British Study Says Premature Babies Feel Pain

[vergiss]

It quite clearly states foetuses feel pain, which is relevant to the abortion debate.

Try again.

It is not relevent because the foetuses in question are too far developed to even be aborted. :roll: It's like saying "Oh, ten-year-old children can feel pain and that is revelent to the abortion debate!"

 

[FutureIncoming]

That does not excuse your ill thought-out statements.

Your mere claim that statements, plural, are ill thought-out is meaningless without multiple examples and supporting data/logic

Do you see that word "plural"? It is the reason why "statements" is associated with "multiple examples". In the first quote above, jimmyjack is stating an opinion about several statements, but jimmyjack does not indicate exactly which statements are being referenced. It logically follows that an opinion about a single statement only need be exemplified by the single statement. But jimmyjack never indicated what statements were being called "ill thought-out", nor was any data/logic provided to support the claim. Therefore jimmyjack was blathering, not debating.

You tried to justify a lousy comment by claiming great scientists make lousy comments too,

And yet, while you just barely indicated what statement I made you considered "lousy" -- you failed to provide any data or logic supporting the claim that my statement was lousy. Therefore your claim is blather, not debate.

you are still blathering, not debating.

This statement was made after some of the above quotes were discussed, with the goal of showing that a certain statement of mine was neither lousy nor ill thought-out --while jimmyjack's statements still haven't been given any support by jimmyjack. Nevertheless:

Meaningless without multiple examples and supporting data/logic.

The examples and data/logic are provided above, Blatherer.

 

[jimmyjack]

It is not relevent because the foetuses in question are too far developed to even be aborted. :roll: It's like saying "Oh, ten-year-old children can feel pain and that is revelent to the abortion debate!"

Not quite but good try.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Not quite but good try.

No jimmyjack, vergiss is quite right, which is why you choose to ignore my comment about the several stages of foetal development.

 

[FutureIncoming]

It quite clearly states foetuses feel pain, which is relevant to the abortion debate.

It is only relevant to the abortion of fetuses that can feel pain. It is not relevant to the abortion of fetuses that cannot feel pain (any of them, if before brain and spinal cord connect).

And regarding abortion of fetuses that can feel pain, there is a simple way to minimize that. Just clamp the umbilical cord inside the womb, and do nothing else to the fetus. In minutes the cut-off blood supply will lead to the entire fetus going numb, just like your foot "goes to sleep" if the blood supply is restricted. And some time not too long after that, the fetus' brain will die from lack of oxygen, and then, even if most of the body is still alive (muscle tissue can take hours to die of oxygen deprivation), it won't be feeling a thing --certainly not pain!-- as the rest of an ordinary abortion procedure is performed.

 

[jimmyjack]

No jimmyjack, vergiss is quite right, which is why you choose to ignore my comment about the several stages of foetal development.

I guess you missed this part then:

Dr. Paul Ranalli, professor of neurology at the University of Toronto, said last year in reference to the pain felt by premature babies, “The only difference between a child in the womb at this stage, or one born and cared for in an incubator, is how they receive oxygen—either through the umbilical cord or through the lungs. There is no difference in their nervous systems.”

And this:

The emergence of these reports has led to efforts to create “pain legislation,” in an attempt to lessen the agony of abortion for the unborn child who is brutally killed.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I guess you missed this part then:

Dr. Paul Ranalli, professor of neurology at the University of Toronto, said last year in reference to the pain felt by premature babies, “The only difference between a child in the womb at this stage, or one born and cared for in an incubator, is how they receive oxygen—either through the umbilical cord or through the lungs. There is no difference in their nervous systems.”

And this:

The emergence of these reports has led to efforts to create “pain legislation,” in an attempt to lessen the agony of abortion for the unborn child who is brutally killed.

Once again you sidestep and avoid the real issue.
You choose not to see the cruicial words "at this stage" and as was pointed out to you, but you close to eyes to anything you don't want to believe, they are referring to foetuses of at least 28 weeks gestation. You know damn well that no abortion takes place in the UK after 20 weeks, and indeed very few in the world after 12. The only people talking about pain medication for foestuses prior to abortion are nutcases like you. This research was aimed at improving the care of premature babies in neonatal intensive care units, and that has nothing to do with abortion. But then you're very good at twisting things to suit you own sick agenda.

You know jmlmyjack; some of the most intelligent women I ever met were those who are able to say "well abortion's not for me, I'd feel I was killing but I wouldn't stop other women who don't feel the same way" It's called respect, of which you have none.

jimyjack, if your Lord whom you tell us you fear, is telling you not to have an abortion or not to be gay, then don't do it. But how dare you assume to have the right to tell others they can't act according to THEIR own consciences? I'll never force you to live as I do. You keep your values in your own life.

 

[jimmyjack]

Once again you sidestep and avoid the real issue.
You choose not to see the cruicial words "at this stage" and as was pointed out to you, but you close to eyes to anything you don't want to believe, they are referring to foetuses of at least 28 weeks gestation. You know damn well that no abortion takes place in the UK after 20 weeks, and indeed very few in the world after 12. The only people talking about pain medication for foestuses prior to abortion are nutcases like you. This research was aimed at improving the care of premature babies in neonatal intensive care units, and that has nothing to do with abortion. But then you're very good at twisting things to suit you own sick agenda.

