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

[geauxtohell]

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?

I gave you the strict medical definition.

Introductory Maternity Nursing - Google Books

I could care less what Marriam and Webster thinks of the matter. Marriam and Webster is not an authority of matters of medical science.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to question other people's biological competency, huh?

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.

The law and medical science disagree with you.

^ a b Gans Epner, J.E., Jonas, H.S., Seckinger, D.L. (1998). Late-term abortion. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280 (8), 724-729.

If you want to believe that a fetus at 10 weeks is the same thing as a fetus at 20 weeks, go for it. Just don't expect those of us who know better to buy into it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You misunderstand. I didn't say I disagree that a fetus isn't viable outside the womb before a certain point. I said YOU are the only one in this conversation who thinks that is important or relevant. I, on the other hand, am fully capable of ignoring it when it comes to abortion arguments, because it matters to me not at all in that context.

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.

And you are not entitled to impose YOUR misunderstandings of my position onto me, or your personal beliefs about what is and isn't relevant onto the entire abortion argument. You may WANT to define the parameters of the debate, but that doesn't mean you get to.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Wow. You passed biology classes in college? That obviously makes you an expert on this matter and give you tons of latitude to talk down on the education level of people you disagree with.

It also doesn't give you the latitude to speak for the medical profession. Now if you have some peer reviewed material on the matter, I'd be happy to look at it. However, you opinion on the matter does not equal a scientific consensus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Glad to hear it. And as I keep saying, your personal priorities on the subject are irrelevant to the actual argument. Just because YOU think something is important doesn't mean everyone does, or has to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Nice try, sweetie. "Stop discussing it online because it solves nothing" is just another way of saying, "I can't answer your arguments, so stop backing me into a corner". You know perfectly well that the reason we're discussing this online is BECAUSE people are trying very hard to change the law. And if you really believe that discussing issues online is so pointless, why are YOU here?

And I love how you assume that YOUR views are the majority, not to mention bitching about "the power of fiat" on an issue that was decided for the entire country - against the expressly-stated wishes of the electorate at that time - by a group of judges. Hypocrisy, thy name is "leftist who is losing a debate".

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Glad to hear it. And as I keep saying, your personal priorities on the subject are irrelevant to the actual argument. Just because YOU think something is important doesn't mean everyone does, or has to.

I have no personal priorities when it comes to abortion. It's not an issue I think much about.

I just find these threads amusing, because the anti-abortionists tend to go on crazy tirades and butcher the biological data that isn't convenient to their position.

 

[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.

Nice try, sweetie. "Stop discussing it online because it solves nothing" is just another way of saying, "I can't answer your arguments, so stop backing me into a corner". You know perfectly well that the reason we're discussing this online is BECAUSE people are trying very hard to change the law. And if you really believe that discussing issues online is so pointless, why are YOU here?

And I love how you assume that YOUR views are the majority, not to mention bitching about "the power of fiat" on an issue that was decided for the entire country - against the expressly-stated wishes of the electorate at that time - by a group of judges. Hypocrisy, thy name is "leftist who is losing a debate".

Then try harder. Frankly, you guys never had a better chance then the six years when we had a conservative house, senate, president, and Supreme Court. Nothing significant happened with abortion. Why not?

You know the answer.

So you guys can sit here and bitch all you want. It's not changing a damn thing.

As for minority, if you want to outlaw abortion, you are the minority.

Abortion

 

[geauxtohell]

You misunderstand. I didn't say I disagree that a fetus isn't viable outside the womb before a certain point. I said YOU are the only one in this conversation who thinks that is important or relevant. I, on the other hand, am fully capable of ignoring it when it comes to abortion arguments, because it matters to me not at all in that context.

I am far from the only one. Furthermore, the decision on where to draw the line for "late term" was made with viability in mind.

As for your last sentence, you might as well say: "I am perfectly capable of ignoring scientific fact when it is inconvenient to my position".

And you are not entitled to impose YOUR misunderstandings of my position onto me, or your personal beliefs about what is and isn't relevant onto the entire abortion argument. You may WANT to define the parameters of the debate, but that doesn't mean you get to.

