Posted on 07/09/2013 3:59:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
As the debate about late-term abortion continues in Texas, it is important to point out why lawmakers want to approve legislation that bans abortions after five months. The key is in the science.
Texas Right to Life released a video yesterday featuring Dr. Ingrid Skop, Dr. Greg Bonnen and Dr. Paul Liu. All three doctors confirmed babies do in fact feel pain as early as five months inside the womb.
The Science Behind Preborn Pain
Meanwhile, a new study backs up these doctors and the science they discuss in the video above. LifeNews has more:
A newly-published research study shows unborn children are capable of feeling pain in the womb, as evidenced by the grimaces they show in their facial expressions.
The study will soon be published in the academic journal PLOS ONE.
Researchers from Durham and Lancaster Universities in England say unborn babies learn to show pain in their facial expressions as part of the process of fetal development. They took 15 scans of healthy unborn children and found that, when responding to painful stimuli, the babies were capable of one-dimensional expressions of pain in their faces at 24 weeks — such as moving their lips in a negative fashion.
At the 36th week of pregnancy, the researchers found unborn children can perform complex multi-dimensional facial expressions similar to what children make after birth.
Lead researcher Dr Nadja Reissland, of Durham University’s Department of Psychology told Sky News, “It is vital for infants to be able to show pain as soon as they are born so that they can communicate any distress or pain they might feel to their carers.”
yet so MUCH of 'science' is mere