If that is what war has evolved to, indeed it is wrong. It used to be we went to war to kill people who were out to kill us. But since Vietnam who is to say?
Human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
If that is what war has evolved to, indeed it is wrong. It used to be we went to war to kill people who were out to kill us. But since Vietnam who is to say?
Somewhere back on this walk through life, an old friend gave birth to a baby she'd long known didn't have a chance for survival. Baby Kelly - diagnosed with spinabifeda (?) was gone in minutes. Her heart still beats. Her eyes still see. Her lungs still breathe.
I guess anyone can make a choice....
I guess anyone can make a choice....
I'm not talking about voluntary euthanasia.
What I am talking about is ending life without the consent of the living.
But hey, you already seem to think that's okay....so I assume once any life becomes a burden then society should end it.
Well, one can reasonably foresee the burden/suffering on the individual about to be born as well and make the educated decision on whether to abort it or not. It's also important to note that there may be a huge burden on the individual having the child as well and abortion could be the only option left.
The most important point, though, is to look beyond the narrow-minded consequences of the immediate act and broaden one's scope globally and understand that overpopulation is a very serious problem that could eventually turn into a critical issue for us all.
While that may not be an apparant dilemma just yet, the growth rate increases exponentially every year - and we should be looking for sustenance at this point. Of course, one has the freedom to choose, but we should be educating parents to help them realize that their children are not special.
Like I have said many times...if the life of the mother is at risk, rape, or extreme deformity I can accept abortion.
I do not accept abortion as a form of birth control.
It is up to the two people involved to understand over population and other such problems....not the life who has no say.
Jeez, maybe I should have waited until today to post this report and I should have elaborated more on the subject to debate..... I come back from the weekend to find this delved into what many in the first page was tired of (whom are also the same people who created what they're tired of)
I wasn't intending to make another "Is Abortion Ok?" thread, as indeed.... we have plenty of those already.
A new study came out determining at what stage feeling/sensations can be registered in the developing brain of a human fetus, which is why I tossed this into the "Science & Environment" section. If I intended on creating another generic Abortion thread, I would have created the thread in the "Spirituality & Philosophy" section.
I wished to debate the study itself, if it made sense, if it could be refuted or otherwise be debated..... rather then go through the same "It's Right/It's Wrong" arguments. All I said at the start what that this study matched pretty much what I have said/thought for quite sometime, in that just because a fetus looks human does not equate it to having feeling or even consciousness.... and the study claims that a fetus is in a continual catatonic state. Unless this study can be decently refuted in someway, the argument of a fetus feeling pain or being aware is kinda baseless.
Perhaps that is too much to ask due to being such a hot topic all the time to focus on just one aspect.... then again, it could also be my own fault for not elaborating further in my original post on what I was intending for this thread.
I wasn't intending to make another "Is Abortion Ok?" thread, as indeed.... we have plenty of those already.
A new study came out determining at what stage feeling/sensations can be registered in the developing brain of a human fetus, which is why I tossed this into the "Science & Environment" section. If I intended on creating another generic Abortion thread, I would have created the thread in the "Spirituality & Philosophy" section.
I wished to debate the study itself, if it made sense, if it could be refuted or otherwise be debated..... rather then go through the same "It's Right/It's Wrong" arguments. All I said at the start what that this study matched pretty much what I have said/thought for quite sometime, in that just because a fetus looks human does not equate it to having feeling or even consciousness.... and the study claims that a fetus is in a continual catatonic state. Unless this study can be decently refuted in someway, the argument of a fetus feeling pain or being aware is kinda baseless.
Perhaps that is too much to ask due to being such a hot topic all the time to focus on just one aspect.... then again, it could also be my own fault for not elaborating further in my original post on what I was intending for this thread.
Re: Human fetus feels no pain before 24 weeks
Not at all. Maybe you don’t have a proper appreciation of the word ‘hypocrisy’. Hypocrisy involves preaching to others how they should live their lives and then not living up those standards yourself.
Conservatives are usually guilty of hypocrisy, because they usually preach to others how others should live their lives. Then when they are caught living contrary to what they preach, they are exposed as hypocrites. Liberals don’t preach to others, so they are rarely guilty of hypocrisy.
Consider the case of Senator Larry ‘Wide Stance’ Craig. He had spent his life ranting and raving against homosexuality, he was on a mission, a Crusade to wipe out homosexuality. So when he was caught trying to solicit gay sex in a Minnesota airport, he was reviled and ridiculed as a hypocrite.
But Barney Franks, a well known homosexual is not guilty of hypocrisy even though he practices gay sex. Senator Craig was reviled, not for the homosexual act, but for hypocrisy.
So that is what is meant by hypocrisy. A politician breaking election promises has nothing to do with hypocrisy.
Not at all. Maybe you don’t have a proper appreciation of the word ‘hypocrisy’. Hypocrisy involves preaching to others how they should live their lives and then not living up those standards yourself.
Conservatives are usually guilty of hypocrisy, because they usually preach to others how others should live their lives. Then when they are caught living contrary to what they preach, they are exposed as hypocrites. Liberals don’t preach to others, so they are rarely guilty of hypocrisy.
Consider the case of Senator Larry ‘Wide Stance’ Craig. He had spent his life ranting and raving against homosexuality, he was on a mission, a Crusade to wipe out homosexuality. So when he was caught trying to solicit gay sex in a Minnesota airport, he was reviled and ridiculed as a hypocrite.
But Barney Franks, a well known homosexual is not guilty of hypocrisy even though he practices gay sex. Senator Craig was reviled, not for the homosexual act, but for hypocrisy.
So that is what is meant by hypocrisy. A politician breaking election promises has nothing to do with hypocrisy.
Were you being facetious here, Kreskin? i thought you were, considering that most posters here have expressed definite opinions one way or the other. But I notice a couple of them took up your bet and responded that they do have a definite opinion.
So was I right, in that it was just an ironical comment?
I never said, you were, Avro. Show me a post where I characterize you as a liberal or a conservative. If I had to characterize you, I think you hold liberal opinions on many issues (I agree with you many times), but there are some very notable, major exceptions, such as the issue of abortion.
And again, which was the question you wanted me to answer (the debate has moved on considerably since our last exchange)?
The term "Life" is irrelevant since just about everything on this planet, to some degree, is alive. If I stomp on a bug crawling in my home and kill it.... perhaps to some it could be considered a murder, but since that bug is not classified as a human being and therefore is not protected by human rights and laws, I can not be charged under any criminal act for Murder.
A tape worm in your body is also alive, it lives inside your body, it takes resources and energy from your body, it grows and if it remains inside your body for too long, it can cause serious complications and lead to death. A fetus lives in your body, it takes resources and energy from your body, it grows and if it remains inside your body for too long, it too can cause serious complications and lead to death. The only difference between the two is that one is considered a parasite while the other isn't.... so when it comes to certain people believing "Life Begins at Conception" ~ That generic response to justify their position and views is irrelevant and holds no meaning to the debate at hand.
Considering any and all fetuses, based on the study, are all in a "State of Sleep-Like Unconsciousness or Sedation" .... when and how long a fetus develops is also irrelevant.
If putting living human beings in this state for medical operations, or for assisted suicides or for criminals on death row and facing lethal injection, poses no pain or issues for someone, then even if the development of a fetus's brain does reach a point where it could technically feel pain/pleasure..... if hypothetically aborted, they're in a state in which they'd still not feel a thing.
I went under for an operation or two in my day and I don't remember feeling anything, in fact, I only remember total black and silence for a couple of seconds after being put out and then I woke up after the operation..... to suggest it is different for a fetus, one has to provide an equal level of evidence to counter the above claims in the report.
Compared to what? Just claiming we know very little about the human mind is no valid argument to disqualify the things we do know about the human mind.
A baseless assumption.... speaking of bad science.
"Recently" based on what frame of time?
Also, how does this in anyway confirm your assumption that the above report is not true?
My past claims were based on information I had at the time which I combined into what sounded logical to me, but now I have the study that backs up my claims.
What study do you have to counter the above and my own claims, other then your assumptions?
Your above claims of the study not being very solid due to "Not knowing much of the human brain" and fetuses developing at different times compared to others, is flawed. The study in question determined their findings by physically studying fetuses at various stages of development and they did not conduct their study just on one fetus, but a number of fetuses to determine the overall average developmental stage a fetus could theoretically feel pain/pleasure.
But even if they could feel pain all the way back to conception, there is still nothing countering the argument that fetuses remain in a sleep-like state of unconsciousness, therefore still can not feel pain.
Quite so. In nature, a predator is much more likely to kill and eat the baby, rather than eat the mother. Baby cannot fight back for one. And mother can always have more babies, so no harm done. So it works both ways, the predator gets an easy meal and the prey species is not harmed much.
Agreed.... since I was old enough to hold a job, I have been paying my taxes into our Health Care system... and since then I have only gone to the hospital for myself perhaps twice in that period of time and gone to a family doctor three times in that same time (14 years of paying into this system)... all of which were for minor things, I'd think I got a bit of money invested into this system for the future when I need it.... for whatever reason I see fit, regardless of other's hangups over why I use the system.
I do not ask others what they use the health care system for, how often they use it, because it's none of my business.
With health care, as with any insurance (employment insurance, disability insurance etc.), I would much rather be a net contributor than be a net beneficiary.
Then you are basking in good health - As my parents said often - you have nothing if you do not have good health - or Health is Wealth - I hope it continues for you.
Actually, since in most provinces (and certainly in NS) it is the provincial tax that pays for health (and education), you've been paying into it since before you had a job.
I did, thank you very much... I figured I would clarify my intentions before I did respond accordingly in order to avoid further confusion on the subject.
By all means, please enlighten me then.