You know jmlmyjack; some of the most intelligent women I ever met were those who are able to say "well abortion's not for me, I'd feel I was killing but I wouldn't stop other women who don't feel the same way" It's called respect, of which you have none.

jimyjack, if your Lord whom you tell us you fear, is telling you not to have an abortion or not to be gay, then don't do it. But how dare you assume to have the right to tell others they can't act according to THEIR own consciences? I'll never force you to live as I do. You keep your values in your own life.

You don’t like me telling you what to do, yet you are quite happy to end another person’s life? You are a hypocrite! You are prepared to abort foetuses without physical proof that they are actually not people, and you are prepared to kill foetuses without tangible proof that they do not feel pain. That is reckless, and for what reason do you do this? What can possibly validate such brutal carnage? What can possibly warrant this action that is taken without any of the substantial proof it demands? Well you attempt to substantiate it to gratify a desire for sex consequence free, this is pure and utter selfishness, how pitiful.

 

[FutureIncoming]

You are prepared to abort foetuses without physical proof that they are actually not people ...

FALSE. There is plenty of physical proof that fetuses are not people; they don't have the brainpower to qualify as people, in exactly the same way that most nonhumans don't have the brainpower to qualify as people (most nonhumans are merely animals, while some, somewhere in the Universe, may qualify as people). In what way should deciding-of-personhood favor humans over nonhumans? Prejudice? Don't be stupid!

... and you are prepared to kill foetuses without tangible proof that they do not feel pain.

FALSE. The physical proof of that was presented in Msg #32 of this Thread. That is, pain signals must be processed in the brain before they can be felt as pain, and no pain signals can reach the brain before the spinal cord connects to the brain, at the start of the third trimester, well after the vast majority of abortions are performed. And, even for a fetus that is old enough to feel pain, this can be easily nullified, as explained in Msg #55.

 

[shuamort]

Anybody post this new article yet?


Fetus Cannot Feel Pain, Expert Says
04.14.06, 12:00 AM ET

Fetuses cannot feel pain, therefore U.S. legislation requiring doctors to tell women that the fetus will feel pain, or to provide pain relief during abortions, has no scientific basis and may harm the women involved, a leading expert contends.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

You don’t like me telling you what to do, yet you are quite happy to end another person’s life? You are a hypocrite! You are prepared to abort foetuses without physical proof that they are actually not people, and you are prepared to kill foetuses without tangible proof that they do not feel pain. That is reckless, .

No jimmmyjack/dave/whatever you're calling yourself today.
What is reckless is you assuming your view is superior to others.
This is not a black and white issue; it is a question of personal belief and consience.
If you personal belief is that abortion is killing, don't have one.
There are many people who disagree and can justify abortion in their own minds. Your view is not superior to theirs and you have no right to tell them what they can and can't do.

gratify a desire for sex consequence free, this is pure and utter selfishness, how pitiful.

Babe I've enjoyed consequence free sex for over twenty five years. It's easy if you're smart. It seems to bother you that I can actually enjoy sex? Far from being pitiful, believe me, it's the bomb!!!
Now chuck your hang ups in the bin, learn to love yourself and get out there and find a nice man. Then you might just stop coming on here making an utter prat out of yourself.

 

[jimmyjack]

No jimmmyjack/dave/whatever you're calling yourself today.

It says jimmyjack.

What is reckless is you assuming your view is superior to others.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? And is it not true that you believe your opinion is superior to mine?

This is not a black and white issue; it is a question of personal belief and consience.

I think it is fair to say life and death is black and white.

If you personal belief is that abortion is killing, don't have one.

I have never said that I want an abortion.

There are many people who disagree and can justify abortion in their own minds. Your view is not superior to theirs and you have no right to tell them what they can and can't do.

Then your view is not superior to mine either. Why do you believe I cannot utilise my freedom of speech, yet you do have a right to utilise your freedom of speech? And why do you believe a foetus should lose all there rights, even that of a right to life?

Babe I've enjoyed consequence free sex for over twenty five years. It's easy if you're smart. It seems to bother you that I can actually enjoy sex? Far from being pitiful, believe me, it's the bomb!!!
Now chuck your hang ups in the bin, learn to love yourself and get out there and find a nice man. Then you might just stop coming on here making an utter prat out of yourself.

Well if it involves killing your son or daughter, do you still think it is smart?

Why should I find a man, I’m not gay.

Why don't you find a man?

 

[FutureIncoming]

s it not true that you believe your opinion is superior to mine?

You have expressed many opinions, while others have mostly expressed facts and logic. Even in those posts where I outright declared that you were stupid, I was not expressing an opinion, because it was the conclusion of the available facts and logic. When you actually decide to debate instead of opine, perhaps a question like that quoted above will never need to be asked.

I think it is fair to say life and death is black and white.

I will not disagree with that analogy, but I will point out that you are not being very specific. For example, is the death of an anthrax bacterium black or white? And from what perspective are you answering? I dare say that from the perspective of the bacterium, its death is more black than white. Well, what is the basis for choosing one perspective over another? And does that basis derive from opinion or fact?

Why do you believe I cannot utilise my freedom of speech, yet you do have a right to utilise your freedom of speech?

It depends on what you are speechifying. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire, is considered to be an abuse of freedom-of-speech. Lying is not acceptable, that is. So when you spout opinions that defy/deny facts, what is the difference between that and lying, and why should any such speeches be granted freedom?

