• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A commercial that liberals would love if it was true.

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yep. Because all foetuses are tortured, starved and humiliated for months before the actual abortion - not to mention conscious and aware enough to notice. :roll:
 

battleax86

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
3
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vergiss said:
Yep. Because all foetuses are tortured, starved and humiliated for months before the actual abortion - not to mention conscious and aware enough to notice. :roll:
No, of course not, crushing their heads, chopping off their limbs, or dissolving their bodies in acid isn't classified as torture. :roll:
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Um. Do you have any idea of the anatomy of a first-timester foetus, and the procedure involved? And do you remember any sensation from that stage of your own development? I think not. :lol:
 

battleax86

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
3
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vergiss said:
Um. Do you have any idea of the anatomy of a first-timester foetus, and the procedure involved?
Yes, I do, but I have a feeling that you don't. Most first trimester abortions involve using suction to pull apart the child's body and remove the child from the womb. Tell me, how is being ripped apart and thrown into a vacuum any better than being gassed or shot?

vergiss said:
And do you remember any sensation from that stage of your own development? I think not. :lol:
Do you remember any sensation from the infant stage of your development? Do you remember coming home from the hospital or being breast-fed? I don't think so, either. :lol:
 

blogger31

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
vergiss said:
Foetuses hardly have an ideology.

Nor are they placed in slave camps and made to suffer for months or years on end. There are some things worse than death, you realise.

No but the PC sure have an ideology, just like the Nazis did. I am not comparing Jews and fetuses, I am comparing Nazis and the PC.

No they just have their limbs torn apart, and scissors shoved into the back of their head while their brains are sucked out and then their skull crushed. Also there is no certain research done on fetal pain, so you cannot speak as if the fetus feels no pain.

Just because someone cannot remember a sensation doesn't mean it wasn't there. I am sure at age 2 I got into several accidents where I was hurt but I remember none of them, that doesn't mean they didn't happen. For one I had my appendix removed and apparently parts of the surgery were very unpleasent because my appendix had ruptured. I remember nothing, but it certainly happened, I have the scar to prove it.
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
vergiss said:
And do you remember any sensation from that stage of your own development? I think not. :lol:

I sure hope you are kidding. Remembering pain is different from feeling it. As blogger said, we all experienced pains as children, but do we remember all of them? No. Why would you even type such a sentence, much less enter it into a thread (with a smiley after it, which means you thought it was clever)?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You might want to read the "foetal pain" thread.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
battleax86 said:
No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of scientific fact.
Really? Lets take a look at that science, shall we?
Unborn children..
Hmm, that would be like "pre-dead corpses. revisionist prolife linguistic hyperbole is not scientific.
..have the ability to move on their own.
That's per reflexes. I trust you know what a reflex is, and why that is not sign of consciousness or sentience?
Their hearts beat.
And that also is an automatic, non-sentient activity. I trust you understand that automatic muscle movements are not sign of consciousness or sentience? As such, what is the point of bringing it up?
They are rapidly growing from the moment of conception. All of these things prove that they are alive.
"alive"? Sure, there are live cells. That doesn't mean sentience, awareness or ability for sensation of any kind. So what is the relevance? After all, even a tumor is "alive."
Tell me, sargasm, do you believe that someone is only alive after they have been born? If so, what is different about that child a moment after birth that makes him or her into a human being,
That would be individual function, homeostasis, individual existence.
if the baby wasn't a human being a moment before birth?
There was no baby before birth, and as there was no individual, there was no "being," prolife revisionist linguistics none withstanding.

