17-Week-Old Fetus Ultrasound Pic Shows Smile

Submitted by: fancylad 6 years ago in
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1319373/The-foetus-broke-big-smile--aged-17-weeks.html

Some experts claim the fetus can feel emotions this early. Others refute this. Pro-Lifers are going to go nuts over this
There are 296 comments:
Male 5
That was scary, I can`t wait to see what he/she grows up to become!
0
Reply
Female 149
When did we start adding an "o" to the word fetus?
0
Reply
Female 27
@DUDEYEAH:

"by the time this picture was taken this child already had a heartbeat, brainwave activity and was recieving oxygen. the absence of these three thigs are what we use to declare someone dead, shouldnt the opposite determine the start of life?"

I don`t think there`s much dispute that a foetus is alive or not, it`s more whether I care what happens to it or not.

(I don`t)
0
Reply
Female 238
She`s carrying an alien! Kill it!
0
Reply
Male 2,737
What does that brat have to smile about? It hasn`t experienced anything yet.
0
Reply
Female 250
Also, my comment is directed to discussion afew pages back, just to clarify.
0
Reply
Female 250
Fighting about religion on the internet = instant lulz. But seriously, if someone quotes something in the bible like say encouraging to kill people, and then you quote something about love and peace, it does not magically somehow cancel out the previous statement. No, it just shows that the bible is a book filled with contradictions and senselessness.

Don`t get me wrong, there are some great morals in religion, but there`s an awful lot of bad stuff too.
0
Reply
Female 19
by the time this picture was taken this child already had a heartbeat, brainwave activity and was recieving oxygen. the absence of these three thigs are what we use to declare someone dead, shouldnt the opposite determine the start of life?
0
Reply
Female 28
I`m a nursing student who just finished my OB rotation. The "smile" is just a reflex...fetuses have to learn gross muscle control from the time they transition from embryo to fetus. A fetus is a fetus until it is born...THEN it is a baby...THEN it is a human. Also...babies don`t smile meaningfully until they`re at least 3 months old...until then they`re curious little poop machines...just so everyone knows...
0
Reply
Female 674
Definitely not smiling. Looks like the baby`s face is just gaunt.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"But the baby belongs in the womb. That is its natural place."

Well Posion Ivy has a natural place in your back yard, but you don`t have to let it grow there right? Because it`s your yard. Well it`s the womans body, it`s her yard, and she decides what she wants growing in it. Whether it is natural or not is irrelevant. The relevant issue is whose body is it? Is it the womans or the babies? I believe it is the womans and hence she has the right to decide whether or not she wants something to grow in it, at the expense of it.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
... previousy explained you can do.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Chesspoly First off, I do deny that it is a person. In my opinion it has the potential to become a person but it is not yet a person as I would define it.

Secondly, They don`t actually kill the baby in most non-third world abortions today. They sedate it and remove it from what I understand. This is not killing it, it is just denying it the right to live in the mother`s body without her consent or her "treatment" as you put it. If it could survive on it`s own then it would.

"But a mother has a duty to its child"

No. Actually she does not. She can give the child up or drop off the child at any time in most states without legal reprocussion. Now if she chooses to care for it that is another story.

"Under this line of reasoning, I could lay my child to rest even after he/she is born"

No under this line of reasoning you could decide that you didn`t want to care for your child even it is born, which as I have prev
0
Reply
Male 10
cont...

Under this line of reasoning, I could lay my child to rest even after he/she is born. After it is born, I still have the prima facie duty to nurish, carry, and protect this child. Up until they are 18. The burden doesn`t just stop at pregnacy, it continues on for a number of years. but it would be absurd to suggest I still dont have a responsibility towards it.

So there you have it. Please clarify how you take my alien/robot analogy, respond to the standard three points against thompsons violinist analogy, and respond to my criticism of your reasoning on duty after birth.
0
Reply
Male 10
cont...

I am merely witholding treatment. In abortion, it`s an active killing. Similar to the distinction in euthanasia between active and passive euthanasia.

Also, Thompson ignores prima facie duty. Or just moral obligation. the robo/ali are strangers. I have no moral obligation to them if i suddenly found myself awake attatched to them. But a mother has a duty to its child. What if one day, I woke up attatched to my own child? Even if it was artificial, i still have a moral duty to my child. It would not be so if it was a stranger. So my rights concerning individual liberties do not over ride the fundamental right to my childs life.

now, you say, "You cant force someone to nurish, carry, and protect another life at the expense of their own body and life. It`s their decision. Not yours or even the `babys`. The `baby` does not have the right to control it`s mothers body for it`s own benefit only the mother has rights to her body. To bad. " cont...
0
Reply
Male 10
@notthatbored Ok, before I directly respond to your question, would it be fair to assume that you are ceding that the being "inside" me is a person? Because it doesn`t seem like youre denying it. Though you can consistently say yes, it is a person, and ask if I can still abort it. The point I was trying to make with alien and robot was that arguments trying to define personhood from organ functions are irrelevant. I would just like clarification.

Ok, so is it ok for the alien or robot to live inside me? I would say no, because that is an intrusion. Now, the force of your point (or J.J. Thompson) is that since I said no to the robot, I should say no to the baby. The problem is that the two are not analogous. It`s not the same.

The robo/ali is tresspassing because it does not belong there. I don`t have a duty to it. But the baby belongs in the womb. That is its natural place. It is not tresspassing.

Also, by denying the rob/ali, I am merely withhol
0
Reply
Female 219
The fact of the matter is it is a very long and hard process to adopt someone. You could be a saint and your chances would be slim because you dont meet the standards, so most dont even try and if your above the age of 5 then your chances of getting adoped go down drastically. Im not saying i agree w abortion im not saying i disagree but its not that simple is what i am saying. Sometimes you gotta think about the situation weigh the pros and cons and be willing to think not just about what your opinions are but be willing to listen to others too think if you were in their shoes just sayin...
0
Reply
Female 219
Im sorry to burst your bubble cracker jack but its not always clean cut rambows and gumdrops. Just because there are some nice good hearted people out there, doesnt mean that there will be homes for all those unwanted kids. I was in foster care for a good part of my life and tho my mom did want meh and i had a home to go to, i have met my share of kids who did not either because their parents didnt want them, or couldnt have them for various reasons and there is not others just waiting around the corner to scoop you up and give you the best life in the world.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
fivezones: Thank You. Just trying to find a compromise solution, I know it won`t make everyone happy, But I still believe in the reasoning of `at heartbeat` around 12 weeks.
0
Reply
Female 850
it looks like a scary demon. i was pro life but now i want a choice to destroy evil monsters like this one.
0
Reply
Male 4
holy poo
0
Reply
Female 1,236
What a lovely idea--but, that is not a smile.
0
Reply
Male 582
Yes maiye you are pretty vile all the way around. So what?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@chesspoly Well what if that space alien or robot just wanted to live inside you for a little while because it couldn`t survive on its own? Wouldn`t it be your decision whether or not to let it? What if you said yes but then decided you wanted it out? Would you still have the rights to your body? I think so.

You can not force someone to nurish, carry, and protect another life at the expense of their own body and life. It`s their decision. Not yours or even the `babys`. The `baby` does not have the right to control it`s mothers body for it`s own benefit only the mother has rights to her body. To bad.
0
Reply
Male 1,021
Cute post. Some of your comments make me ashamed of the human race, though

CrakrJak: You were more dedicated to this post than I ever saw anyone on IAB before. I don`t have strong feelings about this like you, but I respect your effort.
0
Reply
Male 10
cont...

response to the more philosophically inclined brethren for abortion. And my argument against abortion is simple. Personhood begins at conception. There is no moral difference concerning time of development. I`ll unpack this when i hear responses.

look forward to replies.
0
Reply
Male 10
ok, i`ve skimmed this thread from page one. damn...

i would say just about all arguments from functioning (or lack thereof) organs is completely irrelevant. If a space alien came down to earth and did not breathe air, had no blood, had no nervous system (and thus could not feel pain), i am not therefore justified in killing it. There is a huge difference between being a human and being a person. Look it up.

Also, if a robot with a mechanical body saw me approaching it with a baseball bat, put up its mechanical arms and said, "Oh dear God no!" I would not destroy that robot. I would consider the robot and alien a person, and thus has a right to life. Biology is irrelevant.

And seriously, what is it with these "a woman has a right to choose" crap? I think i saw a "back alley abortions hurt women" argument a couple pages back. That`s like the worst argument ever! I still don`t know why people use that.

Anyways, that`s my
0
Reply
Male 219
ffs, you can take a picture of a pig that makes it look like it`s smiling. That doesn`t mean it shouldn`t be bacon.
0
Reply
Female 177
Ummm ok so your a heartless bitch, and we care why?
0
Reply
Female 251
Maybe I`m just a heartless bitch but personaly...I don`t give a damn if it smiles. Hell i don`t give a damn it if breaks into a drating tap dance. If i want to abort the baby, then I`m going to abort the baby. End of discussion.If i can`t finalcialy take care of it...abortion. If I was raped...abortion. If it is a danger to my health...abortion. If I just plain don`t want it...guess what? ABORTION! Like I said, I`m a heartless bitch.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"The reason to pick heartbeat is this, The heart pumps oxygenated blood throughout the body and is essentially necessary for the other fetal systems to develop properly."

So what if there is a heart beat? The baby can not survive on it`s own and it would be ridiculous to say that it is any persons legal obligation to keep another `person` alive at the expense of their own body. Period. The end.

