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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They do to some people and I think its' ridiculous of some of you not to acknowledge that simple fact. Makes me sick when people scoff at other people's legitimate religious concerns.

Yes, of course they apply to some people and not others. That's the very reason there should be CHOICE, so that the outcome represents how that concept applies to each person individually, and NOT how that concept applies to one person and is force on everyone else.

If someone has a religious concern, they should by all means follow those convictions with regards to their own circumstances and actions. They should NOT, however, demand that everyone else do the same. There is no decent reason why one person should have the authority or right to determine this type of decision for someone else when they have no personal vested interest. That's essentially the difference between pro-life and pro-choice: one group wants to force their own beliefs on everyone, and the other feels that such decisions should be made by the affected individual.

We need choice so that some people have the right to ignore other people's rights?

What you seem to be missing is the fact that by insisting that no one has the right to impose their morals on other people, you are effectively imposing your morals on everyone. By telling people who oppose the murder of unborn children that their views do not count, simply because you do not agree with them, you are imposing your morality on them.

At least be honest and not tell people that they don't have the right to do something you are insisting that you have the right to do yourself.

 

[JBeukema]

The baby has rights once the baby' comes to mean a person- that is, once the system gives rise to a sentient mind and 'the baby' is used to refer to that individual as well as the system (its brain and the body that acts to support and maintain its existence) that gives rise to it.


The cells themselves have no rights and the mind can have no rights prior to the point at which it becomes existent- a nonexistent thing can not possess rights. To suggest otherwise is absurdity.

Your POV is that the 'baby' doesn't have rights until it meets your criteria for 'person hood'. . . . yet you refer to that 'clump of non-human-person' cells as a baby, i.e. a human fetus. Interesting.

I also refer to baby seals as baby seals, but that doesn't make them human beings

But 'it' does exist

Please cite where I said the foetus doesn't exist

. What is inside a pregnant woman, from the moment of conception, exists and is a human being

And?

. From zygote to birth to death . . . it is human, a person.

human =/= person

Different stages, but all stages in human development. Your POV is that it is not a human being until the brain and the body acts to support and maintain its existence.

Not what I said. Go read it again.

I find this line of reasoning an excuse people use to justify the destruction of an innocent human

Right... so, tell me, just how long should we keep the tissues of the braindead alive? How long should we keep the machines going just to waste resources and keep the tissues living?

and perhaps a way to ease one's conscious

about what, pray tell

and, quite frankly, a cop out.

right... I'm the only one in this thread to provide an honest and logically and ideologically consistent argument.

 

[JBeukema]

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."

That has nothing to do with what he's talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'pro' - supporting or advocating

?

Please cite anything to support your claims.

What I've said is that individuals (people) have rights.

Eh, I don't wanna get to deep into this again, because it is MY opinion that only half the people involved here (if you don't count the baby) are getting any rights. And I already got beat up over that position enough.

The baby has rights once the baby' comes to mean a person- that is, once the system gives rise to a sentient mind and 'the baby' is used to refer to that individual as well as the system (its brain and the body that acts to support and maintain its existence) that gives rise to it.


The cells themselves have no rights and the mind can have no rights prior to the point at which it becomes existent- a nonexistent thing can not possess rights. To suggest otherwise is absurdity.

Yet that child, even if born without a consciousness, has rights once it is born. You are trying to claim that rights exist only in consciousness, while the law does not make that distinction.

 

[JBeukema]

Functioning medulla oblongata does in fact mean functioning brain

fail


functioning hip =/= functioning leg

functioning starter =/= functioning engine

functioning medulla =/= functioning brain

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.....

If you've evidence that I can remove all but your medulla and you'll still exist as a sentient like any other person mind, present it. The burden of proof rests with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Just being conceived is enough to be worthy of life. But I don't recall being the first to mention the subject. I was asked why I am pro life and can also support the death penalty. When I am asked a question I will attempt to answer the question. Would you expect the same thing if you asked a question of someone would you like for the person to make a response to your question?[/quote]

You messed up editing that quote, I wasn't the one who said that.

 

[JBeukema]

An embryo is not an existing life.

you fail biology forever

 

[Jon]

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.

Nice diversion, but it was hardly my point. We are talking about when life begins, or when it is considered viable. If 21 weeks is an extreme outlier, 22 and 23 weeks are certainly considered reasonable. Your line in the sand is drawn past the point of what is considered viable life. I'm on the side of "better safe than sorry."

 

[JBeukema]

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

Awesome. So when's your court date, my mass murdering friend? Are have you never showered, cleaned your home, swatted at a fly, or cooked food you intended to eat?

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.

Really? Most bacteria are pretty much harmless to us. Not having a tree slaughtered and its rights violated just so you could use a paper napkin wouldn't kill you. You wouldn't die if you didn't have a few extra shirts, yet you don't mind all the harm done to the cotton plants you insist have rights.

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.

So, basically, you're just repeating what I said at this point?

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

And? When did I say otherwise?

What I've said is that individuals (people) have rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What the hell is 'potential life'?

The primordial soup that is the current best guess for abiogenesis.

 

[JBeukema]

Eh, I don't wanna get to deep into this again, because it is MY opinion that only half the people involved here (if you don't count the baby) are getting any rights. And I already got beat up over that position enough.

The baby has rights once the baby' comes to mean a person- that is, once the system gives rise to a sentient mind and 'the baby' is used to refer to that individual as well as the system (its brain and the body that acts to support and maintain its existence) that gives rise to it.


The cells themselves have no rights and the mind can have no rights prior to the point at which it becomes existent- a nonexistent thing can not possess rights. To suggest otherwise is absurdity.

Yet that child, even if born without a brain, has rights once it is born.

No, it doesn't. If it's born without a brain, it's not a person. No brain -> no sentience. It's no different than any given corpse (in fact, no bran means it will be born a corpse)- or a mannequin, for that matter.

You are trying to claim that rights exist only in consciousness, while the law does not make that distinction.

Really? So why don't rocks have rights while humans and dogs do? You can't get arrested for cruelty to trees or pieces of glass.

You should base your argument on law

Fail. This thread isn't about interpretation of the law as is.

 

[JBeukema]

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

What the hell is 'potential life'?

The primordial soup that is the current best guess for abiogenesis.

I sense a fundamental lack of understanding of science in you.

 

[JBeukema]

who the fuck cares if it can feel pain or not?

Many people consider the infliction of suffering (including pain) to be immoral and.or reprehensible.

The question is is it alive or not. My god, is this the best babykiller supporters can come up with?

Is that the best treekillers can come up with? Trees are living things, too!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

(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

Awesome. So when's your court date, my mass murdering friend? Are have you never showered, cleaned your home, swatted at a fly, or cooked food you intended to eat?


Really? Most bacteria are pretty much harmless to us. Not having a tree slaughtered and its rights violated just so you could use a paper napkin wouldn't kill you. You wouldn't die if you didn't have a few extra shirts, yet you don't mind all the harm done to the cotton plants you insist have rights.


So, basically, you're just repeating what I said at this point?

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

And? When did I say otherwise?

What I've said is that individuals (people) have rights.

It is not illegal to kill to survive, so there will be no trial, sorry to disappoint you.

The rights of the individual always trump the greater good, even if that individual is not yet born.

 

[JBeukema]

It is not illegal to kill to survive, so their will be no trial, sorry to disappoint you.

You'd die if you didn't buy an extra shirt, use a bunch of paper napkins and paper towels, had a few weeds in the garden, left a few bacteria living behind the toilet, didn't shower, ate the potato raw, never ate meat, wore nylon instead of cotton...

The rights of the individual always trump the greater good, even if that individual is not yet born.

We're not talking about birth here. We're talking about existence. Focus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it doesn't. If it's born without a brain, it's not a person. No brain -> no sentience. It's no different than any given corpse (in fact, no bran means it will be born a corpse)- or a mannequin, for that matter.

I edited my post for clarity after some thought, and after you replied. Consciousness is not where rights reside, if a person is in a coma they still have rights, even though they are not conscious.

Fail. This thread isn't about interpretation of the law as is.

Then why are you trying to argue that consciousness is necessary before something has rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the hell is 'potential life'?

The primordial soup that is the current best guess for abiogenesis.

I sense a fundamental lack of understanding of science in you.

You don't think that is potential life? How did life start then? Or did you just forget your sense of humor when you got out of bed this morning?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is not illegal to kill to survive, so their will be no trial, sorry to disappoint you.

You'd die if you didn't buy an extra shirt, use a bunch of paper napkins and paper towels, had a few weeds in the garden, left a few bacteria living behind the toilet, didn't shower, ate the potato raw, never ate meat, wore nylon instead of cotton...

The rights of the individual always trump the greater good, even if that individual is not yet born.

We're not talking about birth here. We're talking about existence. Focus.

A fetus exists, it therefore has rights. Did you get confused somewhere along the way and forget what we are discussing, the fundamental right of every living thing to exist?

 

[JBeukema]

Learn how to use the quote feature and stop misquoting people, windbag

 

[JBeukema]

Consciousness is not where rights reside, if a person is in a coma they still have rights, even though they are not conscious.

The sentient mind still exists even when we are not aware of our surroundings. The blind man is no less existent for his lack of awareness of the visual spectrum.