# Roe v Wade is on deck

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

Non human species are not humans.

We kill cows and chickens by the millions.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Talking about some other species is a deflection.

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

Non human species are not humans.

We kill cows and chickens by the millions.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Talking about some other species is a deflection.

I'm just making the point that using the brain / no brain a distinction doesn't help because then you're blurring the line between species which have brains.

If you want to compartmentalise the question and ignore reference to non-human species with brains, and philosophically question whether brain = human, then you haven't really advanced the issue because brain death is more about being a dead human rather than a non-human.

You also run into the quicksand of when a collection of brain cells in an unborn baby can be called "a brain". And then we're back to arguing over definitions.

THAT'S not a brain. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is....
THAT'S not a person. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No IT isn't, everyone knows negroes, Jews, embryos, untermenschen aren't people

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

Non human species are not humans.

We kill cows and chickens by the millions.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Talking about some other species is a deflection.

I'm just making the point that using the brain / no brain a distinction doesn't help because then you're blurring the line between species which have brains.

The topic of abortion is only about humans.

Is something that has no brain a human?

Not something with only a partial brain.

Something living with no brain at all.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

Killing matters? We should be concerned because this morning the lab took out a bit of my wife and killed it? (Routine blood work.)

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
The topic of abortion is only about humans.

Yes, so we should keep our disambiguation focussed on characteristics which are uniquely human. Having a brain is not what distinguishes the right to life. If it did, we ought not kill (abort) any living creature with "a brain".
Furthermore, brain dead corpses have brains. See how your extant brain distinction blurs the lines.

Of course it's blurred.
You're asking what defines a human. If the lines weren't blurred, you would be telling me, not asking me.

No I don't think you HAVE noted correctly.
I'm not dodging your question. I'm deconstructing it.

Is something that has no brain a human?

Define human, then we'll talk. Define brain, then we'll talk.
See what I did there?

I'm telling you, your brain / no brain dichotomy doesn't help.
My clock on the mantelpiece doesn't have a brain.
Therefore... WHAT?
Therefore...WHAT?

Not something with only a partial brain.

Something living with no brain at all.

The moment crow tells Ray Bolger that his life has no worth.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Yes, so we should keep our disambiguation focussed on characteristics which are uniquely human.

That is an irrational pathetic dodge.

We can rationally focus on ANYTHING that makes something a human.

The human brain is definitely something that makes something a human. A cat's brain makes something a cat.

Something without a brain is not human.

It is an unthinking blob of cells. If it is not living as a parasite within a woman it is not alive.

It is nothing that deserves rights or my concern.

What do we do next? Give plants the same rights as humans with brains?

Define human, then we'll talk.

Irrational non sequitur.

I am not fully defining a human.

I am giving one necessary feature.

No brain = no human.

No brain when not a parasite = dead.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

You have no obligation to keep any of those alive by being forced to donate the use of your organs against your will. Refusing to donte the use of your organs may result in them dying. You may even choose to call that “killing.”

Nevertheless, you are not obliged to donate your body to anyone for use of your blood, tissue or organs.

I can see why you would keep dodging this fact, and instead choose to talk about emotional words like “killing” and “baby” in the hopes that they will paper over your desired to take ownership of other people’s bodies and direct their use against their will.

This isn't so much a fact as an irrelevant analogy. What makes it irrelevant is the lack of choice or responsibility on the part of the donor. Expecting Joe to donate an organ to Bill, just because Bill needs one, is morally very different from expecting Joe to donate if he'd chosen something that resulted in Bill's organ failure. But that never happens. It's so unlikely that the same person both caused the organ failure and is the best organ donor that it's probably never happened since organ transplants became possible.

That's really different from having sex and making a baby. That happens all the time.