Would I have an abortion? Never. Should the government be able to control womens bodies and force them to carry a baby to term which will drastically effect their social status and economic future? HECK NO. It isn`t the governents body or business. It isn`t any of your business either! Or mine!
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Sorry, but the smile is an illusion. Shape of the human jaw is a curve, like the letter u. Seen from head-on, it appears as a straight line, from above, like a smile, from below, a frown.

Had the ultrasound image been taken from a slightly different angle, the fetus would have appeared to be frowning.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
That`s no smile...........
IT`S A SPACE STATION.
0
Reply
Female 2,695
also, they spell it "foetus" and that`s weird.
0
Reply
Female 2,695
couldn`t they call the whole pregnancy inhumane if the baby can experience emotions at that stage? i mean apparently they`ve seen them look terribly unhappy in there, and being in a cramped uterus filled with fluid sounds awful to me.
0
Reply
Female 1,427
Hey, dogs smile when they`re panting, but that doesn`t mean they`re happy.

Chimps smile as a threat.

And the natural curvature of the jawline can appear as a smile.

That fetus is going to haunt my dreams, frickin creepy grimace. O.o
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I-IS-BORED: whether or not a persons heart can be restarted is not relevant. There are people frozen in cryogenic conditions right now that are dead, Whether or not sometime in the future they might be able to revive them doesn`t make them `alive` right now.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
[quote]"The baskets contained apples, bananas and oranges." Most people can figure out I have several baskets of separate fruit[/quote]

Actually no they couldn`t, You could have multiple baskets of all 3 fruits or Separate baskets each containing one of the 3 fruits.

That is why I used the word `Or`, It defines the list of 3 as separate circumstances that are not dependent upon the other.
0
Reply
Male 3,915
17 weeks? that`s a little over 4 months?

yeah that seems right...what`s the big deal?

Pro-choice
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@almightybob
except your heart can stop and be restarted without your life being restarted, so heart can`t be used as the standard of whether or not you are alive and many people lack functioning lungs but are still considered alive
0
Reply
Male 17,512
[quote]There`s no logical reason to choose the heartbeat over breathing or brainwave activity, because all three are equally essential signs of life. If any one of the three stops, the person is dead.[/quote]

Then we need to call an ambulance for I-IS-BORED, His brainwaves are definitely absent. :-)

The reason to pick heartbeat is this, The heart pumps oxygenated blood throughout the body and is essentially necessary for the other fetal systems to develop properly. If a fetus`s heart never starts beating it will lead to a miscarriage.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@CrakrJak
yes your basket scenario is correct, but if i say
"The baskets contained apples, bananas and oranges." Most people can figure out I have several baskets of separate fruit, the sentence that says I have several baskets of mixed fruit would be "Each basket contained apples, bananas and oranges." You made use of a plural `cases` as I already said.

The world Republican doesn`t mean of the Republican Party of the United States of America. And really? If i gave you 100`s of millions of dollars I think people would see some connection there. If Republicans of the US funded his government, then they must not have issue with the policies of it.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]But I decided the only way to settle this was logically, If your heart stops you die, Therefore when your heart starts you`re alive. It`s simple, elegant, and both legally and morally defensible. [/quote]

Yes CJ, but here`s the crux of my point.
Using the EXACT SAME LOGIC with breathing, the conclusion would be that life begins at birth.

And again, I could apply that logic to brainwave activity, and arrive at a limit of ~20 weeks.

There`s no logical reason to choose the heartbeat over breathing or brainwave activity, because all three are equally essential signs of life. If any one of the three stops, the person is dead.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I-IS-BORED: Saddam Hussien belonged to the Bath Party, Look it up. He had no connection whatsoever to the American Republican party.

North Korea calls itself the `Democratic People`s Republic of Korea`, Do you honestly believe they are democrats or republicans ?

Dude, Get real.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I-IS-BORED: I don`t know where you learned the English language from, But you are grammatically wrong and need to re-learn how commas and how the words `and` and `or` are to be used correctly in lists.

Use the comma when denoting a series. This is a set of three or more "list" items within a sentence. Many writers omit the last comma as "and" is also a connective

Example: "The basket contained apples, bananas and oranges." Meaning all 3 are present in the basket.

As opposed to "The basket might contain apples, bananas, or oranges" Which means the basket might contain all 3 or just apples or oranges or bananas alone.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@CrakrJak
don`t put a monkey`s words in my mouth, don`t put a monkey`s anything in my mouth for that matter

and FYI saying i don`t know any in ALL CASES, and i ESPECIALLY don`t know any IN SEPARATE CASES clearly says i don`t know any who are against in all cases, in fact, i don`t know any who are against any individual cases!
0
Reply
Male 2,419
Fascism is the extreme right, extreme republican
Saddam Hussein is identified as a Republican, he lived in the Republican Palace, had Republican Guards, and was funded by... a Republican President!
Richard Nixon/George Bush (seriously? you need these pointed out?) REPUBLICAN

need i continue?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
As I said before "I know of no Republican stating that abortion should be banned in ALL CASES", That`s because there likely are very very few, If any.

Furthermore, evilmonkey stated [quote]there are plenty of republicans that think abortion is wrong in ALL cases[/quote]. If there are `Plenty` it should be an easy task to find at least one or two, Right ?

Like I said, Put up or shut up.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
what you basically said is
i know no republican who would ban abortion even for rape, incest, or the sake of the life of the mother

which while preserving the same logic can be split into
i know no republican who would ban abortion even for rape
and
i know no republican who would ban abortion even for incest
and
i know no republican who would ban abortion even for the sake of the life of the mother

as 3 separate cases

Putting "rape, incest, and life of the mother" in your sentence would only imply all 3 occurring at once if it was worded as `case` not `cases` which clearly makes the distinction of multiple scenarios. If you wish to change what you said, do so as soon as you can after posting, if in the future you change your opinion state that you have done so, but do not argue that you did not say what you said.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I-IS-BORED: I stated specifically `Republican` examples, He spouted a list of people he deems evil for the sole purpose of trying to libel me, That is not a proper example(s) no matter how you slice it.

0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Crakr
You asked for examples so he provided some, now you`re angry with his examples? Make up your mind sir. If you wish to get all possible examples and select only the subset you deem to be the `norm` then go open Google yourself, otherwise don`t chastise people for providing you with a service you asked for.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I-IS-BORED: I worded my sentence grammatically correct... rape or incest or life of the mother = rape, incest, or life of the mother.

Not, rape and incest and life of the mother would equal rape, incest, and life of the mother. That would be an extremely rare case for all 3 circumstances to be present at the same time, Now wouldn`t it ?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: You just fail at arguing, Period. That comparison you just made was not only disgusting and insulting, It`s libelous. I`d seek an apology from you, But I know you won`t give it.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
let me introduce you to your very specific choice of the word `or` as opposed to `and`
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I-IS-BORED: Did you read that `All Cases` part ? It`s very specific and I worded it that way intentionally. `All Cases` means without any exception whatsoever, Any example you post where that politician states exceptions fails to meet the criteria of `All Cases`.

0
Reply
Male 582
"Republicans have a burning desire to control everyones life from cradle to grave and force people accept what they think is good for them."

Ok I have read some stupid poo before but that one takes the cake. Anyone that thinks the Dems or Reps are anything but masters is a fool of the first order, blind or both. You both dance to the same tune and feed power to a system built to make you a slave.

I will speak straight about abortion with anyone but such coolaid drinkers are a waste of breath.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: It`s obvious you are implacably at the extreme left end of this controversy.

I was at the far right end end at one time, But I decided the only way to settle this was logically, If your heart stops you die, Therefore when your heart starts you`re alive. It`s simple, elegant, and both legally and morally defensible.

There are many children born with defects everyday, Many of which no doctor or procedure can determine beforehand, That doesn`t mean they are any less loved or cared for.

In your world, It seems, You would rather the fetus be killed if it were anything less than perfect. That`s just too heartless and spartanistic man.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
It`s not a miss. I-IS-BORED is 100% right. There`s lots of others here let me Google that for you... Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Jimmy Swaggert, Richard (I`m not a crook) Nixon, Kim Jong Il, George Bush Jr., Just to name a few. You`re in good company CJ.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"I know of no Republican stating that abortion should be banned in all cases, Especially those cases involving rape, incest, or the life of the mother. "

forgive me if i`m wrong, i seem to recall somebody saying this at some point, could just be something i pulled out of my ass or maybe, just MAYBE it`s what YOU wrote what? minutes ago? please keep up with your own end of a conversation at the very least

YOU clearly just stated that you know of no republican who is specifically against abortion in cases of rape, incest, OR mother`s life
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I-IS-BORED: That example does NOT meet the "All cases" accusation evilmonkey put forth.

Swing and a miss there dude.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@CrakrJak
you need examples?
Palin
her only exception is life of the mother, she even said if her own daughter was raped she would be against the abortion
0
Reply
Male 7,378
It`s all gobbeldygook CJ. What if this sonogram showed a highly deformed baby? What if this smile was proof that the child would be in need of medical service from cradle to grave? Abortion needs to be a legal option 100% of the time for any reason. It needs to remain the mothers decision only. Ironically the most vehement anti-abortion retards are middle aged white men who don`t have kids.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
...and don`t just assume all Catholics politicians are against abortion in all cases. Nancy Pelosi is a democrat, a catholic, and is rabidly for abortion all the way up to the moment of birth.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
evilmonkey: Post examples please, Put up or shut up.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
[cont.] ....that would prevent a laboratory from controlling the rights of fetal human beings.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Siora: Perhaps you are unaware of the scientific research and effort taking place to create an artificial womb. Here and Here.

