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

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I would suggest that you walk away from this arguement you are out classed.

 

[JBeukema]

Yeah JBeukemia doesn't really contribute to threads or make claims of his own.

O RLY?

Whether a fetus can feel pain or not isn't what makes it human life. It's human life and aborting it is killing it.

What of the braindead?

Once [the emergence of the sentient mind] occurs, we are dealing with a sentient mind- a true person. Prior to the emergence of the mind capable of perceiving its own existence and/or the world around it , we are dealing with a living entity that possesses no selfhood . Thus, ending the life of such a creature is fundamentally the same as letting the body of the braindead die- the individual does not exist as such and the tissue itself possesses only sentimental value in its association in our minds with the individual.

Viability isn't really a set point or all that useful, as technological improvements allow us to save preemies that would have died ten or twenty years ago and there's always the possibility of a child developing slowly or having a medical condition that must be treated after birth to ensure survival. Thus,m I find the concept of 'viability' to be of limited usefulness. Additionally, a child with no midbrain or real head, but with a functioning brainstem can be 'viable' in that the brainstem can ensure that the heart and lungs function, yet we're dealing with a creature that has no consciousness- not only it effectively braindead, it never was and never will be aware of its own existence. This is why I think we should focus on consciousness and and the earliest point at which a conscious mind appears to develop.

I stand by the above.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2447920



http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

I was known as ☭proletarian☭ at the time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

 

[AllieBaba]

Slavery was legal, too.

 

[JBeukema]

Dare accepted. Watched it. You're a moron for believing this as proof. Let me set up the scales for you:
Me: controlled research from a credible national UK health institution made up of researchers and physicians that has no conflict of interest in the topic at hand, examining all known documented data on the topic.
You: "testimony" from a small 4 people, half of which have no medical education

You wanted proof the sonogram of the unborn baby being poked and the movement of the baby in pain should give you a feeling of the pain it is in. But explain to me why the U.K. would be more cridable then doctors in America? You do realize what scientist in the U.K. are famous for don't you? FRAUD.

The second sentence there has nothing to do with the first. And instead of trying to refute the scientific information, you decide to attack this highly reputable organization, still on the basis of the FOUR "testimonies" of a youtube video. It's not that the UK has more credible doctors than the US. It's that the US hasn't really investigated this line of research. The silence from this country is not tacit acknowledgment that fetuses feel pain. It's NO COMMENT.


You just made the claim that all nerves send information to the brain. I'm splitting hairs by pointing out you were COMPLETELY INCORRECT about your main point? Don't say stupid things and call it minutia when someone points it out. You continue to claim that babies feel pain because they have pain nerves, and have yet to produce research or ANY EVIDENCE that supports that stance. No, a youtube video of someone else's subjective opinion does not count. For details, see the "let's weigh the scales" example in my previous post to you.


Once again unable to refute the actual argument, and resort to unrelated emotional outbursts. The "abortion" they demonstrated in that video IS BANNED IN EVERY STATE IN THIS COUNTRY. Fact. It was used as a scare tactic to purposely mislead dumb hicks such as yourself, and you bought it. And you claim I am blinded?

As for the "silent scream": this is absolutely ridiculous. Fetuses don't even have developed lungs. They just float around. Do you honestly believe that old dude saying the fetus is moving away from the needle?! BABIES CANT EVEN CRAWL WHEN THEY ARE BORN. You think they can swim away from something in the uterus!? Are you so stupid as to not see that pushing something floating from the right makes it move to the left? Are you so blind as to not realize they are anthropomorphizing a fetus?! It is not screaming. It is not fleeing. It is not trying to escape. A single still shot of a fetus with an open mouth indicates NOTHING.

Our argument isn't over lung development it's about nerve's Baby's may not be able to crawl but they can feel pain. Sure you can't hear the scream as with the title of the video, but you can see it open its mouth, when touched by the needle. Can you hear the scream of a person that has no voice when they have been cut?

The argument is about ALL development. It's not a "silent scream". It's not anything of the sort. It's a still shot when the fetus's mouth happened to be open. Maybe this person is in pain because her mouth is open. Perhaps you should draw the conclusion that driving is a painful activity. Maybe this fetus is in pain too, because we have a picture with its mouth open. They are anthropomorphizing a fetus. Do you understand what that means? It means they are attributing human reactions and emotions to something that otherwise doesn't have them. Think about that.

So let's recap: They provide a misleading example of an abortion that is completely illegal. They claim the fetus is moving away from a needle when it DOESNT HAVE THE PHYSICAL CAPABILITY. Their reasoning in no way studies the neurology or embryology of the fetus. They use a single still shot of a fetus when its mouth happens to be open to base the entirety of their anthropomorphizing conclusion. Again: how on earth do you see this as equal to controlled studies from a reputable organization that has no conflict of interest? Meanwhile, your support of them is not logical, not factual, and not supported. It resorts to emotional outbursts and subjective interpretations, while my response utilizes reasoning, supported biological evidence, citation of US law, and relevant objective research.

