Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says

[JBeukema]

They sad it's 100% human, not that it's 100% developed.

Of course, if incompletely developed human beings aren't human beings, then I suppose you've no complaint if I kill your child on your way home from delivery or when she's nine or 15 or whatever- after all, she's not fully developed or fully-formed until after puberty.

 

[clevergirl]

And a human egg can only produce one thing. And a sperm can only produce one thing.

So what?

Birth makes one a human.

A human egg in and of itself produces nothing. Same goes for the human sperm. Together, if successful fertalization happens, they produce a unique and 100% complete human being...birth is merely a next stage for the human being that began at conception. This is a scientifically settled matter.

If it was a 100% complete human being then you could grow it up in a lab.

That dear is a scientifically settled matter

Some day it's sure to happen; that it has not currently happened does not make what you said a basis for any real argument.

The human fetus is 100% a human being and that IS settled science. To claim otherwise is moronic.

 

[clevergirl]

If it was a 100% complete human being then you could grow it up in a lab.

That dear is a scientifically settled matter

What fucking science is that, sryenne'sbullshitology, the study of all your posts?

If a fertilized egg is a 100% complete human being, as per the quote, then you could grow it up in a lab.

Try growing one without implanting it in a woman.

So now you're claiming that because implantation is neccesary for a fetus to develope that it's not human? You are an IDIOT...

 

[JBeukema]

It's not just moronic, it's Raviesque

• S: (adj) raviesque (from Ravi + -esque, in the style or manner of )(characterized by stupidity, ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty) "her statements were truly raviesque and made many doubt whether she understood the subject"

 

[syrenn]

What fucking science is that, sryenne'sbullshitology, the study of all your posts?

If a fertilized egg is a 100% complete human being, as per the quote, then you could grow it up in a lab.

Try growing one without implanting it in a woman.

So now you're claiming that because implantation is neccesary for a fetus to develope that it's not human? You are an IDIOT...

Sorry dear, follow the quotes. YOU claim that a fertilized human egg is 100% complete.

If it were then it would not need implantation in anything.

 

[clevergirl]

If a fertilized egg is a 100% complete human being, as per the quote, then you could grow it up in a lab.

Try growing one without implanting it in a woman.

So now you're claiming that because implantation is neccesary for a fetus to develope that it's not human? You are an IDIOT...

Sorry dear, follow the quotes. YOU claim that a fertilized human egg is 100% complete.

If it were then it would not need implantation in anything.

The argument is not about viability it's about what the fetus is. The human fetus is 100% completely human nothing more is needed to make it more human. A new born is 100% human nothing more is needed to make it more human. Leave the new born unattended however and it dies. Needing care whether in the womb or out does not make a baby less human.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The acorn is also, by it's very nature, oak. Just as an embryo is, but it's very nature, human. From conception till death, and everything in between, it is human life.

Yes, they are those species by DNA. They are not the completed versions of those species. An acorn is not a tree. An embryo is not a person.

I've highlighted where you misrepresented his original claim. He didn't say it was common, only that it was known to happen.

I know. That's why I apologized and corrected it in this post. Not sure how you missed that or why you felt the need to bring it up.

Scroll down and read just below the clapping hand icons of this post for details.

Again!!!!! You are tallking about developement and viability not the completeness of the unborns humanity. It has everything making it a unique (has its own circualtory system; DNA; blood typpe; sexual organs) sentinent person.

No. A fetus is not a "sentinent" person. Completeness deals in development. Ignoring things such as viability is just silly. If a fetus has three copies of DNA instead of two, it is still a human conception, but it has no chance of surviving, and will never become a sentient person. You use terms like "completely of humanity" and you have yet to state what defines such a vague concept.

Obviously you think that the fetus is not 100% human. So tell us what percentage of it is not human? Which parts of its DNA fail the human test and what DNA needs to be added to make it 100% human?

This is where you continually go wrong in misinterpreting basic grammar. "Human" the adjective applies in your quote above. It is 100% a human fetus at all times. ADJECTIVE. Descriptive to the condition of the fetus. "Human" the noun, used many times interchangeably with "human being" or "person", does not apply to an embryo. 4 cells floating around a uterus is not a human being. It is a human embryo with human DNA, but not a person.

EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO LIFE'S BEGINNING

"When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists."

C. Christopher Hook, M.D.
Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine

Note this perfect example of "human" being used as an ADJECTIVE. Fertilization does create a unique genetic entity. Notice how I can remove the word "human" entirely from that sentence, and it's still valid.

Cherry picking quotes from random doctors does not help you claim. I can find just as many who say otherwise.

The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.”

That was a subgroup of the AMA in the 1850s that disliked abortion. Had you actually been knowledgeable on the history of this topic in the AMA instead of copying and pasting from another website, you would have quickly seen that the AMAs recommendations today do not support that statement in any way.

