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

[SmarterThanHick]

CLEARLY that is not true. It may be true of some pro choice people, but the truly militant advocates are just as much trying to force THEIR views down people's throws as the militant pro lifers.

In actuality the people who just want to live and let live on EACH side should be standing together and telling the morons on either extreme to shut the fuck up already, and that applies to more than just this single subject.

It seems like you don't actually understand what pro-choice means then. The idea of live and let live IS pro choice. As long as you believe that someone else should be able to make the decision on their own, you are pro-choice. You can personally abhor abortion, but if you believe it should be legal, and someone else should be able to make the choice to have or not have abortion on their own, you are pro-choice too.

Sure, you can always find some rabid extremist who takes things too far and is almost sounding as if they are pro-abortion, but NO ONE is pro abortion except extremist lunatics.

So ConHog: do you believe women should be able to make the choice as to whether or not they should have an early term abortion, or do you believe you or someone else should be able to force an outside opinion on them to prevent the possibility of abortion? This is still the difference between pro choice and pro life policies.

When does a fetus start having brain activity? 9th week, to have brain activity you will also have the begining of nerve growth. with nerve growth you will begin to have the feeling of pain. But I am with the rest who cares if the baby feels pain or not murder is murder.

I'll make the same request for you: don't make up biology if you have no actual education or understanding of it. All nerves are not created equal. Some nerves are purely motor and used to move muscles, while others are purely sensory. Just because a brain exists and nerves exist does not mean there is an instantaneous working order to them all. The brain does not finish developing until after birth. This is why we don't pop out walking and singing.

So this is yet another misconception hicks like you have about organs. You don't understand the concept of development, and just flatten all of embryology down to a yes/no answer of "Is it there yet?". The early brain produces many more cells than it actually needs, but it has no connections. Over the course of development, many of the brain cells die away.

So no, you're middle school exposure to basic biology does not give you the qualifications to refute a report from the royal college of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists regarding fetal pain. They're much smarter than you. Find another scientific group who has reviewed and rejected their findings if you want support to your claim.

Just being conceived is enough to be worthy of life.

Why? What makes that point any more worthy than the steps before or after it? Fertilization makes it worthy but sexual intercourse, or implantation, or fetal development does not? We all draw cutoffs somewhere. Those who understand the medicine and science behind the embryology tend to draw it at the 24th week. Those who lack education or understanding generally tend to go back to fertilization. Luckily this isn't a democracy, and the mindset of the smarter educated people are more highly valued.

 

[Jon]

Those who understand the medicine and science behind the embryology tend to draw it at the 24th week. Those who lack education or understanding generally tend to go back to fertilization. Luckily this isn't a democracy, and the mindset of the smarter educated people are more highly valued.

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

 

[AllieBaba]

he said....existing life should trump potential life

Wrong. They are both existing life. And we don't get to decide one life is disposable because OUR life is more important.

If we did, I could kill my ex. He doesn't really have a life. And my kids would get more money if he was dead. If existing life trumps potential (and wasted) life, then it would be perfectly legal to kill the loser.

 

[Greenbeard]

And we don't get to decide one life is disposable because OUR life is more important.

Does that mean you think that killing someone in self-defense should be considered as murder, with the associated penalties? How about killing on the battlefield?

 

[AllieBaba]

Er..no? Not sure where you came up with that, but I don't.

And it in no way applies to this conversation. Unborn babies aren't attacking anyone.

 

[Greenbeard]

Er..no? Not sure where you came up with that, but I don't.

And it in no way applies to this conversation. Unborn babies aren't attacking anyone.

Here's the problem. Certain folks in this thread are making the argument that biology is the only factor relevant in considering a right to life. The question to ask for them is "is it alive?" or "is it a human being?" But they also seem to slip in conceptions of who's "innocent" or whether there are justifications involved (as in self-defense, war, the death penalty, etc).

But if you're going there, you're conceding that the question isn't one of biology. Instead, it's a social question. There are social situations in which killing is acceptable (in fact, abortion happens to be one of those at present), i.e. is not murder. There's no absolute principle on the table here, which is why we're talking about where the lines are drawn (did the person commit a crime punishable by death, was my safety threatened, etc). So you'd do well to acknowledge that and not pretend the issue here is an absolute one dependent entirely on biology ("is it alive?").

