Human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Re: Human fetus feels no pain before 24 weeks

That is not hypocrisy, Goober. That is politicians not keeping their campaign promises. What is so unusual about that?

GST promise was a cynical promise made to attract votes (I don't think Chretien had any intention of keeping it), politicians of all stripes do that. As to free trade, Chretien simply said that he will renegotiate, he never claimed that he will get rid of NAFTA. He tried to renegotiate, USA told him to take a hike, and that was that.

But all politicians break the campaign promises, what is so surprising about that? Are you saying that Conservatives haven't broken any campaign promises?



I don’t think experts agree with you about that. Ultrasonic images tend to be fuzzy and may be interpreted in many different ways.



Great concept, Curiosity. The problem is how to achieve it.


Now you are placing your own interpretation on hypocrisy - Smart man - Is that not similiar to boxing the compass.
 

Sаbine

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2007
119
1
18
As a matter of fact, experiments show that trees do experience pain and emotion. Check out The Secret Life of Plants. Seems to me, I have been to a web site about the book.


I just wanted to say that plants do not have emotions in the way we define them. By definition, emotions are associated with mental state and consciousness, and this doesn't apply to members of the plant kingdom. However, plants do have some sort of senses, they do "feel" and respond to certain conditions and factors. Plant perception is probably what you might have meant.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I see everyone is sitting on the fence again. Can everyone form an opinion on this subject, please.
 

Downhome_Woman

Electoral Member
Dec 2, 2008
588
24
18
Ontariariario
I see everyone is sitting on the fence again. Can everyone form an opinion on this subject, please.
So I've come late to the table of this particular discussion - but I'm not sitting on any fence. Everything in the world feels pain to some extent. I'll stand by my belief that to terminate or to go through with a pregnancy is a very personal decision. To the few women who use abortion as a regular method of birth control? shame on you. There are better methods - to those who have no other option? My heart goes our to you.
Abortion is a right that I support. But do I believe it's a 'simple procedure'? No. Because behind everything is the idea that that joining of a sperm and an egg could have been someone - important, not important - doesn't matter - it might have been someone. Having said that, I also believe that people come into this world when they are supposed to.If a life isn't meant to be, then it isn't.
I guess that doesn't make much sense to some people and I understand and quite frankly, this late in the night, I can't really explain either, but even though I can't explain, it does make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Praxius

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Wouldn't it be great if all this energy was put to organizing permanent prevention of conception for everyone until they choose to create a family ??? I'm talking about a "rite of passage" for all young people - no doubt it isn't beyond the scope of medicalprobability - thus the whole concept of "abortion" would be unnecessary as we spend so much time arguing itnow.

In my 'wouldn't it be nice', my mind says...

'Wouldn't it be great if society stopped stigmatizing unplanned pregnancy and convincing families that it is the worst thing that could possibly happen. Wouldn't it be nice if adoption were seen as preferable to the ending of life?'

We all have these ideas of what would be great. It's a shame that some are PC to express and some aren't. When I express mine, people automatically assume I am against the women who get abortions, rather than against the society that, in essence, necessitates them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goober

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
No sitting on the fence here. Destruction of human life for convenience is wrong, especially when the subject doesn't get a say. As Karrie says adoption is a far better option. :smile:
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
exactley what I expected.

See, there you go. You believe one thing, I believe another. I don't doubt that you think I'm a horrible, evil person, and you think that you've scored some sort of points by getting me to make a simple statement. I don't care what you think. I only care when you try to interfere in my life. So don't bother.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
See, there you go. You believe one thing, I believe another. I don't doubt that you think I'm a horrible, evil person, and you think that you've scored some sort of points by getting me to make a simple statement. I don't care what you think. I only care when you try to interfere in my life. So don't bother.

Those in favour of abortion consider the Mother to be the primary entity and htose against abortion consider the fetus/child to be the primary entity, which pretty well has to be the case to ensure continuity of the human race. :smile:
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Those in favour of abortion consider the Mother to be the primary entity and htose against abortion consider the fetus/child to be the primary entity, which pretty well has to be the case to ensure continuity of the human race. :smile:

Well, a typical woman can have another pregnancy within a year. A baby can't do anything to 'continue the human race' for at least 13 or 14 years.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
I think Peter Singer got this one right:
--
In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:
First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.



Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.[15]
Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:
[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[16]
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,412
14,305
113
Low Earth Orbit
Those in favour of abortion consider the Mother to be the primary entity and htose against abortion consider the fetus/child to be the primary entity, which pretty well has to be the case to ensure continuity of the human race. :smile:
Then the easiest solution is kill both. That'll make em' think twice.

Maybe if stretch marks and motherhood were marketed as sexy this wouldn't be an issue?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Then the easiest solution is kill both. That'll make em' think twice.

Maybe if stretch marks and motherhood were marketed as sexy this wouldn't be an issue?

In some instances, it should definitely be validated to kill them both.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
See, there you go. You believe one thing, I believe another. I don't doubt that you think I'm a horrible, evil person, and you think that you've scored some sort of points by getting me to make a simple statement. I don't care what you think. I only care when you try to interfere in my life. So don't bother.

I care when you want to end a life.

Not sure why murder is acceptable to some, but hey, to each their own I guess.:roll:

What's next?

Euthanasia?

And exactly what issue am I fudging, Avro? You have decided unilaterally what is a murder and what isn't. Do you expect the society to adopt your definition, lock, stock and barrel?