So that's it. Nowhere was there evidence of the "Science" you promised. Did you "forget" about the science? Or did you merely use that as a term to try to lend credence to your unscientific claims? (I hope not, as that would be dishonest.)
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
battleax86 said:
No, I was merely giving another example of legal murder.
ANOTHER oxymoron. Nice Going there with revisionist linguistics. It sure seems like PL are INCAPABLE of an honest, straightforward argument without resorting to those dishonest trickeries and deceptions.
You are (rightfully) offended over the deaths of 6 million people, but you expect me not to be offended over the deaths of 40 million people (in the U.S. alone)?
More deceptive revisionist linguistics, claiming an embryo or fetus to be "people."
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
battleax86 said:
No, of course not, crushing their heads, chopping off their limbs, or dissolving their bodies in acid isn't classified as torture.
Please explain what abortion procedure involves the description you just provided. Not even THAT can you be honest about, huh? How pathetic.:roll:
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
battleax86 said:
Yes, I do, but I have a feeling that you don't. Most first trimester abortions involve using suction to pull apart the child's body and remove the child from the womb. Tell me, how is being ripped apart and thrown into a vacuum any better than being gassed or shot?
As the embryo or fetus is non-sentient, it is very different.
Do you remember any sensation from the infant stage of your development? Do you remember coming home from the hospital or being breast-fed? I don't think so, either. :lol:
That doesn't negate that you are trying to outright lie and claim early sensation ability in the embryo. Why do you need to lie to make your argument? Is it because your cause for oppressing women is not strong enough on its own, without such lies?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
blogger31 said:
No but the PC sure have an ideology, just like the Nazis did. I am not comparing Jews and fetuses, I am comparing Nazis and the PC.
Actually, the NAZI were all about the State controlling everything, whereas PC is about letting the individual make their own choices. In FACT, the PL are much more like the NAZI in their desire to control persons.
Also there is no certain research done on fetal pain, so you cannot speak as if the fetus feels no pain.
MUST you lie? It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that until the sensory nerves actually are connected to the brain's cortex, there is no possibility for sensation of any kind. And that connection doesn't happen until the ned of the 26th week of pregnancy. So you can spew that prolife outright lie as much as you want, but rest assured that you will be exposed as a liar every time.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
steen said:
MUST you lie? It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that until the sensory nerves actually are connected to the brain's cortex, there is no possibility for sensation of any kind. And that connection doesn't happen until the ned of the 26th week of pregnancy. So you can spew that prolife outright lie as much as you want, but rest assured that you will be exposed as a liar every time.

It's like trying to say you can switch on a light, without the cords actually being connected to the bulb.
 

blogger31

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
steen said:
Actually, the NAZI were all about the State controlling everything, whereas PC is about letting the individual make their own choices. In FACT, the PL are much more like the NAZI in their desire to control persons.
MUST you lie? It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that until the sensory nerves actually are connected to the brain's cortex, there is no possibility for sensation of any kind. And that connection doesn't happen until the ned of the 26th week of pregnancy. So you can spew that prolife outright lie as much as you want, but rest assured that you will be exposed as a liar every time.

First of all do a history lesson, the NAZI govt justified many of the things they did by reducing the Jew or any other group to a inferior, undeserving, lower class of human through propaganda. The PC has justified the killing of the unborn, by reducing the unborn to a inferior, undeserving, lower class of human through propaganda. The PL is all about choice as well and doesn't look to control anyone, PL just doesn't see killing a human as a choice.

So I am a liar? I take it then that you assume I have not done my homework on this? Well let's just see what I have discovered about fetal pain shall we.

According to the British Medical Journal a fetus can feel at 8 weeks.
By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.

Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.

Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.

A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.


Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980

But early on there is no cerebral cortex for thinking, therefore no pain?
The cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and (see above) is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. "Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex." Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology, W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178

Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.

They observed "the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age." M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77

Another excellent British study commented on this:

"It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980


Now if this isn't enough to show that your liar accusation is clearly false, here is more that trumps your BS 26 week claim.

This really hit the fan during the 1996 debate in the U.S. Congress over a law to ban partial birth abortions. Pro-abortionists had claimed that the anesthetic had already killed the fetal baby. Top officials of the U.S.

Society for Obstetric Anesthesia & Perinatology vigorously denied this explaining that usual anesthesia did not harm the baby. D. Gianelli, Anesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate, Am. Med. News, Jan. 1, ’96

This brought the issue of fetal pain into the news, and testimony was given to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant. R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ.


So be rest assured everytime you post something ignorant like that, and try to claim someone as a liar I will expose you as nothing more then a false accuser who has not done their own homework on both sides of the issue.
 

blogger31

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
vergiss said:
It's like trying to say you can switch on a light, without the cords actually being connected to the bulb.

It appears some people far more qualified then you disagree, do your homework.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
vergiss said:
It's like trying to say you can switch on a light, without the cords actually being connected to the bulb.
Exactly. That's a reasonable analogy.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
More PL lies about fetal pain

blogger31 said:
First of all do a history lesson, the NAZI govt justified many of the things they did by reducing the Jew or any other group to a inferior, undeserving, lower class of human through propaganda. The PC has justified the killing of the unborn, by reducing the unborn to a inferior, undeserving, lower class of human through propaganda.
The fetus has never been "a human" regardless of your false claims.
The PL is all about choice as well and doesn't look to control anyone,
You are flat-out LYING. You are pushiong legislation specifically to control others access to a legal medical procedure. Why must PL always lie that much? It is always the same. Lie after PL lie after PL lie and misrepresentation. Must you ALWAYS do that?
PL just doesn't see killing a human as a choice.
And the embryo or fetus have never been a human.

And you obviously see absolutely nothing wrong in forcing a person to give of their bodily resources against their will, as long as that person is not yourself. How hypocritical.
So I am a liar?
Yes, that has solidly been proven in several posts by now, including up above.
I take it then that you assume I have not done my homework on this?
You have likely gone to prolife selective sources that are outdated, biased and at times outright false.
Well let's just see what I have discovered about fetal pain shall we.
Lets do that. You are in MY field now. :lol:
According to the British Medical Journal a fetus can feel at 8 weeks.
By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.
What you are describing is a reflex. And no, it doesn't need the thalamus to do so. That is regulated through the spinal cord at the level where the sensory nerve comes in, and through the reflex arch immediately sends a signal back out the motor nerve. Sending the signal all the way up the spinal column and through the tracts to the thalamus would cause a very slow reflexive response. The thalamus' role in reflexes is to coordinate the signal path in the spine so the reflex is even more efficient next time. But it is not part of the actual sensory/motor reflex arch. And despite prolife lies, it is not the necessary structure for sensation.

And no, a physical response is not a feeling. So I am curios as to when and where the BMJ claimed that a motor response is the same as the ability to "feel." What PL site misrepresented this idea as a fact, contrary to medical science? Reflexes are not felt. The 1980 article is way to old to have on line abstracts available, and I don’t feel like going to the hospital library just to double-check on your and abortionfact’s lies and misrepresentations.

Yes, the lying PL ploy of claiming that reflexes show the ability to feel has been around for a long time. It still remains an outright lie.

Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.
Hmm, with all the revisionist linguistics and lies the PL spew all the time, what are you talking about here? What do you mean with "infant”? Some PL claim the zygote to be an infant, and in any case, the PL claim that any stage can be described through the descriptors of other stages.

So please provide a glossary here of what developmental stage is characterized by what word. To clarify, I use the scientific definitions. These are already established and defined. Which terminology are you using?

If you mean "infant" in the scientific sense, then it is not a surprise that it can sense pain. But it also should be pointed out that what you are describing is a reflexive withdrawal. Again, do you know about reflexes?

Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus
Are you using gestational or pregnancy age here?
in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.
A nice reflex, yes, with no cortical involvement whatsoever. So? Physiological response is not dependent on awareness and sensation. Again, reflexes are not evidence of sensation.

A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.
What is "suggested" is false. It has long been known that reflexes are not the same as sensation. Now, your source is 25 years old. Got anything new?
Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain.
Well, the correct description would be that the signal travels THROUGH the spinal cord to the brain's cortex.
These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427
Hmm, you forgot to tell us how old the source is. It also is a textbook, and thus is not a peer-reviewed scientific source. That aside, the signal that goes to the spinal cord and then back out is still called the reflex arch and has no sensation involved whatsoever. The signal that goes to the brain's cortex is not possible until the connection to the brain's cortex is actually made. That final connection is called the "Thalamocortical tract," and it doesn't connect until the 26th week of pregnancy.
"Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week.
The rooting REFLEX, yes. Still a reflex.
At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980
Another 25-year-old source. and again, the claim that skin sensitivity to touch being the same as the fetus being able to feel pain is bogus.
But early on there is no cerebral cortex for thinking, therefore no pain?
The cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and (see above) is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. "Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex." Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology, W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178
And this is downright false. Now, your source IS about 30 years old, but its claim is false. Sensation is processed in the secondary sensory cortex of the parietal lobe. Unless the signal reaches this center, there is no ability to perceive and "feel" pain, no ability for awareness of the stimulus. I would suggest that next time you CLAIM to have done research, you go out and look up the books yourself and get current sources rather than rely on selective extracts from biased prolife lie sites

Now, I happen to know that you plagiarized all of this from the prolife lie-site “abortionfacts.” Shouldn’t you have listed that as source instead of pretending that you had actually looked at these sources yourself?