And why do you believe a foetus should lose all there rights, even that of a right to life?

Tsk, tsk, you are assuming that a fetus should have a right to life in the first place. It can't lose something it never had, right? So, why don't you tell us, using facts and logic instead of opinion, why a fetus needs to have a right to life?

 

[jimmyjack]

You have expressed many opinions, while others have mostly expressed facts and logic. Even in those posts where I outright declared that you were stupid, I was not expressing an opinion, because it was the conclusion of the available facts and logic. When you actually decide to debate instead of opine, perhaps a question like that quoted above will never need to be asked.

What facts do you have that a foetus is not a person?

I will not disagree with that analogy, but I will point out that you are not being very specific. For example, is the death of an anthrax bacterium black or white? And from what perspective are you answering? I dare say that from the perspective of the bacterium, its death is more black than white. Well, what is the basis for choosing one perspective over another? And does that basis derive from opinion or fact?

Life and death is still black and white?

It depends on what you are speechifying. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire, is considered to be an abuse of freedom-of-speech. Lying is not acceptable, that is. So when you spout opinions that defy/deny facts, what is the difference between that and lying, and why should any such speeches be granted freedom?

Exactly!

Tsk, tsk, you are assuming that a fetus should have a right to life in the first place. It can't lose something it never had, right? So, why don't you tell us, using facts and logic instead of opinion, why a fetus needs to have a right to life?

If it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

 

[bandaidwoman]

eighteen babies aged between 25 and 45 weeks from conception were studied. Scientists registered the brain activity in the babies at the moments before, during and after nurses performed routine blood tests using a heel lance.

The study citing that premature babies feel pain were done on only 18 babies 25 weeks of age and over. Besides a statistically insignificant amount study subjects (18) there were no controls to show if the MRI/PET scan would have showed the same blood flow changes to the same area of the brain with a non painful stimulus. Ie: I would have had a group where the nurses rubbed their back or tickeled their feet etc.

We do know the brain must develop to a higher level in order to feel pain. Since most abortions are done at less than 16weeks of gestational age, the above subgroup does not apply to them. It may be prudent to offer anesthesia if a fetus over 25 weeks is being aborted due to this one very small study with questionable study design (no control group).


I don't think this counters wether to have an abortion or not, but to decide if fetal anesthesia is needed during an abortion.

 

[FutureIncoming]

What facts do you have that a foetus is not a person?

I already answered that, but you failed to respond. See Msg #59. The key item is the answer to this question: "In what way should deciding-of-personhood favor humans over nonhumans?" As you know, the English language allows non-humans to qualify as persons. Therefore some generic form of identification must exist, to distinguish persons from non-persons/animals, regardless of whether the persons are human or nonhuman --and regardless of whether the non-persons/animals are human or nonhuman. Well, since we know that the things that can generically distinguish persons from animals are all brainpower-related, it follows that some more-than-merely-animal-level of brainpower must exist before a person can exist. And since no human fetus has that much brainpower, no human fetus can be a person. Simple facts and simple logic.

Life and death is still black and white?

And you are asking that for what reason? Are you not aware that most living things can exist only because other living things die? If death is matched with black, then how can life ever really be pure white? And why should some particular life-form be preferred over another?

So when you spout opinions that defy/deny facts, what is the difference between that and lying, and why should any such speeches be granted freedom?

Exactly!

Does that mean you will now accept the fact that unborn humans are mere animals, not inherently more special than any of many other kinds of animals?

Tsk, tsk, you are assuming that a fetus should have a right to life in the first place. It can't lose something it never had, right? So, why don't you tell us, using facts and logic instead of opinion, why a fetus needs to have a right to life?

If it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

You did not answer the question. All you have done is indicate that in some times and places, unborn humans were granted some of the political protection known as "right to life". The taking-away of that protection could be simply summed up as, "Granting that protection was a mistake that has been corrected." Now, please answer the question of, "Why does an unborn human need to have a right to life?" And think about how your answer to that question might be applied to mosquito larva in a pond about to be covered in oil, to drown them.

 

[jimmyjack]

I already answered that, but you failed to respond. See Msg #59. The key item is the answer to this question: "In what way should deciding-of-personhood favor humans over nonhumans?" As you know, the English language allows non-humans to qualify as persons. Therefore some generic form of identification must exist, to distinguish persons from non-persons/animals, regardless of whether the persons are human or nonhuman --and regardless of whether the non-persons/animals are human or nonhuman. Well, since we know that the things that can generically distinguish persons from animals are all brainpower-related, it follows that some more-than-merely-animal-level of brainpower must exist before a person can exist. And since no human fetus has that much brainpower, no human fetus can be a person. Simple facts and simple logic.

How “much” brainpower does a man have when he is asleep, or when he is in a coma? And why is the measure of brainpower an indicator of personhood?

And you are asking that for what reason? Are you not aware that most living things can exist only because other living things die? If death is matched with black, then how can life ever really be pure white? And why should some particular life-form be preferred over another?

You said it! Why should some particular life-forms be preferred over others? Such as: mothers over sons in the womb?

Does that mean you will now accept the fact that unborn humans are mere animals, not inherently more special than any of many other kinds of animals?

