Health & Fitness – Babies in the womb can feel pain from an early stage of development, according to research by the world's leading expert on foetal pain.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
daviant701973
2jojoyo
darwinm701977
harleyb761960
rylandl831968
alkateso
kklynch
2sidestoeverything
pria
myathesmith
badkotjoku
pipolambd
nitegarito
xterm55
reversemonster
Marengo
iugin
GHOSTWHOWALKS
gaujiyana
bogdanglushak
wanderingmind
bizexpert
linna4linna
berkeley
patriciamd
djapollo2k
jovial
Francisca
trnscndr
phillyLA
BoBo in Texas
JimmyStewart
Helixbuilder
Dedushka
edwardmills
TalSiach
deadjeri
tanglang
ind06
joeblowe
AlphaGnosis
trater
Shannonyork
expursuit
ranchhand
chapelhillNC
BronxBomber
pagey
bcoynejr
Kaileena
163)
Babies in the womb can feel pain from an early stage of development,
So it is willful murder which only civilised world could commit.
Cows feel pain as well. So do worms. So, arguably, do trees and plants. Thank you for offering your opinion that it's murder. I will happily respect your opinion as long as you respect and support others opinions that it is not murder and do not try to force your religiously-based views on others. Deal? I'll take it even a step further. If you respect and enforce my views that killing animals at any level of cognition is murder, stop eating meat and encourage others to do so according to Buddhist doctrine, I'll wholeheartedly support your neo-fascist evangelical Doctrine.
On a side note, Dr. Anand's work isn't peer-reviewed and none of it has been presented to the Science and Technology Committee by the Christian Medical Fellowship. Which makes you wonder if they're concerned about scrutiny of Dr Anand's work. Hmm.
Cows, worms, trees and plants are not people.
Murder applies to people.
That's your opinion, but again very western and ultimately Biblically based. What makes your opinion "right" and that of, say, an Eastern religion/spirituality that holds the belief that killing an animal is murdering a being, "wrong." Pride, perhaps? Pride commeth before the fall.
Societies which had never heard of the Bible, from Sumer on, prohibited the killing of people. The prohibition is not necessarily "Biblically-based." Nor is it exclusively "very western," as you claim. Chinese tradition considers a child to be one year old at birth, and no one may willfully kill other human beings. The Chinese slaughter animals for food just as Westerners do, yet they are certainly "Eastern."
Anand is called "the world's leading expert on foetal pain" in the linked article, yet you claim that his "work isn't peer-reviewed and none of it has been presented to the Science and Technology Committee." Can you tell us where you got that information?
He probably got it from the common information available that Anand claims that consciousness exists in the fetus BEFORE the cerebral cortex (that's the brain, you might have a little chunk left, but it's doubtful the way you buy into everything) is even formed. He also describes that a fetus doesn't need a "hard wired" nervous system to feel pain (like adults, and fully developed people do).
These ideas have NEVER been published, or subject to peer review. Anand works primarily on neonatal and newborn pain, and psychological trauma, and brain cell death from exposure OUTSIDE the womb.
I've read articles that made broad statements, also. "World's leading", in this case he isn't.
A little more info on the Dr., and what might drive his interest in pediatrics:
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/211351.shtml
Thanks -- You beat me to it ;)
As to "prohibiting the killing of people," that's what I wasn't referring to. Sorry to not be more specific. It's the idea that killing animals isn't murder being a Biblically-based concept from Existential. Perhaps it isn't, but I thought I might point out that from a Buddhist viewpoint(or at least some), killing an animal is considered the murder of another being. Just not a human being, perhaps.
Well, I would think most people would be of the opinion that cows, worms, trees and plants are not people.
Are you referring to the eastern religions that would prefer to starve to death rather than eat a steak?
If valuing a human life over a cow's makes me prideful, I'll have to plead guilty.
I'm referring to the eastern religions that honor life, many of whom seem to do just fine in their lives not eating steaks.
If you want to rape and pillage nature according to your belief system, that's your problem. Oh wait. It's everyone's problem. Rape and pillage on your own property. Stay away from the rest of the world.
I'm not sure if you know what you are talking about.
"Cows, worms, trees and plants are not people.
Murder applies to people."