Anyway, fur CURRENT knowledge in pain research, lets have a look:

Sibasaki, H. Central mechanisms of pain perception. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;57:39-49.
At least several cortical areas including the contralateral SI, bilateral SII, anterior cingulated cortex, and insular cortices are involved in the pain sensation/perception.

Lee, SJ et all. Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. JAMA. 2005 Aug 24;294(8):947-54.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.
Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.
Again, stress response is not evidence of sensation of pain. Such stress hormonal releases happens during surgery under full anesthesia. Are you claiming that people feel pain DURING surgery?
They observed "the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age." M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77
And not one word on how this is evidence of “feeling pain.” Nice try.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
(continued)

Another excellent British study commented on this:

"It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
And they are talking about fetal sensation AT BIRTH. You know, at 40 weeks of pregnancy. NO abortions occur at that time. Nobody has ever denied that the fetus has sensation at birth.

Do you have any other irrelevant drivel? (Oh, I forgot. You merely copied and pasted from the “abortionfact” page of a prolife book, and pretended that you had done the work)

Now if this isn't enough to show that your liar accusation is clearly false,
Sofar, we are noting that you are merely perpetuating the lies and are rather deceptive and dishonest in the process.
here is more that trumps your BS 26 week claim.
Yeah, all from that same page.

(Now, if anybody is in doubt, EVERYONE of these text snippets can be found on this page:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp
Every bit here is plagiarized. And none of it is your exploration, other than from finding one page on a prolife lie-site)

Now, I am still waiting on actual evidence from you instead of your spewing a lot of plagiarized drivel about reflexes.
This really hit the fan during the 1996 debate in the U.S. Congress over a law to ban partial birth abortions. Pro-abortionists had claimed that the anesthetic had already killed the fetal baby. Top officials of the U.S.

Society for Obstetric Anesthesia & Perinatology vigorously denied this explaining that usual anesthesia did not harm the baby. D. Gianelli, Anesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate, Am. Med. News, Jan. 1, ’96

This brought the issue of fetal pain into the news, and testimony was given to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant. R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ. [/B]
Congressional hearings are political, not scientific. Nice try but just more drivel.
So be rest assured everytime you post something ignorant like that, and try to claim someone as a liar I will expose you as nothing more then a false accuser who has not done their own homework on both sides of the issue.
Uhum. Yes, keep up your lies. While you are at it, would you mind providing some actual scientific evbidence for your claim? Or will you merely continue your lies about fetal pain?

To recap. The thalamocortical tract connects at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. Before that time, no stimulus reach the brain’s cortex where sensation is realized and processed.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
blogger31 said:
It appears some people far more qualified then you disagree, do your homework.
We have. All you did was plagiarizing a prolife known lie-site and claim it to be evidence Just more prolife lies.
 

blogger31

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: More PL lies about fetal pain

It appears you have a real issue with understanding what point is being made, doesn't surprise me though, many far left liberals do. Many jump the gun and call anything that disagrees with their ideology a lie, and any research that doesn't agree with them false and bias evidence. Anyway let's move on shall we....

First of all I see your lack of response to the similar methods used by the Nazi party and PC movement to justify their killings. Second you will have to have strict proof that a fetus is not a human. Simple biology and common sense disagree. Two humans usually reproduce a human, if you have evidence that the fetus is of some other species please present it as you will have evidence contrary to the entire scientific and medical field of practice.

Next you need to get a hold on my viewpoint. Read back in the thread and I never claimed that a fetus could feel pain. I said there is no conclusive evidence that says they can't. To prove this point one only needs to find medical evidence contrary to your claim. Whether you like the site or not, their claims are backed up by studies from a medical journal. Now I don't know if you are even aware, but they don't just publish anything in a medical journal. It is quite a far cry from just quoting something from a website with no source included as you are trying to make it look. But then again that is another tactic of a poor liberal debate. You say none can be explored further which shows how poor your debate is, everyone of those can be reviewed from the original source. It is called doing a search on that journal, or doctor, etc, etc. Apparently you are not familiar with what is a source. The site is not the source of the information, the site compiled the information from the sources, another clear statement showing poor debate. Then you show a clear lack of fundamental understanding to the source when you say a political hearing is not scientific, but the source is clearly not a political source unless you consider the Director of Neurosurgery and Brain research political. Let's see that source again. R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ. HMMM, no mention of the congressional panel being the source. Not to mention a priceless recap in point two contradicting yourself:

Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.

