are not .

But liberals are left believing that. They once argued science, science has shown them wrong, so they ironically rely now on faith.

[Carygrant]

I believe anthropomorphic types of explanation are being used -- perhaps in good faith --- but not science .

[Chris]

I believe anthropomorphic types of explanation are being used -- perhaps in good faith --- but not science .

Clearly, cary, the discovery of yawning was made by scientific research. Why in your faith do you deny that?

[Adelaide]

I'm pro-choice, but I found this interesting. I don't think it conflicts with my beliefs.

[Chris]

As the unborn becomes more and more human in society's eyes, it will become more and more difficult to deny it the same rights as the mother.

[Adelaide]

As the unborn becomes more and more human in society's eyes, it will become more and more difficult to deny it the same rights as the mother.

I don't think so. I think it will always come down to viability outside of the womb.

[Peter1469]

I don't think so. I think it will always come down to viability outside of the womb.

I don't think so. It will come down to humanization of the fetal goo. Once enough people think less goo and more little man / woman, abortion will largely go away on its own.

[Chris]

I don't think so. I think it will always come down to viability outside of the womb.

That doesn't hold water, no pun intended.

For one, the unborn are alive and human and therefore possess the same rights all living humans do. It seems odd for pro-choicers to advocate rights on one hand but not the other.

For another, should we be able to abort anyone dependent, from newborn babes to to physically and mentally handicapped to aging elders, even the growing population dependent on government? Absurd, no?

[Adelaide]

I fully acknowledge it is a person/human, and I still support the woman's right to choose. I do not believe that they have the same rights as the mother until they are born and are seperate/non-dependent on the mother. Personally, no way in hell would I ever have an abortion but that is my decision.

[Chris]

I fully acknowledge it is a person/human, and I still support the woman's right to choose. I do not believe that they have the same rights as the mother until they are born and are seperate/non-dependent on the mother. Personally, no way in hell would I ever have an abortion but that is my decision.

OK, but why not equal rights?

[Adelaide]

OK, but why not equal rights?

I guess I phrased my previously response poorly. I view fetuses as human and as lives, but not necessarily as people. They are dependent on the mother for everything biologically, (food, shelter, etc.). Until the child is born, the mother should have the defacto rights about the human inside of her. Until viability, she should have the right to terminate that life, (which, by the way, people in real life can also do with suicide or euthanasia). I would hope that the reasons women terminate their pregnancies would be limited to not being able to provide for the child, health reasons, in cases of rape/incest, or other major issues besides, "I just don't feel like being pregnant".

[Chris]

I guess I phrased my previously response poorly. I view fetuses as human and as lives, but not necessarily as people. They are dependent on the mother for everything biologically, (food, shelter, etc.). Until the child is born, the mother should have the defacto rights about the human inside of her. Until viability, she should have the right to terminate that life, (which, by the way, people in real life can also do with suicide or euthanasia). I would hope that the reasons women terminate their pregnancies would be limited to not being able to provide for the child, health reasons, in cases of rape/incest, or other major issues besides, "I just don't feel like being pregnant".

OK, but that argument takes us back to what I said earlier about dependence: "should we be able to abort anyone dependent, from newborn babes to to physically and mentally handicapped to aging elders, even the growing population dependent on government? Absurd, no?"

I don't see how dependency determines rights.

[Adelaide]

OK, but that argument takes us back to what I said earlier about dependence: "should we be able to abort anyone dependent, from newborn babes to to physically and mentally handicapped to aging elders, even the growing population dependent on government? Absurd, no?"

I don't see how dependency determines rights.

They're not biologically attached to and dependent on the mother. They're not actually inside someone's body, needing to take energy and food and everything else from the mother's body. Big difference. No comparison can be made between pregnancy and other forms of dependency.

[Chris]

They're not biologically attached to and dependent on the mother. They're not actually inside someone's body, needing to take energy and food and everything else from the mother's body. Big difference. No comparison can be made between pregnancy and other forms of dependency.

Yet they are all just forms of dependency. If dependency doesn't entail rights lost in any other case, why just this special case? I understand that's what you believe, which is what I said much earlier about having to resort to belief, but what rational reason justifies it.

