Then you weren't looking very hard. The HONEST statement would be
"this is what I found among all the data on fetal pain, where the data actaully confirmed my position. It was all outdated and much of it not scientific, but I had to ignore the current scientific findings because they contradicted my claim."
Now, that would be the HONEST response.
1976? Now you are not 25 years out, you are almost 30 years out. Why is it that you refuse to deal with CURRENT, factual data? Could it be because it all contradicts your claim?
No, the thalamus is nothing but a switchboard. There is no conscious processing occurring at the level of the thalamus. ALL processing of sensation happens in the brain's cortex, the parietal cortex for sensation. Your source is flat-out wrong as current data shows (See below)
Your source is ancient and wrong.
No, they are not. Structures like the thalamocortical tract are not present until the end of the 2nd trimester and don't connect to the cortex until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.
But no processing occurs at that level. It is like turning on a light where the bulb is burned out. The wiring to the thalamus is not sufficient for sensation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16118385&query_hl=1
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10814894&query_hl=4
While a cortical processing of pain theoretically becomes possible after development of the thalamo-cortical connections in the 26th week of gestation
This is the CURRENT data. Why are you groping around in 25-30 year old data for reasons other than this being the only kind that supports your claim? Well, that IS likely the reason, of course, this selective use of outdated sources.
That is no different than when we see the false claims about abortion and breast cancer and that kind of scare mongering falsehoods.
there you go again with very old sources, this one even seeming to suggest that a reflex somehow is a conscious movement. Perhaps you should update your reference list to something more current and accurate? Oh, wait, that would mean that you don't have an argument, so I guess I shouldn't expect that anytime soon, right?
Actually, it is called the ROOTING REFLEX. And you have outdone yourself this time. This is MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS OLD. they didn't even have MRI back then, much less a PET Scanner.
Yes, more reflexes. Similar to what happens during general anesthesia surgery which is why a complete muscle relaxant such as curare is also used in surgery. Now, I am not sure here..., Are you going to claim that people feel pain during surgery when they are under general Anesthesia? the fetus reacting through reflexes, of course, is not evidence of it actually feeling anything. Again, I refer you to my CURRENT sources, the ones that are up to date.
Hmm, no date on this one. And yes, impulses to the cord that result in motor response, which
IS the definition of a reflex. Now, when they talk about the "brain," we know (as is seen in the 2nd reference I provided above) that the signals to the actual cortex of the brain, these signals don't reach the cortex until after the 26th week of pregnancy.
Well, this one ALSO is 25 years old, so calling it "excellent” is a stretch. Likewise, when the talk is about scalp electrodes and forceps, we are talking about actual delivery. You know, 40 weeks of pregnancy. No abortions occur around delivery, so that is downright silly to use in a discussion about abortions. Nobody, of course, has denied the fetus feeling pain at the time of term delivery.
So please again enlighten me, what was so "Excellent" about this article? On first look, it seems utterly irrelevant and immaterial. So how can it be excellent?
Back to 25 year old sources and descriptions of reflexes. Nice going there. Again, I refer to my up-to-date, current references from peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals (as compared to your non-peer-reviewed textbooks) and their accurate factual data. Data that directly contradicts your outdated claims and are peer-reviewed scientific sources rather than textbooks.
Ah, a "because I say so" claim without a reference. But per it being documented by a guy who is now dead, it raises suspicion of the age of your source.
Ah, a THEOLOGICAL source. A source talking about a bay, in a misrepresented developmental stage and also happens to be talking about reflexes again and... Oh, yeah, a source that is 35 years old. Uhum, whatever. More of the same. Well, a bit worse, as this is not even a scientific source. But you were the one who used Esquire magazine as one source of "evidence" for scientific claims, right? So I am not surprised.
There is no baby, as actually, the SCIENTIFIC sources showed, your sources are vastly outdated (See my sources for current data) and some were not even scientific sources. So what exactly did you show other than that you had to resort to outdated and non-scientific sources to make your argument, an argument immediately shot down by current, scientific sources?
