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

[clevergirl]

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.

And if this had been a position that won the day slavery would still be in mode. Some things are worth dividing over; life of the innocent is one of them.

 

[DiamondDave]

Some adults have a condition where they feel no pain also.. I guess their lives are worthless enough to to eliminate them on whim as well

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Your Guide for Sex Tips

He

wait, what?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Some of us re just honest and brave enough to admit that when someone's braindead, they're gone. Others, like yourself, lack the emotional strength to accept that reality.

 

[geauxtohell]

You should, especially since I didn't make that claim.

You are right, I remembered your quote wrong. Apologies:

Babies born as early as 21 weeks have been known to survive and live healthy, normal lives. That blows the hole in your "understanding."

It would be accurate to say that two babies born at the end of the 21st week have survived.

I've highlighted where you misrepresented his original claim. He didn't say it was common, only that it was known to happen.

I know. That's why I apologized and corrected it in this post. Not sure how you missed that or why you felt the need to bring it up.

At any rate, "known to happen" means it's happened twice and those babies were close to 22 weeks.

 

[geauxtohell]

To your first question: Has science changed in 40 years? If so how so?

Really? You don't believe science has changed in FORTY years? Ignoring that whole internet thing, the majority of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals, the human genome, post-it notes, and a number of other major scientific breakthroughs and observations, then I suppose science hasn't really changed too much in 40 years.

Do you really want to continue that line of reasoning?

I am telling you that every single part of the conceptualized fetus form its very begining is completely human and completely alive.

No. You're telling me that every single part of the fetus contains human DNA inside of living tissue. What defines "complete human" for you?

I did not say science has not changed in any general sense. Rather I asked if the science specific to what I posted had changed and that if it had how so. For you to attempt to obfuscate the obvious here is clearly a false reality. So, again, if the science regarding parasites has changed specific to what I posted let's hear it?

I am TELLING you that a human fetus is 100% complete. That nothing more can be added to it to make it any more a complete human being. Apart from developemental stages, it is exactly the same biologically at fetal stage as it is at adult stage.

That's 100% completely absurd.

Even children as late as 30 and 33 weeks don't have sufficiently developed lungs. They lack the surfactant to keep their lungs from sticking. This is why premies are in danger of NRDS and why mothers who have premature children are put on steroids.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

No. It just makes it legal. Outside of the law, everyone is free to live under their own individual moral codes.

They are not free to force their morals onto other people.

That's why these silly semantics games that people are getting hung up over are just silly and pointless digressions.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

If only it were that easy.

There would be no issue if the anti-abortion people could simply chalk it up to "it's between you and god". That has never been on the table.

It's further divisive, because the extremists on both sides insist on defining the issue.

Case in point: I don't personally support abortion and it's not a medical procedure I'd ever want to have a part of or even participate in.

I recognize that my feelings are not everyone's feelings and that, under law, women have a right to privacy that allows them to have an abortion without fear of legal repercussions.

Does that make me anti-abortion? Pro-choice? It doesn't matter, the most radical nug-heads on both sides of the issue would refuse to accept that my viewpoints are sufficiently pure to fill their ranks.

Now, I simply don't give a ****. I believe what I believe based on the science and law behind the issue. I could give a damn about the bomb throwers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not understand science.

Evidently, since you think an electrocardiogram measures brain activity.

I'll give you a hint: it's all in the name- electrocardiogram

I might make the occasional typo, but at least I don't try to prove that people in a vegetative state can think by posting about telepathy.

By the way, this is a deliberate misquote of my post. What I said is you are trying to prove I do not understand science. Try to be honest when you quote someone.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

No. It just makes it legal. Outside of the law, everyone is free to live under their own individual moral codes.

They are not free to force their morals onto other people.

That's why these silly semantics games that people are getting hung up over are just silly and pointless digressions.

What you fail to see that there are two people involved with the decision of what the mother decides to do.
Is it ok for the mother to push her moral codes or lack thereof on an unborn baby?

 

[geauxtohell]

What you fail to see that there are two people involved with the decision of what the mother decides to do.
Is it ok for the mother to push her moral codes or lack thereof on an unborn baby?

No, I understand that abortion destroys a fetus that would, for all statistical probability, have gone on to be a viable baby and then a child and then an adult.

It's still irrelevant. Under the law, a mother has the ultimate trump card in the decision about whether she is going to carry her baby or not. No one else, to include the father or fetus, is relevant.

As for decisional capacity, no child will legally have that until they are 18 years old. It's a non sequitur.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not according to medical science, which is the basis of our discussion. If you want to argue that medical science is wrong in this area you will need to provide evidence, not just make unmerited claims in an attempt to to make me look stupid.

Do cite where medical science shows that people don't dream and that they are totally unaware of and totally unable to respond to outside stimulus.


-Should you fall asleep n the process, I'll wait for REM to kick in and douse you in cold water

Keep in mind that EKGs of coma patients prove that they do not think

Really? You know, you don't actually think with your heart. You shouldn't confuse idioms and figures of speech with scientific fact.

If you want to argue that medical science is wrong in this area you will need to provide evidence, not just make unmerited claims in an attempt to to make me look stupid.

At least I know when I am wrong.

