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

[sangha]

When it falls out on its own, does it continue to live and develop? No? Then it's not the same.

Fetuses don't grown on their own either. Fetuses need a womb, just as hair needs a follicle

God you're simple.

Yes, I understand which is why I said "when it falls out on its OWN". Do you get the parallel?

Babies don't "fall out on its OWN".

When a baby is ready to be born and it's born, then it continues to develop. When hair falls out on its own, it doesn't, nor does it have the potential to. No matter what you do for that hair, it's not alive.

Get it?

No, because hair does not "fall out on it's own" and it continues to grow from the follicle

Just like the way a fetus stops growing once it's been aborted.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Abortion Care Study Day, 28 April 2008 - Consensus Statement | Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Wait a minute. When I use recommendations from that same place, you say it is made up and they are baby butchers. But you can use older outdated records just fine as long as it agrees with what you want? Notice the date on that link. See how it is NOT after 2010, the year of the recommendations I posted from the same organization. Note how this means you are using outdated information. Again.

Lots of money in the global baby butcher cartel.

The RCOG, in their own words are committed to financially benifitting from as many dead babies as they can.

The "study" is merely propaganda.

You just claimed that the reason the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists sets the recommendations they do is to make more money. You're officially a moron. If it was about MONEY, they would want to get the mother to full term DELIVERY, which costs a heck of a lot more money than abortion. You are so blinded by your stupidity, you would trash the health and well being of patients, ignoring it for some ridiculously unsupported claim of financial incentive. Luckily the people actually making decisions avoid your stupidity by caring about patient health more, despite losing money.

ba·by (bā'b&#275
n. pl. ba·bies
1. A very young child; an infant.
2. An unborn child; a fetus.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Oh my! You finally realized that word meanings come from things with the word "dictionary" in their title! Good job. This is a step up from word-associations. Now after taking several days to finally track down and cherry pick a dictionary that isn't even online, you finally found ONE reference that agrees with you. So let's put this in perspective now.

You: one obscure layman's dictionary that can't even be referenced online
Me: Merriam Webster dictionary definition endorsed by the NIH and MedlinePlus, Stedman's Medical Dictionary endorsed by the American Medical Association, Wikipedia, Wiktionary

But no, keep thinking that the two are equal and that you have somehow single-handedly proven the entirety of the medical and scientific community incorrect. You're a joke. This is why people actually making decisions don't listen to unsupported lunatics cherry picking unspecialized uninformed garbage.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

A fetus is just as much a human being as a 90-year-old human being.

I asked you before if you were stupid enough to go down that path. It appears the answer is yes.

You really think a 10 week old fetus is equivalent to a 90 year old in human being qualities? Let's put aside the fact that the 90 year old has had an entire lifetime, not to mention a developed brain. On what basis or characteristics can you claim they are equivalent?

They are not a human being, but they are human. A human "being" cannot be created without them.

A human "being" cannot be created without iron either. By your logic, maybe this is human too:

 

[Immanuel]

SO you think Reagan just said this for no reason at all, and it had nothing to do with politics?

And once again you repeat the lie that it's pro-choicers pushing the argument, even though I posted a link to a law that requires that women getting an abortion be informed of the pain the fetus feels.





Note: I saw several pro-life articles dealing with fetal pain. Since fetal pain is not my line of debate and makes little difference to me, I am not going to search each one for the argument. I am sure, if you like we can have a "which came first the chicken or the egg" kind of argument. I have no desire to waste my time with it, so, I will simply say, who cares you win that one.

Further note: the pro-choice article seems kind of interesting. Might be worth the read.

Immie

So, I see you want to go with the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument. Didn't figure you really cared about substance.

Either show me where I asked "Which came first" or admit you're just making stuff up because you can't debate what I actually said



Umm, no. As I proved with a link to a law that was passed, it's the pro-life crowd who has argued that the pain a fetus feels is a reason to ban abortions. That's why you can't post ANY EVIDENCE to support your claim that pro-choice people think "It's OK to abort because a fetus feels no pain"




I posted another link. In this thread. It's not my fault if you don't have the balls to read about the fact

Um, you might want to wake up and read the OP. That is exactly the argument that the OP is making, if not HB would never have started this thread. And as far as I can tell, HB is a pro-choicer.

Wrong. The article does not have one pro-choicer saying that it's OK to abort because a fetus feels no pain. Pro-choicers think it's OK to abort after 24 weeks EVEN THOUGH the fetus can feel pain, so it's absurd to argue that pro-choicers think the absence of pain makes it OK to abort.

Immature people can claim that everyone that disagrees with them is a liar, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, it only makes you look bad.

Mature people don't make wild claims and then completely fail to back it up with evidence. Mature people have the courage of their convictions, and don't run away from their own words.

