• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

Removable Mind said:
How is it enforced? Constitutions define the powers of the government and of the people. Laws define social consequences for engaging in behaviors that communities, states, or a republic claim causes harm.

Once any behavior has been engaged that has resulted in harm - it's after the fact by the time governments intervene. They haven't prevented anything. They can't protect each and every individual's life because somebody has concluded that each individual has a right to life.

Everyday we see some violent act by individuals who don't care about legal consequences for taking a life. Or people simply lose control and out of rage take a life. How can those incidents be prevented. Persons who believe in "right to life" unjustly take the lives of others. It happens somewhere probably every minute of the day.

In the US prior to Roe v Wade, there were tens of thousands of "illegal abortions" performed year after year. Abortion is noted as far back as recorded history.

Pro-life need to wake up. They need to focus on supporting causes and scientific advancements that PREVENT unwanted pregnancies. Stop judging every woman on the planet who chooses to have an abortion. Stop trying to degrade or terminate their individual rights.
Click to expand...

Enforcement is a complex mix of activities that are not really designed to safeguard against individual crimes but to reduce the number of crimes committed. This might not be the way we feel or experience it just as we do not feel we are replenishing vitamin A, when we crunch a carrot. Evolution makes things feel good, when they help the genes to pass to a next generation. Revenge is not good, because it feels right. It was good, because it discouraged people to act in ways that reduced the number of surviving offspring. We punish behavior that harms us not to punish the deed but to prevent tomorrow's crimes. That is one aspect of enforcement. Others are found in upbringing, in peer group pressure etc.
 
joG said:
Enforcement is a complex mix of activities that are not really designed to safeguard against individual crimes but to reduce the number of crimes committed. This might not be the way we feel or experience it just as we do not feel we are replenishing vitamin A, when we crunch a carrot. Evolution makes things feel good, when they help the genes to pass to a next generation. Revenge is not good, because it feels right. It was good, because it discouraged people to act in ways that reduced the number of surviving offspring. We punish behavior that harms us not to punish the deed but to prevent tomorrow's crimes. That is one aspect of enforcement. Others are found in upbringing, in peer group pressure etc.
Click to expand...

Still not clear on enforcement point. But I opine that "Prevention" is the better tool to focus on. From an evolutionary standpoint, humans haven't got that element worked out all that well - yet. It's getting there, but like everything else, life is a process, not an event.

People model behaviors to their offspring - both intentionally and unintentionally. Parents can teach offspring their particular values, traditions, beliefs...which can all go down the drain once an offspring becomes exposed to its environment and socialization processes. And yes, and offspring's peer relationships can be a life altering experience. However, peer networking alone among young people can undo everything parents try to instill in their children.

Humans are complicated. And still flawed in so many ways.
 
joG said:
Enforcement is a complex mix of activities that are not really designed to safeguard against individual crimes but to reduce the number of crimes committed. This might not be the way we feel or experience it just as we do not feel we are replenishing vitamin A, when we crunch a carrot. Evolution makes things feel good, when they help the genes to pass to a next generation. Revenge is not good, because it feels right. It was good, because it discouraged people to act in ways that reduced the number of surviving offspring. We punish behavior that harms us not to punish the deed but to prevent tomorrow's crimes. That is one aspect of enforcement. Others are found in upbringing, in peer group pressure etc.
Click to expand...

This is just over-the-top, irrelevant, jumbled nonsense. True pseudo-intellectual meaningless diversion. And dont even bother claiming I dont 'understand' it enough to know, since I have a strong background in and am well-read on evolution and the development of societal behaviors in humans. (some of my favorite subjects, even today)

Your inept articulation of 'evolution related to making things feel good :doh' demonstrates that you do not have a clear understanding of that process, as well as the silly carrot example demonstrating you understand little about human physiology or nutrition or eating! :lamo
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Thanks, NL...