I did not say that they do not dream, I said that they do not think. Dreaming is not thinking. I am sure you can find "evidence" on a Catholic site that contradicts my claim if you try hard enough. Keep trying to straw man me all you want, but you have to prove that they think, not deflect the conversation to dreaming, if you want to prove me wrong.

 

[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.

Some of us re just honest and brave enough to admit that when someone's braindead, they're gone. Others, like yourself, lack the emotional strength to accept that reality.

As far as I can tell, you don't see a pre-sentient fetus as a human being. I do. You can't seem to accept that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some of us re just honest and brave enough to admit that when someone's braindead, they're gone. Others, like yourself, lack the emotional strength to accept that reality.

You just argued that brain dead people can answer questions through thought pictures, you have no standing to post on the subject.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are right, I remembered your quote wrong. Apologies:



It would be accurate to say that two babies born at the end of the 21st week have survived.

I've highlighted where you misrepresented his original claim. He didn't say it was common, only that it was known to happen.

I know. That's why I apologized and corrected it in this post. Not sure how you missed that or why you felt the need to bring it up.

At any rate, "known to happen" means it's happened twice and those babies were close to 22 weeks.

It does seem like 22 weeks is the key threshold with current medical technology, but I don't think it is going to stay at there forever.

 

[geauxtohell]

I've highlighted where you misrepresented his original claim. He didn't say it was common, only that it was known to happen.

I know. That's why I apologized and corrected it in this post. Not sure how you missed that or why you felt the need to bring it up.

At any rate, "known to happen" means it's happened twice and those babies were close to 22 weeks.

It does seem like 22 weeks is the key threshold with current medical technology, but I don't think it is going to stay at there forever.

I wouldn't call 22 weeks the threshold. Of all the children born that early, two have survived. I posted the survival odds earlier, but considering that and the complications, I don't know why we would want to deliver a baby any earlier.

As some point, people are going to have to admit that gestation is essential to life and that, while a fetus may be "life" it can't live on it's own.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know. That's why I apologized and corrected it in this post. Not sure how you missed that or why you felt the need to bring it up.

At any rate, "known to happen" means it's happened twice and those babies were close to 22 weeks.

It does seem like 22 weeks is the key threshold with current medical technology, but I don't think it is going to stay at there forever.

I wouldn't call 22 weeks the threshold. Of all the children born that early, two have survived. I posted the survival odds earlier, but considering that and the complications, I don't know why we would want to deliver a baby any earlier.

As some point, people are going to have to admit that gestation is essential to life and that, while a fetus may be "life" it can't live on it's own.

I think I said something similar to that in this thread.

BTW, I meant threshold in the sense that 22 weeks seem to be the limit of our ability to sustain a neonate outside the womb. When we develop a substitute amniotic fluid we should be able to move that threshold lower because we can keep the neonate in a liquid environment until its lungs are developed to the point that they can breathe without support.

Next stop, artificial wombs, freeing all woman to never carry a child.

 

[JBeukema]

I do not understand science.

Evidently, since you think an electrocardiogram measures brain activity.

I'll give you a hint: it's all in the name- electrocardiogram

I might make the occasional typo, but at least I don't try to prove that people in a vegetative state can think by posting about telepathy.

.

I never said anything about telepathy, you dolt.

 

[clevergirl]

Really? You don't believe science has changed in FORTY years? Ignoring that whole internet thing, the majority of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals, the human genome, post-it notes, and a number of other major scientific breakthroughs and observations, then I suppose science hasn't really changed too much in 40 years.

Do you really want to continue that line of reasoning?


No. You're telling me that every single part of the fetus contains human DNA inside of living tissue. What defines "complete human" for you?

I did not say science has not changed in any general sense. Rather I asked if the science specific to what I posted had changed and that if it had how so. For you to attempt to obfuscate the obvious here is clearly a false reality. So, again, if the science regarding parasites has changed specific to what I posted let's hear it?

I am TELLING you that a human fetus is 100% complete. That nothing more can be added to it to make it any more a complete human being. Apart from developemental stages, it is exactly the same biologically at fetal stage as it is at adult stage.

That's 100% completely absurd.

Even children as late as 30 and 33 weeks don't have sufficiently developed lungs. They lack the surfactant to keep their lungs from sticking. This is why premies are in danger of NRDS and why mothers who have premature children are put on steroids.

Again!!!!! You are tallking about developement and viability not the completeness of the unborns humanity. It has everything making it a unique (has its own circualtory system; DNA; blood typpe; sexual organs) sentinent person.

What you are now that makes you you, apart from experience and developement, you already had at the moment of conception.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Some of us re just honest and brave enough to admit that when someone's braindead, they're gone. Others, like yourself, lack the emotional strength to accept that reality.

As far as I can tell, you don't see a pre-sentient fetus as a human being. I do. You can't seem to accept that.

They're human beings by definition (a distinct human organism)

They are simply systems that have not (yet) given rise to a sentient mind to an individual with rights.


Similarly, my computer has (judging by all available evidence) not given rise to a sentient conciousness (despite my habit of anthropomorphizing it when it pisses me off by not working properly). Hence, it posses no rights- it is nothing more than metal, plastic, silicone. It is fundamentally no different than my shoe or a rock or a corpse. There is no individual present to possess any rights.