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

[clevergirl]

To C-section a fetus "out" before viability would be just another form of abortion.

Actually, I think THAT would qualify as murder, or at least cruel and unusual punishment. Either way, it's hardly a logical answer to an unanswerable question.

No, it would be another form of abortion. Medical abortion is not a specific procedure it is the act of ending the fetal life of the unborn.

 

[saveliberty]

I like all of you. Sorry your having a difference of opinion. Making the next generation and trying to make this a better place for them is why we're all here.

 

[PixieStix]

 

[syrenn]

How about you are absolutely clueless to ever be able to even explain it to a one year old.

The human fetus is a complete biological human being at an early stage of developement.

Good to know, then you agree that early in its development it can be C-sectioned out and be a little human being. Thank you.

Good to see you make my point about your lack of intelligence.

To C-section a fetus "out" before viability would be just another form of abortion.

As you make a better point in my direction. A viable fetus. That assumes that the "fetus" will live. If that is so then giving it birth though C-section is the answer.

The fetus is not damaged in the process of C-section, the woman doesn't not have to carry it. The lifers get what they want.

 

[Jon]

Where does compassion come into this equation? I hope you have many aborted babies on you conscious because a woman was smart enough to see through you.

See what? That he is smart,successful,compassionate and won't be the type to shirk his responsibilites? I think lots of women would appreciate Jon.

Well shadow, if you have differing opinion then jons he is a totally different person all together.

Completely untrue. I have had a disagreement with practically everyone on this board. Echo and I rarely agree. Allie and I often don't agree. Modbert and I hardly ever agree. The list goes on and on. The difference is they are not completely ignorant.

Was that really necessary? You can disagree on this thing without being an ass.

And her attacking me was what, fair game?

No, it would be another form of abortion. Medical abortion is not a specific procedure it is the act of ending the fetal life of the unborn.

Well, technically, when the child is C-sectioned out it is no longer unborn.

 

[geauxtohell]

Do you have no intelligence? Or are you just thick?
How about I explain it to a two year old

cells out of body
cells on life support
cells die even WITH life support
cells dead

here is the other way it could go

cells out of body
cells on life support
cells live
cells have life
cells will now be cared for as it is ALIVE

Who ever said ANYTHING about a baby surviving on its own? they need to be fed and taken care of but BABIES have a life.

How about you are absolutely clueless to ever be able to even explain it to a one year old.

The human fetus is a complete biological human being at an early stage of developement.

Good to know, then you agree that early in its development it can be C-sectioned out and be a little human being. Thank you.

This back and forth is why I avoid the silly semantics debates on this issue.

It's irrelevant what what people call it. It doesn't change the fact that abortion is legal.

 

[syrenn]

To C-section a fetus "out" before viability would be just another form of abortion.

Actually, I think THAT would qualify as murder, or at least cruel and unusual punishment. Either way, it's hardly a logical answer to an unanswerable question.

No, it would be another form of abortion. Medical abortion is not a specific procedure it is the act of ending the fetal life of the unborn.

Again, if it is ALIVE then it will do just fine being C-sections out.

 

[clevergirl]

No, it would be another form of abortion. Medical abortion is not a specific procedure it is the act of ending the fetal life of the unborn.

Well, technically, when the child is C-sectioned out it is no longer unborn.

When the fetus is aborted, no matter the method, it is no longer unborn- it's dead.

C-section is currently used for some abortions.

 

[Jon]

Actually, I think THAT would qualify as murder, or at least cruel and unusual punishment. Either way, it's hardly a logical answer to an unanswerable question.

No, it would be another form of abortion. Medical abortion is not a specific procedure it is the act of ending the fetal life of the unborn.

Again, if it is ALIVE then it will do just fine being C-sections out.

Wrong.

There are plenty forms of life that require a host to survive, but they are still alive. Fetuses are no different.

 

[Shadow]

Where does compassion come into this equation? I hope you have many aborted babies on you conscious because a woman was smart enough to see through you.

See what? That he is smart,successful,compassionate and won't be the type to shirk his responsibilites? I think lots of women would appreciate Jon.

Well shadow, if you have differing opinion then jons he is a totally different person all together.

Try rude and insulting, petty and shallow. Like that little tidbit in red above. Lots of women don't appreciate that. So it would appear as if you don't know all well at all or the sides of jon's face.

Spoken like a true hypocrite. Why should he just sit back and be forced to take all of your insulting crap and not dish it back? Because you are a woman? I think not.

 

[clevergirl]

Actually, I think THAT would qualify as murder, or at least cruel and unusual punishment. Either way, it's hardly a logical answer to an unanswerable question.

No, it would be another form of abortion. Medical abortion is not a specific procedure it is the act of ending the fetal life of the unborn.

Again, if it is ALIVE then it will do just fine being C-sections out.

Idiocy is really no excuse for your insipid logic...but alas there it is.

C-section is merely a method a doctor may use to abort a fetus. In c-section abortions, which are usually used for late term abortions in Canada, the umbilical chord is cut first so that the baby is left to suffocate...pleasant way to die huh?

 

[syrenn]

See what? That he is smart,successful,compassionate and won't be the type to shirk his responsibilites? I think lots of women would appreciate Jon.

Well shadow, if you have differing opinion then jons he is a totally different person all together.

Try rude and insulting, petty and shallow. Like that little tidbit in red above. Lots of women don't appreciate that. So it would appear as if you don't know all well at all or the sides of jon's face.

Spoken like a true hypocrite. Why should he just sit back and be forced to take all of your insulting crap and not dish it back? Because you are a woman? I think not.

Really? My insulting crap?

i think you need to read the thread....and not just this one and see if your right about that. Read this thread...and look at who starts in on the insults? me or jon?

sorry shadow you dont know jon as well as you think.

 

[Jon]

Well shadow, if you have differing opinion then jons he is a totally different person all together.

Try rude and insulting, petty and shallow. Like that little tidbit in red above. Lots of women don't appreciate that. So it would appear as if you don't know all well at all or the sides of jon's face.

Spoken like a true hypocrite. Why should he just sit back and be forced to take all of your insulting crap and not dish it back? Because you are a woman? I think not.

Really? My insulting crap?

i think you need to read the thread....and not just this one and see if your right about that. Read this thread...and look at who starts in on the insults? me or jon?

sorry shadow you dont know jon as well as you think.

Shadow's been posting here alongside me a lot longer than you. I think she would know me a lot better than you do. You just happen to be the type of daft ***** to get on my nerves, so I call you out on it. Don't blame me because you're ignorant.

 

[syrenn]

No, it would be another form of abortion. Medical abortion is not a specific procedure it is the act of ending the fetal life of the unborn.

Again, if it is ALIVE then it will do just fine being C-sections out.

Idiocy is really no excuse for your insipid logic...but alas there it is.

C-section is merely a method a doctor may use to abort a fetus. In c-section abortions, which are usually used for late term abortions in Canada, the umbilical chord is cut first so that the baby is left to suffocate...pleasant way to die huh?

I am not talking about C-section abortions. I am talking about truly giving it a C-section birth no pre cut umbilical..no trying to kill anything....right along with all of the medical care that is available.

Lifers claim that it is "alive" from the moment of conception. Again C-section it out and give it all the life support you can. And see if it lives.

 

[ConHog]

See what? That he is smart,successful,compassionate and won't be the type to shirk his responsibilites? I think lots of women would appreciate Jon.

Well shadow, if you have differing opinion then jons he is a totally different person all together.

Try rude and insulting, petty and shallow. Like that little tidbit in red above. Lots of women don't appreciate that. So it would appear as if you don't know all well at all or the sides of jon's face.

Spoken like a true hypocrite. Why should he just sit back and be forced to take all of your insulting crap and not dish it back? Because you are a woman? I think not.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what Syrenn thinks, and if it comes to it, shell get her ***** gslack to come in and throw some insults around to, and then shell wine to EZ if you insult her back too much. She's a piece of ******* garbage.

 

[Shadow]

Well shadow, if you have differing opinion then jons he is a totally different person all together.