Then adult humans are no greater then foetuses either.

You did not answer the question. All you have done is indicate that in some times and places, unborn humans were granted some of the political protection known as "right to life". The taking-away of that protection could be simply summed up as, "Granting that protection was a mistake that has been corrected." Now, please answer the question of, "Why does an unborn human need to have a right to life?" And think about how your answer to that question might be applied to mosquito larva in a pond about to be covered in oil, to drown them.

Nice try at avoiding the question, but please tell me, if it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

 

[FutureIncoming]

How “much” brainpower does a man have when he is asleep, or when he is in a coma? And why is the measure of brainpower an indicator of personhood?

Once an animal grows sufficient brainpower to quailfy for personhood, it retains practically all of it for the rest of its life, barring major accident/damage. Whether or not all of it is being used is irrelevant. As for why this measure can be used to indicate personhood, it is humans using their brainpower that allows humans to claim such things as "we are people and they are animals". Exactly how do you suppose such a precise distinction might be made if the brainpower didn't exist, eh?

Are you not aware that most living things can exist only because other living things die? If death is matched with black, then how can life ever really be pure white? And why should some particular life-form be preferred over another?

You said it! Why should some particular life-forms be preferred over others? Such as: mothers over sons in the womb?

My quoted comment was about comparing one animal to another, such as a mosquito and a human fetus. I apologize for not being more explicit, although I have asked equivalent questions in the past that you have failed to answer. I'm still waiting for your answer. When persons are brought into the comparison, well, persons claim full rights over animals. That's an extremely well-documented fact. So, since the mother is the person and the son in the womb is merely an animal, that is why the mother's life -- or even the mother's whim -- can be preferred.

{{will you}} now accept the fact that unborn humans are mere animals, not inherently more special than any of many other kinds of animals?

Then adult humans are no greater then foetuses either.

FALSE. Because most adult humans are persons, while fetuses are still only mere animals. If you would put them together on an equal footing, declaring the animal nature of humans to be superior to their mentalities, then logic dictates you must also put that same animal nature of adult humans on an equal footing with mosquitoes, and malaria, and tsetse flies, and so on. ALL are animals, after all, and none has an animal nature that is more special than any other!

Tsk, tsk, you are assuming that a fetus should have a right to life in the first place. It can't lose something it never had, right? So, why don't you tell us, using facts and logic instead of opinion, why a fetus needs to have a right to life?

If it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

You did not answer the question. All you have done is indicate that in some times and places, unborn humans were granted some of the political protection known as "right to life". The taking-away of that protection could be simply summed up as, "Granting that protection was a mistake that has been corrected." Now, please answer the question of, "Why does an unborn human need to have a right to life?" And think about how your answer to that question might be applied to mosquito larva in a pond about to be covered in oil, to drown them.

In case you are unable to understand the stressed text above, consider an analogy where the Department of Taxation gives you a too-large refund. Some people are stupid enough to think they have a right to it. But when the tax dept. discovers the mistake, it will want its money back, and it will use various laws to take away that misperceived "right", too. Along with the money, of course.

Nice try at avoiding the question, but please tell me, if it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

I did answer your question (see stressed text in above quote from Msg #66), and you are still avoiding answering mine, which I asked first.

 

[talloulou]

Once an animal grows sufficient brainpower to quailfy for personhood

Or you can be a corporation and get personhood that way.

My quoted comment was about comparing one animal to another, such as a mosquito and a human fetus. I apologize for not being more explicit, although I have asked equivalent questions in the past that you have failed to answer. I'm still waiting for your answer. When persons are brought into the comparison, well, persons claim full rights over animals. That's an extremely well-documented fact. So, since the mother is the person and the son in the womb is merely an animal, that is why the mother's life -- or even the mother's whim -- can be preferred.

Absurd. The mother is just as much an animal as the human embryo or human fetus. You have never proved otherwise. You can not logically compare a mosquito and a member of the species homo sapiens.

FALSE. Because most adult humans are persons, while fetuses are still only mere animals.

Adult humans are members of the animal kingdom too.

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - PRIMATA - HOMINIDAE - HOMO - SAPIENS

Your refusal to acknowledge this negates all your points in my opinion. The human organism in utero is classified exactly the same as any born human organism at any age or stage in development.

Your attempts to devalue the organism in the womb are subjective and have nothing to do with science or biology.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Once an animal grows sufficient brainpower to quailfy for personhood

Or you can be a corporation and get personhood that way.

Not really; you need brainpower to be able to fill out the applications to become a corporation, and if you have that much brainpower, you likely already are a person. Also, I think you will find that it takes three to incorporate (president, secretrary, and treasurer are needed), so to become a corporation looks to me like a step in the wrong direction (from three persons to one).

When persons are brought into the comparison, well, persons claim full rights over animals. That's an extremely well-documented fact. So, since the mother is the person and the son in the womb is merely an animal, that is why the mother's life -- or even the mother's whim -- can be preferred.

Absurd. The mother is just as much an animal as the human embryo or human fetus. You have never proved otherwise.

I have not even tried to prove otherwise, and I wasn't trying to do any such thing in the quote from Msg #68. I was comparing persons and animals, not animals and animals. On what basis can you claim I was making some other comparison?

You can not logically compare a mosquito and a member of the species homo sapiens.