I should have thrown in a little disclaimer, or the like, to indicate my agreement with your perspectives regarding pain and right to life. Actually, I was using your post as a springboard to remind pro-life advocates about what the core pro-choice issue is. And perhaps, IMO, it is the most important issue that women face today.

Rather than pro-life seeking realistic solutions to abortion they want to attack women's fundamental rights - which they simply don't see as being equal to those of men.

Pro-life advocates want women's constitutional rights significantly diminished or dismantled. Why? It can't be any other way in order for all stages of the yet to be born to gain equal rights with the born. But that's where they become completely myopic in their reasoning. It's not possible to give a yet to be born equal rights to the born. Or even in limited ways that would be important to the yet to be born so they can be protected in the same manner as the born.

The pain argument is just one more derailing argument. And I think that you've nicely pointed that out. Also you've expounded on right to life. You're right on. Nature doesn't give a **** about the right to life. In fact, Nature has been pretty damn very successful at the destruction of life.

So again:

The right to life argument is based on natural rights/natural law theories. Once breaking down these theories to their core elements - it is evident that they don't hold up. In other words, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE! Not for any stage of development - born or not yet born.

There is evidence that there's no true right to life in any nation - anywhere. All one needs to do is open their eyes and use a tool that allows us all to travel around the world 24/7.

Based on incredible knowledge regarding every developmental stage of life - and the fact that every stage has been dissected over and over and over for eons - tells us that it is biologically impossible for 1st and section trimester fetuses to feel pain. The don't possess the neural or brain development that would allow the "FEELING" of pain to occur. Yet pro-life will repeat this myth over and over and over when all of the evidence points to the contrary. They're great at clinging to a lot of myths. Why? Because their fundamental argument that human life is special, sacrosanct for many is what they're taught from an early age. They don't believe they need to look for other evidence outside of their personal beliefs, which have been handed down for perhaps generations. Or they've had some revelation about some power outside themselves - which beckons them to carry out some mission on its behalf. You've pointed that out as well.

Thanks
Click to expand...

If fetuses get a right to life - which nobody in this society has - then I'll be starting up a petition campaign to make sure that every person in America has a guaranteed minimum income, enough food to eat each day and suitable shelter. Those thousands of homeless people who die each year due to exposure, where is their right to life? If the unborn get this privilege then so should everyone else, since we're above natural law now and everything.
 
Northern Light said:
If fetuses get a right to life - which nobody in this society has - then I'll be starting up a petition campaign to make sure that every person in America has a guaranteed minimum income, enough food to eat each day and suitable shelter. Those thousands of homeless people who die each year due to exposure, where is their right to life? If the unborn get this privilege then so should everyone else, since we're above natural law now and everything.
Click to expand...

Worth repeating...and thanks...
 
Removable Mind said:
Still not clear on enforcement point. But I opine that "Prevention" is the better tool to focus on. From an evolutionary standpoint, humans haven't got that element worked out all that well - yet. It's getting there, but like everything else, life is a process, not an event.

People model behaviors to their offspring - both intentionally and unintentionally. Parents can teach offspring their particular values, traditions, beliefs...which can all go down the drain once an offspring becomes exposed to its environment and socialization processes. And yes, and offspring's peer relationships can be a life altering experience. However, peer networking alone among young people can undo everything parents try to instill in their children.

Humans are complicated. And still flawed in so many ways.
Click to expand...

Only one note I would like to make. I suspect that the socialization process in and circumstances of an increased number of family unites has deteriorated or developed in a way that makes children more susceptible to behavior that may be considered asocial or anti-social or to groups that behave that way.
 
Lursa said:
This is just over-the-top, irrelevant, jumbled nonsense. True pseudo-intellectual meaningless diversion. And dont even bother claiming I dont 'understand' it enough to know, since I have a strong background in and am well-read on evolution and the development of societal behaviors in humans. (some of my favorite subjects, even today)

Your inept articulation of 'evolution related to making things feel good :doh' demonstrates that you do not have a clear understanding of that process, as well as the silly carrot example demonstrating you understand little about human physiology or nutrition or eating! :lamo
Click to expand...

