Human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Thank you, and the same to you.... but my point was towards some people who use a different view on how our health care system works and feel that their money is going towards covering other people, when the other way of looking at it is as previously explained, such as you paying into a system to use later when you need it.
The first view seems to make some people feel it's their right to dictate what others do because they put in money.... but these people put money into the same system as well.
It's kind of like when someone fell asleep with the stove on or with a lit cigarette in their hand and burn their house down..... sure it's their own stupidity/responsibility their house caught on fire..... but do you have the right to tell the firemen not to put their house out?
Since we've bounced back onto debating abortion, here is the conclusion from Singer regarding the issue of REDRUM. This should answer the questions being posed in this thread and provide some conclusion to this debate (at least in my opinion)..
--
FOR a woman who does not want to have a child, pregnancy and birth is a severe hardship.
To force anyone to endure an avoidable hardship of that kind is contrary to our general belief in promoting individual freedom and choice. Such a denial of freedom could only be justified if there was a very compelling reason for it.
Opponents of abortion think there is a very compelling reason for denying freedom in these circumstances. They regard abortion as murder. Killing an embryo or fetus, they say, takes an innocent human life.
Defenders of a woman's right to choose sometimes challenge this claim. They deny that the embryo or fetus is a human life. The abortion debate then focuses on the question, "When does a human life begin?"
I think this is the wrong question to ask. In a strictly biological sense, the opponents of abortion are right to say that abortion ends a human life.
When a woman has an abortion, the fetus is alive, and it is undoubtedly human – in the sense that it is a member of the species homo sapiens. It isn't a dog or a chimpanzee.
But mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible.
In that respect, the fetus is less developed, and less aware of its circumstances, than the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner.
That is why the fetus is "innocent". It doesn't have the capacity to do anything wrong – or anything right.
Even when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain – probably in the last third of the pregnancy – it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog.
When this is pointed out, some opponents of abortion respond that the fetus, unlike the dog or chimpanzee, is made in the image of God, or has an immortal soul. They thereby acknowledge religion is the driving force behind their opposition.
But there is no evidence for these religious claims, and in a society in which we keep the state and religion separate, we should not use them as a basis for the criminal law, which applies to people with different religious beliefs, or to those with none at all.
Other opponents say the fetus has the potential to become a person, that is, a thinking, rational being, like ourselves, and the dog or chimpanzee do not have that potential. But why should mere potential give a being a right to life?
The world already has more than six billion people. We are heading for more than nine billion by 2050. The more people there are, the greater the pressure on the Earth's environment and the greater the difficulty in giving them all even a minimally decent life. Do we really want every potential person to become an actual person?
In fact, with modern medical technology, the argument from potential rapidly leads to absurdity.
Scientists have shown, in many different species, including monkeys, that it is possible to clone an animal by taking the nucleus of an ordinary cell, and implanting it in an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
There is no biological reason to suppose that this would not work for human beings. This means that billions of our cells have the potential to become an actual person.
Yet no one thinks that we have an obligation to "save" all these cells and turn them into people.
--
FOR a woman who does not want to have a child, pregnancy and birth is a severe hardship.
To force anyone to endure an avoidable hardship of that kind is contrary to our general belief in promoting individual freedom and choice. Such a denial of freedom could only be justified if there was a very compelling reason for it.
Opponents of abortion think there is a very compelling reason for denying freedom in these circumstances. They regard abortion as murder. Killing an embryo or fetus, they say, takes an innocent human life.
Defenders of a woman's right to choose sometimes challenge this claim. They deny that the embryo or fetus is a human life. The abortion debate then focuses on the question, "When does a human life begin?"
I think this is the wrong question to ask. In a strictly biological sense, the opponents of abortion are right to say that abortion ends a human life.
When a woman has an abortion, the fetus is alive, and it is undoubtedly human – in the sense that it is a member of the species homo sapiens. It isn't a dog or a chimpanzee.
But mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible.
In that respect, the fetus is less developed, and less aware of its circumstances, than the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner.
That is why the fetus is "innocent". It doesn't have the capacity to do anything wrong – or anything right.
Even when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain – probably in the last third of the pregnancy – it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog.