I can, indeed! Both are multicellular organisms, and neither is more alive than the other. Both are animals having digestive and respiratory and circulatory and nervous and reproductive systems, and both come equipped with stimulus/response instincts for Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing, and Fornicating. Humans have endoskeletons and mosquitos have exoskeletons, but that just means both have skeletons, and both have numerous muscles attached to those skeletons. Humans and mosquitoes can both experience the environment via physical senses of sight, smell, touch, taste, and sound (sound-detection is one of the very very oldest of senses). Dissimilarities in the details of the sensory organs are just that, mere details, compared to the fact that the senses all exist. I've seen several Web pages indicating that humans and insects have perhaps 30% of genes in common. I half-suspect that just about every multicellular life-form on Earth has about that much in common (almost as soon as multicellularity happened, so did the "Cambrian Explosion", bringing the divergence of such lines as the arthropods and the chordates). A human may have 100,000 times the mass of a mosquito, but both have mass.... Now, let's see the evidence supporting your claim that it is illogical to compare a human animal with a mosquito animal.

most adult humans are persons, while fetuses are still only mere animals.

Adult humans are members of the animal kingdom too. ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - PRIMATA - HOMINIDAE - HOMO - SAPIENS Your refusal to acknowledge this...

UTTERLY FALSE. I have never once denied that adult humans are animals, and you can point out no place where I made any such denial. What I do claim is that most adult humans are more than only animals, because of brainpower-magnitude.

...negates all your points in my opinion. The human organism in utero is classified exactly the same as any born human organism at any age or stage in development.

Biologically, agreed. Mentally, disagreed. And the evidence supports me on this, not you. The more you focus on biology, the more you have to accept the equivalence of humans with other animals. The only way to not-accept that equivalence is to focus on human brainpower, and this means separating animals, including human animals, into the brainy and the not-so-brainy.

Your attempts to devalue the organism in the womb are subjective and have nothing to do with science or biology.

Tsk, tsk. Your attempts to value the organism in the womb are subjective and have nothing to do with science or biology. And I am not devaluing it at all; I am identifying its equivalence with many many other animal organisms. Biologically, all animals have the same "value", humans included. It is the mental abilities of humans that let humans specify valuations, and humans are known to make mistakes. In this case, the mistake is to assign a higher value to an unborn human than to other equally-mindless organisms, including plants. The rationale is of course simple perpetuate-the-species stuff that every other living organism also does, mindlessly. Nevertheless, it is provably a mistake, partly because other species manage to perpetuate themselves without needing to do any valuations, and partly because that valuation is leading almost inexoribly to a Malthusean Catastrophe that will kill 99% of all humans, including the unborn, when those other organisms, needed to maintain human life, become in-too-short-supply. How can such a result possibly validate that valuation?

 

[jimmyjack]

Once an animal grows sufficient brainpower to quailfy for personhood, it retains practically all of it for the rest of its life, barring major accident/damage. Whether or not all of it is being used is irrelevant. As for why this measure can be used to indicate personhood, it is humans using their brainpower that allows humans to claim such things as "we are people and they are animals". Exactly how do you suppose such a precise distinction might be made if the brainpower didn't exist, eh?

So why do some humans fail to use their brainpower and recognise that foetuses are people?

My quoted comment was about comparing one animal to another, such as a mosquito and a human fetus. I apologize for not being more explicit, although I have asked equivalent questions in the past that you have failed to answer. I'm still waiting for your answer. When persons are brought into the comparison, well, persons claim full rights over animals. That's an extremely well-documented fact. So, since the mother is the person and the son in the womb is merely an animal, that is why the mother's life -- or even the mother's whim -- can be preferred.

So if Einstein was aborted, would you believe he didn’t have the brainpower?

FALSE. Because most adult humans are persons, while fetuses are still only mere animals. If you would put them together on an equal footing, declaring the animal nature of humans to be superior to their mentalities, then logic dictates you must also put that same animal nature of adult humans on an equal footing with mosquitoes, and malaria, and tsetse flies, and so on. ALL are animals, after all, and none has an animal nature that is more special than any other!

No it would not, because we can distinguish between humans and other life forms because we have the “Brainpower” to do that, unlike other animals.

In case you are unable to understand the stressed text above, consider an analogy where the Department of Taxation gives you a too-large refund. Some people are stupid enough to think they have a right to it. But when the tax dept. discovers the mistake, it will want its money back, and it will use various laws to take away that misperceived "right", too. Along with the money, of course.

Well, this is assuming it was right to take away the right in the first place.

I did answer your question (see stressed text in above quote from Msg #66), and you are still avoiding answering mine, which I asked first.

So I will ask again:

Please tell me, if it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

 

[FutureIncoming]

As for why this measure {{brainpower}} can be used to indicate personhood, it is humans using their brainpower that allows humans to claim such things as "we are people and they are animals". Exactly how do you suppose such a precise distinction might be made if the brainpower didn't exist, eh?

So why do some humans fail to use their brainpower and recognise that foetuses are people?

Please explain in detail how that Question relates to the text quoted from #68? The text states pretty clearly that brainpower is used to say, in essence, that persons are organisms that have the brainpower to be able to understand the concept of personhood and claim it for themselves. Note that while a parrot could be trained to make the claim, "I am a person!", it would not understand the meaning of what it was saying. A human fetus, of course, hasn't got the brainpower to either understand the concept or to make the claim. So, a Question more relevant than yours is, "Why do some humans fail to use their brainpower and recognize that fetuses cannot possibly qualify as people?"

