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

[JBeukema]

You hair is composed of "dead" cells, silly

My arm is not. Does it have rights? It's genetically human and it's alive.

Can I cut off your arm because it is not alive and conscious?

Damaging my arm causes me suffering. Damaging my arm is not the issue. It's the harm I, the conscious mind experience that makes it wrong. That's why we don't worry about burning or burying corpses- there's no conscious mind to feel pain as the body is destroyed.

 

[ConHog]

You are pro killing every THING which doesn't have consciousnesses?

That's directed at someone else but I had to comment.

The answer is no. You're still missing the point of CHOICE. It isn't "pro killing". It's pro-options. And yes, someone who is completely brain dead can be legally taken off life support. Does that mean they HAVE to do that? Well, no. The family can opt to keep their body alive. That's their CHOICE.

So why would someone choose to do that? Well, sentimentality. They have a personal vested interest in the loving memories and interactions with that person, and don't want to see the last physical manifestation of that person go. Now a pregnant woman may experience such a connection to her fetus, in which case there is personal value to her to not terminate the pregnancy. However if she does not experience that connection, why should someone like you, who has ZERO actual vested interest in that specific fetus, actually have an ability to limit her choices and say what should happen?

This is the concept of "murder" that AllieBaba has been avoiding despite my attempts to strike up a conversation about it with him. Murder is wrong because it unjustly removes something that the person and their loved ones value: that person's life. Theft is wrong for similar reasons. These concepts do not necessarily apply to a fetus.

They do to some people and I think its' ridiculous of some of you not to acknowledge that simple fact. Makes me sick when people scoff at other people's legitimate religious concerns. I'm not saying YOU do this. I don't know, but many do. And yes I know it works the other way around to, and it's just as lame.

Just like down in the lame thread in the flame zone where I got hammered by a couple of idiots b/c I pointed out that IMO fathers should have some say in the decision making process or else have the option to opt out of parenthood altogether just as women do. That's a legitimate argument, so why bash someone for it?

I know this is an emotional subject, but what has happened to rationale debate in this country? Not to get TOO political in this thread, but it has gotten worse in the last two years than I can ever remember.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

Bullshit.

Always such intelligent and eloquent rebuttals

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My arm is not. Does it have rights? It's genetically human and it's alive.

Can I cut off your arm because it is not alive and conscious?

Damaging my arm causes me suffering. Damaging my arm is not the issue. It's the harm I, the conscious mind experience that makes it wrong. That's why we don't worry about burning or burying corpses- there's no conscious mind to feel pain as the body is destroyed.

I will take that as a no. I really don't care about the justification for your position, I just want to know what it is.

 

[JBeukema]

A fetus is a living human life.

As is the body of a braindead man kept alive with the aid of machines, or with no higher brain functions but a working brainstem.

What's your point?

The existence of human DNA merely makes it a human organism. It is the precense of a concious mind that makes it an individual, a person.


Now compare your criterion against mine when you're confronted with a hypothetical (intelligent) alien lifeform and you must determine whether it is a person with rights.

So to recap:

You are pro killing every THING which doesn't have consciousnesses?

'pro' - supporting or advocating

?

Please cite anything to support your claims.

What I've said is that individuals (people) have rights.

 

[ConHog]

As is the body of a braindead man kept alive with the aid of machines, or with no higher brain functions but a working brainstem.

What's your point?

The existence of human DNA merely makes it a human organism. It is the precense of a concious mind that makes it an individual, a person.


Now compare your criterion against mine when you're confronted with a hypothetical (intelligent) alien lifeform and you must determine whether it is a person with rights.

So to recap:

You are pro killing every THING which doesn't have consciousnesses?

'pro' - supporting or advocating

?

Please cite anything to support your claims.

What I've said is that individuals (people) have rights.

Eh, I don't wanna get to deep into this again, because it is MY opinion that only half the people involved here (if you don't count the baby) are getting any rights. And I already got beat up over that position enough.

 

[JBeukema]

Hypothetical alien beings wouldn't need anyone else to determine if they had rights, they would already have them as an inherent part of being alive.

(emphasis added)

So trees, E.Coli, and amoebas have rights?

What about viruses which aren't quite life but kinda are zand love to **** up our neat little definitions?

If your hypothetical alain being was a part of a hive mind your criteria would say it had none

Clarify. If it had no consciousness of its own, it'd be no different than a single neuron. rather, the mind itself would have rights, much as I have rights and you have rights but our individual neurons and cells do not.

If it had its own consciousness, then it would have its own rights. If its rights came into conflict with those of the 'greater' mind, then you'd have a moral quandary much like the MPD thread I started some time ago.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

This is the concept of "murder" that AllieBaba has been avoiding despite my attempts to strike up a conversation about it with him. Murder is wrong because it unjustly removes something that the person and their loved ones value: that person's life. Theft is wrong for similar reasons. These concepts do not necessarily apply to a fetus.

They do to some people and I think its' ridiculous of some of you not to acknowledge that simple fact. Makes me sick when people scoff at other people's legitimate religious concerns.

Yes, of course they apply to some people and not others. That's the very reason there should be CHOICE, so that the outcome represents how that concept applies to each person individually, and NOT how that concept applies to one person and is force on everyone else.

If someone has a religious concern, they should by all means follow those convictions with regards to their own circumstances and actions. They should NOT, however, demand that everyone else do the same. There is no decent reason why one person should have the authority or right to determine this type of decision for someone else when they have no personal vested interest. That's essentially the difference between pro-life and pro-choice: one group wants to force their own beliefs on everyone, and the other feels that such decisions should be made by the affected individual.

 

[JBeukema]

Can I cut off your arm because it is not alive and conscious?

Damaging my arm causes me suffering. Damaging my arm is not the issue. It's the harm I, the conscious mind experience that makes it wrong. That's why we don't worry about burning or burying corpses- there's no conscious mind to feel pain as the body is destroyed.

I will take that as a no. I really don't care about the justification for your position, I just want to know what it is.

When I am dead, you my do with my arm as you please. It has no rights. So long as your actions cause harm to another person, rather than merely effecting tissue or a rock or a tree, expect any violation of that persons rights to be met with force, either individually or collectively (through the machinations of the State, in accordance with the social contract of those around you)

 

[JBeukema]

So to recap:

You are pro killing every THING which doesn't have consciousnesses?

'pro' - supporting or advocating

?

Please cite anything to support your claims.

What I've said is that individuals (people) have rights.

Eh, I don't wanna get to deep into this again, because it is MY opinion that only half the people involved here (if you don't count the baby) are getting any rights. And I already got beat up over that position enough.

The baby has rights once the baby' comes to mean a person- that is, once the system gives rise to a sentient mind and 'the baby' is used to refer to that individual as well as the system (its brain and the body that acts to support and maintain its existence) that gives rise to it.


The cells themselves have no rights and the mind can have no rights prior to the point at which it becomes existent- a nonexistent thing can not possess rights. To suggest otherwise is absurdity.

 

[ConHog]

This is the concept of "murder" that AllieBaba has been avoiding despite my attempts to strike up a conversation about it with him. Murder is wrong because it unjustly removes something that the person and their loved ones value: that person's life. Theft is wrong for similar reasons. These concepts do not necessarily apply to a fetus.

They do to some people and I think its' ridiculous of some of you not to acknowledge that simple fact. Makes me sick when people scoff at other people's legitimate religious concerns.

Yes, of course they apply to some people and not others. That's the very reason there should be CHOICE, so that the outcome represents how that concept applies to each person individually, and NOT how that concept applies to one person and is force on everyone else.

If someone has a religious concern, they should by all means follow those convictions with regards to their own circumstances and actions. They should NOT, however, demand that everyone else do the same. There is no decent reason why one person should have the authority or right to determine this type of decision for someone else when they have no personal vested interest. That's essentially the difference between pro-life and pro-choice: one group wants to force their own beliefs on everyone, and the other feels that such decisions should be made by the affected individual.

CLEARLY that is not true. It may be true of some pro choice people, but the truly militant advocates are just as much trying to force THEIR views down people's throws as the militant pro lifers.

In actuality the people who just want to live and let live on EACH side should be standing together and telling the morons on either extreme to shut the **** up already, and that applies to more than just this single subject.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Emerging research data from a number of studies now suggest that the late second-trimester fetus is capable, in fact, of experiencing more pain than babies born at term. At a conference on fetal and neo-natal pain held in Toronto in early April 1996, Dr. K.J.S. Anand, assistant professor of pediatric anesthesia at Emory University in Atlanta and one of the world's foremost authorities on fetal pain, reviewed a number of recent observations

Emerging data from 1996!? Well, in case you didn't hear, emerging data from 2010 states Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says. Welcome to the 21st century.

What these people overlook is this simple fact. When the baby's heart begins beating there is a functioning brain with nerves extending into the baby's body....if there weren't there would be no heartbeat as involuntary muscles are controlled by the medulla oblongata aka primitive brain

This is completely false. Please don't make up biology when it's clear you have no education or experience in the field. The primitive heart beats completely independent of the brain based on a set of pacemakers inherent to the heart tissue. Later in development, and throughout your life, the heart can be influenced from signals from the brain to speed up or slow down. Severing these signals produces more variability in heart rate as it's not as finely controlled, but this is still compatible with life in humans and animals. In fact, you could completely remove the heart from a young animal fetus, and it will still beat on its own as long as it has the right chemical resources.

See what I did there with the links and proven scientific literature? You should try that next time before misrepresenting information.

When does a fetus start having brain activity? 9th week, to have brain activity you will also have the begining of nerve growth. with nerve growth you will begin to have the feeling of pain. But I am with the rest who cares if the baby feels pain or not murder is murder.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you believe it's a human life and human life must be defended, now matter how rudimentary, where are you on the death penalty? Do we have anyone here who is pro-life (not to get into semantics, I mean someone who thinks abortion should be illegal), but is also anti-death penalty? For some reason, it seems to be hard to find one of them.

Further, where are you pro-lifers in situations where the mother's health is in jeapordy?

The death penalty and abortion are two differant subjects. one surrenders their rights to life when they commit a crime worthy of death. an unborn child has done nothing worthy of death.

However, one who claims that all life is sacred must reconcile the appearance that not all life is sacred enough in their eyes. There is some hypocrisy in claiming that all life is sacred yet standing up for the death penalty especially when one realize that some who are innocent have lost their lives to the executioner and that there is a very high probability that there may be other innocents sitting on death row today.

Immie

Innocent life is scared; people worthy of death by committing a crime worthy of death give the right to life away. Your argument does have some legitimacy to it. My argument is for those who have admitted to killing someone else those people should receive the death penalty, and those who have been caught in the act.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But the two don't automatically go hand in hand....and it comes down to the taking of inncoent lives. Criminals put to death are theoretically guilty of a crime; murder. A baby hasn't done anything. While the bible arguably condones execution, at least in the OT, it doesn't condone murder. Particularly of innocents.

That is the argument of the pro-abortion people, they try to connect the two. I agree with you. They are two differant subjects, but some wish to wrap the two together in the same ball of wax.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Abortion: death is given to someone who has done nothing to recieve death
The death penalty: is given to someone who has given up their right to life,

A fetus has done nothing to deserve life either. Everyone, let's put this issue to rest. From the religious point of view, it is not hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty because both are consistent with interpretations of the bible. From the non-religious point of view, it is not hypocritical to be pro-choice and pro-death penalty because both are consistent with preserving established human life. Even if you disagree with either statement, you must acknowledge that they meet consistent criteria within the minds of those who hold them.

So please, everyone, let's drop this part of the discussion. Start a death penalty thread if you REALLY want to go there.

[/QUOTE]

Just being conceived is enough to be worthy of life. But I don't recall being the first to mention the subject. I was asked why I am pro life and can also support the death penalty. When I am asked a question I will attempt to answer the question. Would you expect the same thing if you asked a question of someone would you like for the person to make a response to your question?

 

[Greenbeard]

Innocent life is scared; people worthy of death by committing a crime worthy of death give the right to life away. Your argument does have some legitimacy to it. My argument is for those who have admitted to killing someone else those people should receive the death penalty, and those who have been caught in the act.

It's worth pointing out that the philosophical principle you're laying down is one of the intellectual pillars of the pro-choice position (at least in some conceptions). You're saying that mere biology doesn't bring with it a right to life, since obviously someone sentenced to death is still considered to be human. Instead, it's a social decision. In your case, those that society judges guilty of transgressions against society can see the protections of the right to life withdrawn. A pro-choice advocate might say that the unborn--regardless of biology--have not yet entered the sphere of those protections and instead defer to the mother, who undeniably has entered that sphere.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Innocent life is scared; people worthy of death by committing a crime worthy of death give the right to life away. Your argument does have some legitimacy to it. My argument is for those who have admitted to killing someone else those people should receive the death penalty, and those who have been caught in the act.

It's worth pointing out that the philosophical principle you're laying down is one of the intellectual pillars of the pro-choice position (at least in some conceptions). You're saying that mere biology doesn't bring with it a right to life, since obviously someone sentenced to death is still considered to be human. Instead, it's a social decision. In your case, those that society judges guilty of transgressions against society can see the protections of the right to life withdrawn. A pro-choice advocate might say that the unborn--regardless of biology--have not yet entered the sphere of those protections and instead defer to the mother, who undeniably has entered that sphere.

excuse me?

 

[strollingbones]

he said....existing life should trump potential life

 

[Zoom-boing]

The baby has rights once the baby' comes to mean a person- that is, once the system gives rise to a sentient mind and 'the baby' is used to refer to that individual as well as the system (its brain and the body that acts to support and maintain its existence) that gives rise to it.


The cells themselves have no rights and the mind can have no rights prior to the point at which it becomes existent- a nonexistent thing can not possess rights. To suggest otherwise is absurdity.

Your POV is that the 'baby' doesn't have rights until it meets your criteria for 'person hood'. . . . yet you refer to that 'clump of non-human-person' cells as a baby, i.e. a human fetus. Interesting.

But 'it' does exist. What is inside a pregnant woman, from the moment of conception, exists and is a human being. From zygote to birth to death . . . it is human, a person. Different stages, but all stages in human development. Your POV is that it is not a human being until the brain and the body acts to support and maintain its existence. I find this line of reasoning an excuse people use to justify the destruction of an innocent human and perhaps a way to ease one's conscious and, quite frankly, a cop out.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

he said....existing life should trump potential life

That’s what I thought he meant. That argument becomes moot when the existing life forfeits the right to exist when it commits a crime worthy of death.