You lose. Again.

psst, moron... follow your own link. The procedure in the video is not the same procedure discussed in your link.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I just cannot believe that this topic...to this day...is such a hot button issue. What exactly are you liberals going to lose and what are the conservatives going to gain by continuing to divide the people over this.....look...it's real simple.
If there is a god and there is such a thing as judgement day and god disapproves of abortion then those who committed the act will answer for their transgression.

 

[Mini 14]

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

And again I ask you:

Is a sea turtle egg a sea turtle? (you really seem to not want to answer this one)

 

[froggy]

Since the Govt commissioned this study, you have to get their view on abortion to find the legitimacy of the findings. Is this just another ploy by the pro-lifers lobbyist.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

A viable fetus yes, but if I remember following this discussion last night, you were promoting the removal of non-viable tissue and letting it die. That may not be what you were promoting so please understand I am not trying to put words in your mouth and will accept a correction from you if you care to do so.

It would still be better for both the mother and the fetus to allow nature to take its course rather than interfere needlessly.

And I think you also suggested earlier a c-section be used as a form of abortion. That is extreme and adds additional risk to the mother. Not that I promote abortion in any form, but we don't want to risk making things worse for the mother.

Immie

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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

And again I ask you:

Is a sea turtle egg a sea turtle? (you really seem to not want to answer this one)

Yes it is....and they are quite delicious as well.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Just because some of us "other men" don't... er try not to, participate in the insults doesn't mean we coddle her.

We all have different styles and we all rub some people the wrong way.

There is a new poster on this board, who literally rubs me the wrong way. He seems to be intelligent and makes good points, but his way of doing so, irritates me so much that I refuse to hold a conversation with him at this point in time.

So, I take exception to your insinuation that we are simply "other men" and that we "coddle" her.

Lighten up people.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

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.

A viable fetus yes, but if I remember following this discussion last night, you were promoting the removal of non-viable tissue and letting it die. That may not be what you were promoting so please understand I am not trying to put words in your mouth and will accept a correction from you if you care to do so.

It would still be better for both the mother and the fetus to allow nature to take its course rather than interfere needlessly.

And I think you also suggested earlier a c-section be used as a form of abortion. That is extreme and adds additional risk to the mother. Not that I promote abortion in any form, but we don't want to risk making things worse for the mother.

Immie

I think the point she was trying to make is that if the woman didn't want to have a baby the woman could have the fetus removed and handed over to someone who wanted to produce a living baby.

Probably pretty unworkable at the moment but who knows in the future.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

A viable fetus yes, but if I remember following this discussion last night, you were promoting the removal of non-viable tissue and letting it die. That may not be what you were promoting so please understand I am not trying to put words in your mouth and will accept a correction from you if you care to do so.

It would still be better for both the mother and the fetus to allow nature to take its course rather than interfere needlessly.

And I think you also suggested earlier a c-section be used as a form of abortion. That is extreme and adds additional risk to the mother. Not that I promote abortion in any form, but we don't want to risk making things worse for the mother.

Immie

I think the point she was trying to make is that if the woman didn't want to have a baby the woman could have the fetus removed and handed over to someone who wanted to produce a living baby.

Probably pretty unworkable at the moment but who knows in the future.

Wouldn't that be a blessing?

Immie

 

[Shadow]

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.

Just because some of us "other men" don't... er try not to, participate in the insults doesn't mean we coddle her.

We all have different styles and we all rub some people the wrong way.

There is a new poster on this board, who literally rubs me the wrong way. He seems to be intelligent and makes good points, but his way of doing so, irritates me so much that I refuse to hold a conversation with him at this point in time.

So, I take exception to your insinuation that we are simply "other men" and that we "coddle" her.

Lighten up people.

Immie

Sorry Immie didn't mean to offend you...I wasn't talking about all of the men on this board anyway. Just the few that feel the need to keep fighting her battles from thread to thread. I just felt like a woman needed to say something in Jon's defense is all.

 

[Ravi]

Jon's a moron.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Just because some of us "other men" don't... er try not to, participate in the insults doesn't mean we coddle her.

We all have different styles and we all rub some people the wrong way.

There is a new poster on this board, who literally rubs me the wrong way. He seems to be intelligent and makes good points, but his way of doing so, irritates me so much that I refuse to hold a conversation with him at this point in time.

So, I take exception to your insinuation that we are simply "other men" and that we "coddle" her.

Lighten up people.