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When does a fetus start having brain activity? 9th week, to have brain activity you will also have the begining of nerve growth. with nerve growth you will begin to have the feeling of pain. But I am with the rest who cares if the baby feels pain or not murder is murder.

I'll make the same request for you: don't make up biology if you have no actual education or understanding of it. All nerves are not created equal. Some nerves are purely motor and used to move muscles, while others are purely sensory. Just because a brain exists and nerves exist does not mean there is an instantaneous working order to them all. The brain does not finish developing until after birth. This is why we don't pop out walking and singing.

So this is yet another misconception hicks like you have about organs. You don't understand the concept of development, and just flatten all of embryology down to a yes/no answer of "Is it there yet?". The early brain produces many more cells than it actually needs, but it has no connections. Over the course of development, many of the brain cells die away.

So no, you're middle school exposure to basic biology does not give you the qualifications to refute a report from the royal college of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists regarding fetal pain. They're much smarter than you. Find another scientific group who has reviewed and rejected their findings if you want support to your claim.

Just being conceived is enough to be worthy of life.

Why? What makes that point any more worthy than the steps before or after it? Fertilization makes it worthy but sexual intercourse, or implantation, or fetal development does not? We all draw cutoffs somewhere. Those who understand the medicine and science behind the embryology tend to draw it at the 24th week. Those who lack education or understanding generally tend to go back to fertilization. Luckily this isn't a democracy, and the mindset of the smarter educated people are more highly valued.

Such a waste, a nerve function is to carry informnation from one part of the body to the brain. That fact has never changed. A nerve is a nerve no matter what stage of life the person may be. If there is brain activity and there is pain then the nerve will transmit it to the brain and the person no matter what stage of life they are in will feel pain.
I dare you to watch this
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j31Mztt27dw]YouTube - Abortion: Does the aborted fetus feel pain?[/ame]

 

[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

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

We aren't discussing Anencephaly ..... quit trying to divert the thread into medical WTF's? The fact is....Functioning medulla oblongata does in fact mean functioning brain because without it there could be NO LIFE. Just because the rest of the grey matter hasn't developed in a fucking stockbroker with a dream to buy a BMW doesn't mean there isn't a consciousness present....or a lack of feeling.

 

[Care4all]

Well, whenever the baby to be feels pain, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to hurt it, in any manner.

That's just my humble opinion....and yes, pain SHOULD matter...being conscious of pain should matter....and whether on the choice or prolife side, I think no abortion should ever occur, after that point of the fetus's development, unless it is to save the life of the mother, IF the mother/parents choose such.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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

No. No it doesn't. Please do some reading and come back to the conversation. You are not saying anything new. We do not change medical practices for extreme outliers. If one person in 5 billion has an adverse reaction to a drug, the drug is not pulled from the market.

Wrong. They are both existing life. And we don't get to decide one life is disposable because OUR life is more important.

Still not willing to discuss the concept of murder I see. Keep avoiding legitimate ethical conversation. That's the only way you have any argument.

Such a waste, a nerve function is to carry informnation from one part of the body to the brain. That fact has never changed. A nerve is a nerve no matter what stage of life the person may be. If there is brain activity and there is pain then the nerve will transmit it to the brain and the person no matter what stage of life they are in will feel pain.
I dare you to watch this
YouTube - Abortion: Does the aborted fetus feel pain?

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

Do you see both sides of the scale weighed equally here?

Nerve function is NOT just to carry information to the brain. Once again I request you not make up biology to suit your needs at the time. There are a myriad of different types of nerves with specific functions. Some are in fact sensory, and some are motor, meaning they go from the brain to the peripheral body. Right off the bat that shows that not all nerves transmit signals TO the brain. Those that do transmit signals to the brain are not all pain neurons either. Light touch, vibration, proprioceptive, deep pressure, taste, smell, and sound are all transmitted to the brain on nerves that have nothing to do with pain.

So let's go back to the ridiculous video, that in no way contradicts the findings of the report cited on the first post of this thread. The "abortion" they document is outlawed. They're using bad information about a procedure which does not happen as a scare tactic. So if they're willing to be misleading and untruthful about this, what makes you think any of their information is educational in nature?

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.

Let me know if you have questions.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I'm glad to see that you actually did say that you could question me and find hypocrisy, because that was exactly what I thought I had read at first and then when I posted my post, I thought what the heck?

I'm gonna survive if they do not extend my benefits. I may even take a job that I don't want while continuing to look for another or go the frigging temp route... man I hate temp agencies. But I will survive and I will either find a job or buy a business. I am not an entrepreneur, just don't have the required spirit, so I don't see me starting from scratch, but I will survive.

Immie

 

[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

Innocent life is scared; people worthy of death by committing a crime worthy of death give the right to life away. Your argument does have some legitimacy to it. My argument is for those who have admitted to killing someone else those people should receive the death penalty, and those who have been caught in the act.

I agree those who murder especially premeditated murder give the right to life away. I also believe that God gives the authorities that he puts in place the right to exercise temporal judgment upon them.

However, if ALL life is sacred then the lives of Tim McVeigh, Osama bin Ladin and even Adolf Hitler are also sacred to God. If ALL life is sacred to me, then so is the life of Tim McVeigh, Osama bin Ladin and Adolph Hitler... yes, TM, even Dick Cheney as long as one is alive there is room for their hearts to be changed.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

he said....existing life should trump potential life

That is what he said, but then I would argue with the two of you that a fetus is "existing life" not "potential life" and we would be right back where we started... I'm right and you are wrong.

Immie

 

[SmarterThanHick]

the developing embryo is also "potential placenta". So what? An embryo is not an existing life. It can become a human being, but it lacks all physical qualities of one at that time. Do you think an acorn is a tree?

 

[Douger]

The words "British> and " expert" can only be used in the same sentence when referring to guitar playing.
The only other things those inbred fucks are good at is stealing real estate and drinking tea.

 

[Zoom-boing]

the developing embryo is also "potential placenta". So what? An embryo is not an existing life. It can become a human being, but it lacks all physical qualities of one at that time. Do you think an acorn is a tree?

If it's not an existing life than why would one need to abort it in order to rid oneself of it?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If it's not an existing life than why would one need to abort it in order to rid oneself of it?

That question is irrelevant and senseless. Your appendix is not an existing life yet people need to "abort" it in order to rid oneself of it. It is not uncommon for people to remove tissues from their body which could later be troublesome. Now I'm sure you'll use this as an opportunity to misdirect the discussion away from the horrible point you just made and focus in on what defines "troublesome", taking things in a completely different direction, but your point still fails.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

If it's not an existing life than why would one need to abort it in order to rid oneself of it?

That question is irrelevant and senseless. Your appendix is not an existing life yet people need to "abort" it in order to rid oneself of it. It is not uncommon for people to remove tissues from their body which could later be troublesome. Now I'm sure you'll use this as an opportunity to misdirect the discussion away from the horrible point you just made and focus in on what defines "troublesome", taking things in a completely different direction, but your point still fails.

With attitudes like yours we can see how "tissues" become troublesome later in life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

(emphasis added)

So trees, E.Coli, and amoebas have rights?

What about viruses which aren't quite life but kinda are zand love to fuck up our neat little definitions?

Yes they do, why is that concept so hard to understand for you?

Before you try to trip me up, I don't mind killing them because I want to live, and I understand that the only way I cam live is if something else dies. We live in a world where everything strives to survive by killing something else, and sooner or later something is going to do a better job of exercising its right to life than I am, and I will be dead.

If your hypothetical alain being was a part of a hive mind your criteria would say it had none

Clarify. If it had no consciousness of its own, it'd be no different than a single neuron. rather, the mind itself would have rights, much as I have rights and you have rights but our individual neurons and cells do not.

If it had its own consciousness, then it would have its own rights. If its rights came into conflict with those of the 'greater' mind, then you'd have a moral quandary much like the MPD thread I started some time ago.

You made the point earlier that if I cut off your arm I would be harming you, and, even though the arm has no rights of its own, you would object to that. It makes no difference if an individual neuron has consciousness or not, if the entire brain, and the consciousness that arises out of that brain, wants to keep that neuron than that consciousness has the right to do so.

By the way, just so you understand simple ethics, the rights of an individual always trump the rights of the greater good.

 

[JBeukema]

he said....existing life should trump potential life

What the hell is 'potential life'?