A better analogy is this. A motorist who hits a pedestrian with her car, causing life threatening injuries. It doesn't matter where she was driving or why. It doesn't matter if she was being careful. When she put her car in gear, she was taking responsibility for possible outcomes, even remote possibilities for which she wasn't prepared. She could have stayed home or found other transportation, but she chose to drive.
There is one huge difference. Nobody wants the motorist to personally provide emergency, medical, job coverage or any such thing. Other people are far better trained and equipped to do it. Motorist is just expected to pay. But paying is a moral obligation. If she doesn't have insurance, her assets will be seized and wages garnished, even if that's terribly inconvenient and burdensome. The moral calculus here isn't hard to understand.

And if she decides that taking responsibility is just too inconvenient and burdensome, so drives away leaving the pedestrian to die on the pavement, that's another whole moral choice. I'm sure you understand that one.
Tom

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
If you want to compartmentalise the question and ignore reference to non-human species with brains, and philosophically question whether brain = human, then you haven't really advanced the issue because brain death is more about being a dead human rather than a non-human.

You also run into the quicksand of when a collection of brain cells in an unborn baby can be called "a brain". And then we're back to arguing over definitions.

THAT'S not a brain. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is....
THAT'S not a person. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No IT isn't, everyone knows negroes, Jews, embryos, untermenschen aren't people

The discussion is around Human + cognition.
It has always been. The red herring that you drag across the trail does not change the point of the discussion.

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

You have no obligation to keep any of those alive by being forced to donate the use of your organs against your will. Refusing to donte the use of your organs may result in them dying. You may even choose to call that “killing.”

Nevertheless, you are not obliged to donate your body to anyone for use of your blood, tissue or organs.

I can see why you would keep dodging this fact, and instead choose to talk about emotional words like “killing” and “baby” in the hopes that they will paper over your desired to take ownership of other people’s bodies and direct their use against their will.

This isn't so much a fact as an irrelevant analogy. What makes it irrelevant is the lack of choice or responsibility on the part of the donor. Expecting Joe to donate an organ to Bill, just because Bill needs one, is morally very different from expecting Joe to donate if he'd chosen something that resulted in Bill's organ failure. But that never happens. It's so unlikely that the same person both caused the organ failure and is the best organ donor that it's probably never happened since organ transplants became possible.

That's really different from having sex and making a baby. That happens all the time.

A better analogy is this. A motorist who hits a pedestrian with her car, causing life threatening injuries. It doesn't matter where she was driving or why. It doesn't matter if she was being careful. When she put her car in gear, she was taking responsibility for possible outcomes, even remote possibilities for which she wasn't prepared. She could have stayed home or found other transportation, but she chose to drive.
There is one huge difference. Nobody wants the motorist to personally provide emergency, medical, job coverage or any such thing. Other people are far better trained and equipped to do it. Motorist is just expected to pay. But paying is a moral obligation. If she doesn't have insurance, her assets will be seized and wages garnished, even if that's terribly inconvenient and burdensome. The moral calculus here isn't hard to understand.

And if she decides that taking responsibility is just too inconvenient and burdensome, so drives away leaving the pedestrian to die on the pavement, that's another whole moral choice. I'm sure you understand that one.
Tom

No. I specifically included the possibility - however remote - that the motorist is a match for what the victim needs.

You have chosen to act as if I have not said this repeatedly.

Even in this remote case, it is STILL THE LAW that the motorist who caused the accident and who is capable of saving the life of the victim through the use of his organs, even if it is just blood or a skin graft from an ample buttock, IS NOT OBLIGED TO DO SO, even if it results in the death of the victim whose need he personally caused.

He is not even required to test to see if he is a donor match.. There is absolutely, positively - regardless of culpability - NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT for the perpetrator to donate any part or use of his body to maintain another person’s life.

You can’t dodge by saying it is remote. Because it is not allowed no matter what, even if the perpetrator is also dying and harvesting his organs before death could save the victim. Even then, the victim is not entitled to the useful organs from his fresh corpse. The victim is not even entitled to have them tested to see if they are a match. They have no right at all to another person’s body.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
This isn't so much a fact as an irrelevant analogy. What makes it irrelevant is the lack of choice or responsibility on the part of the donor. Expecting Joe to donate an organ to Bill, just because Bill needs one, is morally very different from expecting Joe to donate if he'd chosen something that resulted in Bill's organ failure. But that never happens. It's so unlikely that the same person both caused the organ failure and is the best organ donor that it's probably never happened since organ transplants became possible.

