kylith wrote: » You appear to have misunderstood the research. .
. For the first time it was demonstrated that the human fetal stress response was attenuated by the administration of a narcotic. Long-term effects of fetal stress have also been described. Independent groups have implicated fetal stress to exaggerated pain responses in eight week-old infants and have also implicated the fetal stress response as a contributor to pre-term labor.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » But if they're going to do it anyway, surely they should be able to get medical care in their own country?
markodaly wrote: » Some research says 12 weeks, some say as early as 8, some say at 20 weeks. The fact remains a baby in the womb can feel pain.
Sweetemotion wrote: » That source is very weak.
But many doctors reject those claims, saying a fetus’s brain and nervous system are not developed at 20 weeks to feel pain. They cite a wide-ranging 2005 study that found a fetus was unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of a pregnancy, or about 27 weeks. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in 2013 that no subsequent research had contradicted that study.
These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks' gestation.
the research of Dr. Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, a University of Tennessee professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology who has promoted the idea that 20 weeks post-conception is the point when a fetus begins to feel pain. His work, which has been the go-to resource for anti-abortion groups,
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I don't entirely disagree with you, to be fair. I just think we should save people the stress of going to England to do something that's stressful enough for them to begin with. I'd honestly prefer if abortion was once used in extreme circumstances as well, i just don't feel it's my place to judge if someone wants one for other reasons.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » What are people blaming the church for that isn't the church's fault here? I'm sure people will blame whoever is to blame. Just like they're doing now.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Funny how defensive people who don't care about the catholic church get when legitimate criticisms of the church are brought up.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty. One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility. We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world. The catholic church wants to prevent this, yet claims to promote both human dignity and environmental protection. There is no dignity in popping out a child every year when you don't want to, especially if you cannot afford to feed, clothe and educate them. The environment cannot continue to sustain uncontrolled human population growth. It doesn't compute, but then again, this is a religion we are talking about. And yes it's perfectly justified to point out the damage that the catholic church has done and is (trying) to continue to do to our society. The RC church was the only church which campaigned for the 8th amendment so it's entirely on topic for this thread.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Is it? What if a parent knows they can't support a child, either emotionally, financially, or both? What if someone just doesn't want kids? Don't those people have a right to a happy life as well? If not, do we ban birth control as well? That's also eliminating a potential chance at life, albeit at an earlier stage. Why draw the line? Again, if my own partner were considering an abortion, I'd really prefer if they didn't go ahead with it. But it's not up to me to make that decision, not alone at least, and it's most certainly not up to me to make that decision for anyone I don't even know.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » So your actual argument is against contraception. Welcome to 1972.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty. One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility. We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world.
markodaly wrote: » Excuse me but your the one of stated that we cannot support more people as they will be a burden. If the pro choice people have to go down a dystopian future argument akin to Logans run and population control, then they are deeply in trouble to convince people of backing their side.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Do you always see things in such black and white terms?
Sweetemotion wrote: » Now we get to it. You don't want poor people. And a catholic bash :rolleyes:
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Ah yeah, it's genocide, thats not hyperbole at all. Do you always see things in such black and white terms?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Post-independence for 40-ish years we tried the economic policy of having poor people give birth to as many children as possible and far more than they wanted or could reasonably support. It didn't work well.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » There's only so many jobs that can exist?
Widdershins wrote: » It doesn't really make sense for some reason. A medical abortion with pills is quite a quick process, obviously not invasive,and far, far cheaper. But I believe the medical option is not as well known about.
kylith wrote: » Not before about 19 weeks as before that the the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must are not developed. Although the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks.https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » There's only so many jobs that can exist, especially as we move towards a society where technology becomes more prevalent. More readily available abortion is going to reduce the numbers of people having children they can't afford. Given how much people like to complain about welfare scroungers getting benefits for their kids, surely people see that as a good thing? There are always going to be people working and paying taxes, unless someone had sneakily slipped mandatory abortion onto the agenda?
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Presumably all those in favour of keeping the 8th as it is have no issue with the government providing welfare as necessary for the resulting children, perhaps through their entire lives? Or does life stop being previous when it leaves the womb?
markodaly wrote: » Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Seems not:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4905892.stm
For the first time it was demonstrated that the human fetal stress response was attenuated by the administration of a narcotic. Long-term effects of fetal stress have also been described. Independent groups have implicated fetal stress to exaggerated pain responses in eight week-old infants and have also implicated the fetal stress response as a contributor to pre-term labor.
kylith wrote: » Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant. A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.
Foetuses cannot feel pain because it requires mental development that only occurs outside the womb, says a report in the British Medical Journal. Dr Stuart Derbyshire, of the University of Birmingham, said a baby's actions and relationships with carers enabled it to process the subjectivity of pain.
end of the road wrote: » but both cases are different. in the case of the organ transplant issue we have a recognition that someone has the right to choose to or not to donate their organs, that it is full bodily autonomy, because while someone will sadly be effected via the choice via less potential for an organ, the organs do belong to the body they are in and the person had the right to make a decisian not to donate them. + there is potential for other donors. in the case of abortion however there is an unborn life who will receive the full effect of the decisian to have an abortion by having their life taken and their right to life removed against their will, so full bodily autonomy can't be given in that circumstance as it's not the actual body being effected but the unborn life inside.
