A Quick Thought

It seems that not only has the 2ND Amendment constantly been re-litigated, but certain states have been curtailing the 2ND Amendment Right of their own citizens. So, since the 2A is up for re-litigation, how come abortion is considered settled law? I tend to believe that the technology of today is much better than when Roe vs. Wade was decided. With all the hoopla of wanting to litigate the past based on the standards of today, why is abortion off limits?

I wonder, not including myself, but how many more out there would like to see the proof, using today’s technology that is, on why and how abortion is still considered legal and why and how it is actually carried out. No animators please, actual footage inside and outside the womb, real time please. I’m sure an ultrasound can be used, or even possibly, one of those tiny cameras doctors use for say, a colonoscopy. There had to be a way. What about educational footage? In School during Sex Education, they will show videos of women giving birth. Why won’t they show an abortion?

Just a simple question and an easy request.


101 thoughts on “A Quick Thought

  1. You’re right. Our knowledge of the developing foetus has improved greatly in the last 20 years. We’re now more certain than ever that before week 25 (although more accurately week 28, after full bilateral synchronisation) there is no ethical dilemma in terminating a pregnancy.

    That being said, I believe week 20 should be the legal cut-off date, excluding, of course, medical emergencies.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      I don’t buy that, neither does a lot of other people. Where is the photographic proof? You lack actual proof, you attempt science without fully investigating your claim. Have you actually done the study, or did you just regurgitate the same nonsense that someone else said?

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Regardless of brain activity that can or cannot be detected today, the baby is still living. Whether or not I read a book, has no standing on whether a baby is a baby, there are plenty of books that deal in sci-fi and other fantasy, who’s to say the book or books you speak of are accurate? It seems that your attempting to justify the killing of something you cannot create. Why else would there be a need for a study if the baby is living and developing in the womb. What remains of the dead baby once it has been murdered?

          The only reason for that book, is to provide justification for murder. What else will be discovered in the next 20 years, that will discount what that book says today?

          The discussion and legislation concerning abortion is by no means accurate or transparent. The science behind abortion is another scam. Where is the actual factual proof that would remove any shred of doubt to everyone? Where’s the undeniable footage of what the baby is doing while the abortion is in progress?

          If abortion is justified by brain activity level, then why not re-litigate and pass it in the House, the senate and have the president sign it into law? If what you say is true, then it should pass no problem. I tend to think that you along with abortion supporters cannot withstand that much scrutiny and that the “proof” is either mere theory or that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Oh man, here it comes. What can you tell about foetal brain development from your own experiences? Not books you read or what you may have overheard others say. What experience do you have in this arena?

            2. bottomlesscoffee007

              Surely a person with your pedigree and your education level can break it down for a non college educated person such as myself, right? Make it easy to digest and relatable please.

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  I did in fact, I may seem rather illiterate, thank God for spell check! Why do you keep stalling? Let’s hear what you’ve got to say, convince me that abortion is not only justified, but that “science” says so!

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      This is how conversations go. You say something, I say something, we acknowledge what the other said to ensure effective two way communication is taking place.

                    2. bottomlesscoffee007

                      What??? I am replying to everything you say! Censorship, nothing is censored on bottomlesscoffee007

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      There you go again, stalling and counter accusing. Let’s hear it man, who is the arbiter of fact may I ask?

                    4. John, I hold all of my comments in moderation, as well. It is a necessary feature and many, many bloggers use it. It helps with spammers & trolls. Blogs are constantly getting hit with bots, esp. from overseas. I posted one image (with credit) from a Russian photographer at Unsplash & my blog got flooded from Eastern Europe.

          1. I once watched a footage of a movie some doctors made called ‘The Silent Scream’ of inside the womb while an abortion was happening. It showed the baby in there, calm and peaceful. Then the abortion started, and it became scared and started screaming as it was being killed. It was very disturbing.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              I couldn’t imagine. I’ve never seen that before, thank you so much for sharing. Honestly, I don’t know if I have the balls to witness something so horrific.

              1. The doctor that conducted the footage had decided to do it to prove once and for all that babies did not feel pain when they were aborted. After watching that, he walked out of the room deeply disturbed. Never did another abortion after that.

      1. Hi Rue

        You linked to an anonymous blog that simply has the word “doctor” in the title. The science of pain awareness is quite well established, and you can read about it in actual journals, written by actual professionals. For example, a March 2010 report from the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists concluded, concerning pain, exactly as the 2005 synthesis study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded:

        RCOG, 2010: In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.

        And in 2012, The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agreed with both RCOG’s and the JAMA study’s findings.

        That means, at around 25 weeks the necessary framework for pain reception is in place, BUT those signals cannot be processed until bilateral synchronisation, <28 weeks

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              How do you know what you’re looking at or observing. I guess the biggest flaw with your argument, is that you seem to be so sure, yet as science has proved over and over throughout time. You don’t know until you know, even then, you might not be looking everywhere. You’re hubris is a dangerous thing. Try humility, you may be surprised at what happens next. You sound so sure. What will you say in the coming years when even more proof comes about? What about all of those murdered babies? What will you say then, if you are wrong today?

                  1. None.

                    But as previously stated, I believe we should err on the side of caution and mark 20 weeks (8 weeks BEFORE even the structures are in place) as the cut off date for abortion, excluding medical emergencies.

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So, in you’re mind then, until further proof, it’s ok to kill babies? Just because you are the final authority on the matter? Seems rather prideful.

