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

[Neser Boha]

This is a little off topic, but I found out that now that I started trying for a baby with my beloved fiancee, I find abortion debates quite distressing.

While I am a supporter of women's rights and believe in the 'right to choose,' I also cringe at the thought of someone having an abortion ... unless they are of very young age, in extremely bad financial/life situation, or have been raped or are sick and pregnancy would present a risk to their health/life. But then, vast majority of abortions are performed because of the above reasons.

And...

I think it's so extremely unfair that some people get pregnant and then discard the new life beginning in their wombs as if it were a pair of unwashed socks while other women struggle for years to become pregnant and can't because of some medical or other impairment ... But then life is unfair in general.

This is totally hormones talking though ... Enjoy your debate, I just wanted to quickly jump in to let myself be heard.

 

[Immanuel]

This is a little off topic, but I found out that now that I started trying for a baby with my beloved fiancee, I find abortion debates quite distressing.

While I am a supporter of women's rights and believe in the 'right to choose,' I also cringe at the thought of someone having an abortion ... unless they are of very young age, in extremely bad financial/life situation, or have been raped or are sick and pregnancy would present a risk to their health/life. But then, vast majority of abortions are performed because of the above reasons.

And...

I think it's so extremely unfair that some people get pregnant and then discard the new life beginning in their wombs as if it were a pair of unwashed socks while other women struggle for years to become pregnant and can't because of some medical or other impairment ... But then life is unfair in general.

This is totally hormones talking though ... Enjoy your debate, I just wanted to quickly jump in to let myself be heard.

Best to you, your fiancee and the child you are attempting to conceive.

If it were me, I'd suggest marriage before you got to that point, but then, I suppose I'm getting old.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am not entirely without intelligence, I just hide it very well.

 

[clevergirl]

This is a little off topic, but I found out that now that I started trying for a baby with my beloved fiancee, I find abortion debates quite distressing.

While I am a supporter of women's rights and believe in the 'right to choose,' I also cringe at the thought of someone having an abortion ... unless they are of very young age, in extremely bad financial/life situation, or have been raped or are sick and pregnancy would present a risk to their health/life. But then, vast majority of abortions are performed because of the above reasons.

And...

I think it's so extremely unfair that some people get pregnant and then discard the new life beginning in their wombs as if it were a pair of unwashed socks while other women struggle for years to become pregnant and can't because of some medical or other impairment ... But then life is unfair in general.

This is totally hormones talking though ... Enjoy your debate, I just wanted to quickly jump in to let myself be heard.

Less than 3% of all abortions performed represent a threat to a woman's life or are due to rape.

This means that more than 97% of all abortins performed are for the convenience of the mother.

 

[Jon]

Cesarean section.

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

Yes, let's cut out all babies and watch them die.

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life. Cesarean section is a from of non painful humanitarian birth. You see i am not saying abortion.

If the woman doesn't not want it and the lifers claim that it is life. Have the woman give up all rights to it, C- section it out and see if it lives.


Rather simple.

You're sick, and twisted.

Those cells are human life in its earliest form. At some point, yes, they become viable without the need for the mother's womb. However, to disregard them as nothing more than parasitic cells prior to whatever point you find acceptable is hardly being rational.

 

[Immanuel]

This is a little off topic, but I found out that now that I started trying for a baby with my beloved fiancee, I find abortion debates quite distressing.

While I am a supporter of women's rights and believe in the 'right to choose,' I also cringe at the thought of someone having an abortion ... unless they are of very young age, in extremely bad financial/life situation, or have been raped or are sick and pregnancy would present a risk to their health/life. But then, vast majority of abortions are performed because of the above reasons.

And...

I think it's so extremely unfair that some people get pregnant and then discard the new life beginning in their wombs as if it were a pair of unwashed socks while other women struggle for years to become pregnant and can't because of some medical or other impairment ... But then life is unfair in general.

This is totally hormones talking though ... Enjoy your debate, I just wanted to quickly jump in to let myself be heard.

Less than 3% of all abortions performed represent a threat to a woman's life or are due to rape.

This means that more than 97% of all abortins performed are for the convenience of the mother.

I was not going to get into that.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Not at all, but you seem to be trying to prove you are. If the sighted person cannot here the grasshopper at his feet, but the blind person can, which is more aware of the world around them. You seem to think that sight, or even color vision, gives a person more awareness of their surrounding. The reality is it just gives them different information, some of which actually serves to blind them to other information.

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).