[Adelaide]

Yet they are all just forms of dependency. If dependency doesn't entail rights lost in any other case, why just this special case? I understand that's what you believe, which is what I said much earlier about having to resort to belief, but what rational reason justifies it.

You're not understanding - that's okay.

Running with your line of thought... In other forms of dependency there is often a POA or otherwise a guardian who makes decisions for the young, disabled or elderly if they are unable to make their own decisions based on their age or disability or cognitive functioning. They can't elect to kill their dependents, but their dependents also are viable and not in-utero. And actually, in the case of the disabled or elderly they can technically kill them by stopping or preventing life saving measures from being practiced.

Factor in that the dependent in the mother's womb is not viable up to a certain point and is not entitled to the same rights as an actual person... and I see no issue with abortion, and for other women to make their own decisions based on their own beliefs.

I also don't think this is any of the government's business. This should be between the woman and her doctor. I actually like that Canada has absolutely no laws in relation to abortion... technically, you could abort right up into the final weeks but you'd never find a doctor willing to do an abortion after a certain date.

Anyways, I don't feel like debating abortion. I know I'm in the minority here and nothing I say on the subject matters to anyone.

[Chris]

You're not understanding - that's okay.

Running with your line of thought... In other forms of dependency there is often a POA or otherwise a guardian who makes decisions for the young, disabled or elderly if they are unable to make their own decisions based on their age or disability or cognitive functioning. They can't elect to kill their dependents, but their dependents also are viable and not in-utero. And actually, in the case of the disabled or elderly they can technically kill them by stopping or preventing life saving measures from being practiced.

Factor in that the dependent in the mother's womb is not viable up to a certain point and is not entitled to the same rights as an actual person... and I see no issue with abortion, and for other women to make their own decisions based on their own beliefs.

I also don't think this is any of the government's business. This should be between the woman and her doctor. I actually like that Canada has absolutely no laws in relation to abortion... technically, you could abort right up into the final weeks but you'd never find a doctor willing to do an abortion after a certain date.

Anyways, I don't feel like debating abortion. I know I'm in the minority here and nothing I say on the subject matters to anyone.

Yes, you're right, I'm not understanding the distinction, it doesn't seem relevant before the law, the law posited law ought to be based on, declared as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...."



I also don't think this is any of the government's business. This should be between the woman and her doctor. I actually like that Canada has absolutely no laws in relation to abortion... technically, you could abort right up into the final weeks but you'd never find a doctor willing to do an abortion after a certain date.

Here I think we agree, though I think this should be up to society and not just woman and doctor, for as I see it someone needs to represent the unborn's rights.



I have enjoyed the exchange, and do respect your position, but you're right, this is a good stopping point. Thanks!

[GrassrootsConservative]

I know and they call them blobs.

It doesn't matter. Liberals could learn that fetuses are aware of everything around them and it would only further fuel their hatred and jealousy. Innocence and purity are despised amongst the lying, thieving, conniving, mob-mentality Liberals of the world.

Liberals think about fetuses being innocent, unborn, a clean slate without immorality, and they absolutely know they must be destroyed. This is the very root of Liberalism.

[Chris]

Topic is the unborn not liberals.

[KC]

Yes, you're right, I'm not understanding the distinction, it doesn't seem relevant before the law, the law posited law ought to be based on, declared as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...."


So what about a fetus guarantees it the same sort of rights we'd assign someone outside of the womb?

[Chris]

So what about a fetus guarantees it the same sort of rights we'd assign someone outside of the womb?

It is created, it is living, it is human. What about being in or out the womb makes a difference regarding rights we're all created with as a part of our nature?

[KC]

It is created, it is living, it is human. What about being in or out the womb makes a difference regarding rights we're all created with as a part of our nature?

I think the most important part is that last one, the fact that "it is human." When is the fetus a human? A zygote isn't a human (or is it?), so I never understood what point the fetus becomes a human. It seems like it's usually becomes human when it becomes a convenient point for either political standpoint, but I genuinely don't know and find it difficult to separate real science from the highly politicized evidence.