--Speaking of nature... Does anyone else find it mind-boggling that it's mostly those people who want unlimited rights to rape and pillage the planet who are so concerned about the welfare of the unborn? Twisted priorities, no? Why do you people even *care*? Really? Why do you want them to be born? So they can take care of you and pay for your multi-trillion dollar wars (and all your destructive activies on the earth) when you get old and infirm? What?
The other hypocritical aspect of those with the "twisted priorities" is that once the child is born both parent and child are left to fend for themselves.
Just who is it you accuse of wanting "unlimited rights to rape and pillage the planet who are so concerned about the welfare of the unborn?" Or is that a group that you just made up because you don't want to address the possibility that a foetus is human and feels pain? Is it your "nature" to try to divert discussion into irrelevant channels?
I'm accusing who claims to be "pro-life" but who also:
elect people who fight to deny health insurance to millions of children, fight minimum wage increases, fight increases in public assistance for individuals (while gleefully shelling out their tax dollars to Big Oil), accuse others of being "tree huggers," send *other* people's children to die in multi-trillion dollar wars, drops bombs on pregnant women in other countries and refers to *their* unborn children as collateral damage, look for any and every opportunity to drill for oil rather than alternative energy technology...and on and on...
Who has denied helath insurance to millions of children?
Anyone who voted for the current crop of Republicans.
How so?
I'm not wasting my time explaining something I've explained to you over and over already, tangy. If you really don't know how the GOP screws over America's children then I truly feel sorry for you.
oh, because Bush vetoed the plan to give free health insurance to families making up to 80,000 /year?? Those "millions" of children. Do you realize that if that had passed, many, many employers would have dropped their employee's health insurance because why should they pay if the gov't would pay instead? I know I would have done that. I am paying over 12K per month for 9 people's insurance -- not one of whom (including ourselves) are making 80K per year, but gov't paying instead really won't help.
I've pointed this out to meso before. He fails to see the truth because of his hatred of the right. He refuses to think that dems can be wrong on any issue. It's really quite sad.
"making up to 80,000 /year??"
Actually, it was 83k.
Requested for certain parts of New York.
Due to the high cost of living.
Would anyone else like to distort that point yet again?
Does saying 83,000 instead of 80,000 make it seem better or worse. When I was ten my mother took a job in NYC so we had to move there from Ga. Talk about the cost of living going up. As a single mother of 3 starting over with nothing, did she need the government to pay for our health care? Hell no! Why, because she loved her children and always made sure they came first.
"Talk about the cost of living going up. As a single mother of 3 starting over with nothing, did she need the government to pay for our healthcare?"
--Tang, Tony Snow is dying of cancer and he left his $170,000 White House spokesman job last year because (according to him) he needed to make sure his family was provided for and he couldn't do that based on the pay cut he'd taken to accept the job in the first place. This, in spite of the fact that he *had* healthcare for his family (which *you* paid for, I might remind you again). So do you think he was lying or not?
Regardless, unless you know the unique circumstances that might make it difficult or impossible for a family making $83,000 per year to afford health insurance, you really have no way of knowing how much they may or may not love their children. You do not know this and you really shouldn't be so judgemental.
What does Tony Snow have to do with this?
"Does saying 83,000 instead of 80,000 make it seem better or worse."
Does implying that the 83k applies uniformly rather than just to some select cases make those who pedal it ignorant or just liars?
How many familes would be covered by that 83,000?
Less than 100%.
I see...So after you've barged in on a pregnant women's personal, private decisions about her health and family planning matters (after all, you know what's best for all women) when she has the baby and later either can't afford to or neglects to buy health insurance for the child, the bottomless font of concern you and the rest of the "operation rescue" brigade had when the baby was no bigger than a speck of dust suddenly runs dry? LOL You can interfere in her life BEFORE she has the baby but once the baby is born and needs your support you whip out the calculator and start hemming and hawing about what it's going to cost you? Wow...How does that work?
Anyway, you pay for George Bush's health insurance. So if you can pay his salary, you can damned well shell out a few extra bucks for people who are trying to raise a family on less than a third of what he makes. Wake up.
You forgot we also pay for his war. How many trillion and counting?
Nope, not interested in any raping or pillaging here. Just a little concerned over the killing of over a million unborn every year.
"Just a little concerned over the killing of over a million unborn every year."
