Originally Posted by sachem

Pale, denying the biology of the connection between the woman and the fetus does not make it any less real.

Originally Posted by sachem

The DNA in the placenta could belong to the family dog, the biological fact is that the placenta connects meto the fetus.

Originally Posted by sachem

Like it or not a woman has a right to control her body.

Originally Posted by sachem

Your attempt to couch a philisophical/religious argument in terms of 'science' fools no one.

Originally Posted by sachem

Your post about the changing of the SC, shows that you have no argument. You are correct that things may change. Those of us who are pro choice will be working to keep abortion legal and safe.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

a fact you seem to forget palerider is medical science can put human DNA in skin cells and multiple them , they grow and grow and grow to make new skin. That does not mean they are a human.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Medical science is all so putting human DNA in animals . That does not make them human either.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

what makes us human is the soul we have sent from God that comes at the moment we are born and breath according to the bible and leaves when we take our last breath. That is what makes us human not our DNA which is only about biological flesh.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

A "soul body disconnect" is a philosophical concept wolf. You can't prove such a thing even exists. It is just words that you put together to express an idea of something that might or might not be. If you can't prove it, then you can't rightly argue that it is a valid reason do deny a human being the right to live.

.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Pale scientists are getting closer to proving we have a soul.

I agree people like you may not have one but the rest of us do.




Scientific Proof that Consciousness Goes On?

Scientific Proof That Consciousness Goes On?

British Doctors Find Signs of Life After Death

by Susan Barber
According to a Reuters news bulletin, two British doctors presented research evidence at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) that consciousness keeps on, even when the patient is clinically dead.[1] The research, conducted on victims of heart attacks, is actually the first in which science has actually proved that cognition does not stop when the brain is no longer functioning.

The two authors of the study were Dr. Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist consultant at London's Institute of Psychiatry, and Dr. Sam Parnia, of Southampton General Hospital. ``The studies are very significant,'' Dr. Parnia told Reuters, ''in that we have a group of people with no brain function ... who have well-structured, lucid thought processes with reasoning and memory formation at a time when their brains are shown not to function.''

Does the soul keep thinking and reasoning, even when the heart and breath have stopped and there is no brainwave activity? ``We need to do much larger-scale studies,'' Dr. Parnia reportedly told Reuters, ''but the possibility is certainly there.''

According to Parnia, the initial study consisted of 63 heart attack patients who had been pronounced dead and then revived. Upon interviewing them within a week of this experience, it was found that seven had memories, and of those, four had experiences that met the strict Greyson scale criteria for NDE's: They recalled feelings of peace and joy, time speeded up, heightened senses, lost awareness of body, seeing a bright light, entering another world, encountering a mystical being or deceased relative, and coming to a point of no return.

The Skeptics' Explanations Don't Work

Some skeptics believe that the near-death experience is caused by low oxygen, but as we have reported elsewhere in this magazine, this is not borne out by the facts. In the case of this research study, it is known that none of the patients had low oxygen levels. Anyway, says Parnia, people who suffer oxygen deprivation suffer from confusion, and they ''thrash around.'' Also, they usually have no memories at all of the experience. ``Here,'' Parnia commented, ''you have a severe insult to the brain, but perfect memory.''

It is also put forth by skeptics that the near-death experience can be explained by memories that happen at the exit or entry point of consciousness. But again, this is not borne out by other evidence.

When the brain suffers trauma that causes a loss of consciousness, according to Parnia, people generally have amnesia which can last for hours or even days. ''Talk to them,'' Parnia says. ''They'll tell you something like: I just remember seeing the car and the next thing I knew I was in the hospital.' With cardiac arrest, the insult to the brain is so severe it stops the brain completely. Therefore, I would expect profound memory loss before and after the incident.''

When You Die You See a Bright Light

Based on their first experimental study, Parnia and his colleagues have learned of more than 3,500 cases where people had lucid memories of times when they were clinically dead. Many times, he said, patients hesitated to report their experiences, being apprehensive that others would question their sanity.

