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

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

The second sentence there has nothing to do with the first. And instead of trying to refute the scientific information, you decide to attack this highly reputable organization, still on the basis of the FOUR "testimonies" of a youtube video. It's not that the UK has more credible doctors than the US. It's that the US hasn't really investigated this line of research. The silence from this country is not tacit acknowledgment that fetuses feel pain. It's NO COMMENT.

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.

You just made the claim that all nerves send information to the brain. I'm splitting hairs by pointing out you were COMPLETELY INCORRECT about your main point? Don't say stupid things and call it minutia when someone points it out. You continue to claim that babies feel pain because they have pain nerves, and have yet to produce research or ANY EVIDENCE that supports that stance. No, a youtube video of someone else's subjective opinion does not count. For details, see the "let's weigh the scales" example in my previous post to you.

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.

Once again unable to refute the actual argument, and resort to unrelated emotional outbursts. The "abortion" they demonstrated in that video IS BANNED IN EVERY STATE IN THIS COUNTRY. Fact. It was used as a scare tactic to purposely mislead dumb hicks such as yourself, and you bought it. And you claim I am blinded?

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?

The argument is about ALL development. It's not a "silent scream". It's not anything of the sort. It's a still shot when the fetus's mouth happened to be open. Maybe this person is in pain because her mouth is open. Perhaps you should draw the conclusion that driving is a painful activity. Maybe this fetus is in pain too, because we have a picture with its mouth open. They are anthropomorphizing a fetus. Do you understand what that means? It means they are attributing human reactions and emotions to something that otherwise doesn't have them. Think about that.

So let's recap: They provide a misleading example of an abortion that is completely illegal. They claim the fetus is moving away from a needle when it DOESNT HAVE THE PHYSICAL CAPABILITY. Their reasoning in no way studies the neurology or embryology of the fetus. They use a single still shot of a fetus when its mouth happens to be open to base the entirety of their anthropomorphizing conclusion. Again: how on earth do you see this as equal to controlled studies from a reputable organization that has no conflict of interest? Meanwhile, your support of them is not logical, not factual, and not supported. It resorts to emotional outbursts and subjective interpretations, while my response utilizes reasoning, supported biological evidence, citation of US law, and relevant objective research.

You lose. Again.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Certainly a potential father could argue that HE has a vested interest in said fetus.

That is arguably true, and the topic of another thread which I'm not getting into. But you are right in that regard.

With respect to everyone else, however, it's not the case.

So you're ok with abortion before 21 weeks of age? You still appear to be missing the point. Set your cutoff where you will, if that makes you feel better. It doesn't change the discussion one bit.

Nope. I think abortion is wrong, except when the mother's life is at risk.

So then splitting hairs over whether it's 21 or 24 weeks it just a moot point anyway for you.

 

[ConHog]

Certainly a potential father could argue that HE has a vested interest in said fetus.

That is arguably true, and the topic of another thread which I'm not getting into. But you are right in that regard.

With respect to everyone else, however, it's not the case.

So you're ok with abortion before 21 weeks of age? You still appear to be missing the point. Set your cutoff where you will, if that makes you feel better. It doesn't change the discussion one bit.

Nope. I think abortion is wrong, except when the mother's life is at risk.

So then splitting hairs over whether it's 21 or 24 weeks it just a moot point anyway for you.

I would invite you to the abortion thread in the flame forum. we've been having that "discussion" for several pages

 

[syrenn]

Spoken like a true hypocrite. Why should he just sit back and be forced to take all of your insulting crap and not dish it back? Because you are a woman? I think not.

Really? My insulting crap?

i think you need to read the thread....and not just this one and see if your right about that. Read this thread...and look at who starts in on the insults? me or jon?

sorry shadow you dont know jon as well as you think.

Shadow's been posting here alongside me a lot longer than you. I think she would know me a lot better than you do. You just happen to be the type of daft bitch to get on my nerves, so I call you out on it. Don't blame me because you're ignorant.

So you are justifying your behavior? Good one. Thanks for admitting that i was right in my assessment of you. No, shadow does not know you at all.

 

[clevergirl]

Oh that's how it is defined in your book from 40 years ago? There are plenty of parasites in the same species, including a number of fish. The rest of your post was way too long, and it would take too much time to shoot each bad point down individually.

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?

Not true; a developing embryo is completely human and merely in an early stage of developement. The newborn infant cannot walk; feed itself; talk; or perform numerous other developemental abilities. It is however still the same human being it was as a fetus and will be as an adult.

Completely human? You're telling me 4 cells floating around a uterus is completely human? Perhaps we have different ideas of what makes a human COMPLETE, but a working circulatory system seems to be a bare minimum requirement, among other things.

Again I ask: do you think an acorn is a complete tree? Or is it something that can become a complete tree?

When repsonding to me could ya just respond to me individually?


To your first question: Has science changed in 40 years? If so how so?

I am telling you that every single part of the conceptualized fetus form its very begining is completely human and completely alive. There will be nothing more added to it. That you were likewise complete at the very beginning stages of your life; from zygote to adult.