If you won't stand up for yourself, you'll fall for anything

Let's see if I can straighten you out. I doubt it, but I will try.

Either show me where I asked "Which came first" or admit you're just making stuff up because you can't debate what I actually said

I told you in the post that you quoted, that we could argue about which side made the argument first, but that it was ridiculous to do so, so, I would simply say, that you won that argument and move on. The first thing you reply with was:

SO you think Reagan just said this for no reason at all, and it had nothing to do with politics?

And once again you repeat the lie that it's pro-choicers pushing the argument,

Chicken before the egg, my friend. A frigging waste of time that you want to continue with, because you can't form your own arguments.

Umm, no. As I proved with a link to a law that was passed, it's the pro-life crowd who has argued that the pain a fetus feels is a reason to ban abortions. That's why you can't post ANY EVIDENCE to support your claim that pro-choice people think "It's OK to abort because a fetus feels no pain"

I think we had this kind of argument earlier this week and you scampered off and avoided the discussion, because you couldn't prove that CNN, ABC and NBC had posted on the issue. Are you going to do that again? You wanted me to search through dozens of google pages to prove your frigging point. Do your own damned dirty work and provide your own damned links.

You have proved nothing. I've seen zero links from you except for the one that I commented on and I am not going to search through 240 posts to find a link on a topic that we are NOT EVEN arguing about, see below. If you have proof and you want to continue to prove your point, then post the damned link in your post or shut the fuck up about it, because I don't believe you.

Wrong. The article does not have one pro-choicer saying that it's OK to abort because a fetus feels no pain. Pro-choicers think it's OK to abort after 24 weeks EVEN THOUGH the fetus can feel pain, so it's absurd to argue that pro-choicers think the absence of pain makes it OK to abort.

Not the article, idiot, the post itself. HB's insinuation is that we should change our minds about the abortion issue because the fetus doesn't feel any pain. If that was not her point, then this thread is absolutely POINTLESS.

Mature people don't make wild claims and then completely fail to back it up with evidence. Mature people have the courage of their convictions, and don't run away from their own words.

I hardly doubt you have any idea what mature people do. And I have backed up my statements, everyone of them. I also pointed out that 1) there are arguments from the pro-life side regarding fetal pain and 2) that there are also arguments from the pro-choice side about the very same issue.



What I did not do, was what you did, and claim that the other side started it, because I don't know for sure which side did. My statement was that I could turn your argument back on you and say that Reagan was responding to pro-choice arguments. Neither one of us, know for sure which side started that argument and you can spend your day looking up the first one who did if you want to, but I am not going to because it doesn't matter.

Here's the link, post 139 is a good place to start. You eventually scampered off and never proved the errors that you were trying to prove.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...eat-idea-to-stop-the-leak-10.html#post2434384

Talk about running away from your words! See the comment above about running away from threads. You did a fine job there friend.

even though I posted a link to a law that requires that women getting an abortion be informed of the pain the fetus feel

I posted another link. In this thread. It's not my fault if you don't have the balls to read about the fact

So what? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument you and I are having. We have not been discussing whether or not a woman should be informed if the fetus feels pain or not. I don't care whether your link shows that there is a law or not, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion as to whether or not the claim that fetus' feel pain or not justifies abortion. Nothing whatsoever!

If you want to show me an argument by the Pro-life side that states that fetal pain is the reason, and the only reason, as I initially stated, I'll entertain your argument. But, damnit, I expect you to post a frigging link and one that actually pertains to the argument. We are not discussing whether or not a woman should be informed of the pain. We are discussing who is using the argument that abortion is a) justified because the fetus does not feel pain or b) is not justified because the fetus does feel pain.

I showed you an argument by the Pro-choice side that argued that the fetus may or may not feel pain and that the claim by the Pro-life movement that it does is nothing but a red herring. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but I provided both sides of the issue in fairness.

I don't know which side started the argument and quite frankly, it seems like you are the only one that does.

The issue of this thread is, does that make a difference? No, to me it does not. Abortion is wrong even if the fetus does not feel any pain 1 1/2 seconds before it is born. To many pro-choicers, the reasonable ones at least, it does not make any difference either as that is not the basis of their arguments for abortion. They argue that the government has no business dictating to a woman what she will or will not do with her body. Although, I am sure most of them hope that the fetus does not feel any pain. I am sure most of them do not wish to inflict pain on a fetus.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

And for the record, I have to leave for about 45 minutes, so if you should have the courage to show up again, I will return.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

Pinko coward liar.

PRINCETON WORDNET

It's still not a dictionary.