Someday in the near future the argument about it `being a woman`s body` will be moot, Then what happens to a fetus` human rights ? We haven`t even settled the controversy as it stands right now and this new oncoming ethical dilemma will likely blindside us.

That is another reason why I`ve suggested a `at heartbeat` limit at around 12 weeks gestation. It establishes fetal human rights at a logical and non-religious time that can be confirmed via doppler ultrasound. It`s a sound compromise legally and morally that would prevent a laboratory from controllin
0
Reply
Male 143
Crakr...there are plenty of republicans that think abortion is wrong in ALL cases..including rape and incest. You`re not looking very hard.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: [quote]For abortion opponents.... everyone must be forbidden from having an abortion. Republicans have a burning desire to control everyones life from cradle to grave and force people accept what they think is good for them.[/quote]

That statement sir is clear evidence you`ve fell off your rocker.

I know of no Republican stating that abortion should be banned in all cases, Especially those cases involving rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

As for the 2nd part, The Republicans want you to be in control of yourself with less government telling you what you can and can`t do. `Cradle to grave` describes socialism and that has been ingrained into the democrat`s party platform for decades. Who worked to censor and label music cds, games, and dvds ? Al Gore`s wife Tipper, A democrat. Who are the food nazis telling us what is bad for us to eat and wanting those items taxed to death ? Democrats.
0
Reply
Female 406
seriously?
0
Reply
Male 3,076
WTF? who cares?
0
Reply
Female 1,963
MattPrince, it`s understandable that images like that have an emotional impact. No one is saying that having an abortion is an easy thing to do, or that it`s even technically morally right in all circumstances. However, the morality of the issue is debatable and essentially unresolvable. Thus, the only real issue is the legal one. Making abortions illegal result in the deaths of real, independent, conscious individuals, depriving existing children of mothers (and not saving the fetuses inside those women). Even more children end up in the system or in homes where they are not wanted and potentially mistreated.
0
Reply
Female 193
Picture made me shiver. e.e
When I read this article, I kind of thought how people like to take pictures of trees or other plants with faces on them.
0
Reply
Male 234
wow that picture actually scared me
0
Reply
Female 2,509
foetus?
0
Reply
Male 4,593
Kill it before it grows.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
There is no discussion to be had about abortion. It`s settled law. For abortion opponents not having an abortion themselves is not enough [quote]everyone[/quote] must be forbidden from having an abortion. Republicans have a burning desire to control everyones life from cradle to grave and force people accept what they think is good for them. Reject the madness.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
"Additionally, most of what CrakrJak says is ruined due to the large amount of bat-poo insane creationist crap that he`s spouted before. If he believes that crap, he`ll believe anything"

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.. I can`t argue with Crakrs last comment. If the ultrasound looks like a human its bound to have an emotional impact. However, logically, if it`s head ain`t wired up yet.. its just gristle.
0
Reply
Male 221
Additionally, most of what CrakrJak says is ruined due to the large amount of bat-poo insane creationist crap that he`s spouted before. If he believes that crap, he`ll believe anything
0
Reply
Male 221
"almightybob1: And wouldn`t you know it clicking on a link there takes you to the Telegraph, A well respected newspaper in the UK. So please don`t play dumb."

Hahaha, you obviously have never read the telegraph right?

Also, just because something smiles, doesn`t mean it experiences emotions.

It`s not even independently alive, it relies on it`s mother for survival at that stage, take it out and it dies.
0
Reply
Male 2,861
My dog `smiles` at me. However it doesnt mean he`s happy, normally that he`s thirsty. Just `cause something looks like a smile, doesn`t necessarily mean it is.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I`m sure there will be many more opportunities davy, don`t worry :P

[quote]When it`s identifiable as human being, With ultrasound, Mothers are much less likely to abort them.[/quote]

Probably true, which may explain why >86% in the US:


And >87% in the UK:


occur in the first trimester, when the foetus still looks like some sort of crazy prawn.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Oh, alright then you killjoys. I would SO like to hear Crakr`s stance on evolution and geochronology though, since he lectured me a while back on how Noah`s Flood was plausible based on geological evidence. What with mountain caprocks being marine deposits, and other assorted creationist bullwank. As I pointed out to Crakrjak at the time, was akin to me stating that the slate tiles on my roof are derived from sedimentary rocks (true), but that doesn`t necessarily mean that my house was at one time under f*cking water.

Carry on, I`m off to bed.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
When it`s identifiable as human being, With ultrasound, Mothers are much less likely to abort them. I do believe the scientific discovery of ultrasound, And it`s prolific use in early prenatal care, Has saved millions of babies from being aborted.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Let`s please not take this into an `evolution` debate. I do however believe that human beings are more complex, Especially in the areas of Abstract Thought, Inteligence, And Creativity.
[/quote]
True. Whereas, for example, the cow would trump us in digestion system complexity.
But you`re right, let`s not go there.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
[quote]They`re not in order of complexity, because all the species shown are equivalently complex, highly evolved beings.[/quote]

Let`s please not take this into an `evolution` debate. I do however believe that human beings are more complex, Especially in the areas of Abstract Thought, Inteligence, And Creativity.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Nope. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

Your image-posting carries the implication "because it`s identifiable as human, it has human rights". So I wanted to counter with "if it`s not identifiable as human (because they all look more or less the same in early development), does it not have human rights?"

Maybe that was not well conveyed.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: The 18 week picture I posted is fairly obvious that it`s a human, I really do not see what other species have to do with it.

Are you confusing me with Old Ollie`s 3-week statement ?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
You are correct, but for the wrong reasons. They`re not in order of complexity, because all the species shown are equivalently complex, highly evolved beings. Which is more or less what the diagram is intended to show - the similarities between all different species.

They were, from left to right: fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit, human.

I posted it because you posted a picture of what was clearly a member of homo sapiens, so I wanted to point out that it is not always an obvious answer.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: And wouldn`t you know it clicking on a link there takes you to the Telegraph, A well respected newspaper in the UK. So please don`t play dumb.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: Since it seems to be going from simple to more complex, Left to right, I`ll guess the far right. But I wouldn`t be surprised if it was a monkey or something instead.

What is this anyways ? Final Jeopardy ?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]She gave credit for the picture to Lennart Nillson[/quote]
And wouldn`t you know it, clicking Mr Nillson`s name on that blog directs us back to our old friends LifeSiteNews.com again!
I like it when things come full circle.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Awww, while I was posting that you deleted posts. Not fair, Crakr. Not fair. Migratory goalposts.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: I did an image search on Google, I didn`t look at the webpage it came from.

So I, Just now, Went back and looked Here

I don`t see `Miss Kelly` stating an agenda, It`s her personal blog. She gave credit for the picture to Lennart Nillson who`s pictures were published in the Telegraph
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Crakr, I`m not saying they`re a Muslim Fundamentalist site. Quite the opposite, they (like you) are Islamophobes, and (like you) are similarly religious conservatives. Frankly, I don`t care if you call it Islam or Christianity. All the same to me. Link to their "About" page.

Not my words, theirs.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Yes Crackr, I agree that is an example of homo sapiens.

Now identify the column containing homo sapiens in this diagram, if you would:



And no peeking on the internet!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]At 17 weeks it`s heart is beating, Has functioning lungs, Has nerve endings and an EEG.[/quote]
At 17 weeks: Beating heart, yes. Lungs yes, but they are not capable of breathing at this stage, so they are not functioning. Nerve endings, perhaps, but they`re not connected up. EEG, no.

The brain wiring occurs usually between weeks 22 and 24. It depends on your sources, but I haven`t seen one that goes before 20 weeks.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: That picture is of an 18 week old fetus. Do a simple image search, It and others like it were not hard to find.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
p.s. after a bit of digging, your pic is from a website which states its claim and agenda as being opposed to "coarseness of popular culture, the rise in Islamic fundamentalism and paganism... and push back a bit against the barbarians."

You`ll forgive me if I take your pics (and your opinions) with a seriously large pinch of salt.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Why yes, Crakr, it certainly is. That`s a baby of 7-8 months, about to be born into the world. A person.

But that`s not the conversation that we`re having here. It`s about ethics, when it`s OK to terminate a pregnancy. No-one here on this thread (best I can tell) is advocating murdering full-term babies.

But yeah... Good night.
0
Reply
Male 17,512



That`s a human being, I don`t care to hear any more lame excuses saying that it isn`t. Good night
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Crakr, as much as we may disagree on some levels political, ideological and religious, you are dead right. There`s definitley a conversation to be had here about abortion, and when a human foetus is considered a life worth saving. It goes to the deepest cores of human values, and it`s important to get it right. I would disagree fundamentally with you on where those boundaries lie, but you`re dead right, it`s an important issue. One that I for one am very interested in.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
No matter how you spell it, At 17 weeks it`s heart is beating, Has functioning lungs, Has nerve endings and an EEG. Regardless of whether or not this baby `smiled` voluntarily or not, It`s a living human being in my book at this stage and should have the same human rights of any full-term baby.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv What Bob said. I assure you, we Scots and British Irish enunciate the English language much better that (some) English people do. I`ve even been accused in the past of being "eloquent" and "well-spoken".

