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

[JBeukema]

You just argued that brain dead people can answer questions through thought pictures, you have no standing to post on the subject.

Wow... you fail reading comprehension forever

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evidently, since you think an electrocardiogram measures brain activity.

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

I might make the occasional typo, but at least I don't try to prove that people in a vegetative state can think by posting about telepathy.

.

I never said anything about telepathy, you dolt.

How do they get the thought pictures then? Magic?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You just argued that brain dead people can answer questions through thought pictures, you have no standing to post on the subject.

Wow... you fail reading comprehension forever

Try again.

A man believed to be in a permanent vegetative state shocked doctors by answering questions through thoughts. The 29-year-old crash victim had shown no physical sign of response for five years but scientists scanning his brain found he gave "yes and no" answers through images.
The case proves those in vegetative comas may be thinking even while they cannot move - and the amazing results could help them.

From your link in this post:

of interest:


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

Explain the medical differences between a permanent vegetative state and brain death.

 

[JBeukema]

Sure, why not.

Cars move by magic and the TV is witchcraft.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

That's 100% completely absurd.

Even children as late as 30 and 33 weeks don't have sufficiently developed lungs. They lack the surfactant to keep their lungs from sticking. This is why premies are in danger of NRDS and why mothers who have premature children are put on steroids.

Again!!!!! You are tallking about developement and viability not the completeness of the unborns humanity. It has everything making it a unique (has its own circualtory system; DNA; blood typpe; sexual organs) sentinent person.

What you are now that makes you you, apart from experience and developement, you already had at the moment of conception.

What kind of of gobbidy goop is that?

I mean, I think it's silly to dismiss a fetus as "just a bunch of cells" it's also silly to claim that a fetus is "100% human".

Which is obvious, you can't dispute the embryology of the matter, so you have to resort to silly pseudo-science-speak to support such a silly notion.

A fetus is not 100% human. 100% human's lungs don't collapse while breathing room air.

 

[geauxtohell]

It does seem like 22 weeks is the key threshold with current medical technology, but I don't think it is going to stay at there forever.

I wouldn't call 22 weeks the threshold. Of all the children born that early, two have survived. I posted the survival odds earlier, but considering that and the complications, I don't know why we would want to deliver a baby any earlier.

As some point, people are going to have to admit that gestation is essential to life and that, while a fetus may be "life" it can't live on it's own.

I think I said something similar to that in this thread.

BTW, I meant threshold in the sense that 22 weeks seem to be the limit of our ability to sustain a neonate outside the womb. When we develop a substitute amniotic fluid we should be able to move that threshold lower because we can keep the neonate in a liquid environment until its lungs are developed to the point that they can breathe without support.

Next stop, artificial wombs, freeing all woman to never carry a child.

"Brave New World" I suppose.

 

[clevergirl]

That's 100% completely absurd.

Even children as late as 30 and 33 weeks don't have sufficiently developed lungs. They lack the surfactant to keep their lungs from sticking. This is why premies are in danger of NRDS and why mothers who have premature children are put on steroids.

Again!!!!! You are tallking about developement and viability not the completeness of the unborns humanity. It has everything making it a unique (has its own circualtory system; DNA; blood typpe; sexual organs) sentinent person.

What you are now that makes you you, apart from experience and developement, you already had at the moment of conception.

What kind of of gobbidy goop is that?

I mean, I think it's silly to dismiss a fetus as "just a bunch of cells" it's also silly to claim that a fetus is "100% human".

Which is obvious, you can't dispute the embryology of the matter, so you have to resort to silly pseudo-science-speak to support such a silly notion.

A fetus is not 100% human. 100% human's lungs don't collapse while breathing room air.

Obviously you think that the fetus is not 100% human. So tell us what percentage of it is not human? Which parts of its DNA fail the human test and what DNA needs to be added to make it 100% human?

There is no pseudo speak involved in what I say. Any biologist will testify, in much better language, to that which I say. Undeveloped lungs do not make the fetus less human.

EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO LIFE'S BEGINNING

"When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists."

C. Christopher Hook, M.D.
Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine

"Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man."

Jerome Lejeune, M.D., Ph.D.

In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.”

Why have all the teaching texts and so many medical experts come to this same conclusion? Because there are simple ways to measure whether something is alive and whether something is human. If Faye Wattleton is correct and everyone already knows that abortion kills a human being, they have come to that knowledge in spite of the information circulated by Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion-rights community. The abortion section of the Planned Parenthood website explains abortion this way:

"Abortion ends a pregnancy before birth."

How's that for thorough? Maybe they just assume that the method for ending the pregnancy is so obvious (killing the human being living in the womb) that it hardly bears mentioning. More likely, Planned Parenthood is simply accommodating the general ignorance which believes abortion to be the mere removal of potential human life, rather than the actual killing of existing human life.

Biologically speaking, every abortion at every point in the pregnancy ends the life of a genetically-distinct human being.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A human egg fertilized by a human sperm can only produce one thing . . . . a 100% human, each and every time.

Developmental stages don't make this unique individual 'more' or 'less' human.

 

[Ravi]

A human egg fertilized by a human sperm can only produce one thing . . . . a 100% human, each and every time.

Developmental stages don't make this unique individual 'more' or 'less' human.

And a human egg can only produce one thing. And a sperm can only produce one thing.

So what?

Birth makes one a human.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A human egg fertilized by a human sperm can only produce one thing . . . . a 100% human, each and every time.

Developmental stages don't make this unique individual 'more' or 'less' human.

And a human egg can only produce one thing. And a sperm can only produce one thing.

So what?

Birth makes one a human.

 

[JBeukema]

Birth makes one a human.

Really? So the DNA magically changes when one leaves the womb?

 

[sangha]

Birth makes one a human.

Really? So the DNA magically changes when one leaves the womb?

No, JB is wrong on that. Birth makes a fetus a "person". Under the law, only "persons" have rights. A fetus has no rights

 

[Ravi]

Birth makes one a human.

Really? So the DNA magically changes when one leaves the womb?

No. Where did I say that?

 

[JBeukema]

Birth makes one a human.

Really? So the DNA magically changes when one leaves the womb?

No, JB is wrong on that. Birth makes a fetus a "person". Under the law, only "persons" have rights. A fetus has no rights

According to the law, black skin also made you 3/5 of a person and a tomato is a vegetable

 

[clevergirl]

And a human egg can only produce one thing. And a sperm can only produce one thing.

So what?

Birth makes one a human.

A human egg in and of itself produces nothing. Same goes for the human sperm. Together, if successful fertalization happens, they produce a unique and 100% complete human being...birth is merely a next stage for the human being that began at conception. This is a scientifically settled matter.

 

[sangha]

Really? So the DNA magically changes when one leaves the womb?

No, JB is wrong on that. Birth makes a fetus a "person". Under the law, only "persons" have rights. A fetus has no rights

According to the law, black skin also made you 3/5 of a person and a tomato is a vegetable

Culinary wise, tomatoes are a vegetable. Botanically, they are a fruit.

And I hope you realize that the 3/5 BS is no longer in effect.

 

[syrenn]

And a human egg can only produce one thing. And a sperm can only produce one thing.

So what?

Birth makes one a human.

A human egg in and of itself produces nothing. Same goes for the human sperm. Together, if successful fertalization happens, they produce a unique and 100% complete human being...birth is merely a next stage for the human being that began at conception. This is a scientifically settled matter.

If it was a 100% complete human being then you could grow it up in a lab.

That dear is a scientifically settled matter

 

[JBeukema]

Would this be a bad time to bring up parthenogenesis?

 

[JBeukema]

And a human egg can only produce one thing. And a sperm can only produce one thing.

So what?

Birth makes one a human.

A human egg in and of itself produces nothing. Same goes for the human sperm. Together, if successful fertalization happens, they produce a unique and 100% complete human being...birth is merely a next stage for the human being that began at conception. This is a scientifically settled matter.

If it was a 100% complete human being then you could grow it up in a lab.

That dear is a scientifically settled matter

What fucking science is that, sryenne'sbullshitology, the study of all your posts?

 

[syrenn]

A human egg in and of itself produces nothing. Same goes for the human sperm. Together, if successful fertalization happens, they produce a unique and 100% complete human being...birth is merely a next stage for the human being that began at conception. This is a scientifically settled matter.

If it was a 100% complete human being then you could grow it up in a lab.

That dear is a scientifically settled matter

What fucking science is that, sryenne'sbullshitology, the study of all your posts?

If a fertilized egg is a 100% complete human being, as per the quote, then you could grow it up in a lab.

Try growing one without implanting it in a woman.