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

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

You see science and medicine work on the principles of best evidence at the time. The best evidence was previously that subjective opinion. Now this new report shows a more comprehensive overview and suggests otherwise. So science and medicine change their idea based on the best evidence. You on the other hand reject evidence for the preservation of your initial belief.

If you don't believe that "bull", then what is your reasoning for the change? Your previous reasoning of "they're in it for money" is clearly ridiculous, as they would make more money discouraging abortion. So what's your explanation for the change?

This study, if it holds up, only reinforces the argument that abortion is wrong, it does not strengthen the arguments for abortion.

No study can strengthen the argument for abortion. All this study did was debunk an unfounded claim against abortion.

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.

Back to the money making scheme even though they lose money on abortions? Genius. Oh I noticed you are also cherry picking more excerpts from people who have never done research in the field of fetal pain. The second one is correct in that all the cells needed in the brain are there early, but it's not developed. In fact, the brain is not fully developed until after birth, which is why babies can become cretins. Suggesting the brain is developed before birth is just silly. Once again this is you not understanding the words of the doctor, and assuming he's agreeing with you.

MEANWHILE, I can produce 10 times the number of quotes from people disagreeing with them. This is the part about science you still don't understand. If a small minority of cherry picked doctors disagree about the evidence, no one listens to them. You will always be able to find an outlier. That does not make their beliefs factual.

A human egg and a human sperm create a human being. Your hair cannot create anything.

Are you still making these statements about human eggs and sperm? Why not respond to my point that iron is needed to make a human too?

Some asshole posted a picture of a fetus grasping something...a finger, I believe of a doctor performing in utero surgery...and presenting that as proof that a fetus was an aware and living human being.

Yeah so they went back and found those doctors. The doctor placed the fetus's hand on his finger, and THEN someone took a picture. The fetus did not reach out and grasp on its own. It was just a misleading photograph.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You see science and medicine work on the principles of best evidence at the time. The best evidence was previously that subjective opinion. Now this new report shows a more comprehensive overview and suggests otherwise. So science and medicine change their idea based on the best evidence. You on the other hand reject evidence for the preservation of your initial belief.

If you don't believe that "bull", then what is your reasoning for the change? Your previous reasoning of "they're in it for money" is clearly ridiculous, as they would make more money discouraging abortion. So what's your explanation for the change?

Excuse me? You said they were being misled, being misled implies that someone is lying to them, and that they were taken in by the deception. I do not have to justify their change of opinion, you have to justify your assertion that they were misled. You need professional help here.

No study can strengthen the argument for abortion. All this study did was debunk an unfounded claim against abortion.

What unfounded claim is that? That fetuses feel pain if an abortion is done in the third trimester, or even earlier? Am I mistaken in my understanding that the 24th week is actually in the second trimester? Please explain how this study debunks any unfounded claim against abortion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

try to stay on the topic

It matters not about the bad rep you give me I still want to know how you feel about me going to club a full baby seal and maybe shoot a full polar bear cubs. I want to see how much value you have for human life versus animal life. But the only way you can answer is give me a bad REP and tell me to stay on topic as far as I am concerned I am still on toipic.

 

[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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so kannapolis person.....do you allow any exceptions?

No exception and in the case of rape the rapist would pay the price with his life. That would end a lot of rapes.

so you are one of those ingenious pro-life and pro-death penalty people?

also, dumbass, mandatory death penalty for rape isn't going to stop people

Abortion and the death penalty are two differant subjects.
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,
Do you see the difference?
In most cases it will, and it will stop those people from raping another woman, because they will not be around to hurt another woman they will be DEAD.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I didn't read this whole stupid thread, nor do I intend to, but I must know who asked a fetus if it felt pain and if it answered, isn't that proof of consciousness?.

dumb dumb dumb. it is called nerves you dumbass, if they aren't there or active the fetus doesn't feel pain

Yeah it's called nerves and you are getting on my last one

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:




the magnitude of metabolic and other stress responses to invasive procedures and surgical operations is three to five times greater in premature babies than in adults who undergo similar types of surgery/
higher concentrations of anesthetic drugs are required to maintain effective surgical anesthesia in premature babies than in older age groups/
the premature spinal cord shows increased excitability to incoming sensations, including pain
premature babies withdraw from smaller degrees of pain than do full-term babies or adults (defined as a lower threshold of the cutaneous flexor reflex)/
neurotransmitters (chemicals released by one nerve cell to relay a message to the next nerve cell) are found in abundance in the premature baby's spinal cord. Those neurotransmitters that mediate pain (substance P, L-glutamate, VIP, CGRP) are present in the second trimester; however, those transmitters from descending neurons that inhibit pain (5-HT, norepinephrine, dopamine) do not make their appearance largely until later in pregnancy. This suggests that the premature baby (or mid-to-late second-trimester fetus) lives through a vulnerable period when raw pain impulses from the body may roar through unchecked by the modifying inhibitory system (the "gate-control" mechanism) that we enjoy as adults.
Abortion and the Unborn Baby

 

[Jon]

So now the argument is, "The baby can't feel it, so it shouldn't matter!"

I'm not surprised, really.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

The even simpler fact is that humans beget humans and what is inside a woman's womb when pregnant is human life, from the get go. Anyone trying to justify abortion with ludicrous arguments is just looking for a way around the fact that abortion ends human life. Period.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and at what point does the heart begin beating during gestation?

 

[Immanuel]

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

 

[Zoom-boing]

and at what point does the heart begin beating during gestation?

6 weeks or there abouts.

Here's a look at what happens in the first 12 weeks.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/pr00112

 

[AllieBaba]

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

Diversionary tactic. We aren't talking about the death penalty.

For the record, I'm not a supporter of the death penalty.

 

[Immanuel]

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

Diversionary tactic. We aren't talking about the death penalty.

For the record, I'm not a supporter of the death penalty.

Others are.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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

Not so fast.....the bible does in fact allow for retributive killing as interpreted through "an eye for an eye"

 

[AllieBaba]

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

Not so fast.....the bible does in fact allow for retributive killing as interpreted through "an eye for an eye"

So are babies being killed as retribution? It doesn't matter.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Yes, I agree, but as I said one who is pro-life, such as myself, must reconcile i.e. in his own heart, how he can claim all life is sacred and then in the very next breath state that some life is not sacred enough.

I've reconciled that in my heart to the best of my ability. But, I am not certain that I am right, because if it came to life in prison for Osama bin Ladin and the firing squad, I'd ask if I could pull the trigger.

Immie

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[Immanuel]

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

Not so fast.....the bible does in fact allow for retributive killing as interpreted through "an eye for an eye"

Absolutely, but the bible also says that we should stone adulterers.

The Eye for an Eye came out of the book of Exodus chapter 21 verse 24.

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

In Matthew 5, Jesus said,

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

The Eye for an Eye is Old Testament Law (not to be ignored), however, under the Gospel we are yet to forgive and in fact turn the other cheek.

Immie