Biologically speaking, every abortion at every point in the pregnancy ends the life of a genetically-distinct human being.

By that logic, every ejaculation ends the life of a genetically distinct half-human being.

A human egg in and of itself produces nothing. Same goes for the human sperm. Together, if successful fertalization happens, they produce a unique and 100% complete human being...birth is merely a next stage for the human being that began at conception. This is a scientifically settled matter.

Once again I ask: what defines a "complete human being"? You have yet to answer this.

 

[clevergirl]

The acorn is also, by it's very nature, oak. Just as an embryo is, but it's very nature, human. From conception till death, and everything in between, it is human life.

Yes, they are those species by DNA. They are not the completed versions of those species. An acorn is not a tree. An embryo is not a person.

I know. That's why I apologized and corrected it in this post. Not sure how you missed that or why you felt the need to bring it up.

Scroll down and read just below the clapping hand icons of this post for details.


No. A fetus is not a "sentinent" person. Completeness deals in development. Ignoring things such as viability is just silly. If a fetus has three copies of DNA instead of two, it is still a human conception, but it has no chance of surviving, and will never become a sentient person. You use terms like "completely of humanity" and you have yet to state what defines such a vague concept.


This is where you continually go wrong in misinterpreting basic grammar. "Human" the adjective applies in your quote above. It is 100% a human fetus at all times. ADJECTIVE. Descriptive to the condition of the fetus. "Human" the noun, used many times interchangeably with "human being" or "person", does not apply to an embryo. 4 cells floating around a uterus is not a human being. It is a human embryo with human DNA, but not a person.


Note this perfect example of "human" being used as an ADJECTIVE. Fertilization does create a unique genetic entity. Notice how I can remove the word "human" entirely from that sentence, and it's still valid.

Cherry picking quotes from random doctors does not help you claim. I can find just as many who say otherwise.


That was a subgroup of the AMA in the 1850s that disliked abortion. Had you actually been knowledgeable on the history of this topic in the AMA instead of copying and pasting from another website, you would have quickly seen that the AMAs recommendations today do not support that statement in any way.

Biologically speaking, every abortion at every point in the pregnancy ends the life of a genetically-distinct human being.

By that logic, every ejaculation ends the life of a genetically distinct half-human being.

A human egg in and of itself produces nothing. Same goes for the human sperm. Together, if successful fertalization happens, they produce a unique and 100% complete human being...birth is merely a next stage for the human being that began at conception. This is a scientifically settled matter.

Once again I ask: what defines a "complete human being"? You have yet to answer this.

Address each one of my quotes to me and I'll respond. Otherwise I'll just ignore you.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Of all the stupid cop-out reasons to run away from a discussion, this is by far an all time low. Were the two lines addressed to other people confusing you from recognizing your own name lower in the same post? You seem to have picked up on it, else you wouldn't have responded as you did.

Well regardless, you let me know which parts you have trouble reading, and I'll copy and paste them into a new post just for you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really? You don't believe science has changed in FORTY years? Ignoring that whole internet thing, the majority of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals, the human genome, post-it notes, and a number of other major scientific breakthroughs and observations, then I suppose science hasn't really changed too much in 40 years.

Do you really want to continue that line of reasoning?


No. You're telling me that every single part of the fetus contains human DNA inside of living tissue. What defines "complete human" for you?

I did not say science has not changed in any general sense. Rather I asked if the science specific to what I posted had changed and that if it had how so. For you to attempt to obfuscate the obvious here is clearly a false reality. So, again, if the science regarding parasites has changed specific to what I posted let's hear it?

I am TELLING you that a human fetus is 100% complete. That nothing more can be added to it to make it any more a complete human being. Apart from developemental stages, it is exactly the same biologically at fetal stage as it is at adult stage.

That's 100% completely absurd.

Even children as late as 30 and 33 weeks don't have sufficiently developed lungs. They lack the surfactant to keep their lungs from sticking. This is why premies are in danger of NRDS and why mothers who have premature children are put on steroids.

Why are you changing the subject it's not lungs that is the subject it's nerves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, JB is wrong on that. Birth makes a fetus a "person". Under the law, only "persons" have rights. A fetus has no rights

According to the law, black skin also made you 3/5 of a person and a tomato is a vegetable

Culinary wise, tomatoes are a vegetable. Botanically, they are a fruit.

And I hope you realize that the 3/5 BS is no longer in effect.

He probably thinks it still applies, he believes that people can talk with thought pictures.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's 100% completely absurd.

Even children as late as 30 and 33 weeks don't have sufficiently developed lungs. They lack the surfactant to keep their lungs from sticking. This is why premies are in danger of NRDS and why mothers who have premature children are put on steroids.

Again!!!!! You are tallking about developement and viability not the completeness of the unborns humanity. It has everything making it a unique (has its own circualtory system; DNA; blood typpe; sexual organs) sentinent person.

