Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's not as If I'm saying that The mother isn't Guilty of killing the child. All I'm saying is; If it is an inevitability that the mother will abort the child; No other choice, She's glued to her decision. Wouldn't you rather it's death not be completely meaningless?

The question Should be more like;

"You're going to die tomorrow. No matter what.
Your options are to - Die alone and cold in your room,
Or
Die in a hospital where your organs will go to helping save other patients in the hospital."

Because it' not as though you're coming into my house to murder me.
The mother has decided the Fate of her unborn child. She has no intentions of backing out; and Being inside a womb, with no outside contanct; you couldn't even comprehend the thought of a question let alone the one we'd be asking you if you could contact the world outside the womb.

So i submit to you; Why not have this Death weigh in on the side of hopefully prolonging other life; considering that there is nothing we can do about prolonging the life of a fetus who's fate has been decided by the mother, for whatever reasons.

Now see, your question takes away the biggest aspect of the question. In this scenario, you're not just dying for some random reason such as a disease or simple old age. You're being killed by another human being. You don't actually have a choice in the matter at all, there's a man standing over your tied up body with an axe in one hand, and a brain suction hose in the other, and he can't quite decide which to use.

I made a mistake in giving you the option of a choice, since the unborn baby doesn't get the choice either.

If a murderer broke into your house tonight, kidnapped you, and dragged you to a hospital where he immediately began to gut you and rip out your organs so he could give them to other patients in the hospital, how happy would you be with that man? Would you be satisfied knowing that your organs were going to a good cause?

I somewhat doubt it.

Edit: Also, we keep saying unborn over and over again, but the fact of the matter is, they don't harvest stem cells from unborn babies. They wait until the child is born and out of the mother before sucking their brains out.

Technically, Abortions can be performed at various stages within the pregnancy. They do not wait til the newborn is out of the mother's womb to "Suck their brains" as you put it. Generally it is an unborn fetus or fertilized embryo. Now, I'm not a supporter of Elective Abortion. I find Elective Abortion to be ridiculous. There are multiple different protective measures that can be taken to prevent pregnancy. They are available to the public, so use them. Your choice not to, you deal with it.

I am a supporter of Therapeutic Abortion, where something is seriously wrong with the fetus, such as stillbirth, and that it may pose a risk to the welfare of the Gravida. In which case, stem cells can be harvested from there. I don't believe you, Gregar, or Cobra are the kind of people that do this, but there are people who stand outside Abortion Centers on Public Property and harass those who enter. Now, some of those women are making the difficult choice, because they have no other choice. Who has the right to life, The mother to be who's life is threatened by that of her unborn child or the fetus that could be riddled with Uterine cancer? The answer is both, but which one do you think the doctor, concerned with the welfare of their patient, will suggest? The mother.

People speak of Abortion with hatred, that it is a terrible thing. They do the same for Stem Cell Research because of where those stem cells reside. The question isn't whether stem cell research or abortion is wrong. The question is: From where were the stem cells received and from what kind of abortion was it from? Why hate? Disprove, I would understand, but hate is too strong a word to be used.

@Shira: Aww, thats sweet.

@Hinote, Tai, and Duck: I would prefer that this conversation was stopped, or limited to PM. Stem Cell Research is almost directly tied to abortion, a subject that many people feel very strongly about. I know that we're becoming a bit less strict on what we can and cannot post, but that topic is still off limits.

@ Tai
Ummm... rods have you see in black and white... That's it. they are what you use at night to see. You'd basically have the night vision of a cat, who uses reflective lenses to capture more light, except without the lenses.

Rods don't reflect anything... those are the lenses in cat eyes that reflect light.

Also, spacial skills are centered in the left hemisphere ( Which makes you right side dominant ) The Left has to do with spacial, mathematics, and other things. Men are known to have more developed right hemispheres because they used them much more than women because they oppressed women to not use them. however women have caught up rather nicely I'd say.

Eye sight, such as reactions and such are centered in the Periatal lobe of your brain, which is connected to your eyes through the Optic nerve. It is actually found at the back of your head. that's why geting your head slammed makes you see things.

And as for dodging things without realising it, it would just be reflex. which Reflexes are still under debate if you realise you need to or if they are automatic. Like here is a good one that they use:

Now, did you have to think about jumping aay, or did it happpen automatically?
Reflex speed can be trained through martial arts, or any other hand to hand combat style. it also reacts to how quickly you percieve things, how quickly you can see them ( Which rods don't aid in ). and by percieve, I'm meaning how quickly your brain is capable of processing "something is flying this way, I should dodge."

The after-image sasgay saw was just that. It is an image that sticks to the retina because of intensity of the colors ( Which are just wavelengths of light ), or because it shot into sight, and was so different that your eyes are still percieving it trying to figure out what it is far after it moved again.

Not really. Catching something is a spacial skill. It has nothing to do with your eyes. If you are catching something like that, you actually only look at the item for half of the time it is in the air. the est of the time you are looking ahead of it, or at its destination as you percieve it.

*Note: I took a college level Psychology class last year, and we had to study the eyes and their peices, and their peices fuctions, and the parts of the brain that they connect to and are affected by. and that was spanned over four or five chapters. We even had chapters that were on spacial skills. and we had already learned most of them in the Eye/Brain chapters.