Immie

Sorry Immie didn't mean to offend you...I wasn't talking about all of the men on this board anyway. Just the few that feel the need to keep fighting her battles from thread to thread. I just felt like a woman needed to say something in Jon's defense is all.

Wasn't offended at all. Just trying to lighten up the mood a little bit.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

I am telling you that every single part of the conceptualized fetus form its very begining is completely human and completely alive. There will be nothing more added to it. That you were likewise complete at the very beginning stages of your life; from zygote to adult.

Yes, the acorn has the complete dna of a tree and if planted will develope. Unlike the acorn however, the baby is already planted in the womb and has begun its developement.

The acorn is also, by it's very nature, oak. Just as an embryo is, but it's very nature, human. From conception till death, and everything in between, it is human life. Different stages to but sure, but human life just the same.

Those who are pro-choice see different stages of human development as 'more human' and 'less human' and embryo/early fetus falls into their 'less human' category. This is their reasoning that, in their mind, makes it ok to rip apart and destroy this human because after all, it's not fully developed yet. They conveniently disregard the fact that it is and always will be human life.

Those who are pro-life see the embryo/early fetus as fully human, regardless of what stage this life is in, and therefore believe that the unborn have the same rights as a born human.

Neither side will ever convince the other they are right and abortion will always be an issue divided.

 

[saveliberty]

The flip side to this is when does someone become less human on the other end?

What if you lose strength?

Your mental capacities diminish?

You cannot complete normal daily functions?

Are you no longer human?

 

[Immanuel]

I am telling you that every single part of the conceptualized fetus form its very begining is completely human and completely alive. There will be nothing more added to it. That you were likewise complete at the very beginning stages of your life; from zygote to adult.

Yes, the acorn has the complete dna of a tree and if planted will develope. Unlike the acorn however, the baby is already planted in the womb and has begun its developement.

The acorn is also, by it's very nature, oak. Just as an embryo is, but it's very nature, human. From conception till death, and everything in between, it is human life. Different stages to but sure, but human life just the same.

Those who are pro-choice see different stages of human development as 'more human' and 'less human' and embryo/early fetus falls into their 'less human' category. This is their reasoning that, in their mind, makes it ok to rip apart and destroy this human because after all, it's not fully developed yet. They conveniently disregard the fact that it is and always will be human life.

Those who are pro-life see the embryo/early fetus as fully human, regardless of what stage this life is in, and therefore believe that the unborn have the same rights as a born human.

Neither side will ever convince the other they are right and abortion will always be an issue divided.

Those who are pro-choice see different stages of human development as 'more human' and 'less human' and embryo/early fetus falls into their 'less human' category. This is their reasoning that, in their mind, makes it ok to rip apart and destroy this human because after all, it's not fully developed yet. They conveniently disregard the fact that it is and always will be human life.

To make this statement about all pro-choice people seems unfair to me. I agree that there are some who feel this way and they do make such arguments but just as fetal pain is not a significant reason in my books as to why I do not support abortion, it is in fact a reason that I understand and the possibility of such pain even strenghtens my resolve; pro-choicers have their reasons for sticking with this fight. A lot of them oppose abortion just as you and I do; however, they oppose governmental interference in the rights of women to control their own bodies. Which, by the way, I too oppose.

The difference between me and these pro-choice people is the priority of those two arguments. I believe that government should protect and defend life as a top priority. Others may move that priority down a notch or two and place individual freedoms above that. So, that does not mean that all pro-choice people do not see the fetus as humans.

The argument that a fetus is less human than an adult woman is an argument similar to the argument that a pro-life person would use when saying, "since the fetus feels pain, abortion is cruel and inhumane punishment and should be outlawed for that reason alone". The priority that we as individuals put on each of these arguments is what determines our view of the issue.

Those who are pro-life see the embryo/early fetus as fully human, regardless of what stage this life is in, and therefore believe that the unborn have the same rights as a born human.

Again, some do and maybe some don't. I imagine that there are other pro-life arguments that can be made that have nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is fully human. I just can't think of any examples at the moment, probably because I believe that the fetus is fully human from conception, through birth and throughout its life.

Immie

 

[clevergirl]

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.

A viable fetus yes, but if I remember following this discussion last night, you were promoting the removal of non-viable tissue and letting it die. That may not be what you were promoting so please understand I am not trying to put words in your mouth and will accept a correction from you if you care to do so.

It would still be better for both the mother and the fetus to allow nature to take its course rather than interfere needlessly.

And I think you also suggested earlier a c-section be used as a form of abortion. That is extreme and adds additional risk to the mother. Not that I promote abortion in any form, but we don't want to risk making things worse for the mother.

Immie

You followed it correctly...Her emphasis was on c-sectioning it out of the womb and "seeing if it lived". C-section abortions, like it or not, are used in some late term abortions.