I am not trying to impose anything on you. I am just pointing out the facts behind the matter. I also have never said I get to define the parameters of the debate.

Try again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I gave you the strict medical definition.

Introductory Maternity Nursing - Google Books

I could care less what Marriam and Webster thinks of the matter. Marriam and Webster is not an authority of matters of medical science.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to question other people's biological competency, huh?

I am fully qualified to question YOUR biological competency for the following reasons:

1) Merriam-Webster IS an authority on the meanings of words, and that includes ALL words commonly used in the English language, including medical terms. It isn't as specific and detailed as a medical dictionary would be, but it is neither incorrect nor widely divergent from what would be found there.

2) Your own link proves that you're a big, fat, agenda-driven liar. You neither gave me a "strict medical definition" (because a strict medical definition wouldn't include the vague phrase "what exists in the womb") nor did you give me what your link actually says. You rewrote it to delete phrases that didn't fit your agenda. Nowhere in that article can I find the exact sentence you "quoted". THIS is what your article ACTUALLY says about a fetus:

"The fetal stage is from the beginning of the 9th week after fertilization and continues until birth. At this time, the developing human is referred to as the fetus."

3) Further on the subject of your "strict medical definition", it's incorrect precisely because it is so vague. A fetus CANNOT be "what exists in the womb" simply because it is not the only thing existing in the womb at that time. The placenta, umbilical cord, and amniotic sac are also present. The term "fetus" refers ONLY to the developing human offspring, the phrase you are trying so desperately not to admit.

4) If you want to talk about "strict medical definitions" and "authorities on medical matters", let me refer you to Taber's Medical Dictionary, one of the two medical dictionaries most commonly used by doctors and medical offices:

Fetus - 1. The latter stages of the developing young of an animal within the uterus or within an egg.
2. The developing human, in utero, after completion of the eighth gestational week.
Before that time it is called an embryo.

Taber's Medical Dictionary:fetus

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.

The law and medical science disagree with you.

^ a b Gans Epner, J.E., Jonas, H.S., Seckinger, D.L. (1998). Late-term abortion. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280 (8), 724-729.

If you want to believe that a fetus at 10 weeks is the same thing as a fetus at 20 weeks, go for it. Just don't expect those of us who know better to buy into it.

I don't care what the law says. I realize people like you cling to "it's legal" like Christians clutching a piece of the True Cross because it's all you have to hide behind, but "Abortion should be legal because it's legal" is the kind of argument five-year-olds use.

I also don't care how many times you plug your ears and chant, "Cecilie thinks all development stages are the same; Cecilie thinks all development stages are the same." I've said exactly the opposite, everyone has SEEN me say exactly the opposite, and your insistence on lying about it just makes you look too chickenshit to deal with my ACTUAL arguments instead of the one you desperately WISH I was making.

Seems to me the only thing you "know better" about is your complete inability to debate anyone but a strawman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Wow. You passed biology classes in college? That obviously makes you an expert on this matter and give you tons of latitude to talk down on the education level of people you disagree with.

Nice try, but "You only took college biology" does NOT equate to "You know nothing about biology, and are totally wrong." Unless you can actually PROVE that I am mistaken about basic biology OR about what doctors are taught about it, my education levels are nothing more than a pathetic dodge on your part.

So prove my points wrong, or admit that you can't.

It also doesn't give you the latitude to speak for the medical profession. Now if you have some peer reviewed material on the matter, I'd be happy to look at it. However, you opinion on the matter does not equal a scientific consensus.

Peer-reviewed material on the matter? Are you serious? Why don't you ask me to produce peer-reviewed material debating whether or not humans are bipeds, or mammals, while you're about it? And then perhaps you could ask me to produce some peer-reviewed articles on climatology that debate whether or not the sky looks blue? Don't be a dumbfuck. No one wastes time writing and publishing articles on blatantly obvious basic facts.

However, basic statements of the obvious, primary-education-level facts that you want to pretend are in scientific dispute can be - and have been - found in your own links. Or any textbook. The scientific definition of life, organism, etc. are not exactly tough to locate.

You are now so clearly full of shit, your eyes are probably brown.

 

[Jack Fate]

So when does "life" begin?

 

[geauxtohell]

Nice try, but "You only took college biology" does NOT equate to "You know nothing about biology, and are totally wrong." Unless you can actually PROVE that I am mistaken about basic biology OR about what doctors are taught about it, my education levels are nothing more than a pathetic dodge on your part.

Ohhh. Touched a nerve did that?

You were the one that brought other people's education level into the issue.

Peer-reviewed material on the matter? Are you serious? Why don't you ask me to produce peer-reviewed material debating whether or not humans are bipeds, or mammals, while you're about it? And then perhaps you could ask me to produce some peer-reviewed articles on climatology that debate whether or not the sky looks blue? Don't be a dumbfuck. No one wastes time writing and publishing articles on blatantly obvious basic facts.

However, basic statements of the obvious, primary-education-level facts that you want to pretend are in scientific dispute can be - and have been - found in your own links. Or any textbook. The scientific definition of life, organism, etc. are not exactly tough to locate.

You are now so clearly full of shit, your eyes are probably brown.

And yet, you could find many papers that cover just that. I was more interested in seeing you support this:

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.

statement and not something as easy as "the definition of life".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Glad to hear it. And as I keep saying, your personal priorities on the subject are irrelevant to the actual argument. Just because YOU think something is important doesn't mean everyone does, or has to.

I have no personal priorities when it comes to abortion. It's not an issue I think much about.

I just find these threads amusing, because the anti-abortionists tend to go on crazy tirades and butcher the biological data that isn't convenient to their position.

Evasion. You most certainly DO have personal priorities. You just got done telling us that you decided as you did on that issue because you consider "viability outside the womb" to be the important point. That's a priority, so quit ducking and dodging. Or at least do a more credible job of it.

As for "butchering biological data", that's fucking HILARIOUS coming from you. Tell me again how the "strict medical definition" of fetus is "what exists in the womb".

 

[geauxtohell]

I am fully qualified to question YOUR biological competency for the following reasons:

1) Merriam-Webster IS an authority on the meanings of words, and that includes ALL words commonly used in the English language, including medical terms. It isn't as specific and detailed as a medical dictionary would be, but it is neither incorrect nor widely divergent from what would be found there.

Then you should have noted that MW defined a fetus as:

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)

2) Your own link proves that you're a big, fat, agenda-driven liar. You neither gave me a "strict medical definition" (because a strict medical definition wouldn't include the vague phrase "what exists in the womb") nor did you give me what your link actually says. You rewrote it to delete phrases that didn't fit your agenda. Nowhere in that article can I find the exact sentence you "quoted". THIS is what your article ACTUALLY says about a fetus:

"The fetal stage is from the beginning of the 9th week after fertilization and continues until birth. At this time, the developing human is referred to as the fetus."

What the hell are you talking about? I merely stated that a begins, developmentally at 8 weeks. I've never denied that a woman is carrying a "developing human" in her womb.

Have you not been reading my posts? And why do you turn into such a sneering weasel on here? Are you just an angry person?

3) Further on the subject of your "strict medical definition", it's incorrect precisely because it is so vague. A fetus CANNOT be "what exists in the womb" simply because it is not the only thing existing in the womb at that time. The placenta, umbilical cord, and amniotic sac are also present. The term "fetus" refers ONLY to the developing human offspring, the phrase you are trying so desperately not to admit.

4) If you want to talk about "strict medical definitions" and "authorities on medical matters", let me refer you to Taber's Medical Dictionary, one of the two medical dictionaries most commonly used by doctors and medical offices:

Fetus - 1. The latter stages of the developing young of an animal within the uterus or within an egg.
2. The developing human, in utero, after completion of the eighth gestational week.
Before that time it is called an embryo.

Taber's Medical Dictionary:fetus

Again, this is exactly what my quote said. So what the hell are you splitting hairs over?

I don't care what the law says. I realize people like you cling to "it's legal" like Christians clutching a piece of the True Cross because it's all you have to hide behind, but "Abortion should be legal because it's legal" is the kind of argument five-year-olds use.

