Human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks

[TenPenny]

I think "when life begins" Curio is irrelevent to the topic and is just a red herring some like to throw in ...................:iconbiggrin::iconbiggrin::iconbiggrin::iconbiggrin:

Exactly. Some use it as justification for allowing abortion because 'life hasn't begun yet'.

I think it's irrelevant. Generally speaking, people are either for allowing abortions, or against.

The issue of 'when life begins' doesn't enter into it for me. People should have the option of abortion if they wish. That's my opinion.

 

[karrie]

Thanks JLM The argument without fail deteriorates into the two sided issue when there is a possibility there could be no argument whatsoever if medical science could "get some cojones" and create what could potentially delete anydiscussion whatsoever being voiced/written without end. Perhaps it is the argument itself which keeps the solution shelved.

To be fair I think what keeps the solution shelved is that almost any permanent solution comes with a risk to fertility. Temporary 'sterilization' has been sought but has never been reliably reversible. And, the ironic part is that if it came out, it would probably be detrimental to society... why people think a pregnancy is something to be more feared than herpes or AIDS or any of their lovely cousins is beyond me.

 

[Kreskin]

Thanks JLM The argument without fail deteriorates into the two sided issue when there is a possibility there could be no argument whatsoever if medical science could "get some cojones" and create what could potentially delete anydiscussion whatsoever being voiced/written without end. Perhaps it is the argument itself which keeps the solution shelved.

The heart of the issue is retaining individual control of reproductive rights. I don't see how there could be any magic science to satisfy anyone. There is plenty of science available now. A good chunk of the pro-life movement is already anti-birth control of any kind.

 

[JLM]

The heart of the issue is retaining individual control of reproductive rights. I don't see how there could be any magic science to satisfy anyone. There is plenty of science available now. A good chunk of the pro-life movement is already anti-birth control of any kind.

Yep, abstention is probably the only method that doesn't contavene Old Mother Nature.

 

[Goober]

The heart of the issue is retaining individual control of reproductive rights. I don't see how there could be any magic science to satisfy anyone. There is plenty of science available now. A good chunk of the pro-life movement is already anti-birth control of any kind.

Do you have valid numbers for that opinion- As they can also differ from country to country but from region to region.

Exactly. Some use it as justification for allowing abortion because 'life hasn't begun yet'.

I think it's irrelevant. Generally speaking, people are either for allowing abortions, or against.

The issue of 'when life begins' doesn't enter into it for me. People should have the option of abortion if they wish. That's my opinion.

You are partly correct. When you throw in questions such as

Abortion after 24 weeks - and yes they occur - And many Pro Choice are against abortion after this stage - excepting Mothers life in danger, major birth defects in the baby -

Repeated Abortions as a form of birth control

Sex selection

 

[TenPenny]

You are partly correct. When you throw in questions such as

How can I be 'partly correct' when stating my opinion? I think I know what my opinion is.

 

[Tonington]

Saying that some students use it as a textbook does not really tell us much. The reason I asked for a textbook or a paper in a reputable, refereed journal such as Nature or Lancet is that there is peer review, any material written is judged by the peers before it is published (in journals).

If a university used a book as a textbook, that tells me that a team of experts at the university has looked over the book carefully and agrees with pretty much everything the book says. There are some standards involved there.

Anybody can write a book, that means nothing. And if some students use that as a textbook, again, that doesn’t mean much. A student may like parts of the book and not other parts; he may simply ignore the parts he doesn’t agree with.

That does not happen with a textbook adopted by the university or a paper published in a reputable journal.

That is why I asked for a textbook, not a book which is used by some students as a textbook. There is a big difference.
Canadian Content Forums -
And if it is being used as a textbook by a university then one must look at calibre of the university. It is Harvard or Oral Roberts University?

This is by a long shot the most convoluted and contorted response I've come across here.

I'm not sure what more I can tell you...maybe this will persuade you that it is not a piece of crap book. It ranks high on the list of embryology textbooks. The Editor of that text book, Keith L. Moore, won the first Henry Gray/Elsevier Distinguished Educator Award, the highest award one can receive from the American Association of Anatomists.

You really missed your calling in life...contortionist.

Thanks JLM The argument without fail deteriorates into the two sided issue when there is a possibility there could be no argument whatsoever if medical science could "get some cojones" and create what could potentially delete anydiscussion whatsoever being voiced/written without end. Perhaps it is the argument itself which keeps the solution shelved.

I have to echo what Karrie said. I had a response to you the other day on this, but it was running long and my computer froze. I didn't have the heart at the time, but I think I can get off my chest what I had intended in much fewer words now. I think the reason we do not have it, is because it's so complex. Even using condoms in tandem with spermicide and female contraceptive methods will not be 100%. To get 100% risks losing reversibility that we already have with some available surgical methods. I would venture a guess that most would prefer the small risk of a pregnancy, over the larger risk of losing reproductive fitness altogether.

Which is exactly what Karrie said..my response had some other filler thrown in about abstinence, and it's failing; it doesn't integrate well with human psychology.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sounding like an echo baying into the night....I repeat:
Were humans of all opinions regarding abortion to place as much energy into seeking and demanding an alternative to conception of pregnancy - there would be no argument regarding "when life begins" and what a relief it would be to have well-intentioned people finally having their wishes on both sides of the issue met.

Nothing wrong with that, Curiosity, it bears repeating.

What is the difference between a "foetus" and a "fetus"?



I think "when life begins" Curio is irrelevent to the topic and is just a red herring some like to throw in ...................:iconbiggrin::iconbiggrin::iconbiggrin::iconbiggrin:

Perhaps, but it is a great subject for discussion.

Exactly. Some use it as justification for allowing abortion because 'life hasn't begun yet'.

I think it's irrelevant. Generally speaking, people are either for allowing abortions, or against.

The issue of 'when life begins' doesn't enter into it for me. People should have the option of abortion if they wish. That's my opinion.

You are quite right, when life begins is really irrelevant. What is relevant is when human life begins.

 

[lone wolf]

I've heard it begins at 50. What a load that was....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This is by a long shot the most convoluted and contorted response I've come across here.

I'm not sure what more I can tell you...maybe this will persuade you that it is not a piece of crap book. It ranks high on the list of embryology textbooks. The Editor of that text book, Keith L. Moore, won the first Henry Gray/Elsevier Distinguished Educator Award, the highest award one can receive from the American Association of Anatomists.

You really missed your calling in life...contortionist.

I never said the book was crap, I said we just don’t know. He may be a great scientist, but we don’t know how good the book is if it is not refereed (and books usually are not).

That is why if a university (especially a reputable university) has selected it as a text book, that at least tells us that it has been vetted by a team of scientists and they found it acceptable.

In science, it is always important what the peers think (I think you just got your degree at a university, so I assume you are aware of this). In a refereed article in reputable journals like Nature or Lancet, we automatically know what the peers think, since the papers are refereed. If it is a textbook, we also know what peers think. But if it is just a book, where had it been vetted? Chances are it hasn’t been.

That is why I don’t put much store by books. Now, Elsevier is a reputable publishing company, but they also work the same way. Many years ago, I contributed a chapter to a book published by Elsevier. There was no refereeing of the chapter. The editor found the chapter satisfactory and that was that.

One has to be careful in quoting books. Papers are a different story.

 

[Tonington]

I never said the book was crap, I said we just don’t know. He may be a great scientist, but we don’t know how good the book is if it is not refereed (and books usually are not).

It's a text book. And he's a great educator, that's what the award was given for. Did you read the link? His anatomy textbook is the most popular anatomy textbook on Earth...

That is why if a university (especially a reputable university) has selected it as a text book, that at least tells us that it has been vetted by a team of scientists and they found it acceptable.

No it doesn't. It tells us that the professor of the class finds it acceptable. The professor then passes the relevant publisher information onto the registry and to the book store, so that students know which books to buy, and the university book store can have stock on-hand. I've never heard of a committee to pick out a textbook for any course. That would be a huge waste of time.

In science, it is always important what the peers think (I think you just got your degree at a university, so I assume you are aware of this). In a refereed article in reputable journals like Nature or Lancet, we automatically know what the peers think, since the papers are refereed. If it is a textbook, we also know what peers think. But if it is just a book, where had it been vetted? Chances are it hasn’t been.

That is why I don’t put much store by books. Now, Elsevier is a reputable publishing company, but they also work the same way. Many years ago, I contributed a chapter to a book published by Elsevier. There was no refereeing of the chapter. The editor found the chapter satisfactory and that was that.

One has to be careful in quoting books. Papers are a different story.

Yet you asked for a textbook...

Some pathetic ad-hoc squirming on your part Porter.

Good day.

I've heard it begins at 50. What a load that was....

Maybe 60 is the new 50?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Tonington, has he published his results in a refereed, reputable journal (that human life begins at the zygote stage)? That will carry much more weight with me than his writing it in a book.

 

[JLM]

[QUOTE
You are quite right, when life begins is really irrelevant. What is relevant is when human life begins.[/QUOTE]

Life, human life exactly the same thing in the course of the fetus/baby. It's not dog life or cat life or rhinocerus life.

 

[Curiosity]

Thanks for the rebuttals to my words ... I appreciate they were at least acknowledged
I am in no way advocating abstinence or enforced sterilization, but delayed maturation of the sexual activity in both males and females. It would seem they are advancing into younger and younger ages where young people are having to weigh the possibility of creating a child because they are engaging in sexual activity.The active age group has been falling into younger ages where children are often creating new children - totally unprepared for parenthood.
What I propose is not reality yet - only a dream of mine but one not so far off the charts as other great inventions and scientific leaps into assisting humans live solid lives without disease or disability - why not also a method whereby young pre-pubescent children are innoculated (or whatever delivery system is necessary) with a sterilization which does not deter them from experimenting with the sexual activity they are going to engage in regardless, but which prevents them from conceiving a child.
That procedure could last for approximately ten years which would bring them into the late teens or early twenties, and they could allow the prevention process to dissipate or by choice they could again elect to haveanother regiment for five year periods until they choose the place when they wish to have children.
Far fetched? We send astronauts to far off distant galaxies for exploration is but one of our accomplishments and there could be so more if we were not constantly engaged in fighting wars but were working together as one global community, conquering squalor, over-population, nurturing land use for prosperity, trade and consumer exchange, travel, and doing away with the outmoded notion of conquer the strangers. The global community called earth has grown very small and were we to continue the birth rate of unwanted orphans or thrown away children housed in groups of poorly educated and unloved children - what does that speak to in terms of an advanced civilization???? Children who have no idea what a "family unit" is like!
When some are still exist in rags both physically and intellectually? We still kill each other with weapons. We still abort!
I put it down to unwanted birth in far too many nations including our North American advanced socieites ... but at least we discuss it. I am not gifted enough to have answers but continue to hope there are some people who have those answers and can make them work for all of us on earth. Not just the privileged few who plan their children so all will be loved and nurtured equally.

 

[Avro]

OK, this is the second time I am answering it, there won't be a third time, no matter what you say.

No.

Then you are not pro choice.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Then you are not pro choice.

I don't know why you like to go over the same ground again and again, Avro. I ask you the same thing I asked you the last time (and you didn't answer). How do you define pro choice?

 

[JLM]

Thanks for the rebuttals to my words ... I appreciate they were at least acknowledged I am in no way advocating abstinence or enforced sterilization, but delayed maturation of the sexual activity in both males and females. It would seem they are advancing into younger and younger ages where young people are having to weigh the possibility of creating a child because they are engaging in sexual activity.QUOTE]

I think what you are suggesting is well within the realm of possibility in the not too distant future, BUT I don't think it would be a good thing. Are we to become a specy where there are no risks in life, where we are exempt from having to rely on any kind of personal judgment? Getting knocks and bruises through out life if what builds character and possibly the harder the knock or the bruise the better the lesson is learned. I don't think there can be a "Utopia" here on earth- that may come in the next incarnation if you earn it here.......................:iconbiggrin::iconbiggrin::iconbiggrin:

 

[Avro]

I don't know why you like to go over the same ground again and again, Avro. I ask you the same thing I asked you the last time (and you didn't answer). How do you define pro choice?

Simple....someone who thinks women have a choice to abort a child or not.

Since you just said "no" you are not pro choice.

Good for you, you don't support murdering children because they may be an inconvenience.

Tonington, has he published his results in a refereed, reputable journal (that human life begins at the zygote stage)? That will carry much more weight with me than his writing it in a book.

There you go again....moving those goal posts around.

Man are you ever entertaining.:lol:

 

[Curiosity]

Tonington or JLM???? In response to whomever wrote the comment below:

I have to echo what Karrie said. I had a response to you the other day on this, but it was running long and my computer froze. I didn't have the heart at the time, but I think I can get off my chest what I had intended in much fewer words now. I think the reason we do not have it, is because it's so complex. Even using condoms in tandem with spermicide and female contraceptive methods will not be 100%. To get 100% risks losing reversibility that we already have with some available surgical methods. I would venture a guess that most would prefer the small risk of a pregnancy, over the larger risk of losing reproductive fitness altogether.Which is exactly what Karrie said..my response had some other filler thrown in about abstinence, and it's failing; it doesn't integrate well with human psychology.

My response to you....Abstinence is failing human birth now and while we make pretty speeches about it - and comply with many of the strong religious teachings being lofted which hold weight with so many - but the fact is children are beingborn to younger and younger couples (or at least girls who are male-less).Denying the possibility of a future form of sterilization for the young which can last for a rational period of time or be negated by another administration of a "turn on" fertility injection doesn't seem too Mr. Wizard does it?We are gambling with millions of unwanted children - if you think of just one poorly developed continent - Afica - and the nations within - something must be planned to bring a fair beginning for as many newcomers to our world as possible - who can expect to have the gifts many of us enjoy(ed). What made us so special when compared to a young girl in Africa who was raped consistently by the adult males and nobody has any idea who the fathers are of her young brood which increases by one each year.And I have to add the ugly truth along with this - while we civilized societies run around strange lands with guns shooting at strangers. Way off base I know - but compare our rationale about birth control in ourbcivilized lands.

 

[AnnaG]

Again, which high school or university uses it as a textbook?

:tard:
If you had actually looked at the link and googled the title you might have noticed that M.I.T. is one school that uses it. Sive Lab Home Page

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/default.asp?cid=59&pcid=3

It is alive, yes. But then it was also alive before conception, in the form of sperm and egg. As to its being human, we don't know when it becomes human. There is no scientific consensus on this.

:tard:
Dead wrong. It was NOT alive as its own lifeform before. After the sperm penetrates the egg and cellular division starts, it develops its own unique DNA. Neither the sperm by itself nor the egg by itself contains the DNA to start a human life. READ a few books on it sometime. It'll likely keep you from making such stupid comments. Or else stay away from discussions about biology. Just some advice.
When it becomes human? You mean when does it change from being aardvark parts or tortoise parts to human parts? I have no idea and I doubt anyone would know. Or when it changes from being a physiologically complete human? That point is about 20 to 25 weeks. Most fetuses are quite viable as HUMAN BEINGS after 23 weeks. Whether it is inside or outside the womb is irrelevant except to the legal system.

I showed you a text book that stated the life of a human being begins at conception. It's a textbook used for "medical students, undergraduate students, and nursing students" according to Elsevier's web listing.

First, you didn't ask which universities use it. Second, the web listing from Elsevier did state it is used by students.

I can't show you which universities use Integrated Principles of Zoology as a introductory text for biology students. It's sitting on my shelf, I know it's a text book, but there's no website online where it says my university uses this text book.

Move goal posts much?

It doesn't matter, Ton. He's the one that keeps proving himself to be what he is ---------> :tard: by ignoring the evidence.

lol

Saying that some students use it as a textbook does not really tell us much. The reason I asked for a textbook or a paper in a reputable, refereed journal such as Nature or Lancet is that there is peer review, any material written is judged by the peers before it is published (in journals).

If a university used a book as a textbook, that tells me that a team of experts at the university has looked over the book carefully and agrees with pretty much everything the book says. There are some standards involved there.

Pretty much. Your question initially was a request for a textbook. Ton and I both supplied one each. Now you want to know if a school uses them. Obviously if they are textbooks, then they have been or are used in schools. Or are you confused about what the word "textbook" means?

Anybody can write a book, that means nothing. And if some students use that as a textbook, again, that doesn’t mean much. A student may like parts of the book and not other parts; he may simply ignore the parts he doesn’t agree with.

That does not happen with a textbook adopted by the university or a paper published in a reputable journal.

That is why I asked for a textbook, not a book which is used by some students as a textbook. There is a big difference.

And if it is being used as a textbook by a university then one must look at calibre of the university. It is Harvard or Oral Roberts University?

Personally, I don't think it makes any difference if Harvard, Oxford, MIT uses the texts or not to you. You'll still argue that the texts are invalid for some strawman reason or other. But that's what comes of valuing a winning discussion over being scientifically accurate and factual, I guess.