Main Entry: dic·tio·nary
Pronunciation: \ˈdik-shə-ˌner-ē, -ˌne-rē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dic·tio·nar·ies
Etymology: Medieval Latin dictionarium, from Late Latin diction-, dictio word, from Latin, speaking
Date: 1526
1 : a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses

Dictionary - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



Main Entry: mo·ron
Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-ˌän\
Function: noun
Etymology: irregular from Greek mōros foolish, stupid
Date: 1910
1 usually offensive : a person affected with mild mental retardation
2 : a very stupid person (see:arKangwel)

 

[JBeukema]

it's her body after all...

No, it's not. You fail biology forever.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Hi there JBeukemia. Princeton's wordnet states they are not a dictionary, but rather a word association database.

So unless you want to contradict the people who actually made it, I recommend you run along now.

You also think it's not the woman's body? Whose is it?

 

[JBeukema]

Firstly, you already had a chance to not be pregnant or to have terminated the pregnancy. Plenty of means exist, from condoms to Plan B. Not to mention the various herbs used through history. That's you did not act constitutes tacit consent.

what about the in the case of rape?

It takes you six months after rape to decide not to have the4 baby?

She had her opportunity

 

[JBeukema]

Objectively speaking, who is more qualified to access when pain is felt?

A leading anesthesiologist?
or
Baby butchers?

Dr. Vincent J. Collins, Zielinski and attorney Thomas J. Marzen were the top researchers to point to fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain.

"The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child's development in the womb," they wrote.

"Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body," they continued.

A neurologist

 

[JBeukema]

What the hell does it matter whether a fetus can feel pain or not? That is not the determination whether it is human or not. A fetus is just as much a human being as a 90-year-old human being.

Merely being genetically human does not mean you possess rights.


Individuals, not tissues, possess rights. My arm has none of the rights I possess.

 

[JBeukema]

entirely human even before conception. A human egg and a human sperm.

You fail biology forever. Neither an ovum nor a sperm is a human. Each is a germ cell, part of the body of the individual from whence they came.

 

[JBeukema]

Hi there JBeukemia. Princeton's wordnet states they are not a dictionary

Really? And Obama said he's not a politician and he wants to transcend his own field...

but rather a word association database.

Actually, it defines itself as a lexical database.

By attempting to provide the definitions of words, it act as a dictionary. In also providing synonyms and antonyms, it also meets the definition of a thesaurus.

It meets the definition and matches to a great extent the form of any combined dictionary/thesaurus, while often providing more detailed and technical information that that grade-school 'quality' Merriam-Webster

You also think it's not the woman's body? Whose is it?

Whose body is the child's body?

I think you can figure it out.

 

[sangha]

So, I see you want to go with the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument. Didn't figure you really cared about substance.

Either show me where I asked "Which came first" or admit you're just making stuff up because you can't debate what I actually said



Umm, no. As I proved with a link to a law that was passed, it's the pro-life crowd who has argued that the pain a fetus feels is a reason to ban abortions. That's why you can't post ANY EVIDENCE to support your claim that pro-choice people think "It's OK to abort because a fetus feels no pain"




I posted another link. In this thread. It's not my fault if you don't have the balls to read about the fact



Wrong. The article does not have one pro-choicer saying that it's OK to abort because a fetus feels no pain. Pro-choicers think it's OK to abort after 24 weeks EVEN THOUGH the fetus can feel pain, so it's absurd to argue that pro-choicers think the absence of pain makes it OK to abort.



Mature people don't make wild claims and then completely fail to back it up with evidence. Mature people have the courage of their convictions, and don't run away from their own words.

If you won't stand up for yourself, you'll fall for anything

Let's see if I can straighten you out. I doubt it, but I will try.



I told you in the post that you quoted, that we could argue about which side made the argument first, but that it was ridiculous to do so, so, I would simply say, that you won that argument and move on. The first thing you reply with was:



Chicken before the egg, my friend. A frigging waste of time that you want to continue with, because you can't form your own arguments.

Ok, let's see if I can straighten you out. I doubt it, but I'll try

Pro-choicers support abortions after the 24th week, even though they acknowledge that the fetus can feel pain after the 24th week. Therefore, it makes no sense for pro-choicers to argue that it's OK to abort because the fetus feels no pain because that would undermine their support for abortions past the 24th week

Was that too complicated for you?

I think we had this kind of argument earlier this week and you scampered off and avoided the discussion, because you couldn't prove that CNN, ABC and NBC had posted on the issue. Are you going to do that again? You wanted me to search through dozens of google pages to prove your frigging point. Do your own damned dirty work and provide your own damned links.

Nope. I did prove that "major news media' had reported on the issue. You just didn't want to look past the 2nd page. The info was on the third page.

Not the article, idiot, the post itself. HB's insinuation is that we should change our minds about the abortion issue because the fetus doesn't feel any pain. If that was not her point, then this thread is absolutely POINTLESS.

The OB did not insinuate that it's OK to abort because a 24 week old fetus feels no pain. This is just another lie.

I hardly doubt you have any idea what mature people do. And I have backed up my statements, everyone of them. I also pointed out that 1) there are arguments from the pro-life side regarding fetal pain and 2) that there are also arguments from the pro-choice side about the very same issue.

Now you're backing away from your own words. You said that pro-choicers have argued that it's OK to abort a fetus if it feels no pain. You even repeated that charge by claiming the OP insinuated this.

NOw, you're claiming you never said it.

What I did not do, was what you did, and claim that the other side started it, because I don't know for sure which side did. My statement was that I could turn your argument back on you and say that Reagan was responding to pro-choice arguments.

No, Reagan wasn't responding to a pro-choice argument because, as I've proven, pro-choicers are not making that argument

Neither one of us, know for sure which side started that argument and you can spend your day looking up the first one who did if you want to, but I am not going to because it doesn't matter.

Speak for yourself. I know it, and I have proven it here.

But I'm not surprised to see you run away from your own words and refuse to defend them

The rest of your post is just more of the same

 

[AllieBaba]

Have you ever provided any evidence if any of the idiocies you spout, snaga?

nope. So dr., heal theyself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Objectively speaking, who is more qualified to access when pain is felt?

A leading anesthesiologist?
or
Baby butchers?

Oh you want objective reasoning now? Well, objectively, the most qualified person to assess when pain is felt is embryology and neurology researchers, followed by pediatric anesthesiologists, followed by adult anesthesiologists. Abortionists come pretty far down on the list. Coincidentally, it just so happens that the study was in fact performed by embryology and neurology researchers, and endorsed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Also, objectively speaking, the objective research of such groups is better qualified to draw conclusions about the topic than the SUBJECTIVE opinion of an anesthesiologist in the 80s. It's funny that you want to make this objective when your one and ONLY source has been subjective non-researched opinion from one person 3 decades ago.

I provide updated relevant recommendations from a credible source.

No, you provide nothing but a propaganda piece, concocted by those who butcher babies.

Propaganda piece? That's funny, because you used the same source on the previous page, the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, when they were being mislead years ago. Now that they've actually looked at factual information, everything they say is concocted and they are baby butchers?

Funny how the same source is only valid when it says what you want it to say. You're still speaking objectively, right?

They were being misled? Trained doctors and professors were misled by some type of conspiracy to make them believe a fetus feels pain before the 24 week point. And you claim to be a reasonable person, yet you want me to believe that bull.

 

[Cuyo]

It's not too deep. It is too dumb

Before conception, there is no fetus, so it can not "exist as a fetus"

You're the first adult I have ever met that doesn't know that conception comes before the fetus

Once more, I never said it existed as a fetus before conception. Your needle is stuck. . I said it was always human. We are always human even before conception. The fetus was a human egg and a human sperm. Humans go through many stages in life. A fetus is just one stage. You are a human "being" even before you are a fetus.

I was right. This is over your head.

I hope you aren't wasting all those little human beings.

If a sperm is now being called human all by itself, I'm afraid I've wasted quite a bit of humans in my day

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I remember when the vet used to say cats and dogs don't feel pain from their surgeries too. An amoeba reacts to pain stimulus. I might buy that a fetus doesn't have the same pain system as a developed child, but these folks are just plain wrong in their assessment.

how do you feel pain without a functioning nervous system?

The study assumes that the only way a fetus can feel pain is if all the wiring is there to feel it, and dismisses the exact same pain reflex that occurs before that point as not being a reaction to pain. It even goes on to assume that the amniotic fluid acts as am anesthetic, further dampening the feeling of pain. Since the fetus is unconscious as a result of the amniotic fluid there is no need to use anesthetic before 24 weeks. Since the same organization once believed that newborns do not feel pain, and still denies that neonates do, I am going to wait a while before making up my mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does this all give license to killing people as long as they don't feel it? I'm sure that I can give you a little morophine while you sleep and dismember you. No pain at all.

no, idiot, but it knocks down the arguement that abortion is wrong because fetuses feel pain

How many people argue that abortion is wrong because fetuses feel pain. Everyone I have ever met who argues against it because it kills people, and some of them believe that the actual abortion causes pain to a fetus. This study, if it holds up, only reinforces the argument that abortion is wrong, it does not strengthen the arguments for abortion.

 

[arKangel]

A neurologist

A nuerologist, who has clearly stated vested interest in baby butchering?
or...

An unborn child at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain... Without question, [abortion]
is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
– Robert J. White, MD., Ph.D. professor of neurosurgery, Case Western R eserve University

Or maybe this one?

“At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
— Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

Again, the RCOG is clearly publishing a fraudulent study.
And given the stated agenda of those particular elitists, it is not hard to figure out why.

As has been pointed out earlier, the RCOG have recanted "findings" before, due to political pressure. Their "science" is up for sale, thus lacking any true integrity.

Their true agenda is making money killing babies.