So if Einstein was aborted, would you believe he didn’t have the brainpower?

Abortion always occurs long long before any human has as much brainpower as the fully-grown Einstein -- or most other adult humans. On what basis might you think that any human fetus could possibly have that much brainpower? If Hitler was aborted, would you believe he did have his full brainpower at the time of the abortion?

{{will you}} now accept the fact that unborn humans are mere animals, not inherently more special than any of many other kinds of animals?

Then adult humans are no greater then foetuses either.

FALSE. Because most adult humans are persons, while fetuses are still only mere animals. If you would put them together on an equal footing, declaring the animal nature of humans to be superior to their mentalities, then logic dictates you must also put that same animal nature of adult humans on an equal footing with mosquitoes, and malaria, and tsetse flies, and so on. ALL are animals, after all, and none has an animal nature that is more special than any other!

No it would not, because we can distinguish between humans and other life forms because we have the “Brainpower” to do that, unlike other animals.

What a totally stupid statement! Every animal species can recognise others of its own kind. They all have the brainpower to do that much, else they would go extinct instead of reproduce. Perhaps you would care to rephrase your disagreement into something less obviously idiotic? (I have assembled the relevant series of quotes above, to help you.)

consider an analogy where the Department of Taxation gives you a too-large refund. Some people are stupid enough to think they have a right to it. But when the tax dept. discovers the mistake, it will want its money back, and it will use various laws to take away that misperceived "right", too. Along with the money, of course.

Well, this is assuming it was right to take away the right in the first place.

What right? Are you saying there is a right to assume that money you should not have received belongs to you? Is it never an error to assume some sort of right exists? Available data clearly indicates that it can indeed be an error to assume that some sort of right exists, to claim something is yours, that isn't actually yours. That is, the right itself does not actually exist. Therefore it can also be an error to assume that others have certain rights, if those rights don't actually exist.

Tsk, tsk, you are assuming that a fetus should have a right to life in the first place. It can't lose something it never had, right? So, why don't you tell us, using facts and logic instead of opinion, why a fetus needs to have a right to life?

If it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

You did not answer the question. All you have done is indicate that in some times and places, unborn humans were granted some of the political protection known as "right to life". The taking-away of that protection could be simply summed up as, "Granting that protection was a mistake that has been corrected."

Nice try at avoiding the question, but please tell me, if it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

I did answer your question (see stressed text in above quote from Msg #66), and you are still avoiding answering mine, which I asked first.

I even expanded upon my answer to your question, in the preceding section that ends with: "Therefore it can also be an error to assume that others have certain rights, if those rights don't actually exist."

So I will ask again: Please tell me, if it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

???? Since I did answer your question, why are you still asking it? In fact, I think I'd like even more information about your question. Please specify a "law passed to take rights away" from fetuses? To the best of my knowledge, Roe vs. Wade was a cancellation of a law that granted rights to fetuses, not a passing of any law.

Finally, why are you not answering my question in Msg #63 (quoted above)?

 

[jimmyjack]

Please explain in detail how that Question relates to the text quoted from #68? The text states pretty clearly that brainpower is used to say, in essence, that persons are organisms that have the brainpower to be able to understand the concept of personhood and claim it for themselves. Note that while a parrot could be trained to make the claim, "I am a person!", it would not understand the meaning of what it was saying. A human fetus, of course, hasn't got the brainpower to either understand the concept or to make the claim. So, a Question more relevant than yours is, "Why do some humans fail to use their brainpower and recognize that fetuses cannot possibly qualify as people?"

Then our questions are equally valid and so they cancel each other out.

Abortion always occurs long long before any human has as much brainpower as the fully-grown Einstein -- or most other adult humans. On what basis might you think that any human fetus could possibly have that much brainpower? If Hitler was aborted, would you believe he did have his full brainpower at the time of the abortion?

The point I’m making is that they will have brainpower if you allow them to develop it, just as you are developing yours by learning from me.

What a totally stupid statement! Every animal species can recognise others of its own kind. They all have the brainpower to do that much, else they would go extinct instead of reproduce. Perhaps you would care to rephrase your disagreement into something less obviously idiotic? (I have assembled the relevant series of quotes above, to help you.)

Really? Can a cat distinguish between a crocodile and an Alligator?

What right? Are you saying there is a right to assume that money you should not have received belongs to you? Is it never an error to assume some sort of right exists? Available data clearly indicates that it can indeed be an error to assume that some sort of right exists, to claim something is yours, that isn't actually yours. That is, the right itself does not actually exist. Therefore it can also be an error to assume that others have certain rights, if those rights don't actually exist.

Just as it could be an error to take away a foetuses right to life.

I even expanded upon my answer to your question, in the preceding section that ends with: "Therefore it can also be an error to assume that others have certain rights, if those rights don't actually exist."

So, please tell me, if it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

???? Since I did answer your question, why are you still asking it? In fact, I think I'd like even more information about your question. Please specify a "law passed to take rights away" from fetuses? To the best of my knowledge, Roe vs. Wade was a cancellation of a law that granted rights to fetuses, not a passing of any law.

Finally, why are you not answering my question in Msg #63 (quoted above)?