I never said if an abortion should or should not be legal. I just noted that it is. Like I said, if you don't like the law, then change it. Until then, I am going to respect the law and not your mandates.

I also don't care how many times you plug your ears and chant, "Cecilie thinks all development stages are the same; Cecilie thinks all development stages are the same." I've said exactly the opposite, everyone has SEEN me say exactly the opposite, and your insistence on lying about it just makes you look too chickenshit to deal with my ACTUAL arguments instead of the one you desperately WISH I was making.

Seems to me the only thing you "know better" about is your complete inability to debate anyone but a strawman.

Okay. Then tell me again why viability is not important to this debate?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You misunderstand. I didn't say I disagree that a fetus isn't viable outside the womb before a certain point. I said YOU are the only one in this conversation who thinks that is important or relevant. I, on the other hand, am fully capable of ignoring it when it comes to abortion arguments, because it matters to me not at all in that context.

I am far from the only one. Furthermore, the decision on where to draw the line for "late term" was made with viability in mind.

YOU are the only one I'm talking to at the moment, and it matters not at all to me if you can find other people as wooly-minded as you are. Neither does the definition of "late in the term" have anything whatsoever to do with this topic. We're talking about the morality of abortion, not when an abortion goes from "early-term" to "late-term", and don't think for a second that I'm going to let you get away with topic-hopping.

As for your last sentence, you might as well say: "I am perfectly capable of ignoring scientific fact when it is inconvenient to my position".

No, that's YOUR schtick.

And you are not entitled to impose YOUR misunderstandings of my position onto me, or your personal beliefs about what is and isn't relevant onto the entire abortion argument. You may WANT to define the parameters of the debate, but that doesn't mean you get to.

I am not trying to impose anything on you. I am just pointing out the facts behind the matter. I also have never said I get to define the parameters of the debate.

Try again.

Yes, you ARE trying to impose on me. You keep trying to tell me that my argument is that all stages of development are exactly the same, despite the fact that I've said repeatedly that they are NOT. My argument is that stages of development HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A FETUS' HUMANITY, an argument that you seem terrified of actually addressing.

Furthermore, you keep trying to impose YOUR priority of "viability outside the womb is what's important in whether abortions should be allowed" on the argument. That's what's important to YOU. I am in no way required to think that viability outside of the womb is of any importance whatsoever in deciding whether or not abortion should be allowed. THAT is trying to define the parameters of the debate: You're trying to tell me what points should and should not be the basis of the argument, and what should matter to me.

 

[geauxtohell]

Evasion. You most certainly DO have personal priorities. You just got done telling us that you decided as you did on that issue because you consider "viability outside the womb" to be the important point. That's a priority, so quit ducking and dodging. Or at least do a more credible job of it.

As for "butchering biological data", that's fucking HILARIOUS coming from you. Tell me again how the "strict medical definition" of fetus is "what exists in the womb".

Again, I defined a fetus based on developmental stages. This speaks to viability which is based on a timeline. You are either too dense to get it or are just trying to deflect from your moronic comments here and have nothing left but to split hairs about the wording "exists in the womb".

 

[geauxtohell]

You misunderstand. I didn't say I disagree that a fetus isn't viable outside the womb before a certain point. I said YOU are the only one in this conversation who thinks that is important or relevant. I, on the other hand, am fully capable of ignoring it when it comes to abortion arguments, because it matters to me not at all in that context.

I am far from the only one. Furthermore, the decision on where to draw the line for "late term" was made with viability in mind.

YOU are the only one I'm talking to at the moment, and it matters not at all to me if you can find other people as wooly-minded as you are. Neither does the definition of "late in the term" have anything whatsoever to do with this topic. We're talking about the morality of abortion, not when an abortion goes from "early-term" to "late-term", and don't think for a second that I'm going to let you get away with topic-hopping.



No, that's YOUR schtick.

And you are not entitled to impose YOUR misunderstandings of my position onto me, or your personal beliefs about what is and isn't relevant onto the entire abortion argument. You may WANT to define the parameters of the debate, but that doesn't mean you get to.

I am not trying to impose anything on you. I am just pointing out the facts behind the matter. I also have never said I get to define the parameters of the debate.