Hey, the kind of British schools myself and Bob went to were called "Grammar Schools" (as opposed to "High Schools") for a reason...
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Ok davymid, but I must bust your balls a bit on enunciation. on second though, never mind man, I "appen" to disagree and whatever makes you "appy" is what you should use.[/quote]
Ironically, both myself and davy (assuming he has the standard Belfast accent) would put quite a bit of emphasis on the H at the start of words. Dropping it tends to be more of an English thing :P
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I never said it was nothing special. And a foetus isn`t replaced like other parts. You could get pregnant again, but it wouldn`t be the same foetus.

The best analogy I can think of is that it would be like tearing out a chunk of the mother`s flesh. It`s a part of the mother and although it could grow back, it won`t be the same again.
0
Reply
Male 582
Ok davymid, but I must bust your balls a bit on enunciation. on second though, never mind man, I "appen" to disagree and whatever makes you "appy" is what you should use. :D
0
Reply
Male 582
"I say that serious harm did occur because, even if you consider the foetus to be part of the mother until birth (which could be argued to be true), you are causing irreparable damage to that part."

Ok here I am losing your logic chain. If its just a part of the mother, and really nothing special; a thing that can be replaced with ease like a fingernail torn off in the scuffle; then no big deal?

Why hope for a more harsh punishment?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
And don`t even get me STARTED on aluminium/aluminum. The "ium" suffix was originally intended in the world of science to denote any chemical element, so even if you weren`t a chemist you would know just from hearing a term ending in "ium" you would know you`re dealing with a chemical element (though old words kept their names, iron, tin, copper, etc). Same as the suffix "ite" means you`re dealing with a mineral. Dropping the "i" to make it just "aluminum" bucks the entire scientific system, and is deeply, deeply retarded. (Sorry to rant, but I`m astounded at the number of American colleagues that berate me, as a British professional PhD scientist, for spelling aluminium "wrong").

/triple off-topic post, sorry!
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Footnote on spelling: As Bob pointed out, in British English it`s spelt (not "spelled": yes, another British English word) foetus. British English tends to spell (especially scientific) terms with the original Greek or Lating root spelling. American English tends to spell words phoenetically (phonetically if you`re American), or as they sound to the ear, with disregard to the original spelling.

Hence foetus/fetus, paedophile/pedophile, sulphur/sulfur, palaeontology/paleontology, etc.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
"On the other hand, the heart starts beating only 3 weeks after conception"
Hold the phone OldOllie, 3 weeks? You DO know that a 21 day old foetus a basically a clump of cells which is starting to take the shape of a spinal cord and brainstem (several weeks later it starts looking like a little fish). There is no heart to beat at this stage, no internal organs at all in fact, it`s all building primordial structure at three weeks, I assure you.



Source
0
Reply
Male 137
looks like wind (gas) to me
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Well I`m not a lawyer, so I don`t know how this scenario would actually be prosecuted, but I would say that in my opinion serious harm HAS been caused, and so GBH or aggravated assault should be the charge and the basis of the sentence. There may be no intention to cause harm, but it still resulted.

I say that serious harm did occur because, even if you consider the foetus to be part of the mother until birth (which could be argued to be true), you are causing irreparable damage to that part.

So I think that no, 6 months to a year is not enough, but I would hope that a conviction for GBH or aggravated assault would always give a longer sentence than that.
0
Reply
Male 812
Oh fzck! It`s Joker!
0
Reply
Female 217
If I slept, that face would be the kind of thing that haunted my dreams.
0
Reply
Male 582
Now that we have what our scenario entails, with no intent of serious injury (or low resultant injury to the intended victim) and even low monetary loss (lets say 25 dollars or 50 pounds sterling etc) due to the crime, Is it justice that the perpetrator receive say, 6 months or a year in jail?

Is that justice? Lets put personal emotions aside a second. Is that a "just" punishment for such a crime? If you read about it in the paper, happening to someone you never met; would you say to yourself "justice was done" and feel that the punishment fit the crime?

Please dont feel that I am grilling or pestering you. Its just that I am pretty sure you have an IQ over 98 (unlike the majority of the ant farm I like to shake up here for amusement) and I want to understand where you are coming from.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Foetus? This is real legitimate stuff here.[/quote]
This is a UK paper. Foetus is the UK spelling.
0
Reply
Male 582
almightybob1 The laws seem similar. We have four levels of assault Assault 1 is the worst and means you did permanent harm. Scaring, broken bones etc. Assault 4 is basically some shoving and punching but nothing more than bruising and swelling as a result.

Aggravated Assault is when you are assaulting, and then got weird. Like you were beating someone up and then bashed their head into a wall or something. Although you didnt kill the victim, the potential was there for serious or permanent injury.

GBH (in most states) entails injury that is permanent and will effect the victim over a long period of time or for life.

0
Reply
Male 904
Just because it makes faces we recognize as smiling or whatever doesn`t necessarily mean it`s feeling the emotions we associate with those faces. That`s utter speculation.

And anyway 88% of abortions happen before the 12 week mark with about 60% before 8 weeks so this is a little deceptive.
0
Reply
Male 904
Just because it makes faces we recognize as smiling or whatever doesn`t necessarily mean it`s feeling the emotions we associate with those faces. That`s utter speculation.

And anyway 88% of abortions happen before the 12 week mark with about 60% before 8 weeks so this is a little deceptive.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Foetus? This is real legitimate stuff here.
0
Reply
Male 76
Some of you are calling it cute. Id say thats probably the creepiest Sh** ive ever seen on here xD
0
Reply
Male 582
Kougaiji is an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 661
I think I`m going to place my faith in the men and women who spend almost a decade in additional schooling and study over anyone else. These folks can take out a heart, and replace it with another one. They can open up a skull and remove cancerous tissue, and leave you still functioning. If doctors and scientists say the fetus doesn`t feel and is not alive, thats enough for me.
0
Reply
Male 25
i lol`d at "foetus"
0
Reply
Male 373
It`s cool how people naturally know how to smile.
0
Reply
Male 172
"yanging & almightybob1: Just because it was discovered 45 years ago doesn`t mean it`s inaccurate. The fact of fetal breathing is substantiated every day with doppler ultrasound in hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices every day. "

It is inaccurate because it is again a case of special pleading. They do NOT breathe in the sense that we do. Their lungs do not process oxygen from the fluid or air around them.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
yanging & almightybob1: Just because it was discovered 45 years ago doesn`t mean it`s inaccurate. The fact of fetal breathing is substantiated every day with doppler ultrasound in hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices every day.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Kougaiji: I don`t know where you got that stupid definition, But it does not describe my views.

Don`t assume that you `know` me, By reading such stupidity.
0
Reply
Male 1,629
i love how everyone gets stuck on the whole life thing. technically you can say it is alive at conception because at that point it is a separate organism. but of course it doesnt matter because its not a person, before birth it is little more then a parasite
0
Reply
Male 1,021
Can we not look at something cute without the pro-life and pro-choice going nuts?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Kougaiji: Her quality of life may not have been good, But if you condemn her that easily then you also condemn people like Stephen Hawking and those with conditions like cerebral palsy.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Crackr, that is 45 years old, in a magazine which as far as I am aware has no peer review process.

And anyway, that may counter Kougaiji`s statement that the lungs are not in use, but as we`ve established with the never-heard-of-a-fish episode, moving fluid =/= breathing. The foetus gets its oxygen supply through the placenta, not through the lungs, whether they are moving fluid around or not.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Final word before going to bed:
Please don`t judge others so harshly for the choices they make, particularly when you will never have to make such a choice. Abortions are beneficial to women (unsafe or illegal abortions lead to women dying) and children (around 60% of women who get abortions are already mothers).

Facts: Link
0
Reply
Male 172
"Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13"

Lol. Nice. 45 year old paper. Good research.
0
Reply
Male 604
Conservative Christian, noun, definition:
1. Person who is against abortion for individuals that cannot support or take care of children, but at the same time is against providing any social welfare for citizens in need of it. While many call themselves pro life, they agree to fund wars which murder hundreds of thousands and displace millions under the guise of "supporting the troops" which execute these actions. A hypocrite, who pushes the poor and disabled farther and farther back, prevents any social help from being established where it is needed ("NOT IN MY BACKYARD"), but continues to attend a biweekly dress-up contest consisting of mostly sweatshop-made clothing, where he/she donates capital to continue overpopulating the neighborhood with a new, more extravagant, untaxed business at every corner.
2. An uneducated, easily infuriated, easily manipulated voter.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Kougaiji: I`ll give you sources.

"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid with-in his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13

fetal heartbeat will begin to beat in the first trimester. Typically this cannot be heard with even a Doppler until the 9-10th week of pregnancy at the earliest, sometimes not until the 12-14th weeks of pregnancy.
0
Reply
Male 172
"It`s also extremely arrogant for anyone to assume that it is impossible for a fetus to feel pain and/or to possess basic consciousness. We simply don`t know. "

You would need a brain and brain wave activity to feel pain. Many pro-life sources will claim an out-dated and heavily misrepresented medical journal (which doesn`t need to be reviewed) from 1963 that talks about EEG in fetuses aborted via Cesarean sections. They will state that EEG activity starts as early as 8 weeks. This is false.

As we know that, for brain activities to occur, there must exist axons, neurons, and synapses, we know that a fetus does not have any of these prior to weeks 20-24. Therefore, it cannot feel pain.
0
Reply
Male 604
Crakr, it was determined that she was not responding to outside stimuli, and had no hope for recovery. She was not considered a live for all intensive purposes. If you consider that state of existence to be "life", then that is your choice, but it does not meet the scientific definition of it. Thus, unless the family was willing to pick up paying hospital bills (which i imagine you don`t want the government to cover so it only makes sense that the individual decides when to start/stop receiving and paying for the service), he and the doctors had every right to stop wasting resources on someone in a permanent vegetative state.

The brain doesn`t just grow back after massive damage, especially not at her age. It doesn`t happen.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]almightybob1: the case of Terry Schiavo defeats your point, Her husband killed her by demanding that her feeding tube be removed. [/quote]

While I read about this case, can you specify which point this defeats and how?
0
Reply
Male 172
You know, it`s really funny that we`re debating this, because I JUST had a whole two weeks of discussion on Abortion and Euthanasia in my Contemporary Moral Issues class.

Terry Schaivo`s husband might have killed her, but it was passive and involuntary euthanasia, not murder.
0
Reply
Female 536
Whatever you believe about when life begins or women`s rights and all of that, you have to admit that IF unborn babies can feel pain earlier than 24 weeks and IF they are conscious in any way, then allowing them to be intentionally aborted is criminal cruelty at the very least. It`s also extremely arrogant for anyone to assume that it is impossible for a fetus to feel pain and/or to possess basic consciousness. We simply don`t know.

That`s all I`m going to say.
0
Reply
Male 172
Crakr: Sorry, I confused you with wizard77 since you both argued the same idea.

Wizard posited that fetuses do, in fact, breathe. That, instead of air, they breathe amniotic fluid. I pointed out how this was a fallacious case of special pleading.

You then brought up the idea of a fish, and I again pointed out how this was an erroneous case of special pleading.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: the case of Terry Schiavo defeats your point, Her husband killed her by demanding that her feeding tube be removed.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]he stated that only when a baby breathes air for the first time is a fetus alive. [/quote]

But I don`t support abortions up to that point. I think the pain threshold at 24 weeks is a reasonable compromise of where to draw the line.
0
Reply
Male 604
Time to clean up lies...

In a fetus, the lungs are NOT in use. No they are not pumping liquid, they just aren`t in use. All nutrients come from the umbilical cord or are absorbed from the placenta.

The heart and other organs don`t begin to form until 5 weeks into the pregnancy, and at that stage the entire embryo is about 1/16th of an inch long.

It takes about 9-10 weeks for the "baby" to be about 1 inch long. Red blood cells begin to form in the liver at week 11, after which it is officially considered a "fetus" vs an embryo.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
You`ll also notice that I said "or even if someone just beat her up at all". I would be full of rage even if someone just attacked her, because she`s wee and kind and an easy target for the kind of coward you would have to be to attack her.

If you want a legal system based on revenge rather than justice, you`re welcome to it Crackr. But that`s not civilisation, that`s barbarism.


And considering you told me last week about the New Covenant of Jesus, you seem to prefer "an eye for an eye" over "turn the other cheek".
0
Reply
Female 328
It`s creepy. Kill it with fire.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
yanging: I didn`t make "the example of breath as life for a human", Almightybob1 did and he stated that only when a baby breathes air for the first time is a fetus alive.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
OldOllie: The article stated the heart starts beating at 7 weeks, I had read that it was 12 weeks a few years ago. 3 weeks seems very early and I`ve not read any literature stating that.
0
Reply
Male 172
"yanging: The act of breathing is not exclusive to lungs or air. It is a method of oxygenating the blood, We have developed machines that can do this.

Scientists are also investigating if it is possible for mammals to breathe a highly oxygenated fluid instead of air. Liquid-Breathing"

This is a case of special pleading. You gave the example of breath as life for a human, which indicates lungs, then refer to fish as a counter to our rebuttal.

Please try again.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I was being absurd to demonstrate her logical absurdity. [/quote]
And I was being absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of your absurdity.

You and moefreak both choose different signs of life as the defining line. You choose heartbeat, she chooses response to painful stimuli.

You then come up with a scenario where absence of her choice means the person is as good as dead. You claim this shows why her choice is absurd.
I then come up with a scenario where absence of your choice means the person is as good as dead. I claim this shows why your choice is absurd.

They are no different.

[quote]And defibrillators have nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is alive.[/quote]
Neither do unconscious people, but we ended up there anyway.

[quote]If your heart stops beating you are technically dead[/quote]
The same could be said of breathing. That is my whole point.
Brainwave patterns are another indicator often used.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
yanging: I`m not suggesting that people take the law into their own hands, But that desire to seek justice is perfectly normal and correct.
0
Reply
Male 604
Intentionally causing a miscarriage against the woman`s will is considered murder. Accidentally is considered manslaughter, usually. Keyphrase being "against the woman`s will". This has nothing to do with abortion. Abortions are legal until 6 months.

The "fetus"/embryo really mostly looks like goo until after two months, and even then good luck telling it apart from a cow, rat, or even reptile fetus.

If a fetus cannot survive outside of the mother`s womb, then it should not be considered a living thing, it is part of the woman`s body.

While I did enjoy the jesus n` mo link, the fact of the matter is that it /doesnt matter/ what the bible says about life. Maybe in Vatican City, or some other christian-theocratic government, but not in US court. See First Amendment.

Furthermore, making abortion illegal will just force those wanting abortions to resort to unsafe, unregulated, non-clinical, unhygienic means to achieve them.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@CrakrJak, that`s not a bad idea. On the other hand, the heart starts beating only 3 weeks after conception, and it can`t be detected by a stethoscope then. It`s possible that a woman might not realize she`s pregnant until it`s too late.

It`s a tough issue. Any laws restricting abortion would be horrendously difficult to enforce. Should we give pregnancy tests to all women of childbearing age whenever they leave the country and then retest those who tested positive on their return?

Abortion is nasty business, and I`m for anything that would reduce it, but no law will ever stop it completely. How about allowing people pay women to carry babies to term so they can adopt them. There are probably thousands of couples who would pay $25K for a child. I`m sure there are just as many women who would change their minds for that kind of money. Is that child selling? Yes. Will some women get pregnant just for the money? Probably. Is that as bad as abortion? No way.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
yanging: The act of breathing is not exclusive to lungs or air. It is a method of oxygenating the blood, We have developed machines that can do this.

Scientists are also investigating if it is possible for mammals to breathe a highly oxygenated fluid instead of air. Liquid-Breathing
0
Reply
Male 172
"Your first instinct is the correct one, Why else would you want murderous revenge if the fetus wasn`t alive and had rights ? If you were truly convince that it`s just a ball of cells, You wouldn`t feel that way. Maybe you would want to punch him for assaulting your sister, But you stated I would want to beat him to death myself."

Are you assuming moral naturalism? I then disagree with that premise. Your first instinct isn`t always correct.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
[quote]So as I said, emotionally I would want to say "it`s murder"[/quote]

Your first instinct is the correct one, Why else would you want murderous revenge if the fetus wasn`t alive and had rights ? If you were truly convince that it`s just a ball of cells, You wouldn`t feel that way. Maybe you would want to punch him for assaulting your sister, But you stated [quote]I would want to beat him to death myself.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 172
"And defibrillators have nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is alive.

If your heart stops beating you are technically dead, If they manage to restart your heart you may come back alive, If they don`t you remain dead. "

Address the absurdity of your fish comment, please.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: I did not say "If moefreak suggests we use pain sensing as the measurement, we should be allowed to kill unconscious people who cannot feel pain." I was being absurd to demonstrate her logical absurdity.

And defibrillators have nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is alive.

If your heart stops beating you are technically dead, If they manage to restart your heart you may come back alive, If they don`t you remain dead.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]So simple purse snatching and low level assault is it? [/quote]

I don`t know if you have an equivalent in the US, but in England there is an offence called Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). It`s a more serious form of assault. In Scots law it`s called aggravated assault. I would say it should fall under that.

[quote]At 17 weeks, you can`t abort anyway, this does nothing for the argument.[/quote]
The limit in the UK is 24 weeks. And for medical emergencies, right up until birth.
0
Reply
Male 68
according to that spreadsheet or whatever it was that means its ok to get an abortion as late as 6 months. That cant be right can it? i thought you only had like 3. Am i wrong?
0
Reply
Female 798
Does it matter? At 17 weeks, you can`t abort anyway, this does nothing for the argument.
0
Reply
Male 582
So simple purse snatching and low level assault is it?

See something inside me makes it clear that such a light set of charges are also not justice.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Wizard: I have a sister, but no children. And if someone beat her up and caused her to miscarry (or even if someone just beat her up at all), I would want to beat him to death myself.
But that is because I would want revenge, and revenge is not the same as justice, which is why we need an impartial judicial system.

So as I said, emotionally I would want to say "it`s murder", especially if MY family is involved. But impartially and logically (which is how I think the law should be formed) I would say it is not murder.
0
Reply
Female 1,593
Okay. Fetuses and babies don`t smile because they`re happy. They smile because they`re learning how to.

Older babies, around 4-5 months smile because of happiness. You will know the difference because they look at you and then look away. They`re trying to contain their joy.

Kthnx.
0
Reply
Male 343
ive seen that smile before.... SATAN BABY!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]So you`ve never heard of fish then ? [/quote]
Fish have gills, not lungs. They are very, very different.

[quote]Dude, You can`t actually be this obtuse can you ? [/quote]
You said: If moefreak suggests we use pain sensing as the measurement, we should be allowed to kill unconscious people who cannot feel pain.
I said: If you suggest we use heartbeat as the measurement, we should not use defibrillators to restore heart rhythm, since the person is dead the moment their heart stops beating.

How can you NOT see that they are directly analogous?
0
Reply
Male 541
YES! I do believe a fetus is a living thing!!!!

...But so is a genital wart. If it`s gonna irritate you for life, burn it off...
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Obviously causing a woman to miscarry should be a crime, as it is against her will. Just like it is not illegal for me to cut off my own finger, but it should damn well be illegal for anyone else to do it to me against my will.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HARRIS CO., Texas, November 27, 2008 - A Texas appellate court has upheld its ruling that affirms the personhood of an unborn child who was murdered along with its mother.

Jacob Eguia, who was convicted of the capital murders of a woman and her nearly eight months gestation unborn child, challenged the court`s ruling on several points. He argued that finding him guilty of the unborn child`s death violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution, which bars giving preference by law to a religion.

In the Texas Penal Code, as the court noted, “‘Person’ means an individual," and "individual" may refer to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth”; and “‘death’ includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.”
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Kougaiji: Jerimiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

0
Reply
Female 1,963
CrakrJak, in the criminal systems of most western countries in the world (and most of the US, as far as I am aware), causing a woman to miscarry is not murder. It is a crime, but it is not considered homicide.
0
Reply
Male 582
Interesting. Do you have children? If not a sister maybe?

The direction I`m headed here is fairly obvious. Lets say your wife or sister was a month or two along with your son or nephew. Bad guy roughs her up for a few bucks in her purse. Nothing too savage; a black eye, a fat lip and maybe a kick or two to the midsection. No broken bones of stitches needed. This causes a miscarriage. Where do you stand on this? If the perp is caught, do you want him charged with a simple purse snatching and low level assault?

Or does the miscarriage bring it to a new level for you?

As for me and life. Well this may be hard to believe coming from the "flame fanner" but I feel bad even killing a spider in the house. Ill put them outside if I can and if they must die, I usually say "sorry" and do my best to make it fast. And yes, I think plants are alive.

I believe if it grows biologically, it is then by definition, alive.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: [quote]Try filling any living being`s lungs with a fluid and see how long they live.
Breathing requires air. Pushing fluid is not breathing[/quote]

So you`ve never heard of fish then ?

[quote]And by your logic, we should destroy every crash cart and defibrillator in existence.[/quote]

Dude, You can`t actually be this obtuse can you ?

[quote]if a heavily pregnant woman is assaulted and subsequently miscarries, did the attacker commit murder of the unborn child?[/quote]

Men have already been convicted of this and are serving life in prison, It is considered murder.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
almightybob1, I think there`s a distinction that needs to be made between "a life" and "alive". A foetus is alive in the same sense that a mushroom is alive, but it is not a life. A life begins when a child is born.
0
Reply
Male 4,290

[quote]I am not trying to pick pepper out of fly crap here, I`m just attempting to get windage on what "living" or "alive" is to you.[/quote]
No problem, I`m happy to answer questions about it. It`s an interesting topic.

It`s very hard to define life. In general terms, I would go with the definition that states it is "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution".
But that`s more a general definition, not specific for individual cases.

For babies, I would say they are alive when they are capable of surviving outside the womb. As in, they can breathe for themselves, digest food, etc etc etc.

What about you? How do you define life?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Its not a living being? Really? Is a plant a living being?[/quote]
Not until it`s independent, I would say no.
A plant is a living being, yes, but an acorn is not.

There was a case in UK law, C v S Court of Appeal 1987. They ruled that a foetus at the 22-week mark (the stage of the foetus in this case) was not capable of being born alive. I would say that in that case, it is not a living being.
In another case in 1979 it was ruled that the foetus cannot have a right of its own until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother.

Those are both decisions I agree with. Although of course it then raises other questions - if a heavily pregnant woman is assaulted and subsequently miscarries, did the attacker commit murder of the unborn child? Emotionally, I would want to say yes, but logically I have to say no.
0
Reply
Male 604
Bible defines life as beginning at birth, not conception.

see this
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Wizard77, what? I thought we were doing quite well. All I`m saying is, if you are fine with yourself doing things that you personally find wrong, then logically you should be OK with other people doing things that you find wrong. If you are entitled to choose to kill people, then women should be entitled to choose to "kill people" as you view it. Thus, you are pro-choice.

I don`t know why you felt the need to insult me. That doesn`t seem like adult conversation to me.
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Oh, my bad. But I do know they don`t emotionally smile (like connecting happiness to smiling) from birth, so my argument that the fetus wasn`t "smiling" still stands.

Creepy little bugger.
0
Reply
Male 582
bob said0 "In my opinion, a foetus is not yet a living being, up to a point."

Its not a living being? Really? Is a plant a living being?

I am not trying to pick pepper out of fly crap here, I`m just attempting to get windage on what "living" or "alive" is to you.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I`m pretty sure babies learn to emotionally smile by mimicking their parents[/quote]
Nope, some actions are a type of instinct, like an inherited memory. For example, a child who is born blind will still smile and laugh when happy, even though they have never seen a smile.
0
Reply
Male 582
moefreak I didn`t say anything about your morals, my morals. It is obvious that you are either too simple minded and/or emotionally undeveloped to understand what I am talking about, or that you are being intentionally difficult.

I am done attempting to have an adult conversation with you in any case.
0
Reply
Female 1,515
That "smile" will give me nightmares x.x

Anyways, I don`t believe it`s a "smile" at all, since I`m pretty sure babies learn to emotionally smile by mimicking their parents etc. Though babies do smile during their sleep from birth, it`s not the same sort of smile and has no emotional attachment. It`s just a reflex-type thing and for some reason premature babies do it more than full-term babies. *shrugs*
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]almightybob1, the feel pain threshold is at 24 weeks.[/quote]
Oh. 6 months, really? That seems quite far on. Who knew. Well, 24 weeks then.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Wizard77, so you`re fine with me choosing to do whatever I want as long as I accept that it`s morally reprehensible? I don`t think any more of you for killing people while feeling bad about it. I don`t think that having an abortion is the slightest bit wrong, because I do not believe that aborting a foetus is even in the same ballpark as killing a human.

You do realize, though, that if you think that I should have the right to have an abortion (as morally wrong as you may find it), that makes you pro-choice. Just as I think you should have the right to go to war, as much as I find that wrong.
0
Reply
Male 582
"... so... why is it OK for you to choose to kill fully grown, conscious human beings..."

I didn`t say it was ok. I said it is what it is. Killing.

As for what you should do or not do? How could I know. Yeah you can choose not to have sex, or use birth control or whatever you want. I could have decided to become a diesel mechanic or a monk or any number of things. But I do not pretend that what I have done is anything other than what it is and that my actions are my own.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
almightybob1, the feel pain threshold is at 24 weeks.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]you don`t say "well just because it is gruesome doesn`t mean its wrong" or some such.
[/quote]
You`re right. I say "the gruesomeness of an image has no bearing on its morality".

A human is an independent living being, therefore killing is in almost all cases wrong. Obviously there are exceptions - I don`t blame you for killing people in combat, and I would not condemn someone for killing in self-defence or in defence of another.

In my opinion, a foetus is not yet a living being, up to a point. Therefore abortion is acceptable, up to a point. I admit I do have trouble deciding where to draw the line. Because a line must be drawn, but there is always an argument for drawing it a little earlier or later.

Wherever we decide will be fairly arbitrary, so a compromise like Baal`s suggestion of the feel-pain threshold at 16 weeks seems acceptable.
0
Reply
Male 582
"The first was just a little joke, I`ve made plenty of spelling mistakes today myself. No offence meant."

Fair enough.

As for the autopsy comparison, its flawed. Those people are dead before the procedure. Abortion causes the condition of death. If you google murder and see horrid stuff, you don`t say "well just because it is gruesome doesn`t mean its wrong" or some such.
0
Reply
Male 172
Wizard77

You assume that the fetus` right to life supercedes the rights of the mother. I dont believe this is the case. You can argue til your blue in the face about it, but thats just how it is; differing opinions.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Wizard77... so... why is it OK for you to choose to kill fully grown, conscious human beings but it is not OK for women to choose to have an abortion? Or are you in fact saying that it is OK for women to have abortions?

I know what you meant with the stones comment, but I chose to ignore it. If you think that it doesn`t take courage for a woman to have an abortion then you are wrong.

Also, how am I supposed to choose not to get pregant? Never have sex? I`m not ready to have children until I`ve graduated university and have a career going, should I not ever have sex with my future husband until then? I don`t think that`s fair.

And don`t go with the whole "use contraception" angle. I have never had unprotected sex in my life, and I never will. However, this protection can (and does) fail quite a significant proportion of the time.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]And almightybob1, now you are just being as ass.[/quote]
Because of the spelling pedantry, or pointing out the logical fallacy?
The first was just a little joke, I`ve made plenty of spelling mistakes today myself. No offence meant.
No apologies for the latter though. The gruesomeness of an image has no bearing on its morality.
0
Reply
Male 582
And almightybob1, now you are just being as ass.
0
Reply
Male 582
...I could have chosen not to join. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

But neither is anything other than it is. Both require taking direct (and avoidable) action to end life. All the word smithing and talking around corners doesn`t change that.
0
Reply
Male 582
moefreak Yeah you can play on the "I am a woman and don`t have stones" angle. But you are smart enough to know what I meant.