Don’t you think cancelling laws that give them rights, is a demonstration that it did actually have rights in the first place?

 

[FutureIncoming]

As for why this measure {{brainpower}} can be used to indicate personhood, it is humans using their brainpower that allows humans to claim such things as "we are people and they are animals". Exactly how do you suppose such a precise distinction might be made if the brainpower didn't exist, eh?

So why do some humans fail to use their brainpower and recognise that foetuses are people?

Please explain in detail how that Question relates to the text quoted from #68? The text states pretty clearly that brainpower is used to say, in essence, that persons are organisms that have the brainpower to be able to understand the concept of personhood and claim it for themselves. Note that while a parrot could be trained to make the claim, "I am a person!", it would not understand the meaning of what it was saying. A human fetus, of course, hasn't got the brainpower to either understand the concept or to make the claim. So, a Question more relevant than yours is, "Why do some humans fail to use their brainpower and recognize that fetuses cannot possibly qualify as people?"

Then our questions are equally valid and so they cancel each other out.

FALSE. Our questions are not at all equally valid, because you have offered NO support for the claim you built into your question, that fetuses qualilfy as people, while I have offered data and logic explaining why they cannot qualify as people. Here, I'll present it again:

Fact: The English language allows nonhumans to qualify as people. The word is even generic enough that the physical nature of a person is irrelevant. Fiction has introduced persons having "bodies" ranging from ectoplasm to subatomic particles to electricity to gaseous to liquid to jelly to solid to electronic/mechanical, to various combinations thereof (a cyborg can be a person).
Logic: Because of the wide range of possible types of persons, it is impossible to associate personhood with a fixed set of physical characteristics. Thus it is mental characteristics that distinguish persons from non-persons.
Fact: An unborn human is inherently unable to exhibit any of the mental characteristics that serve to identify persons.
Logical conclusion: Although abortion kills an unborn human, {{it doesn't matter since it is not a person}}

Therefore your question is "loaded" in that it includes a false assumption, that a fetus is a person, and mine isn't. Not to mention I have asked on numerous occasions, in varying ways, for you to provide some sort of data and logic supporting your claim, that withstands scrutiny, and you have utterly failed. Why should anyone, including you, believe a claim that cannot be supported? NOR have you offered any data or logic that invalidates the position I have presented to you. Why shouldn't anyone, including you believe a claim that is strongly supported?

Abortion always occurs long long before any human has as much brainpower as the fully-grown Einstein -- or most other adult humans.

The point I’m making is that they will have brainpower if you allow them to develop it

But you have utterly failed to offer any rationale why they must be allowed to develop their brainpower. Remember this?

Consider the research being devoted to Artificial Intelligence (or "AI"). If it succeeds, then a human-level mind will come into existence as a result of technological hardware/software progress. Note that there is a distinct equivalence between pieces of such a technology, compared to the whole AI, and the body of a fetus, compared to an independent human being. That is, the manufacturing of pieces of an AI is essential for the AI to exist, just as the reproduction of cells in a fetus is essential for an independent human being to exist. Now remember that future manufacturing will be more and more automated. This leads us to an interesting absurdity, in that if opponents of abortion require every fetus to be allowed to automatically grow a mind, then logically they should also require Artifical Intelligences to be automatically manufactured just as soon as technically possible! The two notions really are that equivalent, and so to declare the mandatory production of AIs to be absurd is also to declare the anti-abortion stand to likewise be absurd. More specifically: Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist. So no matter what the age of the fetus, as long as its brainpower is animal-level, there is no requirement that it must continue to grow. (That would be like stating, "A Potential Must Be Fulfilled!" when the people making that statement have the potential to fall down a staircase and break their necks.)

You have never offered any rationale that can refute the equivalence between biological and technological hardware, when the latter becomes advanced enough to self-replicate. (Look up "Von Neumann Machines" sometime; notions about self-replicating hardware goes back a number of decades.) You have also never offered any rationale that can refute the idea that every physical function of a human brain can be duplicated in other types of hardware --in fact the very idea that "persons" can be nonhuman automatically means that other types of brains can have person-class mentalities. Therefore, assuming that the thing that makes human animals into persons can be found in the physical functioning of the human brain, it logically follows that there is a way to make a true Artificial Intelligence, fully equivalent to a human mind. Which means that the scenario in the above quote is fully relevant! If you can have no compunction about shutting down an assembly line that autonomously manufactures Artificial Intelligences, then equally there is no rationale to have compunction about cutting short the autonomous cell-replication in a human fetus. Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist.

{{will you}} now accept the fact that unborn humans are mere animals, not inherently more special than any of many other kinds of animals?

Then adult humans are no greater then foetuses either.

FALSE. Because most adult humans are persons, while fetuses are still only mere animals. If you would put them together on an equal footing, declaring the animal nature of humans to be superior to their mentalities, then logic dictates you must also put that same animal nature of adult humans on an equal footing with mosquitoes, and malaria, and tsetse flies, and so on. ALL are animals, after all, and none has an animal nature that is more special than any other!

No it would not, because we can distinguish between humans and other life forms because we have the “Brainpower” to do that, unlike other animals.

What a totally stupid statement! Every animal species can recognise others of its own kind. They all have the brainpower to do that much, else they would go extinct instead of reproduce. Perhaps you would care to rephrase your disagreement into something less obviously idiotic? (I have assembled the relevant series of quotes above, to help you.)