Not according to medical science, which is the basis of our discussion. If you want to argue that medical science is wrong in this area you will need to provide evidence, not just make unmerited claims in an attempt to to make me look stupid.

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

Perhaps you're thinking of vegetative states.

Dreams are the result of random nerve activity inside the brain and have nothing to do with conscious thought, which is what we are discussing. If you want to claim that people in comas actually are awake and can think you will need to provide evidence of this. Keep in mind that EKGs of coma patients prove that they do not think while you are making a fool of yourself, because I will be happy to remind you if you forget.

I see you're still a master of irony

At least I know when I am wrong.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes, let's cut out all babies and watch them die.

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life. Cesarean section is a from of non painful humanitarian birth. You see i am not saying abortion.

If the woman doesn't not want it and the lifers claim that it is life. Have the woman give up all rights to it, C- section it out and see if it lives.


Rather simple.

You're sick, and twisted.

Those cells are human life in its earliest form. At some point, yes, they become viable without the need for the mother's womb. However, to disregard them as nothing more than parasitic cells prior to whatever point you find acceptable is hardly being rational.

"Viable without need for the mother's womb" is when the child is born and the cord is cut. No child exists in utero without the support of the mother.

I think it's simplistic to simply dismiss a blastocyst or fetus as a "clump of cells", but it isn't viable (meaning it can't live without the mother) until sometime around the 23 week or so. The odds that a child born that young will survive are extremely poor.

I find your earlier clam that a lot of babies are born and do fine at 21 weeks really questionable. In fact, only two babies have been born in the 21st week and survived and they were both close to the 22nd week (5 and 6 days respectively).

According to data years 2003-2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[2] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 gm to survive.[1]

Viability (fetal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[syrenn]

Yes, let's cut out all babies and watch them die.

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life. Cesarean section is a from of non painful humanitarian birth. You see i am not saying abortion.

If the woman doesn't not want it and the lifers claim that it is life. Have the woman give up all rights to it, C- section it out and see if it lives.


Rather simple.

You're sick, and twisted.

Those cells are human life in its earliest form. At some point, yes, they become viable without the need for the mother's womb. However, to disregard them as nothing more than parasitic cells prior to whatever point you find acceptable is hardly being rational.

Its not sick or twisted. It is establishing where life begins. If those cells cannot "live" without a host body, then yes as you so rightly put, it is technically a parasite.

I am not debating that the cells are "alive" I do debate if those cells have a "life of their own"

 

[geauxtohell]

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life. Cesarean section is a from of non painful humanitarian birth. You see i am not saying abortion.

If the woman doesn't not want it and the lifers claim that it is life. Have the woman give up all rights to it, C- section it out and see if it lives.


Rather simple.

You're sick, and twisted.

Those cells are human life in its earliest form. At some point, yes, they become viable without the need for the mother's womb. However, to disregard them as nothing more than parasitic cells prior to whatever point you find acceptable is hardly being rational.

Its not sick or twisted. It is establishing where life begins. If those cells cannot "live" without a host body, then yes as you so rightly put, it is technically a parasite.

I am not debating that the cells are "alive" I do debate if those cells have a "life of their own"

I don't understand why this nuance is so hard for people to grasp.

 

[ConHog]

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life. Cesarean section is a from of non painful humanitarian birth. You see i am not saying abortion.

If the woman doesn't not want it and the lifers claim that it is life. Have the woman give up all rights to it, C- section it out and see if it lives.


Rather simple.

You're sick, and twisted.

Those cells are human life in its earliest form. At some point, yes, they become viable without the need for the mother's womb. However, to disregard them as nothing more than parasitic cells prior to whatever point you find acceptable is hardly being rational.

Its not sick or twisted. It is establishing where life begins. If those cells cannot "live" without a host body, then yes as you so rightly put, it is technically a parasite.

I am not debating that the cells are "alive" I do debate if those cells have a "life of their own"

You are both sick AND twisted. Not to mention stupid, and probably illiterate.

Your views are clear, you wish to kill all babies, old people who have outlived their usefulness to.

 

[geauxtohell]

You're sick, and twisted.

Those cells are human life in its earliest form. At some point, yes, they become viable without the need for the mother's womb. However, to disregard them as nothing more than parasitic cells prior to whatever point you find acceptable is hardly being rational.

Its not sick or twisted. It is establishing where life begins. If those cells cannot "live" without a host body, then yes as you so rightly put, it is technically a parasite.

I am not debating that the cells are "alive" I do debate if those cells have a "life of their own"

You are both sick AND twisted. Not to mention stupid, and probably illiterate.