Yes you can get pregnant and you can choose to get an abortion. You can also choose to not get pregnant.

I agree that most medical procedures are not pretty. But then we are not talking about most medical procedures. We are talking about abortion. Are there fakes and propaganda? Yep. No doubt about it. But again you are smart enough to tell the difference aren`t you?

An abortion kills. If it didn`t then there wouldn`t be so much contention over it. I can easily say that I will never need to face such a difficult position. I cant get pregnant and so its easy and safe for me to say Id never do such a thing. I have killed full grown human beings. Many people say they could never do that. They are safe in this statement because they are not in combat. But I live in a nation where military service is voluntary. I could have chosen
0
Reply
Male 774
Female 1,682
I`m still going to abort if I want to anyways...If its before 4 months I won`t feel bad. Most doctors won`t do it past that anyways. This fetus is already 4 months and a week. Which means just about every abortion doctor wouldn`t abort it. So...yeah.

Its my body, its my choice. It doesn`t affect you in anyway. You don`t even need to know about it. Which means I can abort a parasite from my body if I choose to. If you don`t like it then thats just to damn bad. Am I saying you should be able to abort fetus after fetus? No. You shouldn`t use it as a birth control. But regardless, it is my choice in the end, not yours. You`re just going to have to deal with that.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Yeah? Google "abrtion" in images and see if you still think that they are Just a symbiotic clump of cells.[/quote]
Showing results for "abrtion". Did you mean "abortion"?

All pedantry aside - Google image search "autopsy" and you will get some very disgusting images. That doesn`t mean we shouldn`t perform autopsies.
This particular logical fallacy is called "appeal to emotion".
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Wizard77, I don`t have any stones. You know why? Because I`m a woman. With ovaries, and a uterus. Someone who has the possibility to get pregnant, and to get an abortion.

If you google "abortion images" you will come up with a lot of stuff that is pure propaganda. Some of it is blatantly fake, some of it is inaccurately labled (like pretending that a so called "partial birth abortion" is what normal abortions look like).

Yes, abortions aren`t pretty. Neither are most medical procedures.
0
Reply
Male 172
"Yeah? Google "abrtion" in images and see if you still think that they are Just a symbiotic clump of cells.

That is if any of you pro-abortion folk have the stones. It is pretty harsh and sad.

Be for abortion or be against it. But dont try to make it something less than it is."

Way to take his quote out of context. Way out of context. You`re worst than a christian apologist.

All backhanded comments aside, I will say that he was not referring to a fully-grown, 3rd trimester fetus. He was talking about an 8 week fetus. Very different.
0
Reply
Female 1,172
24 weeks?! Here it`s 12. Only in the first 3 months can you choose to abort (unless of course there are severe complications).
0
Reply
Male 582
Madestsaid- "Just a symbiotic clump of cells until it starts breathing air. Nothing more."

Yeah? Google "abrtion" in images and see if you still think that they are Just a symbiotic clump of cells.

That is if any of you pro-abortion folk have the stones. It is pretty harsh and sad.

Be for abortion or be against it. But dont try to make it something less than it is.
0
Reply
Female 2,120
Thanks for the nightmare fuel.
0
Reply
Male 172
"...Says the person that was not aborted and had the chance to live a full life."

Special Pleading
0
Reply
Male 4,431
My only thought on this is that that`s no more a "smile" brought on external stimuli than my nose in an ear.

Now, that doesn`t mean that I`m taking ANY sides in this debate! It just means that trying to put any sort of meaning to the fetus` mouth shape, at that age, is not only ridiculous, it`s weak.
0
Reply
Male 296
Wait, it could just be the angle, then everyone is making a big deal of nothing. And that has never happened before <insert sarcastic tone>
0
Reply
Male 172
"almightybob1: A fetus` lungs do `breathe` much sooner than that, They are breathing amniotic fluid , Not air of course, But they are functioning way before birth. "

This is a flawed argument and is special pleading. It does not breathe in the sense that we do; it does not use its lungs. The underlying argument is this:

It is wrong to kill a human.
Fetuses are human.
Therefore it is wrong to kill fetuses.

At least, that seems like what your argument is.

However, you cannot say that they breathe like a human and therefore are human, because they do not, in fact, breathe like a human. I can expound on this endlessly but it would do no good past this point.
0
Reply
Female 249
kill it with fire
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]moefreak: By your logic if you were ever unconscious to the point that you couldn`t feel pain, Then we could kill you ? Please don`t be absurd next time.[/quote]

And by your logic, we should destroy every crash cart and defibrillator in existence.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]almightybob1: A fetus` lungs do `breathe` much sooner than that, They are breathing amniotic fluid , Not air of course, But they are functioning way before birth. [/quote]
If anything, that reinforces my point. Try filling any living being`s lungs with a fluid and see how long they live.
Breathing requires air. Pushing fluid is not breathing, like a twitch is not a smile.

[quote]1) Would it be ok to kill a diver, who has ceased breathing temporarily?[/quote]
No. But holding your breath is not the same as stopping breathing. Holding your breath is a conscious act. Your body will override that conscious decision if it has to.

Regarding question 2, I know and I agree. I should point out, I don`t actually believe that abortions should be carried out until 9 months. I made that statement to show that Crackr`s exact logic can equally be applied to other signs of life to give drastically different conclusion.
0
Reply
Female 281
Oh goodness, I knew exactly what would be in the comments when I clicked this and I was right. x-x
ProLife vs. ProChoice.

I heard an interesting quote the other day but I can`t recall where it`s from... It said, "If the fetus you saved turned out to be gay, would you still protect its rights?"

I`m not saying either choice is bad... just made me think.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
If you had been born in a coma and had spent your entire life in a coma then yes, we could kill you. A foetus has never experienced consciousness.

Especially if you had spent your entire life inside another, conscious, person.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Madest: [quote]Just a symbiotic clump of cells until it starts breathing air. Nothing more.[/quote]

...Says the person that was not aborted and had the chance to live a full life.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
moefreak: By your logic if you were ever unconscious to the point that you couldn`t feel pain, Then we could kill you ? Please don`t be absurd next time.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Just a symbiotic clump of cells until it starts breathing air. Nothing more.
0
Reply
Male 174
Ugh, I hate when parents gloat over every one of their child`s insignificant achievements.

Looks more to me like a creepy face the Joker would make than a smile.
0
Reply
Male 1,587
crackerjack: Wasn`t trying to criticize you, simply noticed you DID use "fetus`" correctly.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Crakrjack: "Maybe unplanned, But certainly not unwanted, There are long waiting lists for couples wanting to adopt a baby."
There is also a much, much longer list of children waiting for adoption.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
This... is from... the Daily Mail. How many times do we have to go over this?

From The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: "The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed. While in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious."

Even newborn infants do not smile for the reasons that children or adults do.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
tn11: Fetuses, According to the dictionaries I`ve seen. Couldn`t you look that up yourself ?

If you are trying to criticize my use of the word "fetus`" that is it`s proper possessive form in the English language.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
I have a photo of 12 weeks and its more defined than that!
0
Reply
Male 1,587
crackerjack.... what`s the plural of fetus? fetii? seem like you would know...
0
Reply
Female 4,447
/me stays the hell away from this thread.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
I voted for "feel pain" at 16 weeks.

However, on the Almighty vs Crakr, Lung vs heart debate:

1) Would it be ok to kill a diver, who has ceased breathing temporarily?
2) 9 months suggests that viable babies, (and at much less than 9 months they are babies), have rights attributed to them based on where, not what, they are.

The same being, inside does not have the right to live, on the outside, has all the legal human rights as anyone else.

The idea that this is somehow a religious debate to discuss that they should continue to have rights irrespective of where they are, is ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: A fetus` lungs do `breathe` much sooner than that, They are breathing amniotic fluid , Not air of course, But they are functioning way before birth.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Actually the article states at 7 weeks the heart starts beating. This is a photo of an 8 week fetus, Quite a large difference a few weeks makes doesn`t it ?



Also, You stated [quote]..that would mean a lot of unwanted, unplanned, babies.[/quote]

Maybe unplanned, But certainly not unwanted, There are long waiting lists for couples wanting to adopt a baby.
0
Reply
Male 798
Apparently some people missed this part:

Professor Campbell, former head of obstetrics and gynaecology at King`s College and St George`s hospitals in London, said he did not know what caused the smile.

`It is part of a sequence that involves yawning and making breathing movements and opening its eyelids and, of course, it makes a crying face.`

0
Reply
Male 964
The dad is just giving me the freakiest rape stare I have ever seen!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I`ve said before that a reasonable non-religious point at which a fetus becomes a human is when it`s heart starts beating. After all when your heart stops beating you are dead, So the reverse must be logically true.[/quote]

And I`ve countered it before with the statement that you`re human when your lungs start working. After all when you stop breathing you are dead, so the reverse must be logically true.

A baby starts breathing after 9 months` gestation, when it is born.
0
Reply
Male 172
To elaborate, would it then be ok to perform Euthanasia (given the circumstances) even if the patient`s heart is beating?

I assume you would say yes. If not, disregard the rest of my post:

If it is ok to take the life of a euthanasia patient, then it must likewise be ok to take the `life` of a fetus. Therefore, a beating heart cannot be the deciding factor.
0
Reply
Male 172
"I`ve said before that a reasonable non-religious point at which a fetus becomes a human is when it`s heart starts beating. After all when your heart stops beating you are dead, So the reverse must be logically true.

