L
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
They are fringe professionals espousing a minority point of view. You could equally manage to dig up scientists to testify that the world is flat, but it doesn’t make it so.Your comment about it not being 20 weeks is in no way definitive because there are medical professionals who say that babies can feel pain by 20 weeks and there are medical professionals who say they can feel pain a lot earlier.
This has already been addressed. Autonomic response is not evidence of conscious awareness.If they can feel pain, you can’t need a functioning cerebral cortex to feel pain.
R
Rau
Guest
It should matter. But it is a second order consideration in the context of abortion. Cruelty is less egregious than murder. We need to be careful not to focus on the the cruelty and think that abortion becomes more acceptable should that be addressed (or absent).Very fair points, Rau, but is CAF not interested in what a scientific or medical academy might think? Honestly, I would think it should matter to people here because it might change things in the world they inhabit, regardless of the Church’s position which is, of course, very clear,
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Conscious awareness in primates is generally mapped to the cerebral cortex, which in humans isn’t functional until up to a year after a child is born.This has already been addressed. Autonomic response is not evidence of conscious awareness.
By that logic, child abuse can’t occur until a child is at least a year old, because they don’t have “conscious awareness” - therefore, they cannot feel pain, so no physical or emotional abuse is possible. As they’re at a level of conscious awareness nearly identical with that of a 20-week-old fetus, should it be legal to kill an infant up to 12 months old?
Still waiting for the word on why it’s illegal to kill a coma patient - their expectation of future conscious awareness is even less certain than that of the 20-week-old fetus which you’re saying it should be perfectly legal to kill.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
So you are conceding that a fetus does not have an awareness of pain at 20 weeks. Thanks.Conscious awareness in primates is generally mapped to the cerebral cortex, which in humans isn’t functional until up to a year after a child is born.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
I will not argue your stance. You are very consistent and I honor that. I love that you bring up the fact that we (easily) have the ability to take fetal pain out of the equation. If one is opposed to abortion under any circumstances, that is an absolute non-starter.It should matter. But it is a second order consideration in the context of abortion. Cruelty is less egregious than murder. We need to be careful not to focus on the the cruelty and think that abortion becomes more acceptable should that be addressed (or absent).
But, as regards the laws of our land (objectively not in keeping with the laws of the Catholic Church), the question of fetal pain could well matter. I believe this is worth considering - if only for the fact that it is a moving argument for people who may not accept the laws of the Catholic Church.
That was truly my only point.
R
Rau
Guest
FYI - the CC believes it proclaims the Divine Law, not that it establishes any kind of man made law. Of course, others will hold there is no Divine Law, or that it is otherwise.I will not argue your stance. You are very consistent and I honor that. I love that you bring up the fact that we (easily) have the ability to take fetal pain out of the equation. If one is opposed to abortion under any circumstances, that is an absolute non-starter.
But, as regards the laws of our land (objectively not in keeping with the laws of the Catholic Church), the question of fetal pain could well matter. I believe this is worth considering - if only for the fact that it is a moving argument for people who may not accept the laws of the Catholic Church.
That was truly my only point.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
I am conceding that a fetus is unable to say, “Kindly stop poking me with sharp metal instruments, as they cause me considerable distress linked to physical and emotional trauma” - the “conscious awareness” criteria you’re putting forward.So you are conceding that a fetus does not have an awareness of pain at 20 weeks. Thanks.
However, the IASP - International Association for the Study of Pain - defines pain as:
IASP Taxonomy:
The sensory and emotional centers of the brain are both functional by 20 weeks, and the fetus is capable of voluntary movement to avoid the pain stimulus. In fact, the child responds to a painful stimulus much like a sleeping person does: Autonomic responses such as elevated heart rate and adrenaline release, plus movement to avoid the stimulus. More aware than a coma patient, even.An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage
(Source: iasp-pain.org/Taxonomy)
Still waiting for an answer as to why is it illegal to kill coma patients or sleeping persons at will…
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
Yes yes, of course - I did not mean to imply otherwise.FYI - the CC believes it proclaims the Divine Law, not that it establishes any kind of man made law. Of course, others will hold there is no Divine Law, or that it is otherwise.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
In your opinion, should unborn babies be protected by law?So you are conceding that a fetus does not have an awareness of pain at 20 weeks. Thanks.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Not before the third trimester and even then with exception for medical necessity.In your opinion, should unborn babies be protected by law?
I
irishpatrick
Guest
May I ask, why?Not before the third trimester and even then with exception for medical necessity.
Is this the medical professional speaking or someone that desperately wants to hold to their depravity?No, they cannot.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Just a person who knows that the authoritative scientific body of research takes precedence over the religiously motivated nonsense. You may find truth in reading chicken bones and tea leaves, but I don’t.Is this the medical professional speaking or someone that desperately wants to hold to their depravity?
R
Rau
Guest
There is no religious motivation in the question of when pain can be felt. It is a scientific question. If pain is felt in an abortion, then the act is murder with cruelty and is wrong. If no pain, it remains murder and is wrong.Just a person who knows that the authoritative scientific body of research takes precedence over the religiously motivated nonsense. You may find truth in reading chicken bones and tea leaves, but I don’t.
The presence or absence of pain is not central to the wrong of murder. Whether the one killed “feels pain” or is capable of feeling pain does not change the nature of the act.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
You can’t murder something that isn’t a person.There is no religious motivation in the question of when pain can be felt. It is a scientific question. If pain is felt in an abortion, then the act is murder with cruelty and is wrong. If no pain, it remains murder and is wrong. The presence or absence of pain is not central to the wrong of murder. Whether the one killed “feels pain” or is capable of feeling pain does not change the nature of the act.
R
Rau
Guest
No argument with that statement. And pain - or a capacity to experience it - is not relevant there either. Of course, I regard human life as “person”.You can’t murder something that isn’t a person.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
How do you define “person”?You can’t murder something that isn’t a person.
Personal attack noted.Just a person who knows that the authoritative scientific body of research takes precedence over the religiously motivated nonsense. You may find truth in reading chicken bones and tea leaves, but I don’t.
Is there real substance to your argument or is this as deep as it goes?
I
irishpatrick
Guest
You do not accept that you too were once a zygote with your own DNA–and that you (as a zygote) were left to continue to grow and flourish and that then passed through all phases of early unborn life until one day you were born? Then, you passed through all the early phases of post-birth life until you reached adulthood, and you are now passing through the adult phases of life.Just a person who knows that the authoritative scientific body of research takes precedence over the religiously motivated nonsense. You may find truth in reading chicken bones and tea leaves, but I don’t.
If you accept that, as I assume you will, then how do explain that every human being who has ever lived (except three) have gone through the same journey? If you were able to travel back in time to the moment when you were first a zygote, and you destroyed the zygote that became you, wouldn’t you then have never existed?
It is a simple thing really–a sperm and egg do their dance and a new person begins their life. Science, imo, shows us (more than ever) that that is a fact, not a religious pov.
I wonder, what do you make of the Biblical statements in which God states that He has formed us in the womb (it sure doesn’t seem as if God looks upon the unborn as throw away cells, since He tells us He forms us in the womb)?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.