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

[Immanuel]

thanks ravi for the link...proving the majority of late term abortions are done due to birth defects that were not picked up prior too or they didnt realize the seriousness of the defect. people read the link.....


thanks also for the graphic warning....its a very disturbing picture....

Although I appreciate the link and the information provided, that link doesn't prove anything. Who wrote that opinion piece and how can anyone be certain that the data presented is based upon even a single piece of fact?

In effect you are taking an unknown person's word for fact. Here is what s/he says about himself/herself:

I have a longstanding interest in science and it finally spilled over into writing blog articles. I do most of my blogging on weekends and in the evening when I can line up posts to be published later in the week at set times. I found that writing several post-dated articles for each day led to stale and uninspired articles. I’ve reverted to writing articles when I have the time and inclination. I’ve missed some important stories when I’ve been busy, but what I write should be more interesting.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the blog owner and do not reflect the views of any former, current, or future employers, groups, or other people.

Not really much to go on there.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

okay and let me ask this.....if you allow that its okay cause the fetus cant feel pain....is it okay to kick a parapeligc....(sp)

No one on this thread has bit on the notion that, since a fetus a fetus can't feel pain, then abortion is okay.

People have used it to point out that issues like viability and development are germane to the debate. However, no single person has stated that this is the crucial piece of the argument in their support for abortion.

So the question is a non sequitur.

Anyways: Kicking a paraplegic is battery. Why? Because the law says so. Abortion is legal. Why? Because the law says so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Dead is better than handicapped? I'm thinking there are a lot of people in the world who would argue that point.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Dead is better than handicapped? I'm thinking there are a lot of people in the world who would argue that point.

It's a moot point anyways. There is absolutely no legal consideration for why a woman chooses to get an abortion. A woman can have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses.

You may agree with that or disagree with it, but it's simply the way it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A complete mole is not fully human as it only has genetic material from the sperm.

But it has genetic material. So now the standard for "100% human" is DNA from mother and father?

A partial mole is fully human as it has genetic material from both sperm and egg.

And partial moles don't produce viable human beings and are removed via D&C. Why don't you guys get your knickers in a twist over that?



The exception and not the rule. In fact, the vary rare exception (from your paper):

Excluding cases of multiple conception with molar pregnancy and coexisting fetuses, partial molar pregnancy in which a live fetus is carried to term is very rare. Partial hydatidiform moles coexisting with fetal tissue or an anomalous fetus generally result from dispermy and have a triploid karyotype in the majority of cases (Szulman and Surti, 1978aGo,bGo; Ohama et al., 1986Go). Fetuses with triploidy cannot survive after birth because of multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation.

At any rate, I didn't know this so thanks for the info. Since the fetus was diploid and not triploid, I am curious if this wasn't a twin superimposed on a partial molar pregnancy.

As to viability . . . do you not see a difference between a non-viable partial-mole fetus (multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation - it cannot live) vs. a fetus that is not viable because it was removed from its environment prematurely?

Of course I do. I am not the one that refuses to acknowledge the concept of viability.

That would be the anti-abortion crowd.

Ah, semantic hair-splitting. Always nice when we use that to run away from the real issue down a tangent. This particular digression is the equivalent of arguing, "Well, what about a corpse? IT has all the DNA of a regular human being." Of course, that - like this - ignores the inherent difference at hand, which is also the entire point of the argument: a fetus, like a born child, is a COMPLETE, FUNCTIONING, and LIVING organism. That is why he is different from a corpse, and why he is different from a mole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I basically go by the definitions. Zygote to blastocyst to fetus, etc. I don't really buy that a fetus is a human being. I certainly accept that it will become a human being under normal circumstances. However, this gets into a debate over semantics which I generally try to avoid (because it basically comes down to opinion).

What do you believe a fetus is, if not a human being? Just curious.

It is human and cannot be anything but human (as it was created by humans), and it is a being, as it exists and it is life.

It's a fetus. A human fetus, but a fetus none-the-less. I don't deem it as "sub-human", I just don't see it as the same as a "human being" that has finished all the gestational development stages.

And what, precisely, do you think a "fetus" is? Methinks you believe the meaning of that word is something very different from what it actually is.

And no, he's NOT a human who has finished all the gestational development stages. So what?

 

[geauxtohell]

What do you believe a fetus is, if not a human being? Just curious.