Really? Can a cat distinguish between a crocodile and an Alligator?

That's not what you wrote about, before."We can distinguish between humans and other life forms" --That's what you wrote in #71, and since "we" are humans, you wrote about humans distinguishing between their own kind and other life forms. Therefore other life forms only need to be able to distinguish between their own kind and others, to be equivalent to humans. (Not to mention, to a cat it may be possible that an alligator and a crocodile smell different. Can you prove that they wouldn't, if each is given a chance to build up some body odor?) So I repeat my recommendation in #72, that you rephrase your disagreement with #68 into something less obviously idiotic.

 

[FutureIncoming]

consider an analogy where the Department of Taxation gives you a too-large refund. Some people are stupid enough to think they have a right to it. But when the tax dept. discovers the mistake, it will want its money back, and it will use various laws to take away that misperceived "right", too. Along with the money, of course.

Well, this is assuming it was right to take away the right in the first place.

What right? Are you saying there is a right to assume that money you should not have received belongs to you? Is it never an error to assume some sort of right exists? Available data clearly indicates that it can indeed be an error to assume that some sort of right exists, to claim something is yours, that isn't actually yours. That is, the right itself does not actually exist. Therefore it can also be an error to assume that others have certain rights, if those rights don't actually exist.

Just as it could be an error to take away a foetuses right to life.

Only if the right exists. But so far you have utterly failed to offer any rationale showing that it has such a right. When do you plan to offer some supporting facts and logic, instead of repeating the stupidity of making unsupported/worthless claims? Do you remember this?

There is no such thing as a "Right To Life" in Nature. Plants try to grow to shade each other to death; animals eat plants, killing them reasonably often; some animals eat other animals; bacteria consume anything with a defective immune system, and the single biggest thing that keeps bacteria from concentrating on defeating the immune systems of multicellular life is the viruses. Then there are earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, tsunamis, Ice Ages, giant meteors, nearby supernovae, and so on, for a long long long list of ways in which Nature doesn't care one whit whether or not ANY life survives, including human life. So, why should humans go out of their way to respect life? Obviously it would be stupid to think we can go on destroying life in the manner currently being done all over the planet (the seas are becoming empty of fish; the forests are being slashed vastly faster than they can regrow, and so on). But why should we adopt a philosophy in which life is sacred? Nature doesn't care! Using the stuff of life is convenient (like cutting trees to make your house). We do with life what we will, because we have Free Will! I agree that we should respect it to the extent that we needn't stupidly waste/kill it off when later on (like when you sell a tool at a yard sale, and find you need it a month later), we might need it as a source of medicines. Not to mention that we need plants to make oxygen for us to breathe. Respecting life to the extent that we have a sustainable supply of it for our needs is fine. That does not mean abortions should be prohibited. This planet could use fewer humans on it, not more, who kill other life-forms to fulfill selfish human desires. While a "Right to Life" is an important political principle, it needs to be tempered with Scientific Fact, such as the preceding. I recognize that the political principle exists so that people can get along with each other better. But isn't it obvious that you have to be able to understand the "Right to Life" principle before you can act in accordance with it? And isn't it equally factual that unborn humans don't have the brainpower to understand any such thing? So, if they cannot apply it, why should it be applied to them?

Therefore you need to pay attention to the following sequence:
(1) There originally wasn't any life form that existed with a Right to Life.
(2) Humans came along and arbitrarily created the notion for themselves, for their own selfish purposes.
(3) At some point some humans arbitrarily decided to try to extend their arbitrary claim of a Right to Life to unborn humans.
(4) The attempt was swatted down in court.

Tsk, tsk, you are assuming that a fetus should have a right to life in the first place. It can't lose something it never had, right? So, why don't you tell us, using facts and logic instead of opinion, why a fetus needs to have a right to life?

If it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

You did not answer the question. All you have done is indicate that in some times and places, unborn humans were granted some of the political protection known as "right to life". The taking-away of that protection could be simply summed up as, "Granting that protection was a mistake that has been corrected."

Nice try at avoiding the question, but please tell me, if it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

I did answer your question (see stressed text in above quote from Msg #66), and you are still avoiding answering mine, which I asked first.

I even expanded upon my answer to your question, in the preceding section that ends with: "Therefore it can also be an error to assume that others have certain rights, if those rights don't actually exist."

So, please tell me, if it never had a right to begin with, why where laws passed to take them away?

See "(1)" above. And you have failed to specify what law was passed to take away a right that fetuses never had in the first place, as was requested in the quote below.

???? Since I did answer your question, why are you still asking it? In fact, I think I'd like even more information about your question. Please specify a "law passed to take rights away" from fetuses? To the best of my knowledge, Roe vs. Wade was a cancellation of a law that granted rights to fetuses, not a passing of any law.

Finally, why are you not answering my question in Msg #63 (quoted above)?

Don’t you think cancelling laws that give them rights, is a demonstration that it did actually have rights in the first place?

No, because of "(1)" specified above. The law that got cancelled was a law that attempted to defy Nature, and create an arbitrary right where none previously existed, and where it did not need to exist.

So, why don't you tell us, using facts and logic instead of opinion, why a fetus needs to have a right to life?