To recap. The thalamocortical tract connects at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. Before that time, no stimulus reach the brain’s cortex where sensation is realized and processed

So many weeks in the above example you showed as evidence yet you seem to be able to say without a shadow of a doubt that the connection and pain happen in week 26, I have to ask why mention week 29 and 30? It appears you are not even sure.

So finally as said before I only need to find counter evidence that shows your statement is not a consensus to prove that there is no conclusive undebated studies on when a fetus feels pain. Actually all I need is a simple article to show that. It should be more to your liking since it is a 2005 article.

"They have literally stuck their hands into a hornet's nest," said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a fetal pain researcher at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, who believes fetuses as young as 20 weeks old feel pain. "This is going to inflame a lot of scientists who are very, very concerned and are far more knowledgeable in this area than the authors appear to be. This is not the last word -- definitely not."

Dr. Nancy Chescheir, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University and a board director at the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, said the report "will help to develop some consensus" on when fetuses feel pain. "To date, there hasn't been any."
Isn't this one interesting, here Dr. Chescheir makes my point for me, this report apparently is only going to help develop some consensus. It appears as I have said there is not a consensus on fetal pain.

This subject works much like the whole breast cancer issue, both sides can find many different sources claiming breast cancer is caused from abortion as well as the claim being phony, but not have a consensus one way or the other. So I simply state again there is no consensus on fetal pain so you nor vergiss can make a claim that a fetus does not feel pain during abortion because there is no conclusive study that says for sure.

It appears you still need to do your homework, at every corner I can find someone more qualified then you that disagrees with you. But again I figure you will resort to attacking me again instead of the message presented to you.

Here let me try this big bold red word thing, it looks fun:

To recap there is no consensus on when a fetus begins to feel pain so therefore no person PL or PC can use fetal pain as part of their argument.
 

battleax86

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
3
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
steen said:
Really? Lets take a look at that science, shall we?
See Post #411 of the "My Take on Abortion" thread.

steen said:
Hmm, that would be like "pre-dead corpses. revisionist prolife linguistic hyperbole is not scientific.
When you can tell me how the term "unborn children" is inaccurate, then you can claim it to be hyperbole.

steen said:
That's per reflexes. I trust you know what a reflex is, and why that is not sign of consciousness or sentience?
The ability to independently move does indeed indicate that the child has some level of consciousness. If you are talking about "sentience," in the sense of self-awareness, that does not come until months after birth, but if you are talking about "consciousness and sentience" in that the child is able to react to his or her surroundings, then yes, the child is conscious and sentient.

steen said:
And that also is an automatic, non-sentient activity. I trust you understand that automatic muscle movements are not sign of consciousness or sentience? As such, what is the point of bringing it up?
I never claimed that a heartbeat was a sign of sentience, genius. I mentioned it as proof that the child was alive. Pay attention next time. :roll:

steen said:
"alive"? Sure, there are live cells. That doesn't mean sentience, awareness or ability for sensation of any kind. So what is the relevance?
You seem to be erroneously equating "human life" with "consciousness and sentience."

steen said:
After all, even a tumor is "alive."
A tumor is made of cells carrying the same DNA of the person to whom it is attached (minus the gene telling the cells to stop growing, of course). It has neither separate DNA nor does it have any independent bodily systems. It is not a person and never will be. An unborn child, by contrast, has both a completely different human genome and independent bodily systems. That child is a separate human individual and will remain so forever. Thus, your comparison of a tumor to an unborn child is not legitimate.

steen said:
That would be individual function, homeostasis, individual existence.
The child, by virtue of his or her independent bodily functions, already exists as an individual. As for homeostasis, please provide evidence that a human does not attain this until birth.

steen said:
There was no baby before birth, and as there was no individual, there was no "being," prolife revisionist linguistics none withstanding.
Yes, there was, as I have already shown.