Try again.

Yes, you ARE trying to impose on me. You keep trying to tell me that my argument is that all stages of development are exactly the same, despite the fact that I've said repeatedly that they are NOT. My argument is that stages of development HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A FETUS' HUMANITY, an argument that you seem terrified of actually addressing.

Furthermore, you keep trying to impose YOUR priority of "viability outside the womb is what's important in whether abortions should be allowed" on the argument. That's what's important to YOU. I am in no way required to think that viability outside of the womb is of any importance whatsoever in deciding whether or not abortion should be allowed. THAT is trying to define the parameters of the debate: You're trying to tell me what points should and should not be the basis of the argument, and what should matter to me.

You are obviously in a tizzy. I can barely understand you bizarre rants. Again, viability has been an important of part of this argument since the beginning. If you want to ignore it, then that is your prerogative, but you can't ignore the facts of the matter. Furthermore, I had no idea we were talking about vague concepts like "humanity". I could care less about such subjective notions. If you want to argue with a rock about what humanity is and when it begins, then knock yourself out.

This is why I said I try and avoid the idiotic semantic debates on this topic and stick to strict medical definitions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So when does "life" begin?

Generally speaking, science tells us that something is alive when it has these characteristics:

1) Chemical uniqueness.

2) Reproduction. This means not only the ability to produce another complete organism, but also cellular reproduction.

3) Metabolism.

4) Development and growth.

5) Response to environmental stimuli.

At the point that a fetus - or an embryo, for that matter - meets these criteria, life exists, scientifically speaking.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nice try, but "You only took college biology" does NOT equate to "You know nothing about biology, and are totally wrong." Unless you can actually PROVE that I am mistaken about basic biology OR about what doctors are taught about it, my education levels are nothing more than a pathetic dodge on your part.

Ohhh. Touched a nerve did that?

You were the one that brought other people's education level into the issue.

Yes, stupidity always touches a nerve with me, as does any lame attempt to avoid the issue by saying, "You're not educated enough to know the facts." So whenever you're ready to tell me how wrong I am based on proof that I'm wrong, rather than snarkily dismissing me as "not a doctor", bring it on. If you feel the need to sound like a chickenshit a bit more, I guess I can wait.

Peer-reviewed material on the matter? Are you serious? Why don't you ask me to produce peer-reviewed material debating whether or not humans are bipeds, or mammals, while you're about it? And then perhaps you could ask me to produce some peer-reviewed articles on climatology that debate whether or not the sky looks blue? Don't be a dumbfuck. No one wastes time writing and publishing articles on blatantly obvious basic facts.

However, basic statements of the obvious, primary-education-level facts that you want to pretend are in scientific dispute can be - and have been - found in your own links. Or any textbook. The scientific definition of life, organism, etc. are not exactly tough to locate.

You are now so clearly full of shit, your eyes are probably brown.

And yet, you could find many papers that cover just that. I was more interested in seeing you support this:

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.

statement and not something as easy as "the definition of life".

Feel free to show me any proof of a doctor saying, "Abortion is acceptable because we're just not sure if a fetus is a separate organism." I'd love to see it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Nice try, but "You only took college biology" does NOT equate to "You know nothing about biology, and are totally wrong." Unless you can actually PROVE that I am mistaken about basic biology OR about what doctors are taught about it, my education levels are nothing more than a pathetic dodge on your part.

Ohhh. Touched a nerve did that?

You were the one that brought other people's education level into the issue.

Yes, stupidity always touches a nerve with me, as does any lame attempt to avoid the issue by saying, "You're not educated enough to know the facts." So whenever you're ready to tell me how wrong I am based on proof that I'm wrong, rather than snarkily dismissing me as "not a doctor", bring it on. If you feel the need to sound like a chickenshit a bit more, I guess I can wait.

And yet, you could find many papers that cover just that. I was more interested in seeing you support this:

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.

statement and not something as easy as "the definition of life".

Feel free to show me any proof of a doctor saying, "Abortion is acceptable because we're just not sure if a fetus is a separate organism." I'd love to see it.

Physicians aren't concerned with the legalities of the issue, just the science of it.