In one amazing case, a child had a seizure where his heart stopped. He was revived, and later drew a picture of himself looking down on his own body. The parents sent this picture to Parnia. ''It was drawn like there was a balloon stuck to him,'' Parnia said. ''When they asked what the balloon was he said, 'When you die you see a bright light and you are connected to a cord.' He wasn't even three when he had the experience.''

``What his parents noticed,'' Parnia added, ''was that after he had been discharged from the hospital, six months after the incident, he kept drawing the same scene.''

Brain, Mind, and Soul

Scientists have formerly believed that the brain cannot sustain lucid thought or form lasting memories when the person is unconscious, which simply means, according to Parnia, that ''nobody fully grasps how the brain generates thoughts. The brain itself is made up of cells, like all the body's organs, and is not really capable of producing the subjective phenomenon of thought that people have.''

Parnia's conclusion: Human consciousness may work independently of the brain, using the gray matter as a mechanism to manifest the thoughts, just as a television set translates waves in the air into picture and sound. Just because the brain is damaged does not necessarily mean that the ''mind'' is affected.

Parnia points out that people who have NDE's do not say, ''I had this pain and the next thing I knew my Soul left me.'' Instead, they find themselves outside their bodies, looking down on the attempts to revive them and realizing that they don't want to go back.

Before conducting this study, Dr. Sam Parnia himself was a skeptic. No more. Eventually, he now feels, research may reveal the existence of the Soul.





Footnote:


Further information for this article was obtained from a news release by Southampton General Hospital in England.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

There is a difference between skin cells and human beings. A skin cell left to grow and reproduce will only become more skin cells producing skin cell protiens and enzymes. A human being, however, at even the single cell stage, left to grow will mature into an adult human being producing all manner of protiens and enzymes.



What exactly does that have to do with the child residing inside of a woman that is the result of sex?



You can say that, but you can't prove it. A soul may make us a spiritual creature but it does not make us human beings. Human being is a term used to describe any member of genus Homo species Sapien sub species Sapien. You are a human being whether you believe in the soul or not.

The law, which is what this thread is about, doesn't consider the soul. Laws regarding killing deal with biological flesh.

Originally Posted by wow

This is nothing more than an act of fraud for more research money!

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Pale scientists are getting closer to proving we have a soul.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

What does it have to do with anything? All right silly, let me say it real slow for you.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Scientists already agree they can mix animal with human and come up with hybrid. In the 70's in England I remember reading about a study where female eggs were impregnated with chimp sperm . If I recall the research right they even talked a women into letting them implant one of the embryos. She later panicked and they performed a abortion at her request.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

What this has to do with it is that animals are flesh, humans are flesh what makes us different is the soul actually the spirit sent from God and he will not be sending it into man made aberrations. Nor does he send it before birth, thank God or we would have millions of tiny souls frozen at fertility clinics waiting to be thrown in the trash or used for experiments all over the world.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

I didn't say that there was no connection. I said that the child is not part of the woman's body. You claimed that you provided some credible science to support that statement and cleary you haven't. Simply saying that the child is part of the mother's body doesn't cut it.



But that doesn't make it a part of your body. Feel free to provide some credible science that states that it is part of your body till it is born.



More flawed reasoning. There are plenty of laws that tell you exactly what you can and can not do with your body and your right to control your body ends at the point that you threaten another's life. I can control my body to raise a carving knife and come after you but my right to control ends at the point that I become a threat to you. Constitutionally, you can control your body until you threaten another human being's life. That is where your rights end.



I am not making either a religious or a philosophical argument here. Saying that I am only shows that you don't know the difference between a scientific argument and a religious/philosophical one. If you want to talk philosophy, I started a thread for that.



It is a bit late for that now. A body of legal precedent already exists for the personhood of the unborn. In his majority decision on roe, Justice Blackmun stated clearly that if personhood is ever established for the unborn, roe will collapse because at that time, unborns will be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. Denying the reality doesn't change it.