steen said:
So that's it. Nowhere was there evidence of the "Science" you promised. Did you "forget" about the science? Or did you merely use that as a term to try to lend credence to your unscientific claims? (I hope not, as that would be dishonest.)
You're the last person who has any right to be talking about dishonesty, but, once again, I refer you to Post #411 of the "My Take on Abortion" thread.

steen said:
ANOTHER oxymoron. Nice Going there with revisionist linguistics. It sure seems like PL are INCAPABLE of an honest, straightforward argument without resorting to those dishonest trickeries and deceptions.
No, "legal murder" is not an oxymoron. From Webster's:

Main Entry: murder
Function:verb
Inflected Form:mur£dered ; mur£der£ing \*m*r-d(*-)ri*\
Date:13th century

transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE *murders French* d : to defeat badly
intransitive verb : to commit murder
synonyms see KILL
Now, what were you saying about dishonesty and trickery? It seems that you need to take the beam out of your own eye before attempting to remove the imaginary speck in mine.

steen said:
Please explain what abortion procedure involves the description you just provided. Not even THAT can you be honest about, huh? How pathetic. :roll:
Here you go. What's pathetic is how misinformed you are.

It's late, but I'll try getting to the rest of your posts later. Have a good night. :coll:
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Blogger31, did you even read the article?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: More PL lies about fetal pain

blogger31 said:
It appears you have a real issue with understanding what point is being made,
Nope, I understand it. I just point out that it is false.
doesn't surprise me though, many far left liberals do. Many jump the gun and call anything that disagrees with their ideology a lie, and any research that doesn't agree with them false and bias evidence. Anyway let's move on shall we....
:rofl Nothing like a good ad hominem to lead off with, eh!
First of all I see your lack of response to the similar methods used by the Nazi party and PC movement to justify their killings.
Ah, your sophistry, contrary to the reality of the NAZI and PL being similar in wanting to control women’s' fertility.
Second you will have to have strict proof that a fetus is not a human.
Nope. "a human" is an individual. The fetus is not an individual. Case closed.
Simple biology
Biology is about the species issue. Nobody has denied the H. sapiens species of the fetus.
and common sense disagree.
Common sense is that something connected to the woman's body with blood vessels and being maintained by the woman's bodily homeostasis is not an "individual." Because then you would have to claim that your kidney or liver are "individuals."
Two humans usually reproduce a human, if you have evidence that the fetus is of some other species please present it as you will have evidence contrary to the entire scientific and medical field of practice.
Another deception, distortion and dishonest misrepresentation. Again, there has been no argument against the species of the fetus. So why the dishonesty? Why the sophistry? Must be because your argument is to weak without such dishonesty, to weak to stand on its own per facts. Yes, very telling...
Next you need to get a hold on my viewpoint. Read back in the thread and I never claimed that a fetus could feel pain. I said there is no conclusive evidence that says they can't.
Ah, but there IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that it is unable to even physically feel pain before the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.
To prove this point one only needs to find medical evidence contrary to your claim.
And I am still waiting for the scientific evidence.
Whether you like the site or not, their claims are backed up by studies from a medical journal.
They lied about the data and tried to use very old speculations from before the data was in as "evidence" of how the actual now-researched data is wrong. That's dishonest. That is deliberate lying.
Now I don't know if you are even aware, but they don't just publish anything in a medical journal.
But your SITE misrepresented the data. The prolife lie-site lied a lot. THEIR claims were not supported by the scientific data.
It is quite a far cry from just quoting something from a website with no source included as you are trying to make it look.
Well, you DIDN'T quote your source. You were deceptively plagiarizing.