It is human and cannot be anything but human (as it was created by humans), and it is a being, as it exists and it is life.

It's a fetus. A human fetus, but a fetus none-the-less. I don't deem it as "sub-human", I just don't see it as the same as a "human being" that has finished all the gestational development stages.

And what, precisely, do you think a "fetus" is? Methinks you believe the meaning of that word is something very different from what it actually is.

A fetus is what exists in the womb from the 9th week of conception to delivery.

And no, he's NOT a human who has finished all the gestational development stages. So what?

Viability is relevant to the issue. It's kind of hard to say that it's not when only two babies have survived a 22 week delivery.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do you believe a fetus is, if not a human being? Just curious.

A fetus. Just as an acorn is not a tree. It's an acorn. It contains the DNA to become a tree, but it isn't one yet.

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.

well, no. She didn't. She stated fertilization leads to a 100% complete human being. She did not state that fertilization is the only thing needed to produce a human being. That would be a foolish stance, as 40% of conceptions don't take anyway.

You DO understand the enormous biological differences between a human - or any mammal - and a plant, which make your comparison ludicrous just on the face of it, right?

What does the fact that people die have to do with anything, merely because of the point in their existence at which they do it? My older brother was born with severe birth defects, and died within days of his birth. Does that mean he wasn't a human being, simply because he was a defective conception?

 

[geauxtohell]

Ah, semantic hair-splitting. Always nice when we use that to run away from the real issue down a tangent. This particular digression is the equivalent of arguing, "Well, what about a corpse? IT has all the DNA of a regular human being." Of course, that - like this - ignores the inherent difference at hand, which is also the entire point of the argument: a fetus, like a born child, is a COMPLETE, FUNCTIONING, and LIVING organism. That is why he is different from a corpse, and why he is different from a mole.

The point and discussion was made to the comment about what happens when sperm meets egg and fertilization happens. My point was that does not always result in a viable fetus.

Also, a fetus can't function outside of the womb. Again, you guys can't ignore that viability is relevant to this issue. A fetus at 9 weeks is much different than a fetus at 22 weeks which is much different than a fetus at 33 weeks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

At what point should it be legally protected? Countless trillions of sperm and eggs meet on a regular basis, and are a 'potential human', but due to many factors within the body, end up not reaching the next stage of fetal development and causing pregnancy - Do you consider this to be murder-through-neglect? Birth control treatments can help to influence these behaviors to increase or decrease the chance of these fertilized eggs becoming fetuses. Is it 'butchering' them to let them die due to starvation of the proper chemicals? You're starving and butchering those poor eggs. Is there some magical 'spark' of life and and worthiness the second it reaches the womb?

Okay, really, why do people always come up with this lame-ass attempt at an argument? Do y'all really not understand how incredibly ignorant of basic biology this makes you sound?

Please, for the love of GOD, get a biology textbook and learn about the difference between reproductive cells, which are parts of the originator's body similar to the way skin cells are, and embryos, which are separate and complete organisms. This sort of thing just makes me want to cry for the sorry state of education in our country.

I've always been of the opinion that abortion should only be allowed BEFORE the baby would even have the tiniest chance of surviving outside the womb, or perhaps when it shows the first signs up brain activity (not sure on what the specifics should be), when there's no doubt as to it being a wholly separate being, except in the most extreme cases.

When there's no doubt to whom? Educated medical professionals, who passed high school biology and understand perfectly well what constitutes a separate organism, or to ignorant laymen who don't know the difference between a sperm and a zygote? Because I can tell you right now, there's already no doubt in the mind of any doctor in this country when a baby is a separate being.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a fetus. A human fetus, but a fetus none-the-less. I don't deem it as "sub-human", I just don't see it as the same as a "human being" that has finished all the gestational development stages.

So what? That's like saying, "I don't see it as a human being who as finished all the growing up development stages." What's that got to do with anything?

No, it's nothing like that. Once again, you can't ignore the issue of viability when it comes to gestational development.

Um, why can't I? Because YOU think it's a big deal?

 

[geauxtohell]

At what point should it be legally protected? Countless trillions of sperm and eggs meet on a regular basis, and are a 'potential human', but due to many factors within the body, end up not reaching the next stage of fetal development and causing pregnancy - Do you consider this to be murder-through-neglect? Birth control treatments can help to influence these behaviors to increase or decrease the chance of these fertilized eggs becoming fetuses. Is it 'butchering' them to let them die due to starvation of the proper chemicals? You're starving and butchering those poor eggs. Is there some magical 'spark' of life and and worthiness the second it reaches the womb?

