He's prolife, and a minister, and his
research may be inherently skewed.
...and that study is still 24 years old.
And the sites Eiri provided aren't
Prochoice propaganda sites, either. Did
you look at them?
|
Sandbox Party
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 7276
Posted: 01-07-08 00:26am
Birch
wrote:
He's prolife, and a
minister, and his research may be
inherently skewed.
...and that study is still 24 years old.
And the sites Eiri provided aren't
Prochoice propaganda sites, either. Did
you look at
them?
no, i didnt.
I found studies that were done proving the
oposite so why bother?
i'm usually open to most things, but i saw
proof so mreh.
They may not say, at 4 weeks gestation..
but by 9 weeks they can. They begin to
forn pain receptors around 7-8 weeks
gestation.
as a matter of fact, unborn babies pain
receptors are proven to be more sensitive
than adults.
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-07-08 05:35am
Priests can be doctors now? That is bloody
frightening.
Sorry Sandy, but I think your archaic
source is more biased than Eiri's sources
- yours focuses more on pro-life
propaganda to make a point (kind of like
those poems about how a 4-week-old fetus
can cry, scream, reason, feel pain and ask
the readers to do God's will and not abort
unwanted pregnancies)...and, besides that,
I would never trust a priest to give me
sound medical advice. His crucifix is
lodged too far up his god-loving backside
to give any unbiased or accurate medical
counsel.
It sounds more reasonable that a
7-month-old fetus (rather than a 2- or
3-month-old fetus) can feel pain. How is
it that such an underdeveloped fetus can
feel pain, yet, if removed from the
uterus, would not survive? The lurching
around a fetus does during an abortion is
an involuntary response to foreign stimuli
- in a fetus's natural environment, there
is nothing poking at it. So, when it does
get poked and stabbed, it is reacting to
something that it is not biologically
inclined to recognize, which explains why
it moves around so much during an
abortion. It's not that it feels pain or
is crying to its mommy to 'stop killing
it' - it is just an uncontrolled reaction
ingrained in the fetus' biology. Kind of
like when a donor organ gets rejected -
the body recognizes that new organ as
something that was not there and it is not
programmed to recognize that foreign
entity, so it will start trying to dig up
methods in which it can deal with this
thing it involuntarily perceives as a
threat. This may involve rejecting the
organ, even if the valves are all
perfectly attached to the proper places.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3966 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-07-08 12:14pm
Sandy_Pants
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
He's prolife, and a
minister, and his research may be
inherently skewed.
...and that study is still 24 years old.
And the sites Eiri provided aren't
Prochoice propaganda sites, either. Did
you look at
them?
no, i didnt.
I found studies that were done proving the
oposite so why bother?
i'm usually open to most things, but i saw
proof so mreh.
They may not say, at 4 weeks gestation..
but by 9 weeks they can. They begin to
forn pain receptors around 7-8 weeks
gestation.
as a matter of fact, unborn babies pain
receptors are proven to be more sensitive
than adults.
If you didn't even look at Eiri's sources,
what made you decide that her information
came from biased prochoice sites and then
give her a hard time about it? And even
post the eye roll emoticon?
You didn't find "studies" you found "a
study" of which your "proof" is twenty
four years old and written by a
theologian.
C'mon, Sandy, you're better than that.
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 360 Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 4
Thanked:1
Posted: 01-07-08 14:27pm
Sandy_Pants
wrote:
MONTH THREE:
9th week 57-63 days:
The first detectable brain activity in
response to noxious ( or pain stimuli) is
elicited in the thalamus of the brain
between the 9th and 10th weeks. By nine
weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and
react to loud noises.
"As early as eight to 10 weeks'
gestation,
and definitely by thirteen and a half
weeks,
the human fetus experiences organic
pain."
Dr. Vincent J. Collins,
a diplomat of the American Board of
Anesthesiologists
(emphasis mine):
"There is no objective measurement of
`pain'; it is a subjective
experience. The fetus is unable to tell us
if it feels pain, so other
evidence must be used to decide at what
gestation it is likely that
the fetus starts to feel pain. Sensory
innervation of the skin and
neuronal connections between the periphery
and spinal cord have begun
by 8 weeks, with C fibres growing into the
spine at about 10 weeks
post-fertilization. The cerebral cortex
starts to form at this stage,
with differentiation into neurones,
fibres, glia and blood vessels
starting at about 17 weeks, and continuing
long after birth. Pain
fibres pass through the thalamus en route
to the cortex. The timing
of these thalamo-cortical connections is
crucial in deciding when the
fetus first becomes capable of feeling
pain; this is an area of
considerable controversy. Rapid
Golgi-staining techniques have shown
the ingrowth of afferent fibres into the
cortical plate between 26
and 34 weeks of gestation [1], which has
led some to conclude the
fetus is incapable of feeling pain prior
to 26 weeks [2]. However,
between 20 and 26 weeks the subplate zone
of the cortex contains an
abundant mixture of cholinergic,
thalamo-cortical and corticocortical
waiting neurones, and there are transient
fetal synaptic circuits
between the subplate and cortical plate
neurones [3]. Awareness of
pain is considered to require connections
between the cortex and
periphery, although, this presumption
would render animals lacking a
cortex such as reptiles incapable of
perceiving pain. It is not known
at what point in the maturation from
transient, possibly single,
connections to permanent multiple
connections the fetus may become
capable of feeling pain, and it may be a
gradual rather than sudden
transition. In summary, prior to 22 weeks the
fetus does not have the
neuroanatomical pathways in place to feel
pain, between 22 and 26
weeks thalamo-cortical connections are
forming, and after 26 weeks
the fetus has the necessary connections to
feel pain."
Source: Smith et al, European Journal of
Obstetrics & Gynecology and
Reproductive Biology Volume 92, Issue 1
September 2000
Pages 161-165
ETA: I have no idea why the quoted
material from the post I was replying to
is appearing at the bottom of my post. It
is at the top in the edit box and in the
preview.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-07-08 18:16pm
Not all of it was from pro-choice sites.
Wikipedia? Sorry, not pro-choice.
ReligiousTolerance.org?!?! Come ON, read
my sources Sandy. You're looking dumb.
I'm pretty sure the America Pain Society
is not a pro-choice or pro-life
organization. Many of the articles only
peripherally mention abortion in relation
to fetal pain. BMJ is just a medical
journal for doctors, so it is also
unbiased as a source since it is a
collection of articles only. The AUTHOR
might be pro-choice, but the site itself
is not. Women's News MIGHT be biased, but
I don't know how feminist they are. As far
as I can tell, women are both pro-life and
pro-choice, so I wouldn't expect WOMEN'S
NEWS to be skewed either way.
Try again maybe? Read what I posted.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1171 Location: ,
Thanks: 21
Thanked:8
Posted: 01-08-08 07:40am
I like this thread.. it really shows how
far PL will go to print misninformation
and try to pass it off as current. Lets
try something new. real relevant up to
date information.
The most recent study on fetal pain,
published by the Journal of the American Medical
Association, concluded that it was
unlikely that a fetus could feel pain
before the third trimester, and that an
anesthetic would pose an unnecessary risk
to women.
The study also said that, historically, a
general anesthetic was used in abortions
until studies found that it was a leading
cause of abortion-related mortality. The
study received support and criticism from
both sides of the debate.
Regardless, Peter Sawires, director of
medical education for the Physicians for
Reproductive Choice and Health, said the
fetal-pain bills go too far and are not
based on sound science.
Top Health stories
Kegs, Drugs and Naughty SchoolgirlsHPV
Shots = Pain Now, Protection LaterDr. Phil
Cancels Britney SpecialRelated Topics
Jim Doyle American Medical Assn
"These laws aren't about medicine and
public health -- they're about politics
and ideology. These laws would force
doctors to provide inaccurate, incomplete
information to their patients," Sawires
said.
Dr. Andrew E. Good, chairman of the
Minnesota section of the American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
agreed. "They are adding potential
physical harm and possible guilt to a
situation that is already tragic."
By MELISSA SOWRY
Feb. 8, 2006
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-10-08 17:16pm
lucy315
wrote:
This may be an odd question, but can't
people "legally" buy fetuses/embryos
"babies"? What about embryos that are
used for research and implantation?
To the best of my knowledge, selling or
buying a living human fetus/embryo is
illegal, and courts rule on who has the
custody of frozen embryos, not who "owns"
them. While you can also give your born
children away, it's not legal to do so.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-10-08 17:18pm
diamondsz
wrote:
Yodi you screwed urself over with your
wording its illegal to own a human being,
a fetus is definatly human but not a
person....
I disagree.....
per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n.
2. a human being as distinguished from an
animal or a thing. 6. the body of a
living human being, sometimes including
the clothes being worn: He had no money on
his person. http://www.infopleas
e.com/ipd/A0584644.html
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/
hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings)
noun 1. member of the human species: a
member of the species to which men and
women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-10-08 17:19pm
Eiri
wrote:
Isn't adoption selling your
baby?
No.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-10-08 17:21pm
msrosie
wrote:
Can I legally sell my kidney? Does my
kidney not belong to
me?
In some countries you can, yes. But in
this country, you cannot legally own
another human being.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 01-10-08 17:36pm
yodavater
wrote:
diamondsz
wrote:
Yodi you screwed urself over with your
wording its illegal to own a human being,
a fetus is definatly human but not a
person....
I disagree.....
per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n.
2. a human being as distinguished from an
animal or a thing. 6. the body of a
living human being, sometimes including
the clothes being worn: He had no money on
his person. http://www.infopleas
e.com/ipd/A0584644.html
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/
hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings)
noun 1. member of the human species: a
member of the species to which men and
women belong. Latin name Homo
sapiens
Damn you forgot almost the whole paragraph
let add on since you chose what you wanted
I will chose to show the truth
Definition of person
The classical definition of a person is "a
human being regarded as an individual."[1]
In modern usage, the term "person" is
subject to dispute and re-interpretation
based on alternate definitions. This is
especially so for uses that are not
necessarily synonymous with the classical
definition of human or human being.