That's really different from having sex and making a baby. That happens all the time.

A better analogy is this. A motorist who hits a pedestrian with her car, causing life threatening injuries. It doesn't matter where she was driving or why. It doesn't matter if she was being careful. When she put her car in gear, she was taking responsibility for possible outcomes, even remote possibilities for which she wasn't prepared. She could have stayed home or found other transportation, but she chose to drive.
There is one huge difference. Nobody wants the motorist to personally provide emergency, medical, job coverage or any such thing. Other people are far better trained and equipped to do it. Motorist is just expected to pay. But paying is a moral obligation. If she doesn't have insurance, her assets will be seized and wages garnished, even if that's terribly inconvenient and burdensome. The moral calculus here isn't hard to understand.

And if she decides that taking responsibility is just too inconvenient and burdensome, so drives away leaving the pedestrian to die on the pavement, that's another whole moral choice. I'm sure you understand that one.
Tom

No. I specifically included the possibility - however remote - that the motorist is a match for what the victim needs.

You have chosen to act as if I have not said this repeatedly.

Even in this remote case, it is STILL THE LAW that the motorist who caused the accident and who is capable of saving the life of the victim through the use of his organs, even if it is just blood or a skin graft from an ample buttock, IS NOT OBLIGED TO DO SO, even if it results in the death of the victim whose need he personally caused.

He is not even required to test to see if he is a donor match.. There is absolutely, positively - regardless of culpability - NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT for the perpetrator to donate any part or use of his body to maintain another person’s life.

You can’t dodge by saying it is remote. Because it is not allowed no matter what, even if the perpetrator is also dying and harvesting his organs before death could save the victim. Even then, the victim is not entitled to the useful organs from his fresh corpse. The victim is not even entitled to have them tested to see if they are a match. They have no right at all to another person’s body.

But but but an accident victim is not an innocent blastula or zygote.

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
But but but an accident victim is not an innocent blastula or zygote.

Or, more the point, the perpetrator is not a slut (or, you know, a married woman who does not want more kids, but apparently I repeat myself.)

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

ETA - interesting fact. In Germany during the Third Reich, medical students did not take the Hippocratic Oath - Do no harm

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?

A working brain. In other words, capable of cognition.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

ETA - interesting fact. In Germany during the Third Reich, medical students did not take the Hippocratic Oath - Do no harm

At what age does the parasite have a brain?

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
If you are referring to zygotes, blastulas and fetuses, they do not have functioning brains - they are not persons.
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.
There are plenty of people who are parasites. For example, in the USA, church organizations are parasites since they do not pay taxes but expect and receive the same police and fire protection from taxpayers.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Only arbitrary definitions of 'parasite' that do not include humans are allowed.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

ETA - interesting fact. In Germany during the Third Reich, medical students did not take the Hippocratic Oath - Do no harm

The brain does not start to function until the 7th month at the earliest. (We do not know when it switches on, we know it can't switch on before that.)

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

It is a parasite if its bearer does not wish it to remain within her body.

The rights of the actual living person carrying the fetus inside her body override the rights of a clump of cells that has the potential to become a person some day. You do not have the right to force a person to donate a lung or kidney to another person, no matter how dire the need. Why do you assume that this right should be taken away from a woman when she becomes pregnant?

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead. All these pro-lifers can register to donate their bodies for birth. I bet that registry would be empty AF and abortion left alone.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead. All these pro-lifers can register to donate their bodies for birth. I bet that registry would be empty AF and abortion left alone.

Personally, I just get the giggles at the mental image of a man trying to push a 7 lb. baby out of his penis.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

It is a parasite if its bearer does not wish it to remain within her body.

