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

[JBeukema]

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.

Is a sperm a distinct organism unto itself or is it a germ cell of the father's body?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Yes, she has. You just choose to ignore anything you wish wasn't there.

 

[JBeukema]

Hi, you have received -136 reputation points from elvis.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
nope

Regards,
elvis

Note: This is an automated message.

It's right there in the quote.

Not my fault you're retarded.

 

[Ravi]

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,

Yep.

In these cases, the woman is certainly not choosing to give or not give birth...someone else is choosing for her.

 

[LANMaster]

so yall are against abortion in ALL cases, right?

Wrong.

I think it is time I layed out my stance on the issue.

I support the legal right for a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester.... for any reason, whatsoever. I know that sounds contradictory to my Christian heritage, but I do not believe that there is a developed human being up to that point.

Second trimester, I am not as sure, but I think the State should take the side of caution and protect the child in the womb, to some extent. To what extent? I do not know. That's above my pay grade.
I would have to say that Rape and incest are good reasons to allow the legal abortion of the baby ... and of course the life of the mother being in danger would also qualify, always

But the 3rd trimester is the point at which the baby can live outside the womb, and doesn't absolutely require the mother to live. It is at this point where the term, "choice" now shifts to allow for the "choice" of a second living-human being. Not only do I think late term abortion is murder, I also think it should be sent to court with the doctor charged with 1st degree murder, and the mother charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
I don't care if it is rape or incest at this point. The decision to abort is far removed at this point in the pregnancy.
However, if the life of the mother is in danger (real danger, and would have to be provable in court) then I lean toward the side of saving the mother.

The father in any of these cases has no choice in the matter, unless he was forcibly raped.

 

[LANMaster]

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.

Once egg and spirm meet, they are no longer merely egg and sperm.
So by your own definition, it is conception that makes someone human, not birth

 

[LANMaster]

I totally understand the passion of this argument.
I truly do not believe that some others understand the point of their opposition.
Freedom, privacy, choice ... these are all admirable goals, and worthy of a fight in America.
Pro-Lifers need to realize that fact and try to gain understanding for that noble platform.

But the flip-side is a muder rate greater than the Holocaust by at least 8 times the number since the 1970's. Protecting living human beings is an admirable goal, and the pro-Choice people need to realize that their opposition believes (and technically are 100% correct) that they are fighting to protect innocent life from the very right to life itself.

So the real question is, when do the rights of the mother transfer (legally) to the living baby inside of her?

I think that point ... that critical moment when the baby should have full rights to life ... is the moment that the baby can live, finish developing normally, and prosper physically outside the mother's womb.

 

[LANMaster]

The next wrench in this works is what happens when a parent finds out that their baby, while still in the womb, has hydrocephallus, or Downs Syndrome, or some other terrible malady that science can not correct?

I think that has to be left to the mother to decide as well, regardless how far along.
However, this stipulation can't be mis-used to include gender, hair color, etc.

 

[syrenn]

I totally understand the passion of this argument.
I truly do not believe that some others understand the point of their opposition.
Freedom, privacy, choice ... these are all admirable goals, and worthy of a fight in America.
Pro-Lifers need to realize that fact and try to gain understanding for that noble platform.

But the flip-side is a muder rate greater than the Holocaust by at least 8 times the number since the 1970's. Protecting living human beings is an admirable goal, and the pro-Choice people need to realize that their opposition believes (and technically are 100% correct) that they are fighting to protect innocent life from the very right to life itself.

So the real question is, when do the rights of the mother transfer (legally) to the living baby inside of her?

I think that point ... that critical moment when the baby should have full rights to life ... is the moment that the baby can live, finish developing normally, and prosper physically outside the mother's womb.

Agreed.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wrong.

I think it is time I layed out my stance on the issue.

I support the legal right for a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester.... for any reason, whatsoever. I know that sounds contradictory to my Christian heritage, but I do not believe that there is a developed human being up to that point.

Second trimester, I am not as sure, but I think the State should take the side of caution and protect the child in the womb, to some extent. To what extent? I do not know. That's above my pay grade.
I would have to say that Rape and incest are good reasons to allow the legal abortion of the baby ... and of course the life of the mother being in danger would also qualify, always

But the 3rd trimester is the point at which the baby can live outside the womb, and doesn't absolutely require the mother to live. It is at this point where the term, "choice" now shifts to allow for the "choice" of a second living-human being. Not only do I think late term abortion is murder, I also think it should be sent to court with the doctor charged with 1st degree murder, and the mother charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
I don't care if it is rape or incest at this point. The decision to abort is far removed at this point in the pregnancy.
However, if the life of the mother is in danger (real danger, and would have to be provable in court) then I lean toward the side of saving the mother.

The father in any of these cases has no choice in the matter, unless he was forcibly raped.