Okay, really, why do people always come up with this lame-ass attempt at an argument? Do y'all really not understand how incredibly ignorant of basic biology this makes you sound?

Please, for the love of GOD, get a biology textbook and learn about the difference between reproductive cells, which are parts of the originator's body similar to the way skin cells are, and embryos, which are separate and complete organisms. This sort of thing just makes me want to cry for the sorry state of education in our country.

I've always been of the opinion that abortion should only be allowed BEFORE the baby would even have the tiniest chance of surviving outside the womb, or perhaps when it shows the first signs up brain activity (not sure on what the specifics should be), when there's no doubt as to it being a wholly separate being, except in the most extreme cases.

When there's no doubt to whom? Educated medical professionals, who passed high school biology and understand perfectly well what constitutes a separate organism, or to ignorant laymen who don't know the difference between a sperm and a zygote? Because I can tell you right now, there's already no doubt in the mind of any doctor in this country when a baby is a separate being.

Oh? Are you a Doctor? A biologist? An embryologist?

 

[geauxtohell]

So what? That's like saying, "I don't see it as a human being who as finished all the growing up development stages." What's that got to do with anything?

No, it's nothing like that. Once again, you can't ignore the issue of viability when it comes to gestational development.

Um, why can't I? Because YOU think it's a big deal?

That was a general "you". You personally can do anything you want, but it's not sound medical science. If you want to act like you can pull a fetus out of the womb at 10 weeks and they have as much chance of surviving as a fetus at 36 weeks, get down with your bad self. Just stay the hell out of the way on the labor and delivery ward.

When it comes to your personal axe that you want to grind, you are entitled to your beliefs. You are not entitled to transpose your beliefs on the professional medical community.

 

[Cecilie1200]

okay and let me ask this.....if you allow that its okay cause the fetus cant feel pain....is it okay to kick a parapeligc....(sp)

No one on this thread has bit on the notion that, since a fetus a fetus can't feel pain, then abortion is okay.

People have used it to point out that issues like viability and development are germane to the debate. However, no single person has stated that this is the crucial piece of the argument in their support for abortion.

So the question is a non sequitur.

Anyways: Kicking a paraplegic is battery. Why? Because the law says so. Abortion is legal. Why? Because the law says so.

And that's irrelevant to the argument. Why? Because legality follows morality, not the other way around.

Quite frankly, I can't imagine what you think the point of bringing up, "Well, fetuses can't feel pain" is, if not to say that it's okay to abort them before that point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Dead is better than handicapped? I'm thinking there are a lot of people in the world who would argue that point.

It's a moot point anyways. There is absolutely no legal consideration for why a woman chooses to get an abortion. A woman can have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses.

You may agree with that or disagree with it, but it's simply the way it is.

And again, running to, "Well, it's legal, so there" is a moot point itself, since morality does not follow legality, and the argument around abortion has never been about what the law IS, but about what it SHOULD BE.

 

[geauxtohell]

okay and let me ask this.....if you allow that its okay cause the fetus cant feel pain....is it okay to kick a parapeligc....(sp)

No one on this thread has bit on the notion that, since a fetus a fetus can't feel pain, then abortion is okay.

People have used it to point out that issues like viability and development are germane to the debate. However, no single person has stated that this is the crucial piece of the argument in their support for abortion.

So the question is a non sequitur.

Anyways: Kicking a paraplegic is battery. Why? Because the law says so. Abortion is legal. Why? Because the law says so.

And that's irrelevant to the argument. Why? Because legality follows morality, not the other way around.

Quite frankly, I can't imagine what you think the point of bringing up, "Well, fetuses can't feel pain" is, if not to say that it's okay to abort them before that point.

First: I didn't bring it up. Hellbitch did. I commented on it.
Two (To answer your question): To point out that development and viability are relevant to this topic. The anti-abortion crowd tries to act otherwise, but that is dishonest.

As I said before, the fact that the pain pathways aren't connected until 24 weeks has nothing to do with my belief that a woman should be able to choose if she wants to carry a fetus or not. It's just an interesting embryological tidbit. It's also irrelevant to the issue at hand. The law is clear on when a fetus can and can not be aborted.