The rights of the actual living person carrying the fetus inside her body override the rights of a clump of cells that has the potential to become a person some day. You do not have the right to force a person to donate a lung or kidney to another person, no matter how dire the need. Why do you assume that this right should be taken away from a woman when she becomes pregnant?

Whether an organism is or is not a parasite does not depend upon whether or not the host organism wants it there.

In the case of a human woman and fetus, there is no host/parasite relationship because parasites cannot be parasitical on members of their own species.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead. All these pro-lifers can register to donate their bodies for birth. I bet that registry would be empty AF and abortion left alone.

Personally, I just get the giggles at the mental image of a man trying to push a 7 lb. baby out of his penis.

I added a cartoonish pop sound effect when the penis explodes.

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead...

You know what science has done?

It has totally undermined outdated pro-abortion arguments about when exactly a fetus is 'viable' outside the womb. Neo natal medicine has exposed the plain reality that premmie babies born at 22 or 21 weeks are living human beings. If you killed a premmie baby in a maternity ward, you would go to jail for murder.

Likewise, science has provided evidence - empirical, repeatable, evidence - that unborn babies respond to external stimuli as early as 6 weeks from conception. The myth that embryos feel no pain has been falsified by science.

#IFLS

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead...

You know what science has done?

It has totally undermined outdated pro-abortion arguments about when exactly a fetus is 'viable' outside the womb. Neo natal medicine has exposed the plain reality that premmie babies born at 22 or 21 weeks are living human beings. If you killed a premmie baby in a maternity ward, you would go to jail for murder.

Likewise, science has provided evidence - empirical, repeatable, evidence - that unborn babies respond to external stimuli as early as 6 weeks from conception. The myth that embryos feel no pain has been falsified by science.

#IFLS
Viability of a fetus delivered before 24 weeks is very, very poor.

I’m able too find nothing that supports your assertion that a 6 week old embryo responds to external stimuli. Do you have a source?

#### Elixir

Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead...

You know what science has done?

It has totally undermined outdated pro-abortion arguments about when exactly a fetus is 'viable' outside the womb.

Here's some ACTUAL science - click it and learn:

Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.

#### Elixir

Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead...

You know what science has done?

It has totally undermined outdated pro-abortion arguments about when exactly a fetus is 'viable' outside the womb.

Here's some ACTUAL science - click it and learn:

Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.

It covers reflexive response pathways and methods used to differentiate them from responses to a pain experience.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead...

You know what science has done?

It has totally undermined outdated pro-abortion arguments about when exactly a fetus is 'viable' outside the womb. Neo natal medicine has exposed the plain reality that premmie babies born at 22 or 21 weeks are living human beings. If you killed a premmie baby in a maternity ward, you would go to jail for murder.

Likewise, science has provided evidence - empirical, repeatable, evidence - that unborn babies respond to external stimuli as early as 6 weeks from conception. The myth that embryos feel no pain has been falsified by science.

#IFLS

A muscle cell in a petri dish will respond to external stimuli.

Reflexive movement is not cognition.

You can't be anything I have a moral obligation towards without a brain.

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead...

You know what science has done?

It has totally undermined outdated pro-abortion arguments about when exactly a fetus is 'viable' outside the womb.

Here's some ACTUAL science - click it and learn:

Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.

Did you know abortion 'clinics' offer fetal anaesthetic?
Can you guess WHY they do that?

And you wanna know another dirty little secret about elective fetal abortion anaesthetic? Most women DECLINE the option.
Bet you can't gue$$why. #### Toni ##### Contributor #### laughing dog ##### Contributor Link to the SCIENCE please. Here's some ACTUAL science - click it and learn: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures. Did you know abortion 'clinics' offer fetal anaesthetic? Can you guess WHY they do that? And you wanna know another dirty little secret about elective fetal abortion anaesthetic? Most women DECLINE the option. Bet you can't gue$$ why.
I'll bet you don't know that fetal anesthetic is recommended for surgeries, etc... after 21 weeks which means since most abortions are performed earlier than that, it is because it is not needed.

Nope.

#### Elixir

Here's some ACTUAL science - click it and learn:

Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.

Did you know abortion 'clinics' offer fetal anaesthetic?

I'm sure the response from fetuses is overwhelming.

Can you guess WHY they do that?

To assuage patient fears. What do YOU think?

And you wanna know another dirty little secret about elective fetal abortion anaesthetic? Most women DECLINE the option.
Bet you can't gue why.

I bet I can. They know more about it than you. That's why.

You posted a link to a more than ten year old "study" that didn't conclude what you said it did.
I scanned it, but didn't see anything that contradicted the conclusion of the study I posted and you ignored.

I DID see this though - THE SUMMARY OF THE STUDY YOU LINKED TO:

Lion's study said:
Summary
Connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation. Most pain neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception; cortical activation correlates strongly with pain experience and an absence of cortical activity generally indicates an absence of pain experience.52–54The lack of cortical connections before 24 weeks, therefore,implies that pain is not possible until after 24 weeks. Even after 24 weeks, there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks. Furthermore, there is good evidence that the fetus is sedated by the physical environment of the womb and usually does not awaken before birth.

This is probably why you don't have any memory whatsoever of the horrible pain that was inflicted upon you prior to your birth, Lion.
I really have to wonder if the discrepancy between what Lion says the study says and what it actually says, results from Lion's lack of reading comprehension, lack of reading at all (someone in his circle said it said what he wishes it said so he posted without reading any of it) or if he thought the TFT audience would just unthinkingly swallow his BS without looking to see if it was just more religion-based claptrap, or if it was being misrepresented by Lion - which it was.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead...

You know what science has done?

It has totally undermined outdated pro-abortion arguments about when exactly a fetus is 'viable' outside the womb. Neo natal medicine has exposed the plain reality that premmie babies born at 22 or 21 weeks are living human beings. If you killed a premmie baby in a maternity ward, you would go to jail for murder.

Likewise, science has provided evidence - empirical, repeatable, evidence - that unborn babies respond to external stimuli as early as 6 weeks from conception. The myth that embryos feel no pain has been falsified by science.

#IFLS

Note that even your source says 24 weeks is generally considered the limit! Just because there have been survivals down to 21 doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's also the guy who when faced with inoperable brain cancer put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger--and shot out the tumor while doing little other damage.

Viability comes down to the lungs--and note that when they are borderline there usually is severe damage from a lack of oxygen. I consider even trying to save the too-small ones a form of child abuse. We have gotten better over the years at dealing with the other problems but almost nothing has been accomplished with this fundamental issue.

And showing reflex responses doesn't mean there's a mind there to experience pain. Reflexes are at a lower level and develop earlier.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I’m able too find nothing that supports your assertion that a 6 week old embryo responds to external stimuli. Do you have a source?

www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf

article said:
Specialised nerve terminals, nociceptors, are likely to detect surgical tissue damage from early in fetal life (around 10 weeks for the skin and 13 weeks for the internal organs). These nociceptors gradually mature over the next 6–8 weeks and the strength of their signals increases over fetal life. The presence of nociceptors is necessary for perception of acute surgical pain and so pain is clearly not possible before the nociceptors first appear at 10 weeks.

Note that this doesn't say pain at 10 weeks, it says there can't be pain before 10 weeks.

#### Elixir

Note that this doesn't say pain at 10 weeks, it says there can't be pain before 10 weeks.

Lion's article sez lack of cortical connections before 24 weeks implies that pain is not possible until after 24 weeks. Again, that doesn't mean pain at 24 weeks...
and it can only imply until some 26 week premie to comes out of the birth canal cussing like a sailor about the terrible pain (s)he has been in for the last ??? weeks.

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
Can't wait for science to make it possible to transport a fetus from a woman to a man so that they can have the baby in her stead...

You know what science has done?

It has totally undermined outdated pro-abortion arguments about when exactly a fetus is 'viable' outside the womb. Neo natal medicine has exposed the plain reality that premmie babies born at 22 or 21 weeks are living human beings. If you killed a premmie baby in a maternity ward, you would go to jail for murder.

Likewise, science has provided evidence - empirical, repeatable, evidence - that unborn babies respond to external stimuli as early as 6 weeks from conception. The myth that embryos feel no pain has been falsified by science.

#IFLS

The severed legs of dead frogs respond to electrical stimuli. Does this mean that the severed legs of dead frogs feel pain?

#### Toni

##### Contributor
This paper does not say what you think it does.

What? Are you suggesting that the poster was making up shit? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Less that than someone was regurgitating stuff they didn’t understand because it suits their cause.

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
This paper does not say what you think it does.

What? Are you suggesting that the poster was making up shit? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Less that than someone was regurgitating stuff they didn’t understand because ~snip~

… because they were impressed by it without undrstanding it, and they thought others would be impressed by it, too.

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member

article said:
Specialised nerve terminals, nociceptors, are likely to detect surgical tissue damage from early in fetal life (around 10 weeks for the skin and 13 weeks for the internal organs). These nociceptors gradually mature over the next 6–8 weeks and the strength of their signals increases over fetal life. The presence of nociceptors is necessary for perception of acute surgical pain and so pain is clearly not possible before the nociceptors first appear at 10 weeks.

Note that this doesn't say pain at 10 weeks, it says there can't be pain before 10 weeks.

Here's what it says....

"Anatomical studies of human fetal skin shows the presence of nerve terminals and fibres deep in the skin from 6 weeks of gestational age."

Able to be detected as early as 6 weeks. Nerves.

"These terminals are not [mature] nociceptors..."

Sure. But so what?
Call them whatever you like. They are sensory nerves endings.

[nociceptors]"...are specialised for the processing of non-damaging sensations such as touch, vibration and temperature, rather than pain."

Note that these are described as being "specialised" for sensations.
...at 6 weeks.
...a living human.

Note that "specialised for" does NOT mean "used exclusively for".
And that "non-damaging sensations" does NOT mean "not painful".

The touch, vibration and temperature experienced - sensed - by these specialised nerve endings can be either painful or pleasant or neutral, and it can still be claimed that no "damage" is done. This is equally true for children who have already been born. Would anyone (other than a pedophile) argue that "non-damaging" touching is equivalent to neutral, painless sensory experience?

"Non-damaging" high temperatures can be pleasurable in some circumstances and painful/unpleasant in other circumstances. The same goes for "non-damaging" low temperatures.

This study shows that, as early as 6 weeks, the fetus has specialised nerve endings which can experience "non-damaging" sensations. That these sensory nerve endings are already starting to become "specialised" to some degree does not mean that...therefore the temperature experienced isn't painful, the touch being experienced isn't painful, the vibration being experienced isn't painful.

The precise point at which non-damaging temperature, touch, vibration becomes unpleasant is a matter of degree. The fact that the study specifies "non-damaging" should tell you something.

"From 10 weeks, nerve terminals become more numerous and extend towards the outer surface of the skin."

This is simply another way of saying nerve terminals continue becoming even more numerous after 6 weeks. Not less. We don't have the scientific tools needed to detect and precisely measure what happens earlier than six weeks, but we certainly know that from at least six weeks onwards this sensory ability increases. 6 weeks, 7 weeks, 8 weeks, 9 weeks. It's not like everything remains static until you get to some magical 10 week milestone.

Functional, sensory nerve terminals are extant from at least as early as 6 weeks.

."The terminals closer to the surface are likely to be immature nociceptors, necessary for pain experience following tissue damage..."

Read that carefully. Those nerve terminals detected as early as six weeks and becoming more numerous over the 6, 7, 8, 9 to 10 week timeframe are likely to be nociceptors - immature or otherwise.
Note the term pain experience. The way we verify pain sensation is by looking for fetal response to some given stimuli. And note that my claim was that the fetus responds to external stimuli- painful or otherwise, non-damaging or otherwise - from as early as six weeks.

"but they [mature nociceptors] are not unequivocally present until 17 weeks."

Sure. So what?
This simply means that the case for fetal pain sensory capacity gets more and more undeniable as time goes by...6, 7, 8, 9, 10 weeks...11, 12, 13 14 weeks...

Unequivocally true. No semantics or disambiguation about non-damaging touch, unpleasant temperatures, annoying vibration. No quibbling about whether an 'immature' nociceptor really is a nociceptor. From six weeks onwards, the case for fetal respose to external stimuli - painful or pleasant - becomes increasingly UNAMBIGUOUS.

"...In other mammals, newly formed fetal nociceptors are able to signal tissue damage but the intensity of their signals is weaker than in adults"

More verification that fetal pain signals are experienced - however weak or otherwise.

...science has provided evidence - empirical, repeatable, evidence - that unborn babies respond to external stimuli as early as 6 weeks from conception. The myth that embryos feel no pain has been falsified by science.

Last edited:

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Here's what it says....

The problem is you are using bits here without understanding and without looking the conclusions they draw from the information. And that conclusion is still 24 weeks for pain to be possible.

You are also making the invalid jump from "respond to external stimuli" as "feel pain".

I have dropped a pot holder on the counter and heard the fire under the pot react.

The fire on my stove feels pain?!

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
Here's what it says....

The problem is you are using bits here without understanding...

No, I understand their jargon and semantics quite well.

...without looking the conclusions they draw from the information. And that conclusion is still 24 weeks for pain to be possible.

You realise that it's the empirical data in the study that I'm referring to not the opinions about what those facts might mean.

They do not conclude that pain is impossible before 24 weeks.

They conclude that there is a difference between damaging and non-damaging external stimuli. Sure. Non-damaging touch, vibration, temperature might not be painful. So what?

They conclude that early/immature nociceptor nerve endings needed to feel pain are detected to already exist in the skin of 6 week old fetuses and these increase in number from 6 weeks onwards.

You are also making the invalid jump from "respond to external stimuli" as "feel pain".

It's perfectly valid to infer that the external stimuli of touch, temperature and vibration can be either painful or pleasant.

I have dropped a pot holder on the counter and heard the fire under the pot react.

The fire on my stove feels pain?!

Gee. Is that the best you got?

#### Elixir

You realise that it's the empirical data in the study that I'm referring to not the opinions about what those facts might mean.

I realize that you are trying to say that you are better able to interpret what you read in the report, than are scientists who have studied and practiced for years specifically for that task.
Basically you are saying "I don't care about the science, I know what I think it means".

Yeh, there are nerve endings much earlier than 24 weeks. You seize upon that, and conflate the existence of nerve endings with the experience of pain.
That's not reality, it's religious fantasy.
There are nerve endings in severed fingers. But like in a fetus, there's no cortical connection. They're not connected to anything so they can't feel pain.
Why can't you get that?
Religion...

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
You realise that it's the empirical data in the study that I'm referring to not the opinions about what those facts might mean.

I realize that you are trying to say that you are better able to interpret what you read in the report, than are scientists who have studied and practiced for years specifically for that task.
Basically you are saying "I don't care about the science, I know what I think it means".

Yeh, there are nerve endings much earlier than 24 weeks. You seize upon that, and conflate the existence of nerve endings with the experience of pain.
That's not reality, it's religious fantasy.
There are nerve endings in severed fingers. But like in a fetus, there's no cortical connection. They're not connected to anything so they can't feel pain.
Why can't you get that?
Religion...

This is par for the course in women’s rights issues. Unqualified poeple proclaiming their opinion as fact.
Religious people, men who are not physicians, politicians who are not knowledgeable in biology.

They try to throw in emotional appeals and misquote educated voices to try to sway the policy.