And then, when we look at what you actually plagiarized, it was false claims and unwarranted conclusions, just MORE prolife lies from a site that has been proven to lie.
But then again that is another tactic of a poor liberal debate.
Prolife lies are now "poor liberal debate"?
You say none can be explored further
Huh? No I don't. Why lie about it? Oh, yes....
which shows how poor your debate is, everyone of those can be reviewed from the original source. It is called doing a search on that journal, or doctor, etc, etc.
And again, the research didn't warrant the conclusions made by the prolife lie-sites, and was also contradicted by current research. So your site is a lie-site that deliberately is using old data that it then misrepresents.
THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
Apparently you are not familiar with what is a source. The site is not the source of the information, the site compiled the information from the sources,
:rofl Very funny. YOU plagiarized from their site, that is what you are guilty off. THE SITE is guilty of misrepresentation of data as well as deliberately picking outdated data with no regard for current findings because these findings contradicts their political, non-scientific lies.
another clear statement showing poor debate. Then you show a clear lack of fundamental understanding to the source when you say a political hearing is not scientific, but the source is clearly not a political source unless you consider the Director of Neurosurgery and Brain research political.
The director testifying at a political hearing makes the claim political. The source is not a peer-reviewed scientific source, which makes it non-scientific Your ignorance of this is astonishing.
Let's see that source again. R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ. HMMM, no mention of the congressional panel being the source.
Exactly. While this IS from a congressional hearing before Subcommittee on the Constitution of the US House of Representatives., the lie-site didn't clarify that it was.
Not to mention a priceless recap in point two contradicting yourself:
No contradiction. The fibers take 3+ weeks to grow.
So many weeks in the above example you showed as evidence yet you seem to be able to say without a shadow of a doubt that the connection and pain happen in week 26, I have to ask why mention week 29 and 30? It appears you are not even sure.
Nope. The connection happens at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. The ability to process and feel pain was by a review study found to possibly not emerge before the 29th week. That doesn't negate that the actual connection doesn't connect until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. It means that while the exact date for when the fetus can FEEL pain is not known, it IS known that it cannot physically happen until the nerve connection between the sensory nerves and the brain's cortex actually connects, when the brain actually gets plugged in.
So finally as said before I only need to find counter evidence that shows your statement is not a consensus
Nope. Consensus is not the point in science. Facts are. Political sway over consensus is irrelevant to the FACT that the thalamocortical tract doesn't connect until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.
to prove that there is no conclusive undebated studies on when a fetus feels pain.
Irrelevant. Debate doesn't prove science; facts do.
Actually all I need is a simple article to show that. It should be more to your liking since it is a 2005 article.
Oh, yeah. CNN. The scholarly, scientific journal, right?

Where is your current, peer-reviewed scientific source for your claim?
"They have literally stuck their hands into a hornet's nest," said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a fetal pain researcher at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, who believes fetuses as young as 20 weeks old feel pain. "This is going to inflame a lot of scientists who are very, very concerned and are far more knowledgeable in this area than the authors appear to be. This is not the last word -- definitely not."
Because he doesn't WANT it to be. Where is HIS peer-reviewed, scientific facts? Opinions are not facts. If he as a prolife fundie doesn't WANT the study to be true, then he doesn't. That doesn't change the FACT of the study being a peer-reviewed, scientific study.
Dr. Nancy Chescheir, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University and a board director at the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, said the report "will help to develop some consensus" on when fetuses feel pain. "To date, there hasn't been any."
Yes, is it at week 29 or 30? There IS factual evidence and scientific consensus that this does certainly NOT occur BEFORE the 26th week of pregnancy, as there is no connection from the sensory nerves to the brain's cortex before that time. Nobody believe that this is the actual time that the fetus feels pain, as the brain has to learn to interpret the signals that it receives. It is this learning curve that there is disagreement about. There is no scientific disagreement over the growth of the thalamocortical tract.
Isn't this one interesting, here Dr. Chescheir makes my point for me,
But she isn't. Your point is about my minimum date. This is not addressed anywhere as a controversy, because it has already been established.
this report apparently is only going to help develop some consensus. It appears as I have said there is not a consensus on fetal pain.
Except the consensus that it does NOT occur prior to the 26th week of pregnancy.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This subject works much like the whole breast cancer issue,
Oh, this ought to be interesting. There is SOLID consensus that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer. Take a look at the evidence here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3331

both sides can find many different sources claiming breast cancer is caused from abortion as well as the claim being phony, but not have a consensus one way or the other.
Except that it now has solidly been documented that abortion doesn’t cause breast cancer, and that the PL who still claim it does, against all current studies, are using older, erroneous and weak studies. So yes, there very much is a consensus. Here is what the American Cancer Society states:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/c...tion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is transiently (temporarily) increased after a term pregnancy [resulting in the birth of a living child].

