roberts confirmed

Nobby Nomates wrote:

You can show me where it says "little one" any time now ....

A little slow on the uptake?

http://www.answers.com/topic/fetus

The word fetus comes directly from the Latin fetus meaning "offspring" or "young one".

An unborn child is a child in utero: "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb," according to legislation which passed the US Senate in March 2004.

I guess Lydiardism somehow tends to provoke anger? You really don't have the first clue about what you're discussing here. Maybe it's best to shut your trap rather quickly and slink away now.

I see, you can't dispute the facts so you are going to try to bully the inconvenient truth teller off of the thread. Why don't you just prove me wrong? After all you really showed us how good your latin is ... oh, wait, no you didn't. If you argument was that strong, you wouldn't need to resort to histrionics. Lay it out without the bluster and you might get someone to listen, right now you come across as another busybody poking his nose in where it doesn't belong (other people's business.)

Why don't we just lay out what is being discused here: Your desire for everyone to adhere to your beliefs. Guess what, it's not going to happen, and flinging insults around isn't going to do much more than prove that your side doesn't have an argument.

"That said, I think that abortions are much too frequent. it is like some pro-choice people want everyone to have them, and encourage people to have them. I am not saying that the choice should be 100% eliminated, but why praise abortions?"

I've never weighed in on any of these "discussions" but your statement above is absurd, at least in my experience. I've been active in the past in pro-choice groups at the grassroots level in my state. No one that I know wants "everyone to have them" and no one I know is praising abortions.

My wife and I personally knew that we would be unlikely to choose an abortion unless her life was endangered by continuing the pregnancy. That doesn't change my belief that the decision for someone else to, or not to, have an abortion isn't up to me, it is up to the woman who is pregnant and whomever she chooses to involve in that decision.

By the way, I also favor the death penalty. I suppose some of you would say at least I'm consistent.

A little slow on the uptake?

Not really, just not seeing the word "little" anywhere there. Still wait for you to point it out.

Wrong. Abortion, war, euthanasia, rape, murder, or any violent action taken against an individual or set of individuals is everyone's business. This a tired and outmoded tenent of the pro-abortion/anti-life crowd, namely, that an abortion occurs in a vacuum (actually, it sort of does when speaking about suction aspiration abortions which suck, piece by piece, dismembered baby limbs into a jar, but that's neither here nor there) involving only the woman and perhaps her doctor.

Sorry. Wrong. Abortion is everyone's business. It's a cultural and societal problem. If you can't see that, it's time to open your eyes.

Speaking of histrionics, you've done an admirable job of doing precisely what you criticized another for purportedly doing. This has little to nothing to do with my own beliefs. The knowledge that abortion is a violent deed against a developing human being in utero is a truth that has existed long before you or I was born. It's also necessary here to distinguish "belief" from "knowledge." Religion need not enter this debate. The objectively harmful effects and nature of the abortion procedure can be just as well shown from secular standpoints as well.

As for Latin, can you read? Fetus means "offspring" or "young one" in Latin.

Is this really difficult for you, or are you intentionally being stupid?

Nobby Nomates wrote:

Not really, just not seeing the word "little" anywhere there. Still wait for you to point it out.

My deepest apologies. I was unaware of the tremendous semantic difference between "little" and "young." Terribly, terribly sorry for the wayward masses which I've now misled.

Speaking of histrionics, you've done an admirable job of doing precisely what you criticized another for purportedly doing.

I think that, in comparison to yourself I have been calm and polite. Just pointing out that you might be able to produce a more potent argument if you didn't sound like you were having a fit of hysterics. Just something to ponder.

Fetus means "offspring" or "young one" in Latin.

Once again, no it doesn't the modern word "fetus" may have similarities with the latin word but the latin usage refers to the "bearing" (i.e. the mother or the tree) of "fruit or young" not the young itself, it is the root of the word "fecund" for example. Even if you choose to use the word in the way you define it, "offspring" by its definition means "those who spring off" so it could only refer to the child i.e. once he/she has "sprung forth."

It's the "non-sentient gob of biomass" part you should be paying attention to, genius.

Put on by what group, the Christian Coalition? You don't know fock-all about embryology, that's for sure. I also feel sorry for you in that you're compelled to liken abortion to slavery, staunchly ignorant of the inarguable difference between the rights of a person and the rights of an intrauterine tumor. You should be ashamed of yourself for even invoking that one.