[Mister D]

Is when a fetus becomes human a scientific question?

[KC]

Is when a fetus becomes human a scientific question?


Good point. I guess it all depends on what you define as human.

[Mister D]

Good point. I guess it all depends on what you define as human.

Science can help shape perceptions but it can't tell us when a being's humanity begins. That is something we must decide ourselves.

[KC]

Science can help shape perceptions but it can't tell us when a being's humanity begins. That is something we must decide ourselves.

That would muddy things up from a legal standpoint. More evidence that this ought to be handled locally, since the issue seems to rely on that particular question (whether the fetus is human). A scientific definition of humanity could certainly help though, as you say, because it can help us construct our definition of humanity and when it begins.

[Mister D]

That would muddy things up from a legal standpoint. More evidence that this ought to be handled locally, since the issue seems to rely on that particular question (whether the fetus is human). A scientific definition of humanity could certainly help though, as you say, because it can help us construct our definition of humanity and when it begins.

Frankly, I'm a little uncomfortable with the question even being asked. Anyway, I don't think science can define what a human being is. What I meant is that it can give us insights (e.g. fetuses yawn in the womb) that will help us form a consensus.

[Chris]

If the fetus, the zygote is not human, what is it? A zebra? No. It's a human fetus, a human zygote. And, yes, science tells us that.

[Peter1469]

I think the most important part is that last one, the fact that "it is human." When is the fetus a human? A zygote isn't a human (or is it?), so I never understood what point the fetus becomes a human. It seems like it's usually becomes human when it becomes a convenient point for either political standpoint, but I genuinely don't know and find it difficult to separate real science from the highly politicized evidence.

Is this a reasonable legal standard?

A fetus becomes a human only when its mother decides.

[KC]

If the fetus, the zygote is not human, what is it? A zebra? No. It's a human fetus, a human zygote. And, yes, science tells us that.

A zygote bears the genetic information of a human being but does that mean we can consider the zygote a human with rights?

[Peter1469]

A zygote bears the genetic information of a human being but does that mean we can consider the zygote a human with rights?

Why not?

[KC]

Why not?

Not a clue why or why not. That's why I asked, Pete.

Obviously not everything that bears human genetic information is a human. We wouldn't suggest having a medical procedure to remove a human tonsil or kidney is wrong because those things contain human genetic info. So what makes a zygote, which makes a potential human being, any different from a gamete, which also has the potential for human life. Does the act of fertilization result in legal protection for a human being?

I think it's a subjective line that has to be drawn by the individual, since there really seems to be no objective answer.

[Peter1469]

Not a clue why or why not. That's why I asked, Pete.

Obviously not everything that bears human genetic information is a human. We wouldn't suggest having a medical procedure to remove a human tonsil or kidney is wrong because those things contain human genetic info. So what makes a zygote, which makes a potential human being, any different from a gamete, which also has the potential for human life. Does the act of fertilization result in legal protection for a human being?

I think it's a subjective line that has to be drawn by the individual, since there really seems to be no objective answer.

What if someone decides to draw the line at some point after birth?

[KC]

What if someone decides to draw the line at some point after birth?

Then the law should get involved.

[Chris]

Exactly, why not? Why is based on scientific facts about life and what human beings are. Why not it seems to me to resort to unexplained beliefs.

[Chris]

Not a clue why or why not. That's why I asked, Pete.

Obviously not everything that bears human genetic information is a human. We wouldn't suggest having a medical procedure to remove a human tonsil or kidney is wrong because those things contain human genetic info. So what makes a zygote, which makes a potential human being, any different from a gamete, which also has the potential for human life. Does the act of fertilization result in legal protection for a human being?

I think it's a subjective line that has to be drawn by the individual, since there really seems to be no objective answer.

I think you have an objective answer. What is alive and human is by its nature created with equal rights and deserving of equal protections before the law.

[KC]

Exactly, why not? Why is based on scientific facts about life and what human beings are. Why not it seems to me to resort to unexplained beliefs.