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

So I simply state again there is no consensus on fetal pain so you nor vergiss can make a claim that a fetus does not feel pain during abortion because there is no conclusive study that says for sure.
There is consensus about when it can NOT feel pain.
It appears you still need to do your homework, at every corner I can find someone more qualified then you that disagrees with you. But again I figure you will resort to attacking me again instead of the message presented to you.
I find your claim funny. Who is it that is more qualified? Those who make political statements at an invited political hearing? Oh, yeah, babe.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
battleax86 said:
The ability to independently move does indeed indicate that the child has some level of consciousness.
As I pointed out presenting reflexes as conscious movement is very dishonest. It is a lie
I never claimed that a heartbeat was a sign of sentience, genius. I mentioned it as proof that the child was alive. Pay attention next time. :roll:
There is no child, your revisionist linguistic prolife dishonest hyperbole none withstanding.

That aside, nobody has denied that the embryo or fetuses are made up of live cells. Do you always provide "evidence" of irrelevant points? Pay attention next time. :roll:
A tumor is made of cells carrying the same DNA of the person to whom it is attached (minus the gene telling the cells to stop growing, of course).
Really? That gene vanished into thin air. A tumor is the result of multiple genetic mutations and changes in a cell. It is radically different than the original cells. Your ignorance of biology is duly noted.
It has neither separate DNA
Yes, it does.
nor does it have any independent bodily systems.
Well, neither does an embryo. So you are OK with abortions up until the fetal stage. OK, that's good to know.
It is not a person
Neither is the embryo or fetus.
and never will be.
So? The potential is not the actual. An acorn is not an oak tree.
An unborn child,
Ah, more deceptive and lame revisionist linguistic hyperbole. How deceptive of you.
by contrast, has both a completely different human genome and independent bodily systems.
Not when it is an embryo.
That child is a separate human individual and will remain so forever.
"Child" now? Not even "unborn" child? Yup, now you are obviously way off. Yes, the born child is a separate individual, the umbilical cord is long gone. So? Children have no relevance to the issue of abortions.
Thus, your comparison of a tumor to an unborn child is not legitimate.
Sure it is. Your lame sophistry didn't address reality, as sophistry so rarely does. Next time, perhaps you can deal with what is written rather than what is cooked up in your overheated prolife belief system? Next time, perhaps you can deal with the fact that the tumor is 'alive." Sure seems like you "forgot" to deal with that point, the center of the discussion! How cowardly of you.
The child, by virtue of his or her independent bodily functions, already exists as an individual.
Well, yes, born children certainly are individuals. That has nothing to do with abortions.
As for homeostasis, please provide evidence that a human does not attain this until birth.
SIGH! Because there is an umbilical cord and uterus maintaining many of the functions involved in homeostasis.!!!!
Yes, there was, as I have already shown.
Nope, your "because I say so" postulation is not evidence of individual beings.
You're the last person who has any right to be talking about dishonesty,
Why? because I point out the dishonesty in the PL arguments? Yeah, good one. All PL have to do is to stop lying, and we wouldn't have to go over this time after time when PL lie.
but, once again, I refer you to Post #411 of the "My Take on Abortion" thread.
So?
No, "legal murder" is not an oxymoron. From Webster's:
Actually, the definition you chose was not a legal one. There IS a legal definition that you ignored. Hence, when you talk about 'legal murder," you are dealing with the legal definition. So once again, we see dishonest revisionist linguistics from the PL. Not that we are at all surprised anymore. There are to many PL liars who have lied to much for this to be surprising anymore.
Now, what were you saying about dishonesty and trickery?
What I said above.
It seems that you need to take the beam out of your own eye before attempting to remove the imaginary speck in mine.
Oh? I was right. So where do you get off trying to divert away from your dishonesty? Are you also a coward who won't stand by your own statements?
http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.html] What's pathetic is how misinformed you are.
Well, I looked and nowhere saw a procedure that involved "crushing their heads, chopping off their limbs, or dissolving their bodies in acid." In fact, the word "acid" doesn't occur even once on the page. So you lied AGAIN. No surprise there.

Now, something else that WAS on the site was this:
"What Are Some of the Other Risks of Abortion?
Abortion may increase the risk of Breast Cancer..."


We already established that to be an outright lie. SO this is just another prolife lie-site. No surprise there, just more confirmation that PL almost always lie. How pathetic.
 
Top Bottom