However I`ve found it hard to find anyone willing to compromise and agree with me on this, Most people tend to be `at conception` or `at birth` on this topic.

I can understand why, Religiously I`m `at conception` on this but it`s not practical or scientific.

The `at birth` crowd seem heartless and extreme with their chants of "It`s my uterus". Though it may be living in your uterus, It is still a human being with inalienable rights of it`s own.

I`d like to see this logical `at heartbeat` concept grow and the calmer heads of this world end the extremism of this controversy.
"

Then what do your argue for Euthanasia? Surely euthanasia patients have beating hearts, too.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Kill it.
0
Reply
Female 513
hammerdrop, I`d be interested in knowing which medical journal the "studies" are posted in. :)
0
Reply
Female 513
That is an interesting viewpoint CrakrJak. That would put your definition of life beginning at the 6th week mark (6th week of gestation).

That`s more or less what a 6th weeker looks like (although that`s actually at 5 weeks).

The only problem I see with adopting your viewpoint is the legality concerning legal abortions. In Canada, about 97% of abortions are done by the 16th week. Only 0.3% occur after 20 weeks (late-term, and usually having to meet specific criteria for it to be done). But if people (and lawmakers) adopted the `heart beat` rule, that would mean a lot of unwanted, unplanned, babies. I know many women who didn`t know they were pregnant until they were nearing 12 weeks.
0
Reply
Male 160
It must`ve been sarkasim, know one is that dumb.



"Marcus2: ..discrase..


D I S G R A C E

Seems you`re slipping too."

0
Reply
Male 17,512
OldOllie: Would you join me then with the reasonable `at heartbeat` concept and help grow it ?
0
Reply
Female 1,604
lol by real life I think I meant to say when they are born
0
Reply
Male 17,512
marcus2: [quote]..discrase..[/quote]

D I S G R A C E

Seems you`re slipping too.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The reason this is such a huge controversy in the US is that the courts have vastly overstepped their authority and taken this decision away from the people. There`s no longer any room for compromise between absolute prohibition (which has NEVER worked) and blatant infanticide (which, unfortunately, works all too well).

However you feel about the issue, Roe v. Wade is a complete mendacity.
0
Reply
Female 1,604
hmm babies don`t even smile in real life until they are over a month old so I find this odd
0
Reply
Male 677
@fanclylad.

No, i will not excuse you for making a simple mistake. Infact i think its a discrase that you should be an admin on this site if you cant update it daily without making a few errors.

The standards are slipping.

;)
0
Reply
Male 5,413
The Joker as a baby?
0
Reply
Male 20,827
WEEKS! I meant WEEKS! Excuuuuse meeeeeee.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
My son,(who is now a 18 year old fetus) would only smile everytime he farted or pooped up until he was a 1 year old fetus.
0
Reply
Male 2,332
The antichrist?
0
Reply
Male 199
Aeladil
Studies have actually been done that show that smiling is the innate and unlearned human response to happiness. We aren`t *taught* that smile = happy , we are born with that knowledge whether it`s taught or not. (lulz that rhymed thar)
0
Reply
Male 199
Just cause we associate that combination of muscle movements with happiness and an unborn fetus happened to make those muscle movements doesn`t mean it was expressing happiness.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
Hundreds of thousands of fetuses are ultrascanned every year. One looks like it`s smiling and apparently all fetuses can feel emotion?!

Well, it`s the Daily Mail...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I`ve said before that a reasonable non-religious point at which a fetus becomes a human is when it`s heart starts beating. After all when your heart stops beating you are dead, So the reverse must be logically true.

However I`ve found it hard to find anyone willing to compromise and agree with me on this, Most people tend to be `at conception` or `at birth` on this topic.

I can understand why, Religiously I`m `at conception` on this but it`s not practical or scientific.

The `at birth` crowd seem heartless and extreme with their chants of "It`s my uterus". Though it may be living in your uterus, It is still a human being with inalienable rights of it`s own.

I`d like to see this logical `at heartbeat` concept grow and the calmer heads of this world end the extremism of this controversy.
0
Reply
Female 513
You can`t know what happy is or what smiling symbolizes until you`re taught it. Just because you can make the muscles work to smile, doesn`t mean you have any idea what it represents. For example: chimps can smile too - but in the wild it represents aggression, not happiness.
Babies in utero have no knowledge to go by on what is happy/sad/pain/etc. They are a blank slate. As for feeling pain? Probably not. The nervous system doesn`t develop (even partially) until the 27th week of gestation, so it`s unlikely that 10 weeks earlier, it can feel pain.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Yes, foetus is the UK spelling.

And smiling doesn`t mean it`s experiencing happiness. That`s like saying the foetus in this video is waving at the parents, because its arm is moving.
0
Reply
Female 876
Uuuughhhhh... Fetuses are creepy. D:
0
Reply
Female 515
Common sense says he meant 17 WEEKS. Come on people...stop pointing out the obvious...morons
0
Reply
Male 496
Creepy joker baby is making me uncomfortable.
0
Reply
Male 47
wow her stomach must be huge!!
0
Reply
Male 127
I thought ultrasounds only showed a bunch of indecypherable blobs.

I`ve always believed a woman has the right to choose what to do with her boby but a girl shouldn`t be free to ditch responsibility that easily. It`s hard to tell the difference sometimes. I`ve known women who have had abotions and the guilt eats them up for years afterwards. So will always advise against abortion.

Either way, babies really aren`t cute for a couple of days after birth so this new info (if it is indeed true, with all the errors I`m inclined to doubt it) doesn`t move me too much.
0
Reply
Male 7,813
that is so f*cking creppy
0
Reply
Female 327
Are they serious? Just because it appears to be smiling doesn`t mean that it`s "happy". Babies make all kinds of faces that have nothing to do with their moods.
0
Reply
Male 169
Smiling doesn`t mean emotion, LOL. It`s just muscle structure forming and being "tested" to put it simply.
0
Reply
Male 2,056
@ samen, guess not!
0
Reply
Male 39,556
he`s smiling `cause he farted
0
Reply
Female 178
its not that they are happy or sad, they are using their newly developed facial muscles and are practicing making faces.
0
Reply
Male 5,148
After 17 MONTH inside i really can`t understand why he is smiling.
0
Reply
Male 83
Is it just me or is a 17 month fetus just wrong?
0
Reply
Male 1,011
nightmare fuel :P

0
Reply
Male 2,670
17 month old fetus? Should that read 17 weeks?

Either way, I think that image must be that of the Saw puppet as an infant...
0
Reply
Male 12
someone abort that smirking little jagoff asap
0
Reply
Male 5
weeks
0
Reply
Male 3,327
17 weeks!
0
Reply
Female 8
17 month? lol.
0
Reply
Male 11
I thought it was already common knowledge that babies smile all the time, but it doesn`t mean anything until they`re a few months old, since that`s the point when the brain`s developed enough to properly express emotion.
0
Reply
Male 606
abortion is murder
0
Reply
Female 46
most kids display a wide variety of facial expressions by 17 MONTHS.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
17 MONTHS?

Holy sh*t, that`s just a LITTLE over-due, don`t ya think?

Fancy-fail aside...

That looks more like an evil grin, to me. You can just tell that kid`s gonna be a hellion.

Although, ya know, if you look at it from that angle a normal skull looks like it`s smiling too. Don`t know if fetuses have skulls by that point, but just a thought.
0
Reply
Male 1,237
wow those comments with other corrections I did not see! heh
0
Reply
Male 183
I`m pretty sure a 17 month-old fetus can feel pain and emotions. A 17 week-old fetus, now that`s a different story.
0
Reply
Male 490
17 months old?

That`s an old fetus.
0
Reply
Female 28
you`ll want to change the title...17 weeks, not months.
0
Reply
Male 1,237
Ahem , I think you mean 17-WEEK old FOETUS..
0
Reply
Male 20
this first shocked me by the title... 17 months is almost twice as long as a normal pregnancy. Then I read the article and realized it was a typo...
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Probably just gas.
0
Reply
Female 4
I`m more impressed with the fact that it`s so tiny for being 17 months along. Wow! Must be the longest gestation period in human history!
0
Reply
Male 39,556
why is it not obvious to the most casual observer, that that`s a person in there?
0
Reply
Male 758
Um...a 17 month old fetus, eh? That`s what, the 6th trimester?
0
Reply
Male 740
seventeen month old, huh...
0
Reply
Female 25
17 months?! wtf was it still doing in there...
0
Reply
Male 89
LET THE ARGUMENTS BEGIN!!!!!!
0
Reply
Female 2,674
17 Months. DAAAAAMN.
0
Reply
Male 56
LOL at 17 MONTHS old... I am sure it means 17 weeks
0
Reply
Male 1
A 17-month old fetus? There`s something stranger than a smile going on if the fetus is 17 months old.
0
Reply
Male 1,116
Foetus? Is that the british spelling of fetus or something?
0
Reply
Male 591
Seventeen MONTHS??
0
Reply
Male 31
1)17 months is 2 full terms
2)even young babies don`t really smile for months and months, they just grimace with stomach gas.
0
Reply
Male 126
you mean weeks?
0
Reply
Male 20,827
Link: 17-Week-Old Fetus Ultrasound Pic Shows Smile [Rate Link] - Some experts claim the fetus can feel emotions this early. Others refute this. Pro-Lifers are going to go nuts over this
0
Reply