                    2. bottomlesscoffee007

                      That’s an asinine assumption. How do you know that the baby is not living? Just because your mind cannot understand it, doesn’t mean the baby isn’t living. You have to approach this with humility, however; it seems that you do not care to look for contradictory information. You’ve chosen your stance, and you’re so adamant that you are willing to murder more to prove it. What happens in the next coming years, when further proof of life is established? What will you say then standing atop the mountain of murdered babies?

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      As I stated prior, it seems your mind is already set, regardless of proof that is yet to be discovered. Hubris Sir, you’re full of it.

                    4. Proof that’s yet to be discovered?

                      What an odd statement.

                      Well, nothing is stopping you from conducting your own research. Submit your work to a reputable medical journal, subject that work to double-blind peer review, and let other labs replicate your experiments/findings/conclusions.

                      There is no global conspiracy.

                    5. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Ha, who’s to say what is or is not reputable? Conspiracy? It seems like justifying the murder of innocent babies still in the womb is a huge conspiracy.

  2. bottomlesscoffee007

    Oh, your article on foetal brain development was supposed to convince me? The same article on how it’s impossible to kill something that has no life? Is that the one? Yeah, a bunch of big words explaining how babies aren’t actually living until certain brain activity can be detected? Comparing babies to people on life support? Is that the one?

    1. The same article on how it’s impossible to kill something that has no life?

      I didn’t say that. Do try and be accurate.

      The question was: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

          1. bottomlesscoffee007

            Oh, so the theory is now fact? When did that take place, who was and were the deciding forces that decreed this fact and the end all be all of the entire matter?

              1. bottomlesscoffee007

                What dictates fact? Who dictates fact. Where do you get your facts from? At what point was the theory decided to be fact?

                  1. bottomlesscoffee007

                    A baby is living, from the point of conception. The answer to your riddle is do not believe in it in the first place, thereby it never existed so there is nothing to kill.

                    1. At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.

                      What we are talking about is a human organism. A human organism can die, and it is simply not until full bilateral synchronisation (week 28) until the human organism fully, and absolutely, exists.

                    2. bottomlesscoffee007

                      You contradict your own words. If you do not consider it life, then why terminate? It’s not bothering you.

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      You set out to determine life via brain activity/development. While on life support the support is artificial, however in the womb it is natural. The cells that are so often spoken of, are full of life, whether you acknowledge it or not. Life begins at conception, to ignore what you cannot create or control, is mere destruction and murder. No one has the right to abort since they were not alone in the conception.

                    4. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Now your name calling and slandering me. I had no idea that was the “scientific” method. Oh “human organism” a new fangled word, how long did it take you to come up with that?

                    5. bottomlesscoffee007

                      I try with my tiny uneducated brain. Have you ever conceived? How can you make such outlandish claims concerning life that you cannot create or control without invasive measures?

                    6. Listen, it’s clear you never read the article. You’re not contributing anything but noise.

                      When you do read it, including the linked articles and studies, and you can address the subject in a coherent and rational manner, I’d be happy to chat about the details.

                      Until then.

                    7. bottomlesscoffee007

                      I guess your theory isn’t worth fighting for, from your perspective. Oh well too bad. Are you just not used to defending your ideas or is it simple lack of intestinal fortitude?

                    8. This is Professor Goldenring (Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology) writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Development of the Fetal Brain”:

                      “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

                    9. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Were you there for the study? Or do you always talk about other’s works to sound intelligent?

                    10. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Lie, who lied? More slander and accusations, maybe that’s all you have, I refer to it as shit talking. You sound rather full of yourself to be honest. I had no idea any medical journal was true throughout and absolute. The noise you refer to is your inability to acknowledge that you may be mistaken in your summation.

                    11. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Or is this the actual professor? How many things did you believe before you came to this theory that have proved false up to this point? Keep looking, you may find the answer is much easier than you may expect.

                    1. “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists… After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.” (Goldenring, Professor of Surgery, the Paul W. Sanger Chair in Experimental Surgery, Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology)

                    2. Just because the brain is not fully developed, does not mean the baby is not a human being and is nothing. It is being killed whether the brain is fully developed or functioning or not. Being brain dead does not mean that the person is actually dead as I have read of a few cases where a person was brain dead and could still move and would recover.

                    3. I didn’t say it was ‘nothing.’

                      It is being killed whether the brain is fully developed or functioning or not.

                      No, a human organism is NOT being killed.

                      Being brain dead does not mean that the person is actually dead

                      Actually, that is EXACTLY the defintion of human death. The 1979 Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.” This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.” Further still updated in 1995 (to present), “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death’

                      This is mirrored in US law:

                      U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) states: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”

                      It is also mirrored in Australian law:

                      The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation define death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person; or b) Irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the body of the person.

                      Indeed, if you’d actually read my essay you would know a 2002 survey published in the journal Neurology comparing worldwide standards and regulations of death found brain death to be the universal legal and medical measure accepted across the globe.

                      Human death is the irreversible cessation of brain function, or as bluntly stated in the journal, Nature Reviews, Neuroscience: “Brain death means human death”

                    4. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So, now the world gets to decide? What else did the world decide throughout history that was later proved wrong? The flat earth possibly, blacks being subhuman, what about AIDS, remember that supposed pandemic?

                    5. I DID read your article. You did say it was ‘nothing’. There is no point in continuing this discussion as you are just trying to whitewash abortion and refuse to listen. I have better things to do than to listen to your poor excuses for abortion. See ya’.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      I never set out for fireworks in the first place, just an open and honest conversation. Thank you for following along with the dialogue. I know abortion is murder of the most innocent. I just cannot fathom why it is still practiced or even thought of as legitimate. Truly savage.

Please Like This Post, Follow and Comment to Aid in the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.