One more time for the analytically challenged: Jewish people and Iraqis are people. Foetuses are not. If you disagree, find a sympathetic country or planet instead of dragging whatever crippled religious views you harbor into a medical-sociological discussion.

Yeah, why don't you explain just how that felt, or tell us how those who have been through it describe having felt. Oops! Impossible to do, I guess. Might we just be inventing a scenario here, completely disregarding science in favor of emotional appeals?

I see. An emphysema patient and a foetus possess the same level of consciousness, wherewithal, self-awareness, whatever. You've again hit the nail right on the head.

Speaking of "tired and outmoded" - nice strawman! All those favoring the legality of abortion are "anti-life." You should have thrown in "bra-burning feminazis" for comepleteness' sake.

If it's "neither here nor there," why bring it up? Trying the old sympathy-through-revulsion tactic, no? One day you a******s will understand that this doesn't work - all it does is get your own zealots riled up.

Xipe Tot^c wrote:

It's the "non-sentient gob of biomass" part you should be paying attention to, genius.

The only non-sentienr gob of biomass present in this discussion is the whole of the raving and sloppily researched mess which you've just defecated onto this forum.

In no biology textbook anywhere and in no creditable physician's mind anywhere would there be an equation of "unborn fetus" with "non-sentient gob of biomass."

You're also a gob of biomass, just as the fetus is. If you're pleasantly overnourished and low on self-esteem, maybe you'd also refer to yourself as a "gob."

But the last part is patently false. A fetus is NOT non-sentient.

"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

"

"Real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Lily — the father of fetology."

We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way."

Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground. Willke, J & B, Abortion: Questions & Answers, Hayes, 1991, Chpt. 10

"

Stuff your nonsense and falsified garbage up your extensive rectum and stomp the heck out. Your opinion and 5 cents will buy you a cup of jack squat, but it certainly hasn't bought you anything resembling even a rudimentary knowledge of fetology.

"Stuff your nonsense and falsified garbage up your extensive rectum and stomp the heck out."

Stomp the heck out. Hmm. I think you need to go back to insult camp, kid.

"...certainly hasn't bought you anything resembling even a rudimentary knowledge of fetology."

This is coming from, let me guess, a college freshman without even one semester of biology under his belt, one who's quoting articles from 25 years ago. Next you'll be telling me my math skills are poor because I'm not familiar with your favorite brand of abacus.

All you've shown is that an idiot with Google at his fingertips can dredge up crap that vaguely appears to support his conclusions, whatever they may be. The real world's different. I'm a lot closer to this issue than you are - laughably so, in fact.

Here's an abstract from the very latest JAMA. It addresses your pricking-of-the-fetal-palm idea. I can send you the full text if you like - maybe one of your professors can explain the big words to you.

Context: Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe and effective techniques exist for providing direct fetal anesthesia or analgesia in the context of therapeutic procedures or abortion.

Evidence Acquisition: Systematic search of PubMed for English-language articles focusing on human studies related to fetal pain, anesthesia, and analgesia. Included articles studied fetuses of less than 30 weeks' gestational age or specifically addressed fetal pain perception or nociception. Articles were reviewed for additional references. The search was performed without date limitations and was current as of June 6, 2005.

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. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony.

Conclusions: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.

Also keep in mind that only one or two percent of abortions occur after even 20 weeks' gestation. Those bloody JPEGs you're so enamored of bear about as much relationship to the "average" therapeutic abortion as does Yao Ming to the "average" Chinese male.

But the bottom line is that you lose. All you can do is stand by and gnash your mottled teeth as women parade in and out of abortion clinics ad libitum, having their wombs scraped free of incipient humans at their whim. Virtually no women are this capricious, of course, and I can tell you with utmost assurance that no one thinks having an abortion is fun. But I wouldn't want to deny you your "all pro-choicers are devil-worshipping deathmongers" black fantasy.

nat x favors abortion for unwed white chicks , others no.

I skipped over the debate on here. Would jus like to ask Nobby Nomates a couple of questions.

1)At what exact moment does human life begin? Doesn't seem too scientific to me to just say that human life in an early stage of development isn't human life.

2)Where would you be if your mom had had an abortion?

I've got some more questions, but I'd be happy if I could get a straight answer to the first two.

I would submit that just because someone doesn't look like you doesn't mean they're not human.