But so far no one has given any reasons why a fetus, zygote or a gamete, all of which have the potential to create a person outside the womb, should have legal protection.

[Chris]

But so far no one has given any reasons why a fetus, zygote or a gamete, all of which have the potential to create a person outside the womb, should have legal protection.

The reasons are stated in the Declaration. Because it is a living human being--it can't be anything else--it possesses rights.

Gametes? Gametes are the creators, the father's sperm, the mother's egg.

Zygotes are uniquely human lives.

[Peter1469]

Then the law should get involved. But not before? Why?

[KC]

The reasons are stated in the Declaration. Because it is a living human being--it can't be anything else--it possesses rights.

Gametes? Gametes are the creators, the father's sperm, the mother's egg.

Zygotes are uniquely human lives.

It seems obvious that a baby outside the womb is a human being with rights. It is biologically viable even if the newborn is still dependent on who ever raises him or her. It doesn't seem obvious that a fetus or zygote is a human being with rights. I'm just not sold on it.

[Chris]

It seems obvious that a baby outside the womb is a human being with rights. It is biologically viable even if the newborn is still dependent on who ever raises him or her. It doesn't seem obvious that a fetus or zygote is a human being with rights. I'm just not sold on it.

Why not? You and others reach for words like viability, dependence. But these are easily disputed--should patients on life support lose rights/protections?

What about viability/dependence justifies not protecting the rights of the unborn?

[KC]

Why not? You and others reach for words like viability, dependence. But these are easily disputed--should patients on life support lose rights/protections?

What about viability/dependence justifies not protecting the rights of the unborn?

That seems like a loaded question. I'm still not sure the unborn have rights. In America, we see rights as something that all American citizens have by virtue of being citizens. Natural rights work differently though. We see these as something all men share regardless of their status.

The question that follows is who deserves the legal protection of the US government. The US government is only responsible for protecting US citizens' natural rights. Does citizenship start at conception? Or does it start at birth? If we extend this protection to fetuses where should we draw the line?

[Chris]

That seems like a loaded question. I'm still not sure the unborn have rights. In America, we see rights as something that all American citizens have by virtue of being citizens. Natural rights work differently though. We see these as something all men share regardless of their status.

The question that follows is who deserves the legal protection of the US government. The US government is only responsible for protecting US citizens' natural rights. Does citizenship start at conception? Or does it start at birth? If we extend this protection to fetuses where should we draw the line?

Well, I think what we need to do is separate natural rights from posited ones, the protections, privileges and entitlements of citizenship. From the Declaration we see all men have rights, but that doesn't mean those rights are protected, illegals and criminal's rights aren't. Rights are unalienable. --These are distinctions you rightly state.

Thus my question "not protecting the rights of the unborn". How does viability/dependence justify negating those protections?

The 14th amendment would need to be revised.

[Calypso Jones]

Science when it talks about life such as the creation of the world, start life with one celled organisms. Same on other planets. If they find once celled animal activity they call it life. that doesn't work on earth?

[KC]

Well, I think what we need to do is separate natural rights from posited ones, the protections, privileges and entitlements of citizenship. From the Declaration we see all men have rights, but that doesn't mean those rights are protected, illegals and criminal's rights aren't. Rights are unalienable. --These are distinctions you rightly state.

Thus my question "not protecting the rights of the unborn". How does viability/dependence justify negating those protections?

The 14th amendment would need to be revised.

If a fetus is not yet viable how could it happen to acquire citizenship, which is when protection of rights begins? We do not protect non citizens natural rights, we usually allow other sovereign nations the right to deal with their own citizens (or we did, at one point). While the fetus is still in development, I think a woman is sovereign over what is occurring in her own body.

I'm glad you mention the Fourteenth Amendment. Wasn't it invoked in the Roe v Wade decision? Poor decision in my mind. Abortion is a state issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Chris]

If a fetus is not yet viable how could it happen to acquire citizenship, which is when protection of rights begins? We do not protect non citizens natural rights, we usually allow other sovereign nations the right to deal with their own citizens (or we did, at one point). While the fetus is still in development, I think a woman is sovereign over what is occurring in her own body.