So because it isn't fully developed - doesn't really look like a person - it isn't a human being? It is as human as it will ever be. How will it become more human? By developing? That doesn't make it more human, does it? It is human, it can only be human and nothing else as it comes from humans, and it is a being, it exists it is life, from the moment of conception. Human being, human life. Abortion ends this human being. To state otherwise is ridiculous.

I think that point ... that critical moment when the baby should have full rights to life ... is the moment that the baby can live, finish developing normally, and prosper physically outside the mother's womb.

A born infant develops into a baby, then into a toddler, then into a child, then into a teenager, then into a young adult, then into an adult, then into middle age, then into old age. And yet . . . none of these stages makes the person 'more human' than when they were an embryo. More developed? Yes. More human? No.

Abortion destroys human life, it ends the unique individual of a specific human being that will never, ever exist again. Dance around that all you want if you need that to justify your pov and ease your conscience . . . but you are wrong that it is not the deliberate destruction of a human being.


ETA: In regards to your posts --- " Not only do I think late term abortion is murder" how do you justify this: "that critical moment when the baby should have full rights to life ... is the moment that the baby can live, finish developing normally, and prosper physically outside the mother's womb"?

 

[LANMaster]

Wrong.

I think it is time I layed out my stance on the issue.

I support the legal right for a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester.... for any reason, whatsoever. I know that sounds contradictory to my Christian heritage, but I do not believe that there is a developed human being up to that point.

Second trimester, I am not as sure, but I think the State should take the side of caution and protect the child in the womb, to some extent. To what extent? I do not know. That's above my pay grade.
I would have to say that Rape and incest are good reasons to allow the legal abortion of the baby ... and of course the life of the mother being in danger would also qualify, always

But the 3rd trimester is the point at which the baby can live outside the womb, and doesn't absolutely require the mother to live. It is at this point where the term, "choice" now shifts to allow for the "choice" of a second living-human being. Not only do I think late term abortion is murder, I also think it should be sent to court with the doctor charged with 1st degree murder, and the mother charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
I don't care if it is rape or incest at this point. The decision to abort is far removed at this point in the pregnancy.
However, if the life of the mother is in danger (real danger, and would have to be provable in court) then I lean toward the side of saving the mother.

The father in any of these cases has no choice in the matter, unless he was forcibly raped.

So because it isn't fully developed - doesn't really look like a person - it isn't a human being? It is as human as it will ever be. How will it become more human? By developing? That doesn't make it more human, does it? It is human, it can only be human and nothing else as it comes from humans, and it is a being, it exists it is life, from the moment of conception. Human being, human life. Abortion ends this human being. To state otherwise is ridiculous.

I think that point ... that critical moment when the baby should have full rights to life ... is the moment that the baby can live, finish developing normally, and prosper physically outside the mother's womb.

A born infant develops into a baby, then into a toddler, then into a child, then into a teenager, then into a young adult, then into an adult, then into middle age, then into old age. And yet . . . none of these stages makes the person 'more human' than when they were an embryo. More developed? Yes. More human? No.

Abortion destroys human life, it ends the unique individual of a specific human being that will never, ever exist again. Dance around that all you want if you need that to justify your pov and ease your conscience . . . but you are wrong that it is not the deliberate destruction of a human being.


ETA: In regards to your posts --- " Not only do I think late term abortion is murder" how do you justify this: "that critical moment when the baby should have full rights to life ... is the moment that the baby can live, finish developing normally, and prosper physically outside the mother's womb"?

This is a fair and compelling argument against my 1st trimester pro-choice stance. And I appreciate it.

WRT me justifying my last statement, perhaps you need to re-read it again. One statement re-iterates the other.

I believe that the government should protect that life which doesn't require the mother to be a living host any longer. And that is right about the beginning of the 3rd trimester.

I believe that I was clear on the justification for my opinion, and I respect your right to disagree .... and I respect your passion for the unborn human life. Afterall, I cannot argue with you that life actually begins at conception. But the mother is REQUIRED as a living host for 6 months of the pregnancy term. Therefore her rights, her body trump the rights of the living, human fetus.



Still it is an agonizing topic without any chance whatsoever of changing everyone's minds.
My Pastor, whom I respect immensly, disagrees with my position, much like you do.

But I have lived this issue from both sides of the argument, and there is room for compromise on both sides.

 

[Zoom-boing]

To LANmaster, thank you for responding with a civilized post! Many abortion discussions frequently end in name calling. While I disagree with your pov on abortion I greatly appreciate the way you presented it. Thanks.

 

[JBeukema]

I think that point ... that critical moment when the baby should have full rights to life ... is the moment that the baby can live, finish developing normally, and prosper physically outside the mother's womb.

Which is anywhere from 22 weeks to post birth, depending on the health of the child in question....

 

[peter]

I believe that I was clear on the justification for my opinion, and I respect your right to disagree .... and I respect your passion for the unborn human life. Afterall, I cannot argue with you that life actually begins at conception. But the mother is REQUIRED as a living host for 6 months of the pregnancy term. Therefore her rights, her body trump the rights of the living, human fetus.