Had you read the whole thread, you'd know that this is not what anyone has said. Try "an embryo in an early stage of development isn't human life" and you'll get a clearer idea of people's respective positions (some of course disagree).

From the standpoint of bioethics, I think a better question is, at what point does "personhood" begin? It's not easy. Pro-lifers enjoy the simplistic idea that a conceptus should be afforded the same rights as a fully sentient adult, but considering grey areas as they pertain to maternal health, the differential viability of embryos as revealed by CVE and amniotic sampling, etc. can be very useful in a technologically capable society.

If that's supposed to be an argument against abortion, it's the most trivial one imaginable. Where would you be had your parents used barrier contraception? The rhythm method? Pull-and-pray? How about if they'd never met in the first place? The outcome would be the same, though stripped of sham moral implications.

Having seen the devastating results of abortion on both the developing child and the women who die or have nervous breakdowns or have their uteruses perforated, I can say with confidence that Xipe whatever-the-heck-your-name-is is an obnoxious idiot. He's also wrong.

Thomas D wrote:

Having seen the devastating results of abortion on both the developing child and the women who die or have nervous breakdowns or have their uteruses perforated, I can say with confidence that Xipe whatever-the-heck-your-name-is is an obnoxious idiot. He's also wrong.

In case you didn't realize this, the "devastating results of abortion on the developing child" is an intended consequence, although you'd do well to save the designation "child" for objects that are actually children.

Also, your gross exaggeration of intraoperative morbidity and mortality with regard to abortion isn't fooling anyone who's awake and not part of a blind religious movement. Fewer than 1 in 200 women who have legal first-trimester abortions (which constitute nearly 90% of all abortions) suffer serious complications. The rate of uterine wall perforation less than 0.4%. The death rate? About one in 160,000. Yet Thomas here implies he's been present for a number of such events. Maybe he should play the lottery more often.

Elam-Evans LD, Strauss LT, Herndon J, Parker WY, Whitehead S, Berg CJ. Abortion Surveillance-United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2002; 51 (SS09): 1-28.

Tietze C, Henshaw SK. Induced abortion: A worldwide review, 1986. Third edition. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1996.

Haskell WM, Easterling TR, Lichtenberg ES. Surgical abortion after the first trimester. In Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG. A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1999, pp. 123-138.

Lichtenberg ES, Grimes DA, Paul M. Abortion complications: Prevention and management. In Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L. Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG. A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1999, pp. 197-216.

Apparently you're not too practiced at reading. But you are very practiced at what is known as "erecting straw men."

I think maybe it's best that the moderators gave threads like this a non-running forum so Planned Parenthood employess such as Xipes can have free rein convincing himself of his medical fallacies. Ever seen the Silent Scream, Xipes?

Xipe Tot^c wrote:

All you've shown is that an idiot with Google at his fingertips can dredge up crap that vaguely appears to support his conclusions, whatever they may be. The real world's different. I'm a lot closer to this issue than you are - laughably so, in fact.

This is hilarious. I was checking out Mr. Xipes' claims because I suspected he was a fraud and an idiot.

Speaking of "idiots who use Google," I invite any poster to type in "fetus feels pain" into the Google search engine. Click on result #7 and you come to...our friend's "highly scientific abstract"! Excellent work X!

You've shown yourself to be an idiot who knows how to use Google! Exactly how are you "laughably closer to his" out of curiosity? Are you a 17 year old girl who volunteers at NARAL? Did you take an 11th grade bio class and convince yourself you're hot stuff when it comes to science?

What a great time it is when we see buffoons unmask themselves.

Thomas D wrote:

Apparently you're not too practiced at reading. But you are very practiced at what is known as "erecting straw men."

I think maybe it's best that the moderators gave threads like this a non-running forum so Planned Parenthood employess such as Xipes can have free rein convincing himself of his medical fallacies. Ever seen the Silent Scream, Xipes?

Straw men? Who's the one painting abortion as the dangerous surgical monster it's demonstrably not, genius? Who's the one labeling everyone with a pro-choice stance a "Planned Parenthood employee"?

Medical fallacies? Feel free to follow up with those references I posted instead of warding them off if you really care about this issue.

I'm fairly certain you couldn't be any more of a dimwit here even with great effort.

I'll take your reply as an "Okay, I exaggerated for effect, and I find shocker films more valuable than research because they support my position better. But damn you for posting factual data instead of rhetoric."

Xipe, you sidestepped both questions.