I'm glad you mention the Fourteenth Amendment. Wasn't it invoked in the Roe v Wade decision? Poor decision in my mind. Abortion is a state issue as far as I'm concerned.

We're not talking citizenship, we're talking rights, something every human being has. True, by Supreme Court legislated law we do not protect those rights, but what is is not what ought to be.

[KC]

Rights are something all humans have but in most cases it is not the US' job to protect those rights, that usually falls under some other sovereign nation's duty.

[Chris]

So if I kill an illegal I won't be charged? Some rights are basic and protected.

Again, the point here is not what the law is but what the law ought to be.

[KC]

So if I kill an illegal I won't be charged? Some rights are basic and protected.

Again, the point here is not what the law is but what the law ought to be.

No, but keep in mind an illegal immigrant is someone living within the United States, where the US has jurisdiction and can protect his or her rights. A fetus lives within a woman's body. What exactly gives the US power over the fate of a non citizen entity within a US citizen's body?

[Peter1469]

What exactly gives the US power over the fate of a non citizen entity within a US citizen's body?

Why are fetuses in a US citizen not a citizen? Or as you put it- why are they non-citizens?

[Chris]

No, but keep in mind an illegal immigrant is someone living within the United States, where the US has jurisdiction and can protect his or her rights. A fetus lives within a woman's body. What exactly gives the US power over the fate of a non citizen entity within a US citizen's body?

"an illegal immigrant is someone living within the United States" and "A fetus lives" -- same difference. Again, you appeal to viability/dependence without explaining why that justifies killing a fetus.

[KC]

"an illegal immigrant is someone living within the United States" and "A fetus lives" -- same difference. Again, you appeal to viability/dependence without explaining why that justifies killing a fetus.

Viability is important because it determines whether a fetus is able to live and become a person with citizenship and therefore protection of rights.

Do I think abortion is morally justified? Only if the woman's life is threatened by giving birth. Does that mean that the majority of the public should be denied an abortion? No, because prohibition rarely works, doctors would have an incentive to claim a woman's life would be threatened, the US government does not have the authority to decide what takes place within a woman's body by her own free will and because in many cases women who seek abortions do not have the means to provide for a child if they were to give birth.

[Chris]

Viability is important because it determines whether a fetus is able to live and become a person with citizenship and therefore protection of rights.

Do I think abortion is morally justified? Only if the woman's life is threatened by giving birth. Does that mean that the majority of the public should be denied an abortion? No, because prohibition rarely works, doctors would have an incentive to claim a woman's life would be threatened, the US government does not have the authority to decide what takes place within a woman's body by her own free will and because in many cases women who seek abortions do not have the means to provide for a child if they were to give birth.


Viability is important because it determines whether a fetus is able to live and become a person with citizenship and therefore protection of rights.

Know the definition, the question is how does that determine rights or justify nonprotection? Again the distinction would not be made were I to kill an illegal.

[KC]

Know the definition, the question is how does that determine rights or justify nonprotection? Again the distinction would not be made were I to kill an illegal.

Because a fetus is not a person and does not have protection of rights. At the point of viability we know that a fetus will be a person with rights, so nonprotection is justified until viability.

[Chris]

You keep saying:



Not a personhood -> viability -> personhood.


The question is how does viability determine a person such that it justifies no protection prior but protection after.

You've steered the discussion away from natural rights to artificial protections. You're almost arguing rights come from government. The Declaration and Constitution say it's the other way around.

[KC]

You keep saying:


Not a personhood -> viability -> personhood.


The question is how does viability determine a person such that it justifies no protection prior but protection after.

You've steered the discussion away from natural rights to artificial protections. You're almost arguing rights come from government. The Declaration and Constitution say it's the other way around.

Well then I'm wrong. In theory at least rights do not come from government. Since the government no longer recognizes most of the rights and limitations it has, in practice it is rarely the case.

I draw the line at viability but the line seems to be subjective, not objective. I don't think there is any objective way of determining when personhood begins.

[Chris]

I think we circle so let's stop there.