PDA

View Full Version : Legal Christian school kidnaps girl to prevent an abortion


SBK
05-22-2009, 09:22 PM
Arkansas Mom Says Christian School Interfered With Daughter's Pregnancy


Friday, May 22, 2009


TEXARKANA, Ark. The mother of a Trinity Christian School student says schoool officials pressured her daughter into revealing her pregnancy and forced the girl into medical testing and counseling without notifying her family.


A lawsuit alleging false imprisonment and civil rights violations names the school's principal, Bible teacher, counselor and administrator, along with the school and the church with which it is affiliated. The school's attorney denies the accusations.


The woman, identified only as Mother Doe, says Principal Larry Berry expelled the girl last May after he learned the girl was pregnant. She also says Berry directed school counselor Brad Watson and Bible teacher Shannan Morgan to take the girl to the First Choice Pregnancy Center.


"The pregnancy center interviewed, counseled and tested Jane Doe without the consent or knowledge of her mother and disseminated her private medical information to Ms. Morgan and Mr. Watson without consent or authorization," the lawsuit says.


The pregnancy center said it respects patient confidentiality. "We are not in the practice of giving anyone information on our clients," executive director Kimberly Banks said.


Doe says the girl wasn't allowed to finish the 2007-08 school year even though only two weeks remained in the final semester.


School lawyer Danny Cook said that, before the lawsuit was filed, the school received a letter demanding "a huge sum of money." He said the mother was "gold-digging" and that the school looked forward to a jury hearing its side of the story.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521309,00.html?test=latestnews

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 10:50 PM
Whether the pregnancy center disseminated the private information to school authorities or not, if the school compelled the girl to go to the pregnancy center after they'd expelled her (i.e. she was no longer under their auspices), the school could be in serious trouble.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:01 PM
Whether the pregnancy center disseminated the private information to school authorities or not, if the school compelled the girl to go to the pregnancy center after they'd expelled her (i.e. she was no longer under their auspices), the school could be in serious trouble.

I agree, but that's not what makes this story worth posting.

orange
05-22-2009, 11:10 PM
http://www.alcorngallery.com/JohnAlcorn_TheScarletLetter.jpeg

Give me that Old Time Religion...

stevieray
05-22-2009, 11:12 PM
I agree, but that's not what makes this story worth posting.

it is ironic.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:13 PM
it is ironic.

And it won't get touched with a 10 foot pole.

Just to throw it out there, I don't agree with what the school did either.

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 11:15 PM
The school stepped out of bounds based on that limited information. I don't know if the school has a contract and what it says though. Doesn't sound good on the surface.

They do have a right to suspend her or kick her out of the school though.

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 11:17 PM
http://www.alcorngallery.com/JohnAlcorn_TheScarletLetter.jpeg

Give me that Old Time Religion...

Awesome illustration. Love the line work.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:19 PM
And it won't get touched with a 10 foot pole.
Okay, I'll bite. What am I missing, aside from the school alleging that the mother is just gold digging (which is also possible)?

orange
05-22-2009, 11:20 PM
Okay, I'll bite. What am I missing, aside from the school alleging that the mother is just gold digging (which is also possible)?

It's the supposed irony in the mother demanding to be notified.

You have followed the debate about abortion laws, right?


Of course unsaid by SBK is that the school has no rights period to force any student to submit to physical examination nor to collect her personal health information from said examination.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:22 PM
Okay, I'll bite. What am I missing, aside from the school alleging that the mother is just gold digging (which is also possible)?

Abortion on demand, and allowing a minor to get an abortion without parental notification. You can even throw in the clinic not releasing any info.

This case is pretty much the polar opposite of that debate.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:23 PM
It's the supposed irony in the mother demanding to be notified.

You have followed the debate about abortion laws, right?

This is the polar opposite of what the abortion on demand crowd wants done.

Thig Lyfe
05-22-2009, 11:24 PM
Abortion on demand

Time Warner Cable has that.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:25 PM
It's the supposed irony in the mother demanding to be notified.

You have followed the debate about abortion laws, right?


Of course unsaid by SBK is that the school has no rights period to force any student to submit to physical examination nor to collect her personal health information from said examination.

I don't agree with what the school did. Nor do I agree when it's planned parenthood that does it.

