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

[Quantum Windbag]

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

And some pro abortion people oppose the death penalty. People hold contradictory views all the time. My bet is that if I questioned anyone closely enough I could find some views that contradict each other. Calling other people on theirs is a bit intellectually dishonest, which is why I try not to do it myself.

 

[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?

How many excuses to justify murder?

 

[Immanuel]

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

And some pro abortion people oppose the death penalty. People hold contradictory views all the time. My bet is that if I questioned anyone closely enough I could find some views that contradict each other. Calling other people on theirs is a bit intellectually dishonest, which is why I try not to do it myself.

I'm way ahead of you... I admit I have hypocritical views.

In fact, in just the last few minutes, I have typed that I oppose abortion and yet in some circumstances support the death penalty. I'm sure there are other discrepancies in my life too. Here is one, I think the government should stop spending money they don't have, but guess what, I'm unemployed right now and I think that they should extend unemployment benefits because they have screwed up the economy so frigging bad. Hmmm, government don't spend money you don't have, but damnit, I earned those unemployment benefits and it is your fault that I don't have a job! Okay, I am a hypocrite.

I AM A HYPOCRITE as are all human beings.

I don't deny it, never have either, although, I would like to change that and be 100% perfect in all things... I simply cannot do that.

Edit: I went back and read your post better, what can I say, its midnight and I am getting sleepy. I thought you said that if you questioned me you could find something that I am hypocritical about and that I should not be pointing out others hypocrisy. You know the "remove the plank from your own eye before you attempt to remove the splinter out of mine" kind of argument. Well, I just pointed out I am a hypocrite in two different areas and I can guarantee that if you want to question me further, you will find some other areas of hypocrisy within my heart.

Immie

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

No. Those who argue that people who support the death penalty and are against abortion are hypocrites...but in their religous beliefs lies the concept that allows them to justify the death penalty while opposing abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Others are.

Immie

And some pro abortion people oppose the death penalty. People hold contradictory views all the time. My bet is that if I questioned anyone closely enough I could find some views that contradict each other. Calling other people on theirs is a bit intellectually dishonest, which is why I try not to do it myself.

I'm way ahead of you... I admit I have hypocritical views.

In fact, in just the last few minutes, I have typed that I oppose abortion and yet in some circumstances support the death penalty. I'm sure there are other discrepancies in my life too. Here is one, I think the government should stop spending money they don't have, but guess what, I'm unemployed right now and I think that they should extend unemployment benefits because they have screwed up the economy so frigging bad. Hmmm, government don't spend money you don't have, but damnit, I earned those unemployment benefits and it is your fault that I don't have a job! Okay, I am a hypocrite.

I AM A HYPOCRITE as are all human beings.

I don't deny it, never have either, although, I would like to change that and be 100% perfect in all things... I simply cannot do that.

Edit: I went back and read your post better, what can I say, its midnight and I am getting sleepy. I thought you said that if you questioned me you could find something that I am hypocritical about and that I should not be pointing out others hypocrisy. You know the "remove the plank from your own eye before you attempt to remove the splinter out of mine" kind of argument. Well, I just pointed out I am a hypocrite in two different areas and I can guarantee that if you want to question me further, you will find some other areas of hypocrisy within my heart.

Immie

I will be honest with you, I did say that, then I read where you admitted your position, and edited my post to be less of a challenge to you, and more directed at everyone. The one thing I want to say is that it is not always hypocrisy to have views that seem to contradict each other. Although I do not support the death penalty, I can understand the position of those that do. I do not see it as hypocrisy to feel that people who kill should be put to death and also believe that babies should be protected. They both are indicative in the sanctity of life, even if some do not see it that way.

As for the unemployment benefits, I don't know if you earned them or not, but if you worked at all you certainly paid for them through your taxes. I do not have a problem with anyone getting what they paid for, but the fact that the fund is actually running out of money is indicative of other problems, none of which are necessarily your fault. Unfortunately, life sucks in that we have to pay for other people's mistakes at times.

As you said, we are all hypocrites to some degree, and mine is in calling others for being a hypocrite.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

No. Those who argue that people who support the death penalty and are against abortion are hypocrites...but in their religous beliefs lies the concept that allows them to justify the death penalty while opposing abortion.

So, remind me, what did Jesus say... Forgive when it suites your point of view, or forgive without question? I know I learned this, but you know, I just can't remember.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

As I previously stated: they went off the best information at the time. That information has since been replaced with a more objective analysis. That's how science updates itself. If you look at drugs and pregnancy, you will find a very similar system, as they too cannot be easily ethically studied. So we go off of what we know the drugs do to animals, and subjective experiences. If you are hung up on the word "misled", feel free to replace it with "did not have more accurate information at the time".

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.

Who said anything about the third trimester? I am going to assume you are confusing me with someone else. No, the unfounded claim is that abortion in the first and second trimester is wrong because the fetus feels pain. This has been debunked. Most states ban abortions later than the 24th week, and those that don't have very few abortions past that point. In other words: for the VAST majority of abortions in this country, the fetus does not feel pain. That makes no comment on the minority that are late term. It is only a fact on the terms within the claim.

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,

A fetus has done nothing to deserve life either. Everyone, let's put this issue to rest. From the religious point of view, it is not hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty because both are consistent with interpretations of the bible. From the non-religious point of view, it is not hypocritical to be pro-choice and pro-death penalty because both are consistent with preserving established human life. Even if you disagree with either statement, you must acknowledge that they meet consistent criteria within the minds of those who hold them.

So please, everyone, let's drop this part of the discussion. Start a death penalty thread if you REALLY want to go there.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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

Emerging data from 1996!? Well, in case you didn't hear, emerging data from 2010 states Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says. Welcome to the 21st century.

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

This is completely false. Please don't make up biology when it's clear you have no education or experience in the field. The primitive heart beats completely independent of the brain based on a set of pacemakers inherent to the heart tissue. Later in development, and throughout your life, the heart can be influenced from signals from the brain to speed up or slow down. Severing these signals produces more variability in heart rate as it's not as finely controlled, but this is still compatible with life in humans and animals. In fact, you could completely remove the heart from a young animal fetus, and it will still beat on its own as long as it has the right chemical resources.

See what I did there with the links and proven scientific literature? You should try that next time before misrepresenting information.

 

[JBeukema]

They are not a human being, but they are human.

So is my hair, but there's nothing wrong with cutting it or shaving it off my face.

Not logical. Your hair is always hair. A human egg and a human sperm create a human being. Your hair cannot create anything.

Iron,Oxygen, and a number of other elements make human being- and everything else. They themselves, however, are neither human beings nor individuals.

 

[JBeukema]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

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.

A fetus is a living human life.

As is the body of a braindead man kept alive with the aid of machines, or with no higher brain functions but a working brainstem.

What's your point?

The existence of human DNA merely makes it a human organism. It is the precense of a concious mind that makes it an individual, a person.


Now compare your criterion against mine when you're confronted with a hypothetical (intelligent) alien lifeform and you must determine whether it is a person with rights.

 

[ConHog]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

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.

A fetus is a living human life.

As is the body of a braindead man kept alive with the aid of machines, or with no higher brain functions but a working brainstem.

What's your point?

The existence of human DNA merely makes it a human organism. It is the precense of a concious mind that makes it an individual, a person.


Now compare your criterion against mine when you're confronted with a hypothetical (intelligent) alien lifeform and you must determine whether it is a person with rights.

So to recap:

You are pro killing every THING which doesn't have consciousnesses?

 

[JBeukema]

They are not a human being, but they are human.

So is my hair, but there's nothing wrong with cutting it or shaving it off my face.

You hair is composed of "dead" cells, silly

My arm is not. Does it have rights? It's genetically human and it's alive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As I previously stated: they went off the best information at the time. That information has since been replaced with a more objective analysis. That's how science updates itself. If you look at drugs and pregnancy, you will find a very similar system, as they too cannot be easily ethically studied. So we go off of what we know the drugs do to animals, and subjective experiences. If you are hung up on the word "misled", feel free to replace it with "did not have more accurate information at the time".

If you had previously said that we would not be having this discussion.

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?

to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit

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

You implied that there was some sort of lie that led them to believe that fetuses feel pain, not that they were simply wrong. You can backtrack all you want, but the evidence is right there in front of you. What plot existed to perpetrate the deception that fetuses feel pain, and how did it manage to fool the Royal College?

Who said anything about the third trimester? I am going to assume you are confusing me with someone else. No, the unfounded claim is that abortion in the first and second trimester is wrong because the fetus feels pain. This has been debunked. Most states ban abortions later than the 24th week, and those that don't have very few abortions past that point. In other words: for the VAST majority of abortions in this country, the fetus does not feel pain. That makes no comment on the minority that are late term. It is only a fact on the terms within the claim.

I am pretty sure I mentioned the third trimester, because I am still trying to figure out which unfounded claim was refuted by this study. I remember reading someone trying to prove that this study proved Reagan was wrong when he said fetuses feel pain in the third trimester, so I asked if that was what you were talking about.

Now I would like to point out that you are wrong in what this study does. The study does not prove fetuses feel no pain in the second trimester, because the 24th week is in the second trimester. Your claim that this does not matter because very few abortions occur after this point is irrelevant, because it still proves that fetuses feel pain.

The fact that the same doctors who now say fetuses do not feel pain before this point believed otherwise just a few years ago, and the fact that medical science believed, erroneously, that newborn children did not feel pain just a short time before that, leads me not to blindly accept it on their say so.

Your additional claim that there was some sort of plot involved in all of this leads even less credence to your argument that they are right now, and were wrong then. I tend to take people who believe in conspiracies with a large helping of salt, especially when they try to claim they did not say what they actually did. Nothing personal there, I treat all whack jobs the same way.

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,

A fetus has done nothing to deserve life either. Everyone, let's put this issue to rest. From the religious point of view, it is not hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty because both are consistent with interpretations of the bible. From the non-religious point of view, it is not hypocritical to be pro-choice and pro-death penalty because both are consistent with preserving established human life. Even if you disagree with either statement, you must acknowledge that they meet consistent criteria within the minds of those who hold them.

So please, everyone, let's drop this part of the discussion. Start a death penalty thread if you REALLY want to go there.[/quote]

 

[JBeukema]

In fact, the brain is not fully developed until after birth

- a number of years after birth, really. Do you really want to build your case around that argument?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

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.

A fetus is a living human life.

As is the body of a braindead man kept alive with the aid of machines, or with no higher brain functions but a working brainstem.

What's your point?

The existence of human DNA merely makes it a human organism. It is the precense of a concious mind that makes it an individual, a person.


Now compare your criterion against mine when you're confronted with a hypothetical (intelligent) alien lifeform and you must determine whether it is a person with rights.

Hypothetical alien beings wouldn't need anyone else to determine if they had rights, they would already have them as an inherent part of being alive. If your hypothetical alain being was a part of a hive mind your criteria would say it had none, but the hive mind might disagree with you, even if that individual alien would be incapable of doing so because it did not have a conscious mind of its own.

 

[ConHog]

In fact, the brain is not fully developed until after birth

- a number of years after birth, really. Do you really want to build your case around that argument?

Sometimes never............

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So is my hair, but there's nothing wrong with cutting it or shaving it off my face.

You hair is composed of "dead" cells, silly

My arm is not. Does it have rights? It's genetically human and it's alive.

Can I cut off your arm because it is not alive and conscious?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You are pro killing every THING which doesn't have consciousnesses?

That's directed at someone else but I had to comment.

The answer is no. You're still missing the point of CHOICE. It isn't "pro killing". It's pro-options. And yes, someone who is completely brain dead can be legally taken off life support. Does that mean they HAVE to do that? Well, no. The family can opt to keep their body alive. That's their CHOICE.

So why would someone choose to do that? Well, sentimentality. They have a personal vested interest in the loving memories and interactions with that person, and don't want to see the last physical manifestation of that person go. Now a pregnant woman may experience such a connection to her fetus, in which case there is personal value to her to not terminate the pregnancy. However if she does not experience that connection, why should someone like you, who has ZERO actual vested interest in that specific fetus, actually have an ability to limit her choices and say what should happen?

This is the concept of "murder" that AllieBaba has been avoiding despite my attempts to strike up a conversation about it with him. Murder is wrong because it unjustly removes something that the person and their loved ones value: that person's life. Theft is wrong for similar reasons. These concepts do not necessarily apply to a fetus.

 

[JBeukema]

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

Functioning Medulla Oblongata =/= functioning brain

That's like claiming that the presence of a knee means the presence of a working leg.

Now, do children born with only the medulla develop conscious minds? No. No forebrain->no consciousness

see:Anencephaly

 

[JBeukema]

abortion ends human life. Period.

And? Tissues don't have rights. Nor does the species really make a difference. It's the mind that matters, be it human or Annunaki.