It might be as you say for someone that did not consider the way evolution works.
 
joG said:
It might be as you say for someone that did not consider the way evolution works.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah. The World According To joG should only work the way you think it should.:roll:
 
minnie616 said:
Yeah, yeah. The World According To joG should only work the way you think it should.:roll:
Click to expand...

Well, no. But the theory of evolution is relatively well established. If someone thinks that a deduction is wrong, it should be possible to formulate the antithesis. That would be a smart kind of reply.
 
joG said:
Well, no. But the theory of evolution is relatively well established. If someone thinks that a deduction is wrong, it should be possible to formulate the antithesis. That would be a smart kind of reply.
Click to expand...

The evolution theory was thrown out by man the minute we were intelligent enough to build fire and used our intelligence to change the world. Longer life due to medicine anyone?
 
minnie616 said:
The evolution theory was thrown out by man the minute we were intelligent enough to build fire and used our intelligence to change the world. Longer life due to medicine anyone?
Click to expand...

That is certainly not quite correct. A sideshow question is, how great the forcing of evolution has been during that period, no doubt. But it has nothing or at best only marginally to do with what I said.
 
There is pain and there is reaction to stimuli. Single cellular organisms react to stimuli. In order to experience pain there has to actually be a mind capable of doing the experiencing. Maybe I am oversimplifying but it seems pretty common sense.
 
joG said:
That is certainly not quite correct. A sideshow question is, how great the forcing of evolution has been during that period, no doubt. But it has nothing or at best only marginally to do with what I said.
Click to expand...

Man's behavioral traits are ever changing because our intelligence and the means to use that intelligence are increasing.
 
minnie616 said:
Man's behavioral traits are ever changing because our intelligence and the means to use that intelligence are increasing.
Click to expand...

Yep! We are beyond and above nature.

At least there are such that seem to think so. ;)
 
joG said:
It might be as you say for someone that did not consider the way evolution works.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I studied evolution and have continued to study its effects on human sociology....so your answer was expected (even referred to in my response, lol) and it as usual, wrong. You should try reading a little Matt Ridley or even Jared Diamond. Diamond is good for laypeople.

Until you understand it better, you should leave evolution out of your arguments.
 
joG said:
Well, no. But the theory of evolution is relatively well established. If someone thinks that a deduction is wrong, it should be possible to formulate the antithesis. That would be a smart kind of reply.
Click to expand...

You didnt articulate anything about evolution accurately enough to rebut. Your post didnt even make sense, it indicated no understanding of the mechanics of evolution at all. Perhaps you would like to try and make your argument again, correctly using the principles of evolution this time.....
 
For the sake of argument, let's say the fetus feels pain. Who cares? Women feel pain too and theirs is a given, whether they give live birth or abort. The fetus, and the religious zealots that defend their potential lives over the real lives of women, don't care about the pain that women experience. They (all fetuses and some zealots) do not have sophisticated thought processes and the experience of pain is something that moral beings are right to consider but, in this case, is like worrying about whether the robber you shoot breaking into your house is offended by the noise of the gunshot. If the goal is to protect yourself, you've already made the calculation that the personal risk is enough to act, out of self preservation, and, being the human being with a preemptive right to exist, you are free to ignore the potential needs of the threat.

I just wish that a fraction of the energy were expended by the anti-abortion crowd, in consideration of the suffering of women, as is expended in consideration of the suffering of fetuses. How ironic that the suffering of pregnancy and childbirth are considered the wages of sin, divine pay-back for eve's transgressions, but the pain that fetuses MAY feel in the womb is enough to take rights away from all woman.

This two-sided coin of misogyny is the currency of cruel idiots, with zero truly moral value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom