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

[JBeukema]

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.

Please cite where I said the foetus doesn't exist

Here: 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.

Try reading for comprehension. The nonexistent thing in that sentence is the mind, not the organism that is the foetus. If you're incapable of comprehending the English language, you should probably just stay out of the conversation.

At what point does the fetus exist? For me, from conception. Perhaps I misread your post.

Evidently.

human =/= person

Human = person.

Really? So only human beings can ever be persons with rights? If we ever met an intelligent race of extraterrestrials, their DNA would make them non-persons? Would a surviving caveman, if not h. sapiens sapiens, be a person? If we created an intelligent machine conciousness capable of feeling pain, it'd be fine to inflict excruciating pain constantly, since it's not human?

Your argument that genetic similarity is the critical factor in whether an individual is a person is pretty much the justification used for slavery.

Not what I said. Go read it again.

Your post: 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.

You pov is that the fetus becomes a human being/person once the baby becomes aware and its brain/body act to support/maintain its existence. If that isn't correct, what is your pov on this?

No. I said that's when a person comes into existence. I didn't say that's when a human being becomes a human being- that would be absurdity.

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.


No, you're not.

.

Yes, I am. You are very confused and your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

 

[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.

Trying to change tracks again?

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

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

The sentient mind only exist when we are aware of our surroundings.

Not quite. By that reasoning, the blind mind would be less a sentient mind than a man with sight and a man undergoing sensory deprivation would cease to exist.

In reality, both are still aware of their own existence and their state of being. Awareness of one's own existence is sentience and that which is aware of itself is the sentient mind- the ego, the self, the individual. What information they have access to regrading what might exist outside of themselves is another matter.


See: cogito ergo sum; logical positivism

 

[clevergirl]

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.

Tranlation: I haven't got a logical reason to try to refute the statement so I must insult the poster.

As long as the embryo is reasonably healthy and is not denied or deprived of a suitable environment and adequate nutrition, it will actively develop itself along the species-specific trajectory of development. This means that the embryo has the same nature—in other words, it is the same kind of entity—from fertilization onward; there is only a difference in degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo, to fetus, infant and so on.

The humanity of the human fetus deserves the exact same rights to protection it would have as a human being at every other stage of its developement. Its ability to feel or not feel pain is a strawman argument and nothing more.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

Not really sure

Then you need to go back to the 5th grade and get n education in rudimentary biology.

 

[JBeukema]

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

Why do you keep trying to move your goalposts then?

What're you babbling about?


I've presented exactly one criterion this entire time- and in all other threads


The existence of an individual sentient mind

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We could dance around this for a while and you will eventually pin me down to the point where I will give definite answers, or you can simply accept that I don't have the answers, and do not claim to. Both sides of the discussion have valid points, but I tend toward the anti abortion side of the issue because the pro abortion side of the issue likes to lie about their goals, ignore the fact that abortion is a major medical procedure with physical and emotional consequences, and call the other side ignorant boobs because they disagree with them.

I do know that both sides are guilty of that, but at least the anti abortion side has the fact that they believe they are defending human life as an excuse for their passion, while the pro abortion side is trying to claim the unemotional high ground and science is on theirs. If you are on the side of science you do not need to lie. That told me they were hiding something, so I went out and looked.

Then how about i just pin you down for the answer now and forget the dancing?

I would much rather pin you down.

 

[JBeukema]

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

Not really sure. I do know that many things are considered to be alive despite the fact that they are dependent upon something else for their existence, so the fact that a fetus is dependent on its mother of its existence does not preclude it from the definition of life.

Cesarean section.

If both the woman and the cells have life. Then cesarean section removal at any point is a viable options yes?

Sure, just as placing you at the bottom or the ocean or ejecting you into outer space is a viable option...

 

[JBeukema]

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life.

They are living. That is a biological fact. There is no room for discussion or debate any more than there is room to argue whether Earth has an atmosphere and Luna orbits around her

 

[syrenn]

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life.

They are living. That is a biological fact. There is no room for discussion or debate any more than there is room to argue whether Earth has an atmosphere and Luna orbits around her

AGREED! So if those cells have life then REMOVING them for a woman's body by cesarean section will not change that life. Will a 18 week old bundle of cells "live" of its own accord?

 

[JBeukema]

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life.

They are living. That is a biological fact. There is no room for discussion or debate any more than there is room to argue whether Earth has an atmosphere and Luna orbits around her

AGREED! So if those cells have life then REMOVING them for a woman's body by cesarean section will not change that life. Will a 18 week old bundle of cells "live" of its own accord?

As well as you will live of your own accord if you're removed from dry and and held under the waters of the ocean or ejected into space.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Slow down junior I understand that this information is disturbing to you, but trying to refute this video you are shooting all over the place.

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

You wanted proof the sonogram of the unborn baby being poked and the movement of the baby in pain should give you a feeling of the pain it is in. But explain to me why the U.K. would be more cridable then doctors in America? You do realize what scientist in the U.K. are famous for don't you? FRAUD.

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.
Now you are tring to split hairs. Anyway you spin it the 12 week unborn baby has nerves that feel pain, when it comes in contact with something painful.

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?
All I can say is that you are blinded by your stupidity if you can't see that unborn baby is in pain.

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.

Our argument isn't over lung development it's about nerve's Baby's may not be able to crawl but they can feel pain. Sure you can't hear the scream as with the title of the video, but you can see it open its mouth, when touched by the needle. Can you hear the scream of a person that has no voice when they have been cut?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Trying to change tracks again?

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

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

The sentient mind only exist when we are aware of our surroundings.

Not quite. By that reasoning, the blind mind would be less a sentient mind than a man with sight and a man undergoing sensory deprivation would cease to exist.

In reality, both are still aware of their own existence and their state of being. Awareness of one's own existence is sentience and that which is aware of itself is the sentient mind- the ego, the self, the individual. What information they have access to regrading what might exist outside of themselves is another matter.


See: cogito ergo sum; logical positivism

Why is someone who is blind less aware of their surroundings? I could easily argue that the abundance of visual stimuli makes a person less aware of their surroundings. Putting a person into sensory deprivation does not cut off their awareness of their surroundings, it controls the stimulus they from their surroundings in an attempt to mimic a total lack of sensory input. The person inside a sensory deprivation tank is still very much aware of their existence, and thus has not died.

Let us go back to a person in a coma. Since medical science is pretty clear that no one in a coma actually thinks, are you trying to claim they do not exist? You keep trying to base the concept of rights upon consciousness or sentience, yet the law places it somewhere else. I am pretty sure you would not like it if someone took all your property if you ever end up in a coma, so I am also pretty sure that this is not actually your position, yet you are refusing to address the point I am making.

I wonder why it is so hard for some people to admit that they are wrong, and simply accept that they need to redefine their position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

Not really sure

Then you need to go back to the 5th grade and get n education in rudimentary biology.

As she put the word "life" in quotes, I assumed she was talking the philosophical level and was really asking when does the life of a fetus become human, not when is it alive. I wasn't aware they taught that in fifth grade.

Again, a nice try at making someone else look stupid simply because you are loosing the ability to argue your point rationally.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Why do you keep trying to move your goalposts then?

What're you babbling about?


I've presented exactly one criterion this entire time- and in all other threads


The existence of an individual sentient mind

Which I have pointed out is not logically and ideologically consistent because it does not cover all possibilities. You have repeatedly ignored my challenge to explain your position on people in a coma, because medical science trumps any claim that sentience is present in coma patients, yet they are still alive, and they still have rights.

Your problem is that you are used to arguing your position, and ignoring anyone who can pare it down to its fundamental flaw. This makes you think you have won simply because you are consistent. Consistence does not prove that you are either logical or ideologically consistent, it just proves you are consistently wrong.

 

[syrenn]

Not really sure

Then you need to go back to the 5th grade and get n education in rudimentary biology.

As she put the word "life" in quotes, I assumed she was talking the philosophical level and was really asking when does the life of a fetus become human, not when is it alive. I wasn't aware they taught that in fifth grade.

Again, a nice try at making someone else look stupid simply because you are loosing the ability to argue your point rationally.

Good to know you understood what i was asking you.

 

[geauxtohell]

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?

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

Not really sure. I do know that many things are considered to be alive despite the fact that they are dependent upon something else for their existence, so the fact that a fetus is dependent on its mother of its existence does not preclude it from the definition of life.

And does it really matter?

The pro-life consortium gets wrapped around the axle about the term "life" so they can then incorporate the term "murderer" into the debate.

It's all silly and asinine. The issue is complicated enough without resorting to semantical "gotcha" games.

 

[JBeukema]

Why is someone who is blind less aware of their surroundings?

Ask them what colour something is. They can't know, as they're not able to perceive the visual spectrum.


Are you really that stupid?

Putting a person into sensory deprivation does not cut off their awareness of their surroundings, it controls the stimulus they from their surroundings in an attempt to mimic a total lack of sensory input.

And those in a coma or who are asleep are merely not receiving or not processing that same data (or are not processing it in the same manner).

Let us go back to a person in a coma. Since medical science is pretty clear that no one in a coma actually thinks,

They know this how? People have risen from comas and spoken of dreams.

Perhaps you're thinking of vegetative states.

I wonder why it is so hard for some people to admit that they are wrong, and simply accept that they need to redefine their position.

I see you're still a master of irony

 

[JBeukema]

of interest:


COMA VICTIM 'SPEAKS' WITH HIS THOUGHTS - mirror.co.uk

 

[JBeukema]

Which I have pointed out is not logically and ideologically consistent because it does not cover all possibilities.

such as?


Have you noticed that you get your ass handed to you by every other poster in ever single thread, windbag?

 

[Mini 14]

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?

With all due respect, this may literally be the dumbest argument I've ever heard of for abortion. If you think it is about pain, you have missed the point entirely.

And before you ask, I support abortion when necessary to secure the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy is the result of a crime of rape. I am sure there are other scenarios where I would support it as well, but never as a "choice of convenience" for the mother. I don't think "its my body" has any significance or bearing whatsoever. A child is not a possession, it is a life. And it has a father as well as a mother.