When this is pointed out, some opponents of abortion respond that the fetus, unlike the dog or chimpanzee, is made in the image of God, or has an immortal soul. They thereby acknowledge religion is the driving force behind their opposition.
But there is no evidence for these religious claims, and in a society in which we keep the state and religion separate, we should not use them as a basis for the criminal law, which applies to people with different religious beliefs, or to those with none at all.
Other opponents say the fetus has the potential to become a person, that is, a thinking, rational being, like ourselves, and the dog or chimpanzee do not have that potential. But why should mere potential give a being a right to life?
The world already has more than six billion people. We are heading for more than nine billion by 2050. The more people there are, the greater the pressure on the Earth's environment and the greater the difficulty in giving them all even a minimally decent life. Do we really want every potential person to become an actual person?
In fact, with modern medical technology, the argument from potential rapidly leads to absurdity.
Scientists have shown, in many different species, including monkeys, that it is possible to clone an animal by taking the nucleus of an ordinary cell, and implanting it in an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
There is no biological reason to suppose that this would not work for human beings. This means that billions of our cells have the potential to become an actual person.
Yet no one thinks that we have an obligation to "save" all these cells and turn them into people.
My position on abortion is as you claim.... I will not dispute that, however could you explain to me what "I am getting at" if my intentions are not what I already just explained in my previous posts?
There is a video of an ultra sound of an abortion on a fetus at 11 weeks, that shows it, as the title indicates, screaming (silently) in torment as it is torn apart by a suction device.
Nobody can conclusively state that a fetus does not feel pain before 24 weeks, and quite frankly it's a moot point anyway. Is murder any more moral if the victim is unconscious of the violence perpetrated on him. It's an outrage in either case.
Nobody can conclusively state that a fetus does not feel pain before 24 weeks, and quite frankly it's a moot point anyway. Is murder any more moral if the victim is unconscious of the violence perpetrated on him. It's an outrage in either case.
That abortion is painless to the fetus and that makes it okay.
Now can you answer my question.
Is it okay to abort during labor?
Right. I pointed that out a while back when I posted a link saying there's evidence that fetuses feel pain after 20 weeks.
Even the scientists can't agree, as the article stated, although apparently the writer of the OP feels it is concrete and proves his point.
I should have posted this earlier, but this clears up the last point regarding the issue of pain/suffering:
--
Arguably, the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance when it develops the capacity to feel pain, some time after 20 weeks of gestation.
We should be concerned about the capacity of fetuses to suffer pain in late-term abortions. On the rare occasions when such abortions are necessary, they should be performed in a way that minimises the possibility of suffering.
Admittedly, birth is in some ways an arbitrary place to draw the line at which killing the developing human life ceases to be permissible, and instead becomes murder.
A prematurely born infant may be less developed than a late-term fetus. But the criminal law needs clear dividing lines and, in normal circumstances, birth is the best we have.
--
I would probably agree that abortion is not a problem at all during the gestation period, though should be avoided unless it's absolutely, extremely necessary after the gestation period has ended.
--
Arguably, the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance when it develops the capacity to feel pain, some time after 20 weeks of gestation.
We should be concerned about the capacity of fetuses to suffer pain in late-term abortions. On the rare occasions when such abortions are necessary, they should be performed in a way that minimises the possibility of suffering.
Admittedly, birth is in some ways an arbitrary place to draw the line at which killing the developing human life ceases to be permissible, and instead becomes murder.
A prematurely born infant may be less developed than a late-term fetus. But the criminal law needs clear dividing lines and, in normal circumstances, birth is the best we have.
--
I would probably agree that abortion is not a problem at all during the gestation period, though should be avoided unless it's absolutely, extremely necessary after the gestation period has ended.
The answer varies on individual circumstances and situations. Based on the report I supplied in post #1, their suggested time period seems practical to me.... however if there is a serious issue that arises that could end up killing the mother and/or fetus, even during birth, then as I see it, that decision is left up to the mother and/or doctor's expertise. However, since by the time birth is supposed to happen, just about all known complications and issues have been checked and addressed beforehand, usually months before, the chances of such an action ever being required at the time of birth is practically non-existent and only.... ONLY if there is some freak unforeseen complication that puts either the mother, or the soon-to-be newborn's life at risk.... or both lives at risk and no other options are available to consider, could I see justification for termination..... risk of health at that stage, imo, is not enough justification.... only risk of one's life.