Try rude and insulting, petty and shallow. Like that little tidbit in red above. Lots of women don't appreciate that. So it would appear as if you don't know all well at all or the sides of jon's face.

Spoken like a true hypocrite. Why should he just sit back and be forced to take all of your insulting crap and not dish it back? Because you are a woman? I think not.

Really? My insulting crap?

i think you need to read the thread....and not just this one and see if your right about that. Read this thread...and look at who starts in on the insults? me or jon?

sorry shadow you dont know jon as well as you think.

I have been reading the other threads on this board. And you are just as rude and insulting. You are just bent out of shape because he doesn't coddle you,and run around fighting your battles for you like some of the other men seem to....so save it.

 

[clevergirl]

Again, if it is ALIVE then it will do just fine being C-sections out.

Idiocy is really no excuse for your insipid logic...but alas there it is.

C-section is merely a method a doctor may use to abort a fetus. In c-section abortions, which are usually used for late term abortions in Canada, the umbilical chord is cut first so that the baby is left to suffocate...pleasant way to die huh?

I am not talking about C-section abortions. I am talking about truly giving it a C-section birth no pre cut umbilical..no trying to kill anything....right along with all of the medical care that is available.

Lifers claim that it is "alive" from the moment of conception. Again C-section it out and give it all the life support you can. And see if it lives.

That often happens to preemies. No one, not any pro-life person, claims that a baby prior to 22 weeks can survive outside of the womb; though it used to be not even that young. Someday maybe it will be 15 weeks, who knows.

That said, you are trying to equate viabilty with whether or not the unborn is human life and its nothing more than a strawman argument! Biological science has already settled that argument.

So if your point (eye-roll) is that a fetus prior to 22 weeks gestation cannot survive outside the womb, then you are correct. If however your point is that because it cannot survive it is not a living human being; you are not just wrong, you are dead wrong!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that by insisting that no one has the right to impose their morals on other people, you are effectively imposing your morals on everyone. By telling people who oppose the murder of unborn children that their views do not count, simply because you do not agree with them, you are imposing your morality on them.

No. Making a broad sweeping generalization from a specific instance is just misleading. There will always be times when the ethics of some are imposed on others. For example, you are not allowed to steal in this country, even if you are not ethically opposed to it. The importance here is in the difference. With regard to thievery, the person being stolen from has a vested personal interest in the items. With regard to abortion, YOU HAVE NO VESTED PERSONAL INTEREST in the fetus of another person. As such, I am not imposing my morals on you by allowing someone else the ability to choose such an outcome.

That's the point you continually seem to be missing: pro-choice is allowing individuals to use THEIR OWN morals on this situation. Not mine. Not yours. Theirs. Claiming I'm imposing my morals on you is just inane. But if you want to completely prevent a woman from abortion, you ARE imposing your morals on her.

Just being conceived is enough to be worthy of life.

You have yet to say WHY that's the case. Are you even aware that the majority of conceptions are terminated naturally? Studies have shown that miscarriage rates range from about one third to over 40% after conception. So if conception is enough to be "worthy of life", whatever that means, why do so many naturally get terminated?

Again, this is one of those times when people like me use facts to support our claims, and people like you use vague emotional terms.

No. No it doesn't. Please do some reading and come back to the conversation. You are not saying anything new. We do not change medical practices for extreme outliers. If one person in 5 billion has an adverse reaction to a drug, the drug is not pulled from the market.

Nice diversion, but it was hardly my point. We are talking about when life begins, or when it is considered viable. If 21 weeks is an extreme outlier, 22 and 23 weeks are certainly considered reasonable. Your line in the sand is drawn past the point of what is considered viable life. I'm on the side of "better safe than sorry."

So you're ok with abortion before 21 weeks of age? You still appear to be missing the point. Set your cutoff where you will, if that makes you feel better. It doesn't change the discussion one bit.

the pro abortion side of the issue likes to call the other side ignorant boobs because they disagree with them.

No. We like to call people like you ignorant boobs for completely disregarding facts and evidence to maintain your unsubstantiated beliefs. Also, there is no "pro abortion" side to this issue. You can't point to a single person in this thread who is "pro abortion". Using misleading terms and then claiming others are misleading is just immature.