Yes, the acorn has the complete dna of a tree and if planted will develope. Unlike the acorn however, the baby is already planted in the womb and has begun its developement.

 

[ConHog]

Really? My insulting crap?

i think you need to read the thread....and not just this one and see if your right about that. Read this thread...and look at who starts in on the insults? me or jon?

sorry shadow you dont know jon as well as you think.

Shadow's been posting here alongside me a lot longer than you. I think she would know me a lot better than you do. You just happen to be the type of daft bitch to get on my nerves, so I call you out on it. Don't blame me because you're ignorant.

So you are justifying your behavior? Good one. Thanks for admitting that i was right in my assessment of you. No, shadow does not know you at all.

Shut the fuck up. You're so god damned pathetic you gotta post a pic of some woman in lingerie as your avatar and act like a fucking whore to get guys to rep you and then if anyone says anything about your bad behavior or neg reps you off you you run to start a thread to wine about them. I mean seriously , what gives you the right to criticize anyone?

 

[oreo]

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?

That's a crock of B.S. A baby aka fetus will start to move long before 24 weeks. If they can move--they can feel pain.

I am getting so sick and tired of people who try to defend "murder" in this society. Put on a freakin condome-take those birth control measures-would ya--and save the rest of us the "excuses."

 

[geauxtohell]

That's a crock of B.S. A baby aka fetus will start to move long before 24 weeks. If they can move--they can feel pain.

Not quite, different neural pathways completely. A fetus can do rudimentary movement but not fine motor movement as motor neural pathways are still developing long after birth.

So neural development is not exactly a 1:1 ordeal.

I am getting so sick and tired of people who try to defend "murder" in this society. Put on a freakin condome-take those birth control measures-would ya--and save the rest of us the "excuses."

Or the "rest of you" can save yourself and just mind your own business. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

 

[syrenn]

Shadow's been posting here alongside me a lot longer than you. I think she would know me a lot better than you do. You just happen to be the type of daft bitch to get on my nerves, so I call you out on it. Don't blame me because you're ignorant.

So you are justifying your behavior? Good one. Thanks for admitting that i was right in my assessment of you. No, shadow does not know you at all.

Shut the fuck up. You're so god damned pathetic you gotta post a pic of some woman in lingerie as your avatar and act like a fucking whore to get guys to rep you and then if anyone says anything about your bad behavior or neg reps you off you you run to start a thread to wine about them. I mean seriously , what gives you the right to criticize anyone?

Love your avatar..a true no one.

Sorry sweet cheeks your obsessed with every word I utter, not my fault but all yours. Really? Acting like a whore? Or do you mean a woman you cant control or bully?

Again who was whining... I was laughing at you, and giving a mental image so that everyone else could laugh at you too.

Bad behavior? Yes you are becoming the king of that around here...you should hear what is going on in PM about you HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! We are laughing at it and you.

try again

 

[SmarterThanHick]

To your first question: Has science changed in 40 years? If so how so?

Really? You don't believe science has changed in FORTY years? Ignoring that whole internet thing, the majority of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals, the human genome, post-it notes, and a number of other major scientific breakthroughs and observations, then I suppose science hasn't really changed too much in 40 years.

Do you really want to continue that line of reasoning?

I am telling you that every single part of the conceptualized fetus form its very begining is completely human and completely alive.

No. You're telling me that every single part of the fetus contains human DNA inside of living tissue. What defines "complete human" for you?

 

[Shadow]

Really? My insulting crap?

i think you need to read the thread....and not just this one and see if your right about that. Read this thread...and look at who starts in on the insults? me or jon?

sorry shadow you dont know jon as well as you think.

Shadow's been posting here alongside me a lot longer than you. I think she would know me a lot better than you do. You just happen to be the type of daft bitch to get on my nerves, so I call you out on it. Don't blame me because you're ignorant.

So you are justifying your behavior? Good one. Thanks for admitting that i was right in my assessment of you. No, shadow does not know you at all.

Trust me when I tell you that I don't need you to tell me what I do or do not know about Jon or anyone else on this board.

 

[clevergirl]

To your first question: Has science changed in 40 years? If so how so?

Really? You don't believe science has changed in FORTY years? Ignoring that whole internet thing, the majority of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals, the human genome, post-it notes, and a number of other major scientific breakthroughs and observations, then I suppose science hasn't really changed too much in 40 years.

Do you really want to continue that line of reasoning?

I am telling you that every single part of the conceptualized fetus form its very begining is completely human and completely alive.

No. You're telling me that every single part of the fetus contains human DNA inside of living tissue. What defines "complete human" for you?

I did not say science has not changed in any general sense. Rather I asked if the science specific to what I posted had changed and that if it had how so. For you to attempt to obfuscate the obvious here is clearly a false reality. So, again, if the science regarding parasites has changed specific to what I posted let's hear it?