That decision was made with the concept of viability taken into account.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a fetus. A human fetus, but a fetus none-the-less. I don't deem it as "sub-human", I just don't see it as the same as a "human being" that has finished all the gestational development stages.

And what, precisely, do you think a "fetus" is? Methinks you believe the meaning of that word is something very different from what it actually is.

A fetus is what exists in the womb from the 9th week of conception to delivery.

Nice attempt at a vagued-up rewrite, but that's not really what the dictionary says, and we both know it.

Fetus - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth (from Merriam-Webster)

Sounds a bit different when you're not paraphrasing to suit an agenda, doesn't it?

And no, he's NOT a human who has finished all the gestational development stages. So what?

Viability is relevant to the issue. It's kind of hard to say that it's not when only two babies have survived a 22 week delivery.

Sorry, but no. Viability OUTSIDE THE WOMB (which is not the same thing as general viability) is not relevant at all. Tendency to die, if it truly made a difference, would mean that people diagnosed with terminal cancer lose their humanity with the diagnosis.

 

[geauxtohell]

And again, running to, "Well, it's legal, so there" is a moot point itself, since morality does not follow legality, and the argument around abortion has never been about what the law IS, but about what it SHOULD BE.

Then change the laws.

Simply sitting here and whining about the status quo and insisting that your minority view should be given the power of fiat is absurd.

It doesn't work that way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ah, semantic hair-splitting. Always nice when we use that to run away from the real issue down a tangent. This particular digression is the equivalent of arguing, "Well, what about a corpse? IT has all the DNA of a regular human being." Of course, that - like this - ignores the inherent difference at hand, which is also the entire point of the argument: a fetus, like a born child, is a COMPLETE, FUNCTIONING, and LIVING organism. That is why he is different from a corpse, and why he is different from a mole.

The point and discussion was made to the comment about what happens when sperm meets egg and fertilization happens. My point was that does not always result in a viable fetus.

Again, the fact that some people are irreparably broken doesn't change the fact that they're human. Just means they die quickly.

Also, a fetus can't function outside of the womb.

Again, so what?

Again, you guys can't ignore that viability is relevant to this issue. A fetus at 9 weeks is much different than a fetus at 22 weeks which is much different than a fetus at 33 weeks.

No, viability OUTSIDE THE WOMB is relevant to YOU. That doesn't make it relevant to the issue.

So a fetus at 9 weeks is different from a fetus at a later date. Again, so what? A newborn baby is different from a toddler, which is very different from an adult. Level of development means nothing to general humanity or existence of life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

At what point should it be legally protected? Countless trillions of sperm and eggs meet on a regular basis, and are a 'potential human', but due to many factors within the body, end up not reaching the next stage of fetal development and causing pregnancy - Do you consider this to be murder-through-neglect? Birth control treatments can help to influence these behaviors to increase or decrease the chance of these fertilized eggs becoming fetuses. Is it 'butchering' them to let them die due to starvation of the proper chemicals? You're starving and butchering those poor eggs. Is there some magical 'spark' of life and and worthiness the second it reaches the womb?

Okay, really, why do people always come up with this lame-ass attempt at an argument? Do y'all really not understand how incredibly ignorant of basic biology this makes you sound?

Please, for the love of GOD, get a biology textbook and learn about the difference between reproductive cells, which are parts of the originator's body similar to the way skin cells are, and embryos, which are separate and complete organisms. This sort of thing just makes me want to cry for the sorry state of education in our country.

I've always been of the opinion that abortion should only be allowed BEFORE the baby would even have the tiniest chance of surviving outside the womb, or perhaps when it shows the first signs up brain activity (not sure on what the specifics should be), when there's no doubt as to it being a wholly separate being, except in the most extreme cases.

When there's no doubt to whom? Educated medical professionals, who passed high school biology and understand perfectly well what constitutes a separate organism, or to ignorant laymen who don't know the difference between a sperm and a zygote? Because I can tell you right now, there's already no doubt in the mind of any doctor in this country when a baby is a separate being.

Oh? Are you a Doctor? A biologist? An embryologist?

No, just someone who's actually passed every biology class I've taken, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't suddenly, radically change somewhere in between. If a sperm cell is different from a separate organism when you start college, then it's the exact same difference when you graduate med school. Many doctors certainly do support abortion, but I can promise you they aren't justifying it based on confusion about when the fetus is a separate organism.