What you are now that makes you you, apart from experience and developement, you already had at the moment of conception.

What kind of of gobbidy goop is that?

I mean, I think it's silly to dismiss a fetus as "just a bunch of cells" it's also silly to claim that a fetus is "100% human".

Which is obvious, you can't dispute the embryology of the matter, so you have to resort to silly pseudo-science-speak to support such a silly notion.

A fetus is not 100% human. 100% human's lungs don't collapse while breathing room air.

You are assuming that everyone has healthy lungs, but some people cannot breathe room air, does that make them not human?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The acorn is also, by it's very nature, oak. Just as an embryo is, but it's very nature, human. From conception till death, and everything in between, it is human life.

Yes, they are those species by DNA. They are not the completed versions of those species. An acorn is not a tree. An embryo is not a person.

I know. That's why I apologized and corrected it in this post. Not sure how you missed that or why you felt the need to bring it up.

Scroll down and read just below the clapping hand icons of this post for details.


No. A fetus is not a "sentinent" person. Completeness deals in development. Ignoring things such as viability is just silly. If a fetus has three copies of DNA instead of two, it is still a human conception, but it has no chance of surviving, and will never become a sentient person. You use terms like "completely of humanity" and you have yet to state what defines such a vague concept.


This is where you continually go wrong in misinterpreting basic grammar. "Human" the adjective applies in your quote above. It is 100% a human fetus at all times. ADJECTIVE. Descriptive to the condition of the fetus. "Human" the noun, used many times interchangeably with "human being" or "person", does not apply to an embryo. 4 cells floating around a uterus is not a human being. It is a human embryo with human DNA, but not a person.


Note this perfect example of "human" being used as an ADJECTIVE. Fertilization does create a unique genetic entity. Notice how I can remove the word "human" entirely from that sentence, and it's still valid.

Cherry picking quotes from random doctors does not help you claim. I can find just as many who say otherwise.


That was a subgroup of the AMA in the 1850s that disliked abortion. Had you actually been knowledgeable on the history of this topic in the AMA instead of copying and pasting from another website, you would have quickly seen that the AMAs recommendations today do not support that statement in any way.

Biologically speaking, every abortion at every point in the pregnancy ends the life of a genetically-distinct human being.

By that logic, every ejaculation ends the life of a genetically distinct half-human being.

A human egg in and of itself produces nothing. Same goes for the human sperm. Together, if successful fertalization happens, they produce a unique and 100% complete human being...birth is merely a next stage for the human being that began at conception. This is a scientifically settled matter.

Once again I ask: what defines a "complete human being"? You have yet to answer this.

You must have a fertalized egg ejaculation is not a viable means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A human egg fertilized by a human sperm can only produce one thing . . . . a 100% human, each and every time.

Developmental stages don't make this unique individual 'more' or 'less' human.

And a human egg can only produce one thing. And a sperm can only produce one thing.

So what?

Birth makes one a human.

The law actually disagrees with you.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[syrenn]

The law actually disagrees with you.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not in the case of abortion.

the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A human egg fertilized by a human sperm can only produce one thing . . . . a 100% human, each and every time.

Developmental stages don't make this unique individual 'more' or 'less' human.

And a human egg can only produce one thing. And a sperm can only produce one thing.

So what?

Birth makes one a human.

The law actually disagrees with you.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The law actually disagrees with you.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not in the case of abortion.

the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion,

So what you are saying is that it's a human when i's wanted but it something differant when it isn't? What will it be if it's unwanted? A horse? A monkey? A Chicken? A fish? I know what it will be a dog,,,, that's it isn't it?

 

[Zoom-boing]

The acorn is also, by it's very nature, oak. Just as an embryo is, but it's very nature, human. From conception till death, and everything in between, it is human life.

Yes, they are those species by DNA. They are not the completed versions of those species. An acorn is not a tree. An embryo is not a person.

An embryo is a person in the very earliest stages of life.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The law actually disagrees with you.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not in the case of abortion.

the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion,

So what you are saying is that it's a human when i's wanted but it something differant when it isn't? What will it be if it's unwanted? A horse? A monkey? A Chicken? A fish? I know what it will be a dog,,,, that's it isn't it?

Of course it's a human. It came from a human and therefore cannot be anything other than a human. Any argument dodging this is used as justification that abortion somehow doesn't 'end a human life; a person' if you will. Nonsense.

 

[syrenn]

The law actually disagrees with you.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not in the case of abortion.

the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion,

So what you are saying is that it's a human when i's wanted but it something differant when it isn't? What will it be if it's unwanted? A horse? A monkey? A Chicken? A fish? I know what it will be a dog,,,, that's it isn't it?

Well lets see, UUUMMMMM could it be that is pertinent because this is an ABORTION thread?