I am TELLING you that a human fetus is 100% complete. That nothing more can be added to it to make it any more a complete human being. Apart from developemental stages, it is exactly the same biologically at fetal stage as it is at adult stage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

No. Making a broad sweeping generalization from a specific instance is just misleading. There will always be times when the ethics of some are imposed on others. For example, you are not allowed to steal in this country, even if you are not ethically opposed to it. The importance here is in the difference. With regard to thievery, the person being stolen from has a vested personal interest in the items. With regard to abortion, YOU HAVE NO VESTED PERSONAL INTEREST in the fetus of another person. As such, I am not imposing my morals on you by allowing someone else the ability to choose such an outcome.

You are trying to say that your position is morally superior to some else's because you can rationalize your position in such a way that it makes you feel superior. Because your morals are superior to theirs it gives you a free conscious to shove your superior morals down their throat. This is exactly the logic that led to Obamacare. Guess what, no one has a vested interest in my health either, but that is not stopping the government in its attempt to take my vested interest in my health and put it in someone else's hands. If they can argue that society has a vested interest in my health, than I can argue society has a vested interest in the health of that unborn baby.

That's the point you continually seem to be missing: pro-choice is allowing individuals to use THEIR OWN morals on this situation. Not mine. Not yours. Theirs. Claiming I'm imposing my morals on you is just inane. But if you want to completely prevent a woman from abortion, you ARE imposing your morals on her.

The point you seem to be missing is that you do not know my position on abortion. My very first post in this thread said that i often come across as anti abortion because I attack the lies of the pro abortion people. Your biggest lie is that this is about choice, it isn't. What defines this debate is that it is about life. The question ultimately is does an infant's right to life justify the inconvenience to the mother of giving birth. You want to mask your position on this issue by claiming it is about choice when every thinking human being knows it is about the opportunity for someone to skip the consequences of their decisions.

You have yet to say WHY that's the case. Are you even aware that the majority of conceptions are terminated naturally? Studies have shown that miscarriage rates range from about one third to over 40% after conception. So if conception is enough to be "worthy of life", whatever that means, why do so many naturally get terminated?

Because life also includes death. Are you going to try and hold me personally responsible for the people dying of starvation in Chad while you are at it?

Again, this is one of those times when people like me use facts to support our claims, and people like you use vague emotional terms.

There you go again, assuming that I have a position on this issue that is directly opposite yours because I point out the weakness of your position. Lay out some facts if you can, all you have done is lay out emotional arguments about choice and morals.

No. We like to call people like you ignorant boobs for completely disregarding facts and evidence to maintain your unsubstantiated beliefs. Also, there is no "pro abortion" side to this issue. You can't point to a single person in this thread who is "pro abortion". Using misleading terms and then claiming others are misleading is just immature.

The issue is abortion, and like it or not there are only tow sides to the issue. You are either for abortion or against it, choice is nothing more than an euphemism that is used to cover the real facts. I thought you said that you were going to use facts to make your point. If you actually are unemotional and factual about this the labels should not make a difference. If they do, it might indicate that you are emotionally invested in this argument than you are admitting to yourself.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Do cite where medical science shows that people don't dream and that they are totally unaware of and totally unable to respond to outside stimulus.


-Should you fall asleep n the process, I'll wait for REM to kick in and douse you in cold water

Keep in mind that EKGs of coma patients prove that they do not think

Really? You know, you don't actually think with your heart. You shouldn't confuse idioms and figures of speech with scientific fact.

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.

At least I know when I am wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

I do not understand science.

Evidently, since you think an electrocardiogram measures brain activity.

I'll give you a hint: it's all in the name- electrocardiogram

 

[JBeukema]

I find your earlier clam that a lot of babies are born and do fine at 21 weeks really questionable.

You should, especially since I didn't make that claim.

You are right, I remembered your quote wrong. Apologies:

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

It would be accurate to say that two babies born at the end of the 21st week have survived.

I've highlighted where you misrepresented his original claim. He didn't say it was common, only that it was known to happen.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

Not true; a developing embryo is completely human and merely in an early stage of developement. The newborn infant cannot walk; feed itself; talk; or perform numerous other developemental abilities. It is however still the same human being it was as a fetus and will be as an adult.

Just to play Devil's advocate...


If I remove the planks of a ship and replace them with new ones, while reassembling the old planks to build another ship a dozen yards away....?

 

[JBeukema]

Where does compassion come into this equation?

In a discussion about abortion and the termination of human life, you ask what compassion has to do with anything?

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, I think THAT would qualify as murder, or at least cruel and unusual punishment. Either way, it's hardly a logical answer to an unanswerable question.

No, it would be another form of abortion. Medical abortion is not a specific procedure it is the act of ending the fetal life of the unborn.

Again, if it is ALIVE then it will do just fine being C-sections out.

.....

















...........





























































.........

 

[JBeukema]

Lifers claim that it is "alive" from the moment of conception.

And Copernicans claim Earth orbits around the sun...

Again C-section it out and give it all the life support you can. And see if it lives.

Let's just drop you into the ocean with an anchor chained around your neck, give you all available medical care, and see how long you make it...