If a person is a minor the parents should be informed, and they should be the one's giving authorization.

orange
05-22-2009, 11:25 PM
This is the polar opposite of what the abortion on demand crowd wants done.

Nonsense! The situations are completely different.

The girl was COMPELLED. You do understand that concept, don't you? It's the polar opposite of CHOICE.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:26 PM
Nonsense! The situations are completely different.

The girl was COMPELLED. You do understand that concept, don't you? It's the polar opposite of CHOICE.

ROFL

You really think people getting abortions do it 100% out of choice?

orange
05-22-2009, 11:27 PM
ROFL

You really think people getting abortions do it 100% out of choice?

No. Desperation. But it's their own, not some third-party's.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:28 PM
No. Desperation. But it's their own, not some third-party's.

So you'll say 100% of the time when a woman gets an abortion it's 100% of the time 100% her choice?

orange
05-22-2009, 11:31 PM
So you'll say 100% of the time when a woman gets an abortion it's 100% of the time 100% her choice?

Certainly not - but it doesn't have to be 100%. That's not the real world.

But they should have the freedom to exercise as much personal autonomy as they can muster.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:34 PM
Certainly not - but it doesn't have to be 100%. That's not the real world.

But they should have the freedom to exercise as much personal autonomy as they can muster.

You see abortion as a good thing?

orange
05-22-2009, 11:35 PM
It's a necessary evil.

The time to avoid it is in the 12+ years of raising the kid so it doesn't ever become needed.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:38 PM
It's a necessary evil.

The time to avoid it is in the 12+ years of raising the kid so it doesn't ever become needed.

That's a dodge.

You support abortion, do you believe it's a good thing, yes or no.

orange
05-22-2009, 11:40 PM
That's a dodge.

You support abortion, do you believe it's a good thing, yes or no.

It's a dodge that something like 70% of us take. You can support a right for someone else without ever wanting to use it for yourself.

Sorry, but I don't think I have the answer.

Individuals who get in that situation will just have to solve it for themselves.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:42 PM
It's a dodge that something like 70% of us take. You can support a right for someone else without ever wanting to use it for yourself.

Sorry, but I don't think I have the answer.

Individuals who get in that situation will just have to solve it for themselves.

Fair enough, I'm not trying to jump all over you. I re-read what I wrote and it comes off pretty dickish.

There's a lot of people who say they support abortion, but think it's a bad thing. For the life of me I can't understand why you'd support something you think is bad.

stevieray
05-23-2009, 01:43 AM
The girl was COMPELLED. You do understand that concept, don't you? It's the polar opposite of CHOICE.

disagree.they aren't forcing her to have the baby.

if anything, women are forced into choosing an abortion resulting from previous choices.

Mr. Flopnuts
05-23-2009, 02:53 AM
Fair enough, I'm not trying to jump all over you. I re-read what I wrote and it comes off pretty dickish.

There's a lot of people who say they support abortion, but think it's a bad thing. For the life of me I can't understand why you'd support something you think is bad.

You support something you think is bad when the alternative is far worse. There are way too many people out there who should positively not parent children.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 10:55 AM
This is the polar opposite of what the abortion on demand crowd wants done.
Does this case involve the "abortion on demand" crowd? The issue here seems to be with the school acting without the knowledge of the parents, not with whether or not the girl would have done anything without the knowledge of her parents. I don't see anything in the article that suggests that the girl was either planning an abortion or planning to withhold the pregnancy from her mother. So where are you getting the abortion element from?

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 11:04 AM
Abortion on demand, and allowing a minor to get an abortion without parental notification.
This is the polar opposite of what the abortion on demand crowd wants done.
You really think people getting abortions do it 100% out of choice?
So you'll say 100% of the time when a woman gets an abortion it's 100% of the time 100% her choice?
You see abortion as a good thing?
You support abortion, do you believe it's a good thing, yes or no.
disagree.they aren't forcing her to have the baby.
if anything, women are forced into choosing an abortion resulting from previous choices.

Again, where are you folks seeing anything about abortion in this article?

petegz28
05-23-2009, 11:50 AM
Does this case involve the "abortion on demand" crowd? The issue here seems to be with the school acting without the knowledge of the parents, not with whether or not the girl would have done anything without the knowledge of her parents. I don't see anything in the article that suggests that the girl was either planning an abortion or planning to withhold the pregnancy from her mother. So where are you getting the abortion element from?