This argument is nice ... But baby, who borns 2-3 months earlier, can have some lasting health problems. I don't think somebody whould want to risk it.

IMHO, it's better to let it live (adoption), so I disagree with second trimester abortions.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Every hear of a partial and complete mole?

Google it. Your assertion is not correct.

 

[geauxtohell]

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?

What I think is that your statement "100% human" is a statement of opinion on your part. All the DNA a fetus will ever have (barring mutations throughout their life) is in the zygote. However, simply saying "it has all the DNA it needs" displays a simplistic understanding of the matter. Throughout development, genes are being turned on and off to express proteins at different times and amounts to produce a baby that can survive on it's own outside the womb. DNA is only the developmental blueprint. It would be like looking at a blueprint and calling it a "building" and ignoring the fact that workers have to read the blueprints and actually build the thing.

Furthermore, if you are only going to go with the whole "DNA" argument, are moles (gestational moles, not the things that burrow in the ground) 100% human too? I don't see the anti abortion crowd going nuts about a D&C of a mole. Why? Because it will never develop into anything more than a lump of tissue with occasional parts thrown in.

You are parsing words.

There is no pseudo speak involved in what I say. Any biologist will testify, in much better language, to that which I say. Undeveloped lungs do not make the fetus less human.

So what? It's 100% human just as my nail and hair is. As I said before, I think it's silly to dismiss a fetus as a lump of cells. It's also silly to say that a fetus is the exact same thing from development to birth. It's simply not true.

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

"Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man."

Jerome Lejeune, M.D., Ph.D.

In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

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.”

Why have all the teaching texts and so many medical experts come to this same conclusion? Because there are simple ways to measure whether something is alive and whether something is human. If Faye Wattleton is correct and everyone already knows that abortion kills a human being, they have come to that knowledge in spite of the information circulated by Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion-rights community. The abortion section of the Planned Parenthood website explains abortion this way:

"Abortion ends a pregnancy before birth."

How's that for thorough? Maybe they just assume that the method for ending the pregnancy is so obvious (killing the human being living in the womb) that it hardly bears mentioning. More likely, Planned Parenthood is simply accommodating the general ignorance which believes abortion to be the mere removal of potential human life, rather than the actual killing of existing human life.

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

Which is why I try and avoid the silly semantics game of "what are we going to call a fetus?". However, it's equally asinine to dismiss the concept of viability. That might not sit well with you, but the courts consider it as well as it was a part of the consideration for setting a date for late term abortion.

It's also at the heart of this thread since we are talking about when on the developmental timeline the neural pathways for pain develop.

So basically, you are stuck with "opinions". Opinions do not equal a scientific consensus.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

The argument is about both. You keep getting into sticky ground with the 100% human argument. As a simple statement of fact, of course it's 100% human. So what? Any collection of cells is 100% human. However when you say things like:

"Nothing more is needed to make it more human."

Are you suggesting that a zygote will develop on it's own without the complex hormone system from the mother and also the system to deliver oxygen and dispose of waste?

Without those things it would be 100% human and 100% non-viable.

So, as inconvenient as it is for people who don't do nuance, viability is important and germane to the argument.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Because the circulatory system is the last crucial organ to develop and NRDS is the most significant cause of neonatal mortality in this country. As I said, children born late in the third trimester still don't have sufficient surfactant to keep their lungs from sticking and collapsing.

 

[geauxtohell]

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?

You don't even have to stretch. Take someone with COPD who is on oxygen. They can't breath air (at least not well).

Yes, of course they are human. They are also fully developed and were born a viable human being.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Every hear of a partial and complete mole?

Google it. Your assertion is not correct.

What is a molar pregnancy?

A molar pregnancy happens when tissue that normally becomes a fetus instead becomes a growth, called a mole, in your uterus. Even though it is not an embryo, a mole triggers symptoms of pregnancy.

* Complete molar pregnancy. An egg with no genetic information is fertilized by a sperm. The sperm grows on its own, but it can only become a lump of tissue. It cannot become a fetus. As this tissue grows, it looks a bit like a cluster of grapes. This cluster of tissue is called a mole, and it can fill the uterus.

* Partial molar pregnancy. An egg is fertilized by two sperm. Normally this creates twins. But in a partial molar pregnancy, something goes wrong. The placenta grows into a mole instead. Any fetal tissue that forms is likely to have severe defects.

Molar Pregnancy Overview: Types, Causes, Risks, Symptoms, and Treatment

Moles appear to be a mutation of sorts, something gone awry. If left unattended what will be the result? A complete mole contains no genetic information and can only become a lump of tissue. A partial mole does not develop a placenta and any fetal tissue will have defects. Can this fetal tissue grow and develop without a placenta or will it develop to a certain point then die? If it can survive and continue to grow till term (is that possible without a proper placenta?) then it is the same as a non-partial mole pregnancy, yes? Still 100% human. The developmental stages may differ and it may have severe defects, but it is still 100% human. Unless you believe that because of the defects it is 'less human'?