For example, in many jurisdictions a
corporation may be treated as a "person"
under the law. In the fields of
philosophy, theology, and bioethics, the
definition of 'person' may exclude human
beings who are incapable of certain kinds
of thought (such as embryos, fetuses with
incomplete brain development, or adult
humans lacking higher brain
functions).[2][3]
These alternative definitions of what
constitutes a "person" include a wide and
varying range of alternative defining
characteristics, some of which have
evolved historically, and continue to
shift with time and social context. Some
other characteristics used to define a
'person' include personal identity,[4]
self-awareness, individuality, and a sense
of self that persists through time. Other
views centre around the degree to which
properties such as agency (both human
agency and moral agency) and rights are
recognized and acknowledged in society or
enforcable by law. The recognition of
status as a person is known as
personhood.
The inquiry into what it means to be a
'person' is the subject of considerable
analysis and debate within diverse fields
such as religion, medicine, ethics,
economic and political theory, human
rights, and animal rights.
1: human individual —sometimes used in
combination especially by those who prefer
to avoid man in compounds applicable to
both sexes
<chairperson><spokesperson>
2: a character or part in or as if in a
play : guise
3 a: one of the three modes of being in
the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by
Christians b: the unitary personality of
Christ that unites the divine and human
natures
4 aarchaic : bodily appearance b: the body
of a human being; also : the body and
clothing <unlawful search of the
person>
5: the personality of a human being :
self
6: one (as a human being, a partnership,
or a corporation) that is recognized by
law as the subject of rights and duties
7: reference of a segment of discourse to
the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one
spoken of as indicated by means of certain
pronouns or in many languages by verb
Humans, or human beings, are bipedal
primates belonging to the mammalian
species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or
"knowing man") in the family Hominidae
(the great apes).[1][2] Compared to other
living organisms on Earth, humans have a
highly developed brain capable of abstract
reasoning, language, and introspection.
This mental capability, combined with an
erect body carriage that frees their upper
limbs for manipulating objects, has
allowed humans to make far greater use of
tools than any other species. DNA evidence
indicates that modern humans originated in
Africa about 200,000 years ago,[3] and
they now inhabit every continent, with a
total population of over 6.6 billion as of
2007.[4]
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of
humans
2: consisting of humans
3 a: having human form or attributes b:
susceptible to or representative of the
sympathies and frailties of human nature
<such an inconsistency is very human
— P. E. More>
— http://www.webster.com/d
ictionary/human
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-10-08 17:42pm
diamondsz
wrote:
Humans, or human beings, are bipedal
primates belonging to the mammalian
species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or
"knowing man") in the family Hominidae
(the great apes).[1][2]
That's right. And it makes no sense at
all to try to draw some arbitrary dividing
line we must cross before we belong to our
species. There is no mention of any such
dividing line in any scientific reference
work I've ever seen.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 01-10-08 17:58pm
yodavater
wrote:
diamondsz
wrote:
Humans, or human beings, are bipedal
primates belonging to the mammalian
species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or
"knowing man") in the family Hominidae
(the great apes).[1][2]
That's right. And it makes no sense at
all to try to draw some arbitrary dividing
line we must cross before we belong to our
species. There is no mention of any such
dividing line in any scientific reference
work I've ever
seen.
Rocks are alive, everything in this world
is it consists of cells and even protrons,
neutrons/atoms. The difference is what
seperates me and you from a fetus is the
fact it is undevolped and living in our
bodies. It has almost similar
charactheristics of a parasite as it is
unable to function without our blood and
food.
It is human but does not have a concsious
till later in the pregnancy...
The difference between a mammal and a rock
the fact that we can think.
So if a z/e/f doesnt have a concsious or
lack of until later on, why should it have
the same rights???
Your debate will be because its a
potential baby, because its human and
alive.
Yes its alive as all cells are and yes it
is human, the day a human conceives a
chicken Im going to laugh.
This is my fav
"A seed can become a potential flower and
a potential flower can become a garden but
if it is not tended to it can brown and
die."
Meaning a fetus can become a potential
newborn and a potential newborn can become
a child/adult but if its not taken care of
properly they will die. maybe not
physically but mentally...
Have you ever given a caca about how
people feel?
If you had a choice to save a fetus or a
child which one would you pick?
I sure as hell would pick a child!!!
On another note it has been deemed a fetus
doesnt have the same sensory as us and
cant even feel or have emotions, so
although you are tyring to protect
something you feel valuable there is a
shitlot of children who need it not a
potential.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-10-08 20:57pm
I'd have to debate the rocks. Atoms are
not alive in and of themselves. They make
up living things, but they themselves are
not alive. Rocks are not alive; they are
environments teeming with living things,
but actual quartz or granite or pumice
itself is not a living animal or plant or
fungus etc. Rocks are not part of the tree
of life.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1171 Location: ,
Thanks: 21
Thanked:8
Posted: 01-11-08 08:09am
Nice diversion attempt yoda; care to
explain why you used a study that was
very outdated and disproven? I noticed you
didn't dare comment on Ms. Rosies very
accurate and up to date information..