It goes along the same lines as those who feel abortions should be provided without parental consent. Same mentality.

petegz28
05-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Either way, regardless of what the mother did or did not do, the school should be sued big time.

whatsmynameagain
05-23-2009, 04:09 PM
it seems to me that most women who get abortions do it for fun

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 04:45 PM
it seems to me that most women who get abortions do it for fun
Really?

"Hey Nancy, what are you doing?"
"Oh, nothing much."
"Me neither, I'm bored. Wanna go have a abortion?"
"Sure, that sounds like fun!"

Yeah, I'm sure that's how it usually works!

But again, I'm not sure why everyone's on this topic about abortion, since abortion is not mentioned or implied anywhere in the article.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 04:56 PM
Does it really matter what the motive is? Do we ask this of those on trial for homicide?

Maybe, this should be considered a hate crime instead?

Count Zarth
05-23-2009, 04:58 PM
The girl was COMPELLED.

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

SBK
05-23-2009, 08:53 PM
Well, I'm surprised how this thread turned out. Very little mention of the GIANT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

The_Doctor10
05-30-2009, 11:28 AM
The school stepped out of bounds based on that limited information. I don't know if the school has a contract and what it says though. Doesn't sound good on the surface.

They do have a right to suspend her or kick her out of the school though.

For being pregnant??? What planet are you from?

The_Doctor10
05-30-2009, 11:35 AM
Fair enough, I'm not trying to jump all over you. I re-read what I wrote and it comes off pretty dickish.

There's a lot of people who say they support abortion, but think it's a bad thing. For the life of me I can't understand why you'd support something you think is bad.

It's about the right to decide for yourself; If I were in a situation where my girlfriend was pregnant, the last thing I'd want to do is go through with an abortion. However, if there were risks to her health as a result of carrying the baby to term, that thing is out of there by the next available operating slot.

This is the grayest of gray areas, and while nobody, even supporters, are 'enthusiastic' about the idea of abortions, the fact remains that many pregnant women can feel scared and overwhelmed by their predicament, and there is a societal obligation to provide them with as many safe, secure avenues to deal with their pregnancy as possible.

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 12:05 PM
You support something you think is bad when the alternative is far worse. There are way too many people out there who should positively not parent children.

Does this line of analysis magically change after the infant is born?

SBK
05-30-2009, 03:32 PM
It's about the right to decide for yourself; If I were in a situation where my girlfriend was pregnant, the last thing I'd want to do is go through with an abortion. However, if there were risks to her health as a result of carrying the baby to term, that thing is out of there by the next available operating slot.

This is the grayest of gray areas, and while nobody, even supporters, are 'enthusiastic' about the idea of abortions, the fact remains that many pregnant women can feel scared and overwhelmed by their predicament, and there is a societal obligation to provide them with as many safe, secure avenues to deal with their pregnancy as possible.

I don't view the killing of an innocent child as a gray area.

orange
05-30-2009, 03:42 PM
I don't view the killing of an innocent child as a gray area.

And many, many, many people don't view a fetus as a child.

There's the crux of the whole matter.

SBK
05-30-2009, 03:52 PM
And many, many, many people don't view a fetus as a child.

There's the crux of the whole matter.

That's not an honest argument and the whole world knows it. It's not a dog, or a flea, or a basket of strawberries either. ROFL

orange
05-30-2009, 04:12 PM
Your denying that those who disagree with you have honest intentions is not an honest argument. You may deceive yourself, but you'll never change anyone's mind and in the end, abortion is still legal.

Abortion foes can not win while you continue to demonize the opposition.

stevieray
05-30-2009, 04:13 PM
And many, many, many people don't view a fetus as a child.

There's the crux of the whole matter.

We told Dred Scott he was less than human too.

SBK
05-30-2009, 04:28 PM
Your denying that those who disagree with you have honest intentions is not an honest argument. You may deceive yourself, but you'll never change anyone's mind and in the end, abortion is still legal.

Abortion foes can not win while you continue to demonize the opposition.

What can you possibly claim a fetus is other than a child? That's my point. It's not a mass of flesh, it has a heartbeat, fingers, toes, and WILL be born as a human being.

You can argue that you're ok with abortion, or that it's a proper form of birth control, but to argue that what you're killing isn't a child doesn't make any sense.

Katipan
05-30-2009, 05:00 PM
So you'll say 100% of the time when a woman gets an abortion it's 100% of the time 100% her choice?

Yes.

Hydrae
05-30-2009, 05:40 PM
What can you possibly claim a fetus is other than a child? That's my point. It's not a mass of flesh, it has a heartbeat, fingers, toes, and WILL be born as a human being.

You can argue that you're ok with abortion, or that it's a proper form of birth control, but to argue that what you're killing isn't a child doesn't make any sense.

When do you think it changes from a bunch of cells into a child? At conception when it is 2 cells? When the heart starts to beat (I believe about 3 months although I am far from an expert and it is not worth researching at the moment)? When it is strong enough to survive outside the womb (getting earlier and earlier with medical advances)?

This truely is the crux of the argument. When does the line get crossed between a parasite (living off the host) and human being?

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 05:51 PM
And many, many, many people don't view a fetus as a child.

There's the crux of the whole matter.

Why then does 'her body her choice' so often get followed up with 'some people shouldn't be raising kids?' If the crux is truthfully when a fetus is a child for those people, the only rational follow-up is 'some people shouldn't go through childbirth' not the former.

orange
05-30-2009, 05:59 PM
We don't actually have laws that limit who can bear and raise children, do we? Are you advocating them? I believe there are places the law shouldn't go and this is certainly one of them.

We DO have a law that allows a woman to decide for herself whether she should raise children and take steps to avoid it if she deems that's right.

stevieray
05-30-2009, 06:08 PM
We don't actually have laws that limit who can bear and raise children, do we? Are you advocating them? I believe there are places the law shouldn't go and this is certainly one of them.

We DO have a law that allows a woman to decide for herself whether she should raise children and take steps to avoid it if she deems that's right.
herself? ...it takes two baaaby...

orange
05-30-2009, 06:14 PM
herself? ...it takes two baaaby...

You found a way to share pregnancy and delivery?

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 06:15 PM
We don't actually have laws that limit who can bear and raise children, do we? Are you advocating them? I believe there are places the law shouldn't go and this is certainly one of them.

We DO have a law that allows a woman to decide for herself whether she should raise children and take steps to avoid it if she deems that's right.

Who said anything about laws limiting? I'm talking about the rationales espoused in support of choice, ie.

HER BODY HER CHOICE, and some people shouldn't raise kids anyway.

That strikes me as the obverse of the person who lays out a well reasoned rationale for limiting welfare, only to follow up with 'and they'll probably spend it all on pants they wear around their knees anyway.'

stevieray
05-30-2009, 06:17 PM
You found a way to share pregnancy and delivery?You found a way to have an abortion without a victim?

orange
05-30-2009, 06:17 PM
HER BODY HER CHOICE, and some people shouldn't raise kids anyway.


We DO have a law that allows a woman to decide for herself whether she should raise children and take steps to avoid it if she deems that's right.

Could you be misrepresenting the whole pro-choice argument? Who do you think is making that decision about which people shouldn't raise kids?

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 06:25 PM
Could you be misrepresenting the whole pro-choice argument? Who do you think is making that decision about which people shouldn't raise kids?

Completely beside the point, those who espouse that POV are sanguine about choice because if they don't want to give birth they probably shouldn't raise kids either. ONLY that rationale has no rational stopping point wrt the embryo, fetus, infant, child.
Basically, if someone wants to abort her fetus, kill her child, terminate her pregancy, . . . don't matter what you call it . . . because if the mom WANTS to do that, the kid that would otherwise come to be will be a waste of space and burden on the community anyway, so go ahead and nip our troubles in the bud.
Basically I see it as a peek into the true motivations of those who are ostensibly championing freedom of choice as actually wanting to avoid communal burdens.

orange
05-30-2009, 06:41 PM
ONLY that rationale has no rational stopping point wrt the embryo, fetus, infant, child.
Basically, if someone wants to abort her fetus, kill her child, terminate her pregancy, . . . don't matter what you call it . . . because if the mom WANTS to do that, the kid that would otherwise come to be will be a waste of space and burden on the community anyway, so go ahead and nip our troubles in the bud.

Wrong. There is an obvious stopping point - the point at which the fetus/child is recognized as a person and endowed with rights.



When do you think it changes from a bunch of cells into a child? At conception when it is 2 cells? When the heart starts to beat (I believe about 3 months although I am far from an expert and it is not worth researching at the moment)? When it is strong enough to survive outside the womb (getting earlier and earlier with medical advances)?

This truely is the crux of the argument. When does the line get crossed between a parasite (living off the host) and human being?

stevieray
05-30-2009, 06:45 PM
Wrong. There is an obvious stopping point - the point at which Dred Scott is recognized as a person and endowed with rights.

:doh!:

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 06:45 PM
Wrong. There is an obvious stopping point - the point at which the fetus/child is recognized as a person and endowed with rights.


Not for the RATIONALE. if it's OK to stop a life solely on the premise that the parent shouldn't be a parent, that premise remains after the child is born.

orange
05-30-2009, 06:53 PM
There are many behaviors for which there is a good rationale to limit or forbid them. We don't do it in the USA because our legal and political philosophy is that personal freedom trumps those rationales.

Child rearing is actually held more untouchable by conservatives than liberals. Are you now thinking we need more interventions in families by Social Services? Those who do support that tend to be pro-choice, so I'm not sure there's any hypocrisy or inconsistency there.

I'm really missing your point. More freedom or less?

I'm willing to accept the anti-choice argument about not killing the unborn (accept, not agree), but I don't get where you're going here.

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 06:59 PM
There are many behaviors for which there is a good rationale to limit or forbid them. We don't do it in the USA because our legal and political philosophy is that personal freedom trumps those rationales.

Child rearing is actually held more untouchable by conservatives than liberals. Are you now thinking we need more interventions in families by Social Services?

I'm really missing your point. More freedom or less?

I'm willing to accept the anti-choice argument about not killing the unborn (accept, not agree), but I don't get where you're going here.

Not sure how I could be more clear, or you could manage to be more off base.
It's not about social services, or child rearing intervention. It's about those with that particular one-two punch of rationales reveal that they couldn't care less about what is or isn't a life, or how sacrosanct the right to choose is.
What they care about is that this pregnant woman, who wants an abortion, . . . so thus will probably be a shitty parent, . . . not bring that impending waste of space into existence to burden us all, no matter if it is or isn't, or will or won't soon be, a life.

orange
05-30-2009, 07:01 PM
So you simply are unwilling to believe that people see a difference between a fetus and a child.

Got it.

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 07:04 PM
So you simply are unwilling to believe that people see a difference between a fetus and a child.

Got it.

I believe that people can see that difference, but they are not when they pull that rationale out as a coda. Like I said, that rationale survives childbirth. Or do you propose that the specific act of childbirth transforms someone who shouldn't raise a kid into someone who should?

orange
05-30-2009, 07:12 PM
I believe that people can see that difference, but they are not when they pull that rationale out as a coda. Like I said, that rationale survives childbirth. Or do you propose that the specific act of childbirth transforms someone who shouldn't raise a kid into someone who should?

When that rationale is offered in support of legal abortion, it is as one rationale for giving the woman a choice to terminate her pregnancy - one among many. But no, merely bearing a child doesn't transform someone into a fit parent - and the liberal Children's Rights advocates that are at the forefront of limiting parents' ability to **** up their kids are almost universally pro-choice. I'm amazed that you can't see the simple common thread here - unfit parents shouldn't have kids.

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 07:22 PM
When that rationale is offered in support of legal abortion, it is as one rationale for giving the woman a choice to terminate her pregnancy - one among many. But no, merely bearing a child doesn't transform someone into a fit parent - and the liberal Children's Rights advocates that are at the forefront of limiting parents' ability to **** up their kids are almost universally pro-choice. I'm amazed that you can't see the simple common thread here - unfit parents shouldn't have kids.

Yes, and 'they'll probably spend all their welfare money on pants they wear around their knee's' is JUST ONE rationale against welfare, . . but it's a rationale that poisons the entire thought process of someone who voices it.

Same here.

And common thread isn't 'unfit parents shouldn't have kids.' That's the common thread we can discuss before conception.

It's 'how do we treat the rights of a kid residing in the womb of a potentially* unfit parent' and 'what does the birthing parent's wish to have an abortion definitively, universally, say about fitness to raise a child for the mother, father, and extended family.'

* - said potential measured solely by a wish to have an abortion

orange
05-30-2009, 07:32 PM
Well at least you've said it plainly.

Unfortunately, unwanted pregnancies happen. People are sometimes stupid or careless, and sometimes accidents and often crimes happen.

Contemplating or getting an abortion does not make a woman evil. Nor does it render her unfit for all time to be a parent. Circumstances change. There, now I've said it plainly, too (although I don't think I ever left any room for doubt up to now).

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 07:52 PM
Well at least you've said it plainly.

Unfortunately, unwanted pregnancies happen. People are sometimes stupid or careless, and sometimes accidents and often crimes happen.

Contemplating or getting an abortion does not make a woman evil. Nor does it render her unfit for all time to be a parent. Circumstances change. There, now I've said it plainly, too (although I don't think I ever left any room for doubt up to now).

Have you and the point ever been on the same continent?
This has NOTHING to do with the person who wants the abortion, it's about the person who is fine with it because, in their mind, 'she's probably gonna be a shitty parent anyway,' but tries to mask that crass rationale with high minded talk about choice and privacy.

orange
05-30-2009, 08:09 PM
Once again, I'm back to WTF is your point?

Are we supposed to outlaw abortion because some third parties have a suspect rationale? If not - what possible relevance does ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID have to this discussion?

Maybe we should round up those people with the suspect rationales and put them in thought-jail.

The_Doctor10
05-30-2009, 10:11 PM
Have you and the point ever been on the same continent?
This has NOTHING to do with the person who wants the abortion, it's about the person who is fine with it because, in their mind, 'she's probably gonna be a shitty parent anyway,' but tries to mask that crass rationale with high minded talk about choice and privacy.

Honestly? I would prefer the time limit for abortions to be much shorter than it is; a month at max, and then just put the kid up for adoption. There are thousands of people out there who can't have kids, and a baby isn't a rusty 91 Ford Taurus; you'll be able to find takers for the baby. And probably, in all likelihood, get a good sum of cash out of it.

That being said, abortion still needs to be an option, especially in the cases of rape, incest, or a woman being physically unable to carry a child. Whether due to a medical risk that labour/c-sections would entail, or in the case of a cancer diagnosis which requires chemotherapy.

I would like to see more standards applied to abortion; you should speak with counsellors beforehand and determine if it truly is the only option you find acceptable. But you cannot ban a procedure that has valid medical applications on the sole basis of your own ethical opposition to it.

JohnnyV13
05-31-2009, 03:28 AM
Honestly? I would prefer the time limit for abortions to be much shorter than it is; a month at max, and then just put the kid up for adoption. There are thousands of people out there who can't have kids, and a baby isn't a rusty 91 Ford Taurus; you'll be able to find takers for the baby. And probably, in all likelihood, get a good sum of cash out of it.

That being said, abortion still needs to be an option, especially in the cases of rape, incest, or a woman being physically unable to carry a child. Whether due to a medical risk that labour/c-sections would entail, or in the case of a cancer diagnosis which requires chemotherapy.

I would like to see more standards applied to abortion; you should speak with counsellors beforehand and determine if it truly is the only option you find acceptable. But you cannot ban a procedure that has valid medical applications on the sole basis of your own ethical opposition to it.


I can agree with this post. If I were empowered to draw a "bright line" it would be nueral activity. Once a fetus has detectable nueral activity in the brain, its a child for legal purposes. (This point is earlier than a "brain wave" in the EEG. I think the line should be drawn here, because its possible that some rudimentary "consciousness" could exist once there is measurable nueral activity in the brain. This point is about 56-70 days).

Of course, this "bright line" isn't so bright. Pro choice types would say you don't have definitive "human" brain activity until 7 months. There's all kinds of problems here also, because no EEG can be measured until 20-24 weeks of development, because skin surface nuerons have to be connected to the brain to measure an EEG. You have to have nuerons, axons, dendrites and functioning synapses.You could have consciousness that isn't measurable by EEG. Doing research in this area is also a huge problem, because its ethically reprehensible to rip out whole fetuses just to determine if they might have a functioning brain. From what I understand of abortions, they cut up fetuses in the womb so you can't use abortions to do this research. (Please don't yell at me for terminology. I'm trying to offend as few people as possible, but word choices are really difficult in this area.)

The bottom line is that science really doesn't know what consciousness is, much less have any real way to measure when it begins. Where you are in the pro-choice and pro-life debate will heavily bias how you view the "objective" scientific data with respect to brain activity.