--Again, the problem is that those on the right are only "just a little concerned" over the health and well-being of millions of children who are already born but you're *obsessed* with the unborn.
Actually, I'm concerned about them, too. The subject here, however, is the unborn. Please see story.
"Actually, I'm concerned about them, too. The subject here, however, is the unborn. Please see story."
--No...Ya see, but for our shameful neglect of the people who are already here begging for our help, stories like this one wouldn't be popping up every five minutes on propeller. And I sincerely doubt you care at all about all the children who are already here, Ex. I know you people like the back of my hand. On issue after issue,your views are frequently out of step with those of the vast majority or Americans. Yet, those on the right never seem to think this is an indicator that they might need to re-xamine their priorities. As for the rest of your statement, I'll take it under advisement.
So, if I understand your diatribe, if we insure the children of this country, abortion wouldn't be an issue?
And, I really don't care about children because I'm pro-life?
"So, if I understand your diatribe, if we insure the children of this country, abortion wouldn't be an issue?"
Sort of... First, eradicating abortion is unrealistic. It can't be done. And anyway most people realize that "protecting innocent life" is merely a pretext for policing what others do with their reproductive organs. But I digress... You know as well as I do that this story is one of many examples of the right using vinegar (fear mongering, in this case) rather than honey to address an issue. Scare tactics haven't stopped women from having abortions in the past and they never will. If you or those you support resort to lies, distortions, and scare tactics and vote against the interests of children who are already here, then by my definition, you don't care about children.
" "protecting innocent life" is merely a pretext for policing what others do with their reproductive organs "
I thought it was just a pretext for controlling the lives of women and subjugating them yet again to a male-dominant, patristic Religious view that not everyone in this country holds true. Not even a majority of people hold true.
Nope. It's what I said-- right wingers want us to believe their concern is for the unborn. Pure CRAP. Their true agenda is to indulge their creepy preoccupation with what goes on in other people's bedrooms.
I'd love to hear how socialized health care will make abortion a non-issue. Cuz i'm thinking it will lead to state funded abortion.
Children born of unwanted pregnancies are the most likely to become the next generation of soldiers and unquestioning masses of voters, why do you think the people who are "pro life" want these kids to be born.
would you care to document that statement, please?
Yes, I'd love to see that documentation, also.
Why not use common sense instead? Use your head for a change. Here, I'll give you a push... Ask why those on the right just happened to reverse course on the differences between the sentences given to whites who sell cocaine vs those given to blacks who sell crack at a time when the military is becoming ever more desperate to meet its recruitment goals. And please don't even try to deny that they're aren't now reduced to begging convicted felons in order to fill their ranks.
Nah, I'd rather see the documentation.
Now we're on race and drug dealing?!
If it helps, I'll try to use smaller words and express my views with simpler concepts from now on.
You might need to provide a map to your constant "topic jumping".
Does it? According to dictionary.com murder, in the legal sense, is defined as "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." The last I heard abortion was not considered to be murder, save by a very small minority of the population.
murder is also the name for a flock of crows.
Im tryin to figgure out why we Christian Conservatives care bout a fetus feelin pain.
Seriously.
We Christian Conservatives dont much care bout babies AFTER they are born.
We dont care if they get health care.
Dont care if they get sick and die.
In fact, we Christian Conservatives dont care bout babies BEFORE they are born. We consistently support candidates who vote against pre-natal care for lower income families.
By extension, we dont care bout families much neither. We consistently support candidates who vote against family leave bills so that families can bond with their kids after they are born.
And in the larger picture, we dont care bout teens as we support Goerge W in his collossally incompetent Iraq war - in which hunderts of thousands have died needlessly.
And finally, in an even larger picture, we Christian Conservatives dont care bout conservin our planet - on which we ALL live. As we consistently deny Golbal Warmin.
WE are a funny bunch.
do you have this copied to your clipboard and post it on every article you come across or do you rewrite if from memory. the first 20 to 30 times i read your posts were kind of funny, but it quickly got old.
I guess it might get old, but it doesn't get any less true.
but what does this article and posts have to do with conservative christians, the war, bush or aliens. no where in the article or any of the posts remotely associates to what goppy says. it is just a rant that goes off on a tangent that is only vaguely related to the subject at hand.