Your views are clear, you wish to kill all babies, old people who have outlived their usefulness to.

At least they aren't academically dishonest. Meaning, they don't just insult people because they are putting forth a position that obviously evokes a visceral reaction in you personally. Furthermore, no one has even referenced euthanasia. Seriously, maybe they aren't the problem here?

BTW: "probably illiterate" directed towards people making posts on a message board is an extremely lame talking point.

 

[Immanuel]

You're sick, and twisted.

Those cells are human life in its earliest form. At some point, yes, they become viable without the need for the mother's womb. However, to disregard them as nothing more than parasitic cells prior to whatever point you find acceptable is hardly being rational.

Its not sick or twisted. It is establishing where life begins. If those cells cannot "live" without a host body, then yes as you so rightly put, it is technically a parasite.

I am not debating that the cells are "alive" I do debate if those cells have a "life of their own"

You are both sick AND twisted. Not to mention stupid, and probably illiterate.

Your views are clear, you wish to kill all babies, old people who have outlived their usefulness to.

I disagree with you CONhog. Syrenn is only posing a question. I don't believe she actually stated that she would do this or even would support it. She might, but that is not the issue.

She asked a question and a fair question at that.

I happen to disagree with the premise that simply because it cannot live on its own that it thus has no rights, but Syrenn is presenting a point of discussion.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

of interest:


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

Wow, I love it!

The science guy is posting junk science that has people claim that people can read minds. What next? Proof of UFOs and evidence of bigfoot?

You do realize that just a post ago you argued that people in vegetative states have no brain activity, and now you are trying to prove they are really awake, don't you? All this while you are trying to claim that your position is honest, logically and and ideologically consistent. And claim that I do not understand science.

 

[syrenn]

You're sick, and twisted.

Those cells are human life in its earliest form. At some point, yes, they become viable without the need for the mother's womb. However, to disregard them as nothing more than parasitic cells prior to whatever point you find acceptable is hardly being rational.

Its not sick or twisted. It is establishing where life begins. If those cells cannot "live" without a host body, then yes as you so rightly put, it is technically a parasite.

I am not debating that the cells are "alive" I do debate if those cells have a "life of their own"

I don't understand why this nuance is so hard for people to grasp.

Me either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

This from a guy who posts about mind reading and facilitated communication.

Google it.

 

[clevergirl]

Its not sick or twisted. It is establishing where life begins. If those cells cannot "live" without a host body, then yes as you so rightly put, it is technically a parasite.

I am not debating that the cells are "alive" I do debate if those cells have a "life of their own"

I don't understand why this nuance is so hard for people to grasp.

Me either.

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not
a Parasite

a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology. This is reprinted, with the author's permission, from the National Right to Life News, April-May, 1974. It also appears in "The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life," by Scientists for Life. $1.75 plus postage for two ounces for each copy to: Sun Life, 2399 Cool Springs Road, Thaxton, VA 24174, 540/586-4898.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: When some people claim preborn children are parasites, they mean "parasite" in its pejorative, that is, in its social-ethical sense. Prof. Johnson's article addresses only the biological meaning of "parasite." Libertarians for Life responds to the pejorative sense in other articles. Briefly, as libertarians, we strongly agree that women as well as men have the right to control their own bodies. Nonetheless, we hold that under principles of individual liberty, parents have the obligation to support their dependent children. Our children have a right to our support, whether they are in the crib or in the womb.

 

[Ravi]

So no one really cares about reducing abortion by selling the morning after pill wherever condoms are sold.

Why is that, I wonder?

 

[geauxtohell]

So no one really cares about reducing abortion by selling the morning after pill wherever condoms are sold.

Why is that, I wonder?

Could it be the same reason the GOP never attempted to amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion during those six years they had the White House, Senate, and congress?

Could it be, perhaps, that abortion is a big election issue, and it is not in people's best interest to see it go away?

 

[Ravi]

So no one really cares about reducing abortion by selling the morning after pill wherever condoms are sold.

Why is that, I wonder?

Could it be the same reason the GOP never attempted to amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion during those six years they had the White House, Senate, and congress?

Could it be, perhaps, that abortion is a big election issue, and it is not in people's best interest to see it go away?

Yes, thank you. Most hot button issues are just a way to garner votes...

But amongst us discussing the issue...why not support things that bring down the number of abortions? Why don't we all demand that women have every opportunity to not become pregnant if they aren't ready to become pregnant?