Are you going to answer my questions or not SJP?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
I care when you want to end a life.

Not sure why murder is acceptable to some, but hey, to each their own I guess.:roll:

What's next?

Euthanasia?
Sure. Why not? Lots of people die horrible long drawn out deaths due to other people keeping them alive against their wills. But euthanasia should be a personal choice, not made by someone else. We have a rather strange perception of the value of life to the point of prolonging suffering because we fear death. As a friend says, if I treated my dog the way we treat the elderly and the dying, I would be arrested for cruelty.

Forcing a child to be born to someone who cannot give that child the love and care it deserves is just as cruel and frankly, none of anybody else's business. The world is full of psychopaths, murderers and rapists who started out as unwanted children or who were denied proper care, attention and love. I say, if those who are opposed to abortion want to impose their views on others, they should take responsibility for raising those children who they force to be born to those who do not want them or cannot raise them themselves. It is very simple: put your money where your mouth is.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
I care when you want to end a life.

Not sure why murder is acceptable to some, but hey, to each their own I guess.:roll:

What's next?

Euthanasia?

Why not?

Essentially, euthanasia is practiced daily in hospitals People have 'dnr' (do not resuscitate) orders all the time.

What's your point? Every life is sacred? That's not so, never has been, our society doesn't believe it, and never has.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Yup! It is OK to go over to another country and kill men, women and children because they have different beliefs, colour or wear different cloths but god forbid that we end the life of an unconscious zygote. I have noticed over the years that many pro-lifers are some of the first to support the death penalty when one of those unwanted children turn into psychopathic killers. Something really twisted about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Praxius

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Well, I think Baby K speaks for us all when it comes to how sacred each human life really is.
--

Stephanie Keene,[1] better known by the pseudonym Baby K, was born at Fairfax Hospital in Virginia, USA. At the time of her birth, she was missing most of her brain, including the cortex; all that remained was the brainstem, that portion of the brain responsible for autonomic and regulatory functions, such as the control of respiration, the heartbeat and blood pressure.[2] The baby's mother had been notified of her condition following an ultrasound,[1] but chose to carry the child to term because of "a firm Christian faith that all life should be protected".[3] She believed that God alone should decide how long the baby would live.[4] The hospital's viewpoint was that care provided to the baby would be futile.[3] The baby's mother wanted the hospital to continue with advanced supportive care (primarily ventilatory support), despite the fact that being born without a brain is not curable or treatable.[5] Fairfax Hospital doctors strongly advised a Do Not Resuscitate order for the child, which the mother refused. Baby K remained on ventilator support for 6 weeks while Fairfax searched for another hospital to which to transfer, but no other hospital was willing to accept Baby K. After the baby was weaned off constant ventilator support, the mother agreed to move the child to a nursing facility, but the baby returned to the hospital many times for respiratory problems.
When Baby K. was admitted to the hospital at six months of age for severe respiratory problems, the hospital filed a legal motion to appoint a guardian for the child's care and sought a court order that the hospital did not need to provide any services beyond palliative care. At trial, several experts testified that providing ventilator support to an anencephalic infant went beyond the accepted standard of medical care.[6] In contrast, the baby's mother argued her case on the grounds of religious freedom and the sanctity of life. In a controversial ruling, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decided that the hospital caring for Baby K must put her on a mechanical ventilator whenever she had trouble breathing. The court interpreted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to require continued ventilation for the infant. The wording of this act requires that patients who present with a medical emergency must get "such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition" before the patient is transferred to another facility. The court refused to take a moral or ethical position on the issue, insisting that it was only interpreting the laws as they existed. As a result of the decision, Baby K was kept alive much longer than most anencephalic babies.[3] It has been suggested by the dissenting judge in the case that the court should have used the condition anencephaly as the basis of the case, not the recurring subsidiary symptoms of respiratory distress. As the irreversibility of anencephaly is widely understood in the medical community, he argued that the decision to continue futile care only resulted in the repetitive diversion of medical equipment.[6]
Baby K died April 5, 1995 at Fairfax Hospital.

Baby K - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Such a sacred little piece of flesh, that Baby K.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,412
14,305
113
Low Earth Orbit
Quoting Avro
I care when you want to end a life.

Not sure why murder is acceptable to some, but hey, to each their own I guess.:roll:

What's next?

Euthanasia?
YES!!!! If the pharma pimps and their w hore the PQ College of Physician and Surgeons has it's way there will be euthanasia. I'd assume your provincial college supports it as well.
Quebec College of Physicians cautiously supports euthanasia
College seeks to consider all options in end-of-life care
The contested and sensitive issue of euthanasia has been brought to public attention recently after the Quebec College of Physicians cautiously expressed support for limited euthanasia, calling for an open debate on the topic.

Many opponents of euthanasia have spoken out against the decision, expressing fear that this may lead the rest of Canada to become more driven towards "mercy killing." As defined by the secretary of the Quebec College of Physicians, Dr. Yves Robert, "Euthanasia is the active action, usually done by a drug, to shorten a life."

The College reported on Nov. 3 that they believe the current legislation does not reflect the clinical reality of patients or their doctors, and has restricted the development of appropriate end-of-life care.

"It is not an endorsement of euthanasia," said Robert. "The College is neither for nor against euthanasia, but is rather concerned with promoting appropriate care for end-of-life patients that could include all options."
 
Last edited: