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

[Cecilie1200]

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)

I DID note it, dunce. That's a quote from MY POST. What difference does the specific period of time denoted by the word "fetus" have to do with anything? Did I ever deny that "fetus" referred to a child pre-birth? Have I ever argued that "fetus" refers to a different developmental stage than it does? I don't think so.

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.

Yeah, you have. You're trying to tell us that a fetus is "not really a human being" until he is viable outside the womb. Don't even try to pretend otherwise now.

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?

I've been reading your posts, which is why I'm not letting you pretend your position is anything other than it is now. This is what YOU said:

"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."

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

We've all seen what you said, and just because you want to backpedal away from it now doesn't mean I'M "splitting hairs".

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.

So now you're going to try to pretend you have no idea what this debate is about. Exactly what would you like to tell us YOU thought the abortion argument concerns? And if you DIDN'T think it was about whether abortion should be allowed, why is it that you keep running to, "Well, it's legal!" like it's home base in a game of tag?

And by the way, what possible purpose is EVER served by "noting that it's legal"? Are you imagining that there's someone on this board who doesn't already know that? Are you expecting someone to pop up and say, "Abortion is legal?! Ohmigod, I did not know that! That changes EVERYTHING!"?

I don't believe I or anyone else has had any "mandates" about what YOU should or shouldn't do in contradiction to the law. My debate is always, solely, about whether or not abortion should be legal, not whether or not it IS or trying to order you not to get your girlfriend one.

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?

Viability outside the womb is not important to everyone in the abortion debate because not everyone's position is based on level of development. I for one base my position on things much less subjective and changeable, such as the simple fact that a fetus, and before that an embryo, is a living organism. How far he has developed toward adulthood changes nothing about that for me.

In addition, making a big deal out of an organism's viability in this or that environment is specious and illogical. A fetus is fully viable IN THE ENVIRONMENT FOR WHICH NATURE HAS DESIGNED HIM, ie. the womb. Nature does not intend for the fetus to live outside the womb, and therefore he is not fitted to do it. This argument is akin to saying that because I am not viable fifty feet below sea level (because nature has fitted me to live in a land environment rather than a water environment), I'm not really alive. ALL life forms are designed to live in a particular environment, and if you remove them from it and put them in a radically different environment, they die. Likewise, some lifeforms are designed to live in one environment at one stage of their lives, and another environment at a later stage of life.

In short, it is illogical to say that a fetus is not human simply because he is different from an ADULT human.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

No, you didn't. You defined a fetus based on what you didn't want to say. NOWHERE in your own link did the setence "a fetus is what exists in the womb" appear. You just didn't want to admit that it said a fetus was a human. No hair-splitting involved in pointing out that YOU LIED.

And if you want to call my comments "moronic", Bucko, you'd best get busy disproving them, because the more you talk, the less anyone is going to accept "Because Geaux says so" as meaningful.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

Oh, you can't understand "my bizarre rants"? Please explain what's bizarre or confusing about "YOU LIED"? Show me the exact quote in your link where it said, "A fetus is what exists in the womb". Show me how that's a "strict medical definition".

Viability outside the womb is only important to people like you who want to deflect from the essential humanity of a fetus and pretend he's not really human and not really alive. To anyone who's not trying to pretend the facts are different than they are, it's irrelevant.

Furthermore, "humanity" is only a vague concept to those who want to deny it. For everyone else, it's as plain as the nose on WC Field's face.

It's really funny hearing someone who's married to "viability outside the womb", which changes routinely with medical advances, bitch about "subjectivity".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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:



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.

In case you hadn't noticed, YOU are the only one here clinging to "It's legal" as though it matters. I am talking science. I just happen to think that the law should reflect the science, rather than lying about the science to keep from changing the law.

And nice try at dodging. You keep telling me medicine doesn't agree with me, and claiming that I'm not educated enough to know the facts, and can't speak for doctors when I say that no doctor in this country claims that a fetus is not a separate organism. So now you get to show me proof that I'm wrong, or admit that I CAN, in fact, speak for doctors when I say that.

Put up or shut up, but stop running like a bitch.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[geauxtohell]

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.



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.

In case you hadn't noticed, YOU are the only one here clinging to "It's legal" as though it matters. I am talking science. I just happen to think that the law should reflect the science, rather than lying about the science to keep from changing the law.

And nice try at dodging. You keep telling me medicine doesn't agree with me, and claiming that I'm not educated enough to know the facts, and can't speak for doctors when I say that no doctor in this country claims that a fetus is not a separate organism. So now you get to show me proof that I'm wrong, or admit that I CAN, in fact, speak for doctors when I say that.

Put up or shut up, but stop running like a bitch.

Rather than engage in your typical rage-a-thon, I'll just respond by saying I really don't know what you are bitching about. You asked me to define what a fetus was. I did. And you went into ballistics over the matter. Again, this is why I try and avoid these idiotic semantic debates that the anti-abortion people get wrapped up over.

I realize most people don't read a full thread before participating, but if you had, you'd have seen that I've also stated that I think a fetus is a human. What else would it be? However, it is not viable. That may matter to you or it may not. It's irrelevant to me or the facts of the matter.

Now if you want to go pop a xanax and continue than fine, but I don't have the patience to participate in a typical Cecile rage fest.

So if you want to continue to waste bandwidth with your angry posts then knock yourself out. I find them so banal that I basically skim them and feel little need to respond to the stupidity.

 

[LANMaster]

* Yawn ... stretch *

Back from my trip to Waco Texas. I was not impressed with the town.

Very impressed with the career prospect, though.

What did I miss?

 

[IanC]

A fetus or infant is only viable with a sponsor that is willing to provide the resources needed for life. If no one is willing then the appropriate decision is termination. The mother gets to make that choice. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking life starts at anything other than the moment of conception.

 

[steeliniraq]

LONDON - British health experts say the human fetus cannot feel pain before the age of 24 weeks, so there is no reason to change the country's abortion laws.

The government-commissioned study is a setback for anti-abortion activists, who want the country's current 24-week time limit for terminations reduced.

The study says that nerve connections in the brain are not sufficiently formed to allow pain perception before 24 weeks.


Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says - More health news- msnbc.com

tossed out for your opinion and discussion

will this change anyone's mind?

Right on!!! Screw responsibility!!! The fetus doesn't feel pain before 24 weeks lets slay some up!!! Slay away people!! Kill that unborn fetus because that little thing is the devil.

How about when you are done slaying the fetus we slay you however? Or how about people act responsible and not put themselves in these situations? Ahhhh fuck responsibility. That something for stupid people to worry about.