But regardless of any of the above, so long as procedures are taken appropriately based on scientific studies, laws and human rights, I have no room to complain.
In other words, if science proved/claimed that fetuses were talking, jumping up and down, playing patty-cake in the womb, showed signs of known consciousness, if current laws were changed based on that information to register human fetuses as human beings, and human rights were changed to protect the fetus over the mother... and it was all un-refutable and sound ..... then I would concede my position.
But since it is logical to assume none of the above three areas will change to such a degree, I doubt I will have to concede my position anytime soon
I do not understand the question in relation to what you just quoted from me.
A camel is known to take up an extra day's water if you "brikkem". Rosie the Reporter, on assignment in Araby, decided to find out.
"What is this "brikkem" operation?"
"Mmsle.... Ziz is when we take ze brick beneath both our ands and we tease the testiklurz"
"Let me get this correctly.... You bring them fast together on the camels ... uh ... er...."
"Him testiklurz.... Yes."
"Doesn't that hurt?"
"Mmm.... Only maybe if I me grip the wrong way on a brick...."
"What is this "brikkem" operation?"
"Mmsle.... Ziz is when we take ze brick beneath both our ands and we tease the testiklurz"
"Let me get this correctly.... You bring them fast together on the camels ... uh ... er...."
"Him testiklurz.... Yes."
"Doesn't that hurt?"
"Mmm.... Only maybe if I me grip the wrong way on a brick...."
Well, a lot of people seem to prefer to hang onto their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence as if losing a belief here and their would be crippling instead of enabling growth, but people are people. I used to have a stuffed rabbit I was awfully fond of and thought I'd die without, too. lol
When scientists show conclusive evidence that fetuses feel pain at such and such a time (doubtful, IMO, as fetuses develop a different times than other ones), I'll accept that fetuses feel pain after about 20 weeks.
It's a simple question that dosen't require a long winded liberal response.
Is it okay to abort a baby during labor, no matter the circumstances?
There's also a video of an alien autopsy floating around..... what's your point?
the suction could have also cause the jaw to open up due to pressure.... subjective interpretation of a visual action is no valid argument.
Clearly the original report states through various physical fetal autopsies that they don't... it's physically impossible based on studies on the developmental process.... unless you can somehow counter this study in a factual manner that trumps their own information.
And in regards to "Murder"..... once again, you have to have a Human Being involved as the victim to be classified as Murder.
Wrong... it is not that it makes it ok, it's that this study cancels out other's arguments that fetuses feel pain, and thus justifies their argument to ban or severely restrict any and all abortions based on this argument.
I hold to many other reasons and justifications supported by studies and science that defines my position... this is just one more on top of that.
Already explained.
No it isn't.
Is it okay to abort during abor no matter the circumstances.
What if the Mom changes her mind as the infant crowns.
Abort?
Apparently not all scientists agree that Global Warming exists.... and yet it would seem the majority of people in society believe it to be true.... point?
I never claimed it was concrete, I asked for it to be challenged and/or proven wrong somehow..... until it is, I will hold the position that it is true, since it is the most logical conclusion to date.
You may think it can be answered with a simple yes/no answer.... I do not.
My answer previously given is the only answer you are going to get for your question because that's the only answer I have.
Clearly when there's more then 12 words in front of you to read you tend to miss things:
"Only if there is some freak unforeseen complication that puts either the mother, or the soon-to-be newborn's life at risk.... or both lives at risk and no other options are available to consider, could I see justification for termination..... risk of health at that stage, imo, is not enough justification.... only risk of one's life."
In other words, no, I do not agree with the mother suddenly saying to abort just because she changed her mind while in the middle of birth, nor do I ever see a doctor approving such a decision at that time.
The conflict occurs when at that time the mother decides and it is her human right to determine what happens to her own body and health, etc. and the fetus has not yet been born..... thus has no rights still..... but considering I doubt there are any valid records of someone deciding to carry a fetus for 9 months straight, go into labor, are practically having the baby coming out that they suddenly have a change of heart/mind..... There is simply no time to make such a decision, let alone perform such an action, so your question and scenario is, to a degree, invalid and extremely unlikely.
Last edited: