ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/21/2018 09:28 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.806 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/24/2005 11:51 PM ID: 49811 Permalink   

Study: Fetus Feels No Pain Before 8 Months

 

A study in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association reports that data suggests foeti do not feel pain until about 28 weeks. Researchers at UC San Francisco reviewed dozens of studies and medical reports to present the findings.

The study was done to help to inform the debate over laws requiring doctors to warn women of fetal pain before abortions by creating a comprehensive and objective review of the evidence. The findings have been angrily disputed by critics as biased.

Some contend that foeti show pain by moving away from stimuli, while others contend this is only reflex. Some laws advocate anesthesia for foeti, which some call an unnecessary danger to women. Pending laws may affect up to 18,000 abortions yearly.

 
  Source: www.washingtonpost.com  
    WebReporter: MomentOfClarity Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  86 Comments
  
  Can U Feel My Pain?  
 
What the heck! does it matter?? The poor kid is still dead and never even had a chance to cure aids or cancer. Funny how it's murder if you want the kid and just an aborted fetus if you don't. Just because the kid is in your body doesn't mean you can do what you want to it. Just because it's legal doesn't it make it right. If you were this kid you wouldn't be on this here Short News. Just standing up for the Unborn and the UnHeard!
 
  by: techrat999     08/25/2005 03:23 AM     
  @techrat999  
 
Not sure if you're serious or not, but why not stomp on the nexk of a few arguments in advance, just in case? Pardon a bit of reorganization of your points...

"What the heck! does it matter?? The poor kid is still dead..."

Define "kid." I know my definition doesn't include clusters of undifferentiated cells, but perhaps yours differs. I see little reason to pity a non-sentient proto-lifeform, especially given that now it cannot even be said that it suffered.

"Funny how it's murder if you want the kid and just an aborted fetus if you don't."

Well, for one thing I'd be surprised if someone were to abort a fetus they wanted...that makes little sense, so they all must be just aborted foeti by this logic. In reality, what they are is not changed by external variables, be it how the pregnancies happened or if they are wanted. A fetus is a fetus until it is born (or thereabouts), and then it's a kid. If it's never born, well, you do the math.

"...and never even had a chance to cure aids or cancer."

And never had a chance to become Hitler, Pol Pot, or Osama bin Laden!

"Just because the kid is in your body doesn't mean you can do what you want to it."

If you have a kid in your body, you probably ought to have it removed one way or another. That can't be healthy...a fetus on the other hand is a part of the mother, and she can do with it as she will. It yearns for nothing, and will not notice nothingness.

"Just because it's legal doesn't it make it right."

Hmm, well I'm sure you have a compelling case to present to the Supreme Court on why this legal action is wrong. Or, doesn't the tagline extend into specifics?

"If you were this kid you wouldn't be on this here Short News."

What kid? Oh, the fetus, right...no, and I probably wouldn't know any different, like all the rest of my mother's eggs that went unfertilized. That b-tch was a f-ckin' psycho killer!

"Just standing up for the Unborn and the unheard!"

And this line is, I hope, the subtle clue to tell us that you were just reiterating the usual talking points. If so, thanks for getting them out there. If not, there's a reason the unborn are unheard - their brains aren't developed to a meaningful level, and until they are, they won't be thinking or feeling pain. That's why this matters, because we now know a little bit more about just when that is.
 
  by: momentofclarity     08/25/2005 03:44 AM     
  Well then...  
 
do a lot of us a favor and sit back down and shut-up. I'm getting bloody tired of this right-wing bullshit with people screaming and moaning about murdering the unborn, while advocating the murder of other people. I think the so-called 'pro-life' nutcases have made it abundantly clear that they don't value ALL life, just the lives of the brain dead and the unborn, groups that can't tell them shut-up and go the hell away. For that matter the 'pro-lifers' don't even give a damn about ALL brain-dead people, only the one(s) who are in the media. In any case, I don't expect this study to have any effect on the 'pro-lifers', except to give some of the nuttier ones some media attention as they make up reasons to refute this study and pay off a few 'doctors' to say it's flawed.
 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 03:44 AM     
  i thought this was a woman's choice?  
 
of course, if she wants one...let her get one. it's her body that will be messed up from it. If she doesn't...o well.

Why is this so complicated? Why bring an unfit baby into this world? Why kill a baby that can be cured. Let the woman decide...AND KEEP RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF IT!
 
  by: hotrock11     08/25/2005 04:24 AM     
  As hotrock said...  
 
I agree that this issue is reliant on the womans choice. I myself lean towards pro-life, but not just because of religious reasons... just personal feelings. But that aside, it's the woman who goes through it... who decides. To me, it's just kind of amusing to watch two males bicker with their point of view on this subject.

And to respond to StarShadow... no offense intended, but... aren't we just a big clump of cells right now? Granted we look alittle nicer now.
 
  by: Dayron   08/25/2005 05:41 AM     
  @Dayron  
 
None taken ;)

Yes, technically speaking we are (rather large) clumps of cells. The difference is that in us, our cells are differentiated and have rather specific functions, our brains are fully developed and are capable of conscious thought and emotion. In a fetus, none of this is true until the very late stages of pregnancy.
 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 06:00 AM     
  That's all we need  
 
Some d*ckhead researchers feeding us this BS about babies not being able to feel pain. Abortion rates are going to hit the roof, I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future they make it legal to murder babies up to 8 months old in the womb. I don't give a monkeys arse if the baby doesn't feel pain, it's a HUMAN LIFE FFS.

I have to stop here before I throw this damn computer against the wall. F*cking load of BS.
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 10:42 AM     
  Unless...  
 
you have a degree in neurology or human biology, I think those researchers know more about the subject than you ever will.
 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 11:00 AM     
  @sweetsixteen  
 
"I have to stop here before I throw this damn computer against the wall. F*cking load of BS."

Yeah, inconvenient facts intruding upon the territory of your unfounded beliefs can have that reaction. Damned science, can't we burn a few of these guys at the stake like in the gold ol' days and save a few zygotes?

In all seriousness, did you have a point here besides, "I don't like this?" Some facts to dispute, hypotheses to falsify, data to invalidate...?
 
  by: momentofclarity     08/25/2005 11:01 AM     
  Stop it  
 
Stop speaking out of your ass in defence of these idiot scientists. I don't give a rats ass how many degrees in neurology or whatever the hell they have, they're sick freaks supporting the mass murder of unborn children by researching and coming to weak, debatable conclusions so women won't feel as guilty about murdering their children. How anybody can defend these scum of the earth whackos is beyond me.
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 11:11 AM     
  Whackos...  
 
I have a very strong feeling that my first post on this topic applies to you in a big way...
 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 11:18 AM     
  @SweetSixteen  
 
I agree with you whole heartedly.

Damn those elitist scientists and their fandangled technology, with words that only scientists can understand! Damn them all!

I mean when has medical science, or science at all done anything to further our cause? Ever since science reared its ugly head around, I haven't been able to use illogical reasons like 'just because', throw unfounded literature at people, threaten people with imaginary places, or even fairytale creatures for that matter.

Screw you science and screw you intarweb...wait…oh shii.

On a serious note:
No pain = No suffering, I don't see the moral dilemma.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   08/25/2005 01:08 PM     
  dare I ask...  
 
Sweetsixteen, at what point do you consider an embryo a human life, and why?
 
  by: Dedolito     08/25/2005 01:26 PM     
  ...  
 
@backwardsman

Oh yes, bravo scientists. Bravo, now thanks to your valuable research more babies face termination than ever before. No need to feel guilty, all you whores out there, now you can wipe out your babies like termites without any guilt at all! And all thanks to a few geeks who have a bigger need for attention and gratification than they have a conscience. I applaud you all! Let the masacre of unborn children begin!

@dedolito

Life begins at conception.
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 01:42 PM     
  Stark raving..  
 
"Oh yes, bravo scientists. Bravo, now thanks to your valuable research more babies face termination than ever before. No need to feel guilty.."

You really are a raving mad nutter if you think this will cause a huge surge in abortions, as if it were just something to do out of boredom. Please do humanity a favor, don't reproduce.

 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 02:02 PM     
  @SweetSixteen  
 
Science has also brought about new life and extended life - is that not a good thing?

What about IVF and cloning as well as general medicine? Do you think that some pre-mature babies would survive without the aid of technology? What about mothers with abnormal hip bones?

Life does not begin at conception. What part of this looks like a human to you?
http://www.sunysb.edu/...
It looks like a bunch of different cells to me - But you never know, they say that if you stare at a wall for long enough you can see pretty pictures.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   08/25/2005 02:02 PM     
  @backwardsman  
 
I don't recall saying anything against medical science in general.

Also, I don't care if it looks like a bloody toaster, it's a human life whether you like to admit it or not.
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 02:12 PM     
  @sweetsixteen  
 
What makes you think that all of a sudden women are going to go out and get an abortion just because of this research?

 
  by: CrisW   08/25/2005 02:16 PM     
  @chrisW  
 
I don't think they'll get an abortion soley for this research. But it can only encourage women considering getting an abortion, if they think their baby won't feel any pain.
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 02:24 PM     
  what i do not  
 
understand is why everyone says its the womens choice. BS. it is the choice of both parents.. if you bought a car, and split the price with a friend 50/50, then you seddenly decided its your right to take the car and blow it up for fun (too much gta, but the point is the same) then your friend that split the cost with you can sue you because you damaged his property. the whole abortion is the womens choice is a load of bull made up bhy a bunc of irresponsible people who did not want to deal with the consquence of their actions. you can not hold an apple in the air, let go, and expect it not to fall because you dont like the law of gravity. the same thing applies here. if you decide to have sex, deal with the consiquences. if you get pregnant, either take care of the child, of give it away, or split the decision wiith the other parent to abort it. sociaty today is doing whatever it can to yake the blame away from the individual, and place it anywhere else. look at the book published on mental illnesses. a good example is that caffiene addiction is a mental illness??? BS. it is not a mental disability, it is human weakness. taking blame from the individual, and placing it on scociaty as a whole so no one is to blame. it just makes me sick when people buy into that bs so wholehartedly, that they done even think things through for themselfs, and accept, and spit back the 'facts' they were told like a parrot. i am not against abortion, but i am against irresponsible people not having to deal with their actions. if someone was arrested for murder, and his excuse was i was bored,that wouldnt cut it, he would be in jail so fast whiplash would have to catch up to him. these studies are just 'feel good' studies, so that irresponsible people can feel good about not owning up to their responsibility. and i agree with sweetsixteen, life begins at conception. arent amobeas living orginisims? yet they are simple single cell organisims, less complicaed then the embrio at conception. we may not protect the rights of amobeas, but we do protect the rights of humans. i believe that abortions should ONLY be performed in cases where the mothers life in in danger. and not of danger of their boyfriend getting pissed off at them ;-)
 
  by: ganjaman22     08/25/2005 02:34 PM     
  one more thing  
 
there are a small percentage of people whose nervous systems are messed up, and they cant feal physical pain at all, so is murdering them ok??? they dont feal pain afterall.
 
  by: ganjaman22     08/25/2005 02:36 PM     
  Women get abortions for many reasons  
 
Not just the pain aspect. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, its a long difficult decision, and if they choose to go through with it it can really screw up thier body.

I would rather women had the right to choose than bring an child into the world and have no hope of being able to give it the best life possible.
 
  by: CrisW   08/25/2005 02:37 PM     
  ...  
 
First sentence seems to imply that scientists have done it yet again.

Obviously is something looks like a toaster it is not human life. Let’s say we start of with a person - Now lets replace his arms with mechanical ones, is he still human? Now let’s go further and replace his organs. Let’s keep going until only his brain remains - Is it still human? Now let’s go further and transfer all the data and programming in his brain into a super computer with mechanical arms, legs, torso and a head. Is it still human?

Being human has to fit a certain criteria - and being only two cells is not one of them.

Traditionally it is said that the distinction between humans and animals are self-awareness, morals and free-will. A fertilized egg has neither of those properties and therefore cannot traditionally be defined as human.

You may argue that they have a potential to become human and that is true. However does that mean that smashing seeds is equal to destroying forests? I think not.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   08/25/2005 02:44 PM     
  SIGH  
 
I never said it was a human, I said it was human life. There's a difference.
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 02:48 PM     
  @ganjaman22  
 
You think males have a womb too do you?
A womb that the fetus can use for 50% of the time?

Can you guess now why it is a woman's choice and not 50/50?
 
  by: emanruson   08/25/2005 02:54 PM     
  Holy flying poo  
 
if what sweet16 is saying is true, then Ive been looking at it all wrong!

Tonight when I go home, and I am railing some chick from behind, right as I cum in her, Im not going to think about how good it felt or anything sexual at all.

I will only be thinking about the puddle of human rights that will soon dripping from her sea biscuit.
 
  by: RoBBoB     08/25/2005 03:00 PM     
  @emanruson  
 
What does that have to do with anything? Yeah, 9 months and some pain, that is an excuse to abort somebody's progeny without a word. The human race can do better than that.
 
  by: Fratley   08/25/2005 03:33 PM     
  Anyway  
 
I don't see why fetus pain mattered much in the first place. It would be different if the process of aborting a fetus required hours of slow fetus torture, but it doesn't. Unless you abort your fetus with a paperclip or something.

Also to all you retards who think it is curious or disgusting that fetus death is considered a choice when the mother does it and a crime when someone else does: what the hell do you expect? That's like the difference between cutting your own arm off and someone else cutting it off against your will. Grow up.
 
  by: Fratley   08/25/2005 03:42 PM     
  Personally  
 
I am against abortion unless its in certain instances. Basically I disagree with abortion as a means of contraception, particularly when nobody seems to know the effect on a life when its being sucked out through a vacuum cleaner hose. As some of you know, I'm no right-wing nut but this is one area that I'm really uneasy about.
 
  by: Flashby     08/25/2005 03:44 PM     
  Abortion is not contraception.  
 
Plus, given the amount of things that can go wrong when you have one, its no supprise that this kind of decision is rarely one that is taken lightly.
 
  by: CrisW   08/25/2005 03:53 PM     
  @robbob  
 
Do you not know what conception means or something?
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 04:14 PM     
  i don't know if this was brought up...  
 
...because usually after reading 10 posts in a row, my mind starts to wander...

but...what if the woman is raped? held against her will by some brute, thug, or whatever term comes to mind.

Is she not allowed to abort? Must she continue the pain and suffering? Raise a child by herself most likely? No father to tell her son about?

And plus remember...you can't get an abortion and go to the beach the next day...

So, is the woman who's raped banned from abortions too? The one that was too afraid to tell anyone for a couple of weeks for fear ...so the morning after pill wouldn't have an effect?

If that happened to your sister, and you had no idea who the man who did the crime was, would you force her to carry on w/the pregnacy? Many rapes can occur in the dark w/the woman blindfolded in a way so she can't identify him...

I just wanna hear from those who think abortions should be banned...because thats something I always ask.
 
  by: hotrock11     08/25/2005 04:18 PM     
  If it abortion was banned  
 
and made illegal, it still would happen, except it would be unregulated.
 
  by: CrisW   08/25/2005 04:26 PM     
  @hotrock11  
 
She could put her baby up for adoption if she was raped. Even being raped doesn't give you the right to murder your child.
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 05:05 PM     
  @ganja  
 
While it is something that should be discussed by both prospective parents, when it really comes down to it, it is solely the woman's choice, she has the final say because it is her body. Unless abortions are made ilegal, I doubt you'd be able to find a hospital or medical center/clinic that would go against her wishes.
 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 05:21 PM     
  @sixteen and ganja  
 
"I never said it was a human, I said it was human life. There's a difference."

Please define that difference then, because logicly you can't take a human life from something that is not human..

"there are a small percentage of people whose nervous systems are messed up, and they cant feal physical pain at all, so is murdering them ok??? they dont feal pain afterall."

Unless you can find the phrase (or something similar), 'since they can't feel pain it's perfectly alright to have an abortion for any reason', your (I assume) rhetorical question has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 05:39 PM     
  @starshadow  
 
"Please define that difference then, because logicly you can't take a human life from something that is not human.."

I do think it's a human, but I was trying to explain that even if it's only "a bunch of cells" and may not look human, it's still a human life.
 
  by: SweetSixteen   08/25/2005 05:57 PM     
  @sweetsixteen  
 
wait til you turn 17 and your boyfriend gets you pregnant. then what will you do. your life is over if you keep it and chances are that at that age there is no way in hell you could provide the child with a decent life.
'well i could put it up for adoption'
what kinda crappy life is that? its like growing up in prison or something. how could you do that to a child who has the ability to think and feel and contemplate how much his/her life sucks.

on the otherhand if you get an abortion those cells have never experienced The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence. thus it isnot taking a life.

what if its a crack baby thats all messed up. it would be terrible to let it live it would be punishment for it. or if you have child in those places that you see on the christian childrens fund commercials. how could you let a child live in a place like that or any other place where they wont have chance at a good life. you are doing them a favor b getting an abortion.

for all the christian nuts out there dont babies go directly to heaven when they die? so in a way you are saving it from going to hell.
 
  by: Ronsonol   08/25/2005 05:59 PM     
  @SweetSixteen  
 
Just out of interest. I can understand why you personaly are against abortion, but why are you against anyone else having that choice?
 
  by: CrisW   08/25/2005 06:06 PM     
  @emanruson  
 
im getting more and more sick of hearing that load of complete shit...

congratulations, we all know women are responsible for carrying and birthing a child for nine months of pregnancy and pain

but what is seldom mentioned and has me madder than hell, that as a man i have to carry around hundreds and thousands of little future unborn abortions waiting to happen my entire life

in a little pouch that dangles between my legs, i like to call this little pouch "the special place" some may reffer to it as perpetual infant storage

but after all the pain and discomfort assosiated with a uncomfortable in the way penis my whole life, i think i deserve a little say if you decide to execute what results in the transference of my goods into ones goodness..

that is all

so for the nine months you have to deal with, im sentenced to a life of carrying the little bastards around with me, so move on from that argument..
 
  by: opticalillusion   08/25/2005 06:09 PM     
  [pain  
 
though pain may not in that form be able to be stored in memory and recalled, whatever version of pain we have i can assure you probably about half way through the pregnancy they feel a version of pain
wether its craving food (which is blatently obvious when a expecting mom gets hungry and eats three pounds) not cuz she wants it but because the baby is sending signalls, hey dipshit, your responsible for birthing me healthy feed me or ill ki ck you, i have a hard time believing it likes being chemically burned or doesnt know the differnce

asses
 
  by: opticalillusion   08/25/2005 06:11 PM     
  @sweet16  
 
A Fact is a Fact. You can wish Earth is flat till you turn blue, it happens to be round. It does not matter how many scientists you throw in jail.

You can wish Humanity is 7K years old but it is not. Even if created, we were created long before 7K years ago.

You can wish for a lot of things, however it is always wise to have a belief system that accomodates possibilities.

As a christian and a scientist I refuse to 'hide' a new finding. Hiding a finding implies bestowing upon someone the "power of censoring dangerous knowledge" among other powers. And I will never ever Ignore that there is always social predators willing to exploit belief systems and mutate them to their benefit.
 
  by: kmazzawi     08/25/2005 06:24 PM     
  @StarShadow  
 
Unles you can get inside a fetus's body you wont know.

Researchers LIE all the time and they know LESS thatn they KNOW.
 
  by: StealthKnight   08/25/2005 06:33 PM     
  @momentofclarity  
 
Im glad the world is so full of suckers like you that believe everything your told..btw scientists said the world is flat so go jump off the edge.
 
  by: StealthKnight   08/25/2005 06:35 PM     
  Science versus belief...(a few responses)  
 
Isn't that always the way?

SweetSixteen: I suppose I have the most to say to you, so I'll start there. "Stop it?" Let me guess - you don't surround yourself with people having a wide variance of opinion, do you? I ask because it's evident here that you're not used to your ideas being questioned and seem quite taken aback. I assume you hold the beliefs you do for religious reasons?

Let me make it simple for you - when you prove that life begins at conception, I'll find your frustration and dismissal of the perfectly valid opinions of others justified. Prove that there's a soul, and you can rave about killing children all you like and be taken seriously. There are two legitimate opinions (in reality, infinite gradients of those, but bear wth me) surrounding this issue, and the burden of proof placed on one side to prove their core claim that a ball of cells without the capacity for neural functioning is imbued with some mystical life force remains unfulfilled. Until then, I'll bank on the scientists who actually are trained and educated in the matter, and who have proven that many of the faculties providing the qualities we consider human are absent in a fetus up to a point. People who are mentally incpacitated are a different matter, depending onthe degree of their injury. People like Terri Schiavo for example, who will never recover or notice if their plug is pulled, I have no problem with allowing to die. Neither, apparently, does George Bush, who passed a law as Texas governor stating that if such people could not pay for life support, they would be terminated. Furthermore, since I believe life begins at sentience, I have no problem with the number of abortions increasing, and I support the end of lying to women to prevent this alleged increase. I know, I know, they're all ignorant, murderous whores, but they deserve the truth, too.

@Ganjaman: As has been said, it's the woman's body and her choice. Sorry, but unless you're going to have a society in which women can be commanded to carry babies to term by the guy who impregnated them, that is the way the decision must be made. In a free society, you cannot force something on someone's body, and unless you have another place to put that baby the woman must be allowed to carry it of her own free will.

@opticalillusion: Are you actually trying to argue that having male genitalia is akin to going through pregnancy? To be tactful, that's just stupid...really, really stupid. If you really think that's the case, you need some real problems in your life, because your idea of hardship is absurd. Your idea of scientific opinion is more absurd, though...oh, you "can assure you probably about half way through the pregnancy they feel a version of pain," and "have a hard time believing it likes being chemically burned or doesnt know the differnce?" And just what informs this opinion? You do realize that doctors and scientists speak from medical knowledge, not just because they really, really believe something, right? Same question to Sweetsixteen, of course...
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/25/2005 06:49 PM     
  Your posts..  
 
are barely worth reading, let alone responding to.

"Unles you can get inside a fetus's body you wont know."

This 'arguement' cuts both ways, it could be said that unless you can get inside a fetus' 'body' you can't say that it DOES feel pain.

"btw scientists said the world is flat so go jump off the edge."

And the church said that the earth was the center of solar system, I'd ask what your point is, but it's obvious you don't have one.
 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 06:51 PM     
  umm...hrm...wow sweet...  
 
appearantly you have never worked in a adpotion agency...

Sure, you could put a baby off on one of them just like you can sweep dust under a rug..

..but after awhile that dust will build up. And if no one living w/you is willing to relocate that dust that is swept, you get what I had to see happen many times...children get sent to foster parents that I wouldn't trust and children having to be relocated.

Remember...most of the time OUR taxes are going to those...and honestly they are "drinking the thin soup" - underpaid workers, underpaid funds, irresponsible male and female parents using it as a drop off service/courts sending kids there.

So, if a woman would rather cut the life short before the child is born...I say go for it. NOTHING IS WORSE THAN NOT KNOWING WHERE YOU CAME FROM. AND NOTHING IS WORSE THAN LIVING IN A POVERTY SITUATION.

I still don't get how people want to kill the doctors who do this and burn the places down...these mothers are saving themselves from a huge mistake for them and their child.

And once again, abortions aren't something where you can get one and then go to the beach the next day. There are cases where the mother can not have another baby naturally...
 
  by: hotrock11     08/25/2005 06:56 PM     
  i'm done on this topic  
 
in fact, I don't even know why i'm even arguing online w/some of these extremists. As a man I really don't know much about pregnacy and all, but I do know that there are many unfit mothers in this world and situations where the woman can't control that a baby is upon her (rape)

Sweet 6 is obviously someone who is an extremist, and will never change their view. No point in anyone trying to. It's just like trying to sell someone a replacement plan when all their lives they have gone w/out one...waste of time.

When the high courts decide on something, they usually take their time on the issue and talor it so they aren't taking a stance either way. Appearantly they knew about the unfit mothers out there, the rise in population, the forced sex, the overpopulation of adoption agencies...

But what do I know?
 
  by: hotrock11     08/25/2005 07:03 PM     
  Wow what a...  
 
...sh*tstorm.

@SweetSixteen
Keep digging - you'll get to China eventually, where you can adopt one in a million abandoned children. And stop playing the semantics game. I hate. Hate. People who play the semantics game.

A human life can only belong to a human. A sperm and an egg are not human therefore they are not considered to have human life.

"I never said it was a human, I said it was human life. There's a difference."

"I do think it's a human, but I was trying to explain that even if it's only "a bunch of cells" and may not look human, it's still a human life."

You just fried my logic gates. Make up your mind.

@MOC
I'm pretty sure he was sarcastic :P

@SK
What in gods name, did you do to turn my Heliocentric galaxy upsidedown? Scientists have known for at least 5000 years that the world was round. Your call.

@Shortnews
I am proud, it took you guys 38 posts to bring God into it :P
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   08/25/2005 07:03 PM     
  @sweet16  
 
I just have a question. Our "President" is against abortion, but is 100% for embryonic stem cell research. What is your take on that? Here is a man, who claims to be a Christian, he wins voters approval by saying he will make abortion illegal (wait, it's still legal and this is his second term). Yet Bush is funding embryonic (according to you a human life) stem cell research. He is basically killing "human life" in the name of science. Kind of a double standard wouldn't you say?
 
  by: NoTalentAssClown     08/25/2005 07:03 PM     
  @hotrock  
 
I have to agree.

 
  by: StarShadow     08/25/2005 07:13 PM     
  @Stealthknight & a vow for all  
 
"Im glad the world is so full of suckers like you that believe everything your told..btw scientists said the world is flat so go jump off the edge."

With this comment, let me assure all present that I will not allow my level of discourse to sink to the petty personal insults which so often characterize debates on this subject. While I have a temper and would love to tear into volatile persons such as this, the intellectual merit of debate must be maintained when mindless passion tries to hijack the conversation. That said...

Believe everything I'm told? No, merely that which is checked by the scientific method and peer review, which is what makes this study valuable. We all have to choose what we believe, and I'll stick with what is measurable, observable, and falsifiable. Both statements you make here are ignorant - first of all, if I believed everything I was told, I would be completely divided on this issue with all the opinions being espoused here. Secondly, science hasn't asserted the world as being flat for many hundreds of years, and it was religion that clung to that belief the longest.

Since these are the only statements you've made here even vaguely resembling points, I suppose you'd better try again. Lacking real material, I could address these:

"Unles you can get inside a fetus's body you wont know."

Something without the neurological hardware to feel pain cannot feel pain - that's pretty simple. Your view of science needs some updating, since we can analyze these things now. We have many high-tech machines these days, some of which run on electricity.

"Researchers LIE all the time and they know LESS thatn they KNOW."

Researchers who lie are caught by other reserachers - that's peer review, and that's why all findings are published. If you want to discredit these findings, go read the articles and counter their claims, show their data invalid, or falsify their hypotheses. Why would other researchers expose them? Because then those researchers can publish their own data and make a name for themselves. It's really a pretty tidy system. As for what they know, why don't you post the degrees you've gotten and we'll take it from there.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/25/2005 07:42 PM     
  @NoTalentAssClown, Sweetsixteen  
 
I have a point of disagreement with your question to Sweet16.

"I just have a question. Our "President" is against abortion, but is 100% for embryonic stem cell research. What is your take on that? Here is a man, who claims to be a Christian, he wins voters approval by saying he will make abortion illegal (wait, it's still legal and this is his second term). Yet Bush is funding embryonic (according to you a human life) stem cell research. He is basically killing "human life" in the name of science. Kind of a double standard wouldn't you say?"

He's actually not 100% for stem cell research, more like 50%. Remember, he passed legislation that effectively stunts research by limiting it to a few stem cell lines already being studied. What he did do as Governor of Texas, as I mentioned earlier, was sign a bill into law stating that people on life support without reasonable hope of recovery could have that life support withdrawn if they could not pay the hospital for their care. The mess he and his caused with the Schiavo case was of course in direct contradiction to this, as is all his rhetoric about defending a culture of life. Thoughts?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/25/2005 07:53 PM     
  @pro-life  
 
You know you make people out for murderers for this but...

Thing is, Miscarriage is very common in pregnancies... it happens 1 out of every 6 pregnancies, and that is when the woman knows she is pregnant...some don't even know they were pregnant.

Science has helped more pregnancies be more successful than not, and thats not even mentioning after birth many used to die of disease afterwards.

As far as rape victims go, no one really should have any say in whether pregnancy should go through or not, except the rape victim. Its ignorant to completely be in disregard of the victims feelings and say she has no say in it.

Not only does this apply in rape cases but in incest , and also young girls that are pregnant not by their choice.

There are also many people who have a high chance of having pregnancy complications that could endanger their life and the child if they decided to go that route.

This is a choice for individuals, there is no right or wrong ...only majority, and it seems pretty split in this case.

It seems people forget that there really is not "right" and "wrong" in this world, its only majority. Laws passed down from generations, many times amended because it seemed right before, but with time it has to change.

You can see this easily with cultures. Many countries believe 16 is the age for sex and marriage, and others would find this replusive.
Drugs are strictly forbidden in the US with sentences higher than murder for selling , and other countries don't have drug laws at all.

Many people believe that the fetus isn't a child or any of that sort, so of cours e they won't have any feelings toward this or have any doubt its wrong. Its all about what you believe, but that doesn't make your perspective anymore right.
This is a private choice, shouldn't be dictated by people's "beliefs"
 
  by: sp00ky187   08/25/2005 08:59 PM     
  @MOC  
 
>>>He's actually not 100% for stem cell research, more like 50%. Remember, he passed legislation that effectively stunts research by limiting it to a few stem cell lines already being studied. What he did do as Governor of Texas, as I mentioned earlier, was sign a bill into law stating that people on life support without reasonable hope of recovery could have that life support withdrawn if they could not pay the hospital for their care. The mess he and his caused with the Schiavo case was of course in direct contradiction to this, as is all his rhetoric about defending a culture of life. Thoughts?<<<

I see your point. But if someone is so adamant about ending a human embryonic life inside a womans body that they promise to make it illegal, than shouldn't it stand that ALL (i.e. 100%) forms of ending embryonic life be illegal (not just 50%) in that persons eyes? While not in a womb, it is still considered to be a human life. There are other resources for stem cells. Umbilical cords are loaded with stem cells, there are banks for people to keep them in. But if a parent chooses not to it gets thrown out. Why not use those stem cells for research instead of intentionlly creating a life for the sole purpose of destroying it? I would have happily donated the umbilical cords from my kids births. Also makes me wonder if the placenta (which also gets thrown out) has stems cells that can be used as well (I haven't looked up the placenta info at all). So it makes it a matter of conveniece, really. If it is a convenient reason to kill an embryo (i.e. medical research) than it's OK, but if it's a woman's choice than it's not OK and she's a murderer. They are creating a life and ending it when there are TONS of viable rescources for free that get thrown out by the thousands every day. I hope this makes sense lol.

As far as Terry Schiavo, her family was willing and able to pay for it (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore she was (by the law you state) legally able to stay on life support. It was merely her husband stating her supposed wishes to not live like that.
 
  by: NoTalentAssClown     08/25/2005 09:46 PM     
  @NTAC  
 
Actually, my point wasn't to defend George Bush on any issue, merely to point out that there was another issue which presented a more damning contradiction in his actions. I do not really think that his position on stem cell research is voluntary, you see. I think he was pressured to this point and has dug his heels in, refusing to go further. I find that law he passed favoring the bottom line of hospitals over the lifeline of patients to be much more revealing. I know that this was not a factor in the Schiavo case, but his interference in that case in light of that previous law shows that the man is willing to turn 180 degrees as it suits him. I see the stem cell issue as more of a 90 degree turn.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/25/2005 10:13 PM     
  A thought on the nature of this debate  
 
Sweet16 said: "Stop speaking out of your ass in defence of these idiot scientists."

Looking at the explosion of comments made in the last 24 hours, I see only one side speaking out of their -sses, and it is not the side I take. How is it that pro-choice people can present various types of science with various data and various moral and ethical positions to justify their arguments and still be dismissed otright, yet all the pro-fetus people need to do is scream really loud to have a justified side? Really, compare the cases made in the comments here. I've seen decent pro-fetus arguments, but 90% (more here) seem to be no more than impassioned taglines. Has anyone else noticed the disparity in criteria for a valid argument, or is it such a matter of the squeaky wheel that it's a given?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/25/2005 10:22 PM     
  @MOC  
 
I agree with you 100%. I didn't feel that you were defending him at all. He adjusts things to suit him when it's convenient for him. He made that obvious with this war among other things. I am pro-choice and think that it's not for anyone else to say what someone does with what is going on inside thier body (I won't say WITH their body becaseu I agree with drug and alcohol regulations).

I just want to touch on one point that you made, "I think he was pressured to this point and has dug his heels in, refusing to go further." If someone truly believes in something in their heart they will not be pressured to change it. If they do feel pressure they will find alternate ways to go about it. In my long winded answer before I mentioned other sources for stem cells that he could have funded for use in research (umbilical cords, placentas). He could have funded stem cell research and still kept to his religious and moral (ROFLMAO) beliefs.
 
  by: NoTalentAssClown     08/25/2005 11:01 PM     
  @sweet  
 
You only asnwered haldf of my question. I also asked why you believe that life begins when you believe it does. IN your case conception.

There are a number of reasons that folks cite to me for why they believe this way. I would like to hear yours before I respond with some actual science about life at conception.
 
  by: Dedolito     08/25/2005 11:23 PM     
  @Starshadow  
 
"This 'arguement' cuts both ways, it could be said that unless you can get inside a fetus' 'body' you can't say that it DOES feel pain."

I would say this is untrue. If one were to monitor the pain centers of a fetal brain for activity during painful stimulation, you would very well know if the fetus was feeling pain or not.

Electrical activity = pain.
No activity = no pain.

Pretty simple experiment, but difficult to implement
 
  by: Dedolito     08/25/2005 11:33 PM     
  Some actual science...  
 
... about life at and around conception.

I think the first fundamental question that needs answering is: “when does life begin?”

Some would argue that conception is the beginning of life. They would cite that the fertilized egg represents a genetically unique individual organism. They further insist that this entity be given the benefit-of-the-doubt, so to speak, of (in the case of humans) humanity because of its potential to develop into a human life.

I would disagree with this assessment for I find it lacking on a number of levels.

First, I would argue that the entity is not fundamentally unique life at conception. Sure, the DNA combination of the egg and sperm makes for a new and unique pattern, but I would point out that any cancer cell has a “unique” genetic profile and is capable of developing and growing parasitically, much as an unwanted embryo would if you looked at the situation in the starkest of lights.

Second, I would have to point out that if I were to wait for this fertilized egg to divide, I could then separate those two cells and generate 2 human lives. I could wait for them to divide again, separate those, and create 4 human lives, and so on and so forth. I could even wait for the cells to reach 32, 64, 128 cells, etc, divide them apart as I wish, and create that many unique human lives.

This makes the fertilized cell not a unique, individual organism. It makes the early embryo a loose conglomerate of individual life forms that is eventually guided along a path to form a unique organism.

Third, I would say that even late-stage embryos can be manipulated with clumps of cells added or removed with no appreciable effect on the overall development of the organism. Again, not something that could be done to any other entity that we consider an individual organism.

Forth, I would have to ask those that believe that life begins at conception if they consider the dominate cells of an embryo a murderer? The embryo destroys parts of itself at several stages of development. These cells, if they had separated from the main of the embryo, could have perhaps gone to form other unique individuals. But instead they are killed off because they no longer serve a useful purpose to the embryo. Is this then murder? If not, then how do you rationalize the discrepancy?

Fifth, I would ask pro-lifers to take note that not every act of conception results in a healthy, developed infant human. No small number of conceptions self-terminate before the woman is even aware that she was pregnant. DNA disassembly and recombination is a tricky business at best. Mother Nature viciously culls the unviable quickly and ruthlessly in-womb. If you maintain that human life begins at conception, then you would have to consider these sub-creatures as human as well. Would you like me to link images? I would challenge even the staunchest pro-lifer to consider these... things... to be human.

So the answer to the first question, “When does life begin?” must then be the point at which any manipulation of the embryo will cause certain and irreparable damage to the developing organism and/or the point at which new life can no longer be generated by splitting parts of the embryo apart. Obviously if I remove the arm of a late stage fetus, it shall not regenerate a new one. The same cannot be said if I were to remove early-stage precursor arm cells from the embryo.

The point at which this change in organismal cohesiveness occurs is the point at which I could be comfortable in considering an embryo a unique organism.

However, the next question: “When does human life begin?” is a trickier question to answer scientifically. To answer this, one must answer: “What makes a human a human?”
 
  by: Dedolito     08/25/2005 11:57 PM     
  Question...  
 
What about quality of life? What if the parents find out they have a kid who's going to be born without a brain? I've forgotten what the term is or Down's syndrome severe enough to ensure that they have a permanent toddler on their hands. If they can't deal with that kind of need then wouldn't it be better to let them just abort the fetus before it can feel rather than have it neglected and possibly murdered painfully after birth? Adoption might be an option but how many people would really want to adopt a child with severe mental defects?
 
  by: jaded fox     08/26/2005 03:31 AM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
While I would like to attack imbecile people such as yourself I really do not need to as your post has shown your low IQ.

Well done.
 
  by: StealthKnight   08/26/2005 08:33 PM     
  Thank you, StealthKnight... (Article update)  
 
...your baseless, juvenile namecalling has provided a great segway into my update to this story today! Just as we see here, ad hominem attacks are flying over this study. The JAMA editor has been deluged with such emails:

http://www.cnn.com/...
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/26/2005 08:43 PM     
  @MOC  
 
Your welcome oh genius man.

We bow in the limelight of your greatness. BTW yes I am being sarcastic for those who never seen a scientific study on sarcasm.
 
  by: StealthKnight   08/26/2005 09:04 PM     
  Haha she is funny  
 
"There's nothing wrong with this article," DeAngelis said. "This is not original research. This is a review article," based on data in dozens of medical articles by other researchers. (Full story)

Not even her own research..hahaha.

And she is a staunch Catholic but believes in the right to choose? Haha yea ok..she is hilarious..should be a comedian.
 
  by: StealthKnight   08/26/2005 09:08 PM     
  @forum  
 
hey this is completely off topic, but since a few of you guys were talking on this subject, i mentioned it in another forum- the earths core rotates faster...

about maybe coming up in sn or out of if it doesnt work out, a forum for resonable debate on real issues to fix them, if you guys are interested and have a min. please read our posts back and forth and add your opinion..

thanks
 
  by: opticalillusion   08/26/2005 09:08 PM     
  @stealth  
 
And what exactly is wrong with Review articles? They are stock & trade of the sciences.
 
  by: Dedolito     08/26/2005 09:29 PM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
"How is it that pro-choice people can present various types of science with various data and various moral and ethical positions to justify their arguments and still be dismissed otright, yet all the pro-fetus people need to do is scream really loud to have a justified side?"

In response to the first part of your question about dismissal of the scientific evidence and such, it's all about beliefs and (often) understanding (the abilty to correctly procees and draw conclusions from presented material). If there is a cow standing in your kitchen, you can try a hard as you like to convince it that the pasture out side is where it should be and that there is a lack of grass to eat where it is but until it decides to move by itself, your stuck with that cow.

As far as yelling providing them with a justified side, I'm afraid that is society for you. Our laws are created by the majority. This means the more people you can get to your side (no matter the validity of your side) the better chance you have to make the laws conform to your view point. Unfortunately beating (and yelling) an ideology into someone works as well (if not better in some cases) as presenting them with the truth and letting them form their own opinion.
 
  by: opinionated   08/26/2005 10:02 PM     
  Indeed, Dedolito (re: Stealth)  
 
First off, I should say that I really wish that people seeking to argue about this topic actually READ the articles closely. The person Stealth comments on, for example, is the editor of JAMA, not an author of the study. Since the article is about her, this was not a difficult fact to find. So many people here are just looking to go on the attack in the face of information which threatens their beliefs...I'm glad that SOME real debate has resulted, though.

Secondly, and more to the point, you're right that there is nothing wrong with review articles. In fact, they can be said to be more useful than new research. A new study represents a new hypothesis which has reached the first point of validation, which is one data set supporting the hypothesis. Of course, subsequent trials could invalidate the first, studies following that could resubstantiate those findings, and so forth. That is why review articles such as this are useful - they examine many studies on the subject over time and compile them into a conclusion, sort of a study of studies. In that, we can establish just what answers all of our current information points to, and the conclusion is far stronger.

Not that this matters to people scrambling to find a reason to ignore this study. Ah, the eternal struggle between intelligence and belief...
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/26/2005 10:09 PM     
  @opinionated  
 
Thank you for the splendid analogy and a very insightful response. I suppose ideology has a very distinct advantage, when you think about it. It's often a way to explain the workings of the world to people who do not understand it, which makes ideology inherently easy to accept as it is tailored to bridge a gap in understanding for anyone who needs it. Logic and science, on the other hand, are more detailed because they are intended to investigate the mysteries of a complex world, rather than resolve the confusion of the thinker. Integrating this information and being involved in a continuous process of analysis is much harder than latching onto an ideology which tells you the "answer" and does not change.

Does one repair the hole in one's shirt, or simply slap a prefabricated patch over it? I suppose it depends on the sort of person you are.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/26/2005 10:22 PM     
  @MoC  
 
".. you're right that there is nothing wrong with review articles. In fact, they can be said to be more useful than new research"

I have to agree with that. It's very important to constantly challenge beliefs and 'what we know to be true', if for no other reason than to be sure that the knowledge/belief is still valid. At one point people were certain that atoms were the smallest possible particle, many were certain that smaller particles could not possibly exist. That belief was challenged and sub-atomic particles were discovered. Maybe not the best example I could come up with, but I'm tired and need sleep..
 
  by: StarShadow     08/26/2005 10:31 PM     
  @emanruson  
 
"@ganjaman22
You think males have a womb too do you?
A womb that the fetus can use for 50% of the time?

Can you guess now why it is a woman's choice and not 50/50?"

so what. it may be the womans body, but without the male interaction, there would be no fetus, hence the man should have a say as well. not to give him a choice is just as criminal as to say the woman has no choice. it is just plain sexist to say that the man should not have any say
 
  by: ganjaman22     08/26/2005 11:59 PM     
  @ganjaman  
 
Mayhap, but the man is not the one that will have something growing inside of him for 9 months and will have to deal the the physical changes and pain that childbearing and birth will entail.

A man is entitled to his opinion, but it's not his body, he doesn't have any right to make the final decision.

 
  by: Dedolito     08/27/2005 12:12 AM     
  lol@9 months  
 
You are right, that nine months the women has to deal with, but in America, the man then pays for the next 18 years, 22 if the child goes to college. Wether he sees the kid or not, he pays.

I think atleast one step would be if the man decides for an abortion and the women says no, then he shouldnt be financially responsible.

Yes I know, that would take a lot of work to setup, and there would have to be counseling for both parties during the decision, but better then now.
 
  by: RoBBoB     08/27/2005 12:16 AM     
  @RoBBoB  
 
now thats an interesting concept... it should be looked into. womens right my behind. then they want child support which they spend on themselfs, and ask for more on the side, and guilt the guy into the money because he doesnt want to feal like a schmuck. now i know all women are not like this, but there is a fair amount who are.
 
  by: ganjaman22     08/27/2005 12:24 AM     
  You know..  
 
I work in this great town called hartford. And a women with 3 kids, and only 1 father, is almost a mythical thing. It is disguisting.
 
  by: RoBBoB     08/27/2005 12:42 AM     
  Right or Wrong  
 
I've always been conflicted over how I personally felt morally about the issue of abortion, especially in contexts with my religion. Although I still debate with myself, and others, I feel that even IF it is sinful it is up to that person to decide for themselves whether to go ahead.

Speaking religiously, I decided long ago that IF it was sinful to get an abortion then that's between a person and God and laws shouldn't be passed to regulate it much like laws shouldn't be passed to force beleif on people.

I'm betting because I haven't taken a firm position on this that I get flamed by both sides.
 
  by: somebigloser   08/29/2005 09:20 PM     
  @somebigloser  
 
I can respect anyone who has come to believe what they do after careful consideration.

I imagine that to many mothers, aborting the child they are carrying must feel like murder. But, if the parent is sure they cannot provide a future for the child, or if the parent must sacrifice their own happiness/future for the child, they are not ready to have a child. And if the child was forced upon the mother, through rape for example, the mother should not be forced to carry a child that will forever remind her of the rape.
So, no matter your personal stance on abortion, everyone should realise that it is not a simple matter to anyone. No-one takes to decision to give up a child lightly (though some people portray abortion as the next big thing in birth control).

Abortion is a very personal decision. Let's leave it to the people themselves, not to the state or the church. not even to the family.
 
  by: Ec5618   08/29/2005 11:48 PM     
  And if they are not baptised they are not true  
 
human beings and you can do what u will.

The Dutch church baptized all children who were presented. Rev. Davenport was against this practice. He felt that children should not be baptized until the character of the parents were taken into consideration that only those children whose parents were saved could be baptized. http://www.yale.edu/...
 
  by: MmmMan     01/19/2006 05:45 PM     
  @MMMMMMMMMman  
 
few things dude;

i'm assuming its either been a slow day or this is an error in posting, last topic notify on this was freakin back in AUGUST... talk about a little behind..


have fun!
 
  by: OptIcalIllusIoN   01/19/2006 05:49 PM     
  Abortion rates have been falling steadily in USA  
 
http://www.agi-usa.org/...

So yelling that continuing legalized abortions will result in an increase is wrong.
 
  by: MmmMan     01/19/2006 05:53 PM     
  Wooomen who Oppose Abortions Regularly Get Them  
 
"Rates among those of religious, racial and ethnic groups thought to oppose abortion are high as well. Key findings include:
" • two-thirds of women having abortions intend to have children in the future;
" • Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women;
" • one in five women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians;

http://www.guttmacher.org/...
 
  by: MmmMan     01/19/2006 05:56 PM     
  @Mman  
 
I'm sure you're right. But why are you trying to revive this discussion?
 
  by: Ec5618   01/19/2006 05:57 PM     
  hmmm  
 
begun again, this flame war has.
 
  by: koultunami     01/19/2006 06:15 PM     
  doh  
 
if this thread can't get aborted after 4 and a half months, what about the fetuses....?
 
  by: Flashby     01/19/2006 06:53 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com