That question is irrelevant and senseless. Your appendix is not an existing life yet people need to "abort" it in order to rid oneself of it. It is not uncommon for people to remove tissues from their body which could later be troublesome. Now I'm sure you'll use this as an opportunity to misdirect the discussion away from the horrible point you just made and focus in on what defines "troublesome", taking things in a completely different direction, but your point still fails.

Tranlation: I haven't got a logical reason to try to refute the statement so I must insult the poster.

Of all the times I've flat out insulted someone for saying something stupid, that wasn't one of them. So let me translate YOUR response: I can't actually disagree, so I'm going to make up a completely useless comment.

AGREED! So if those cells have life then REMOVING them for a woman's body by cesarean section will not change that life. Will a 18 week old bundle of cells "live" of its own accord?

As well as you will live of your own accord if you're removed from dry and and held under the waters of the ocean or ejected into space.

This is a ridiculous incongruous analogy. Syrenn is noting stages of development, particularly conditions of a maturated human being. You are noting completely unrelated conditions not compatible with any natural human life.

I am not debating that the cells are "alive" I do debate if those cells have a "life of their own"

I don't understand why this nuance is so hard for people to grasp.

agreed.

COMA VICTIM 'SPEAKS' WITH HIS THOUGHTS - mirror.co.uk

The science guy is posting junk science that has people claim that people can read minds. What next? Proof of UFOs and evidence of bigfoot?

Yeah JBeukemia doesn't really contribute to threads or make claims of his own. He's only here to cruise for ways he can contradict people, regardless of original meaning, consistency between sides of an argument, or rationality. As such, he tends to get discussion off topic, going into some useless minutia, and occasionally bordering on junk science, as you just noted.

Best to just roll your eyes and move on.

a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

Oh that's how it is defined in your book from 40 years ago? There are plenty of parasites in the same species, including a number of fish. The rest of your post was way too long, and it would take too much time to shoot each bad point down individually.

Let me ask you this......

Why can't I throw sea turtle eggs off of my beach? If I find a nest, and touch it, I go to jail.

Do you think an egg is a turtle?

Excellent question. There is a vested interest in sea turtles, especially because they are endangered, among other reasons. Also, if you parallel your setup to humans, you similarly can't find a pregnant woman and force abortion on her. Notice how your analogy doesn't quite line up too well for you.

the developing embryo is also "potential placenta". So what? An embryo is not an existing life. It can become a human being, but it lacks all physical qualities of one at that time. Do you think an acorn is a tree?

Not true; a developing embryo is completely human and merely in an early stage of developement. The newborn infant cannot walk; feed itself; talk; or perform numerous other developemental abilities. It is however still the same human being it was as a fetus and will be as an adult.

Completely human? You're telling me 4 cells floating around a uterus is completely human? Perhaps we have different ideas of what makes a human COMPLETE, but a working circulatory system seems to be a bare minimum requirement, among other things.

Again I ask: do you think an acorn is a complete tree? Or is it something that can become a complete tree?

 

[ConHog]

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.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that by insisting that no one has the right to impose their morals on other people, you are effectively imposing your morals on everyone. By telling people who oppose the murder of unborn children that their views do not count, simply because you do not agree with them, you are imposing your morality on them.

No. Making a broad sweeping generalization from a specific instance is just misleading. There will always be times when the ethics of some are imposed on others. For example, you are not allowed to steal in this country, even if you are not ethically opposed to it. The importance here is in the difference. With regard to thievery, the person being stolen from has a vested personal interest in the items. With regard to abortion, YOU HAVE NO VESTED PERSONAL INTEREST in the fetus of another person. As such, I am not imposing my morals on you by allowing someone else the ability to choose such an outcome.

Certainly a potential father could argue that HE has a vested interest in said fetus.

 

[Jon]

So you're ok with abortion before 21 weeks of age? You still appear to be missing the point. Set your cutoff where you will, if that makes you feel better. It doesn't change the discussion one bit.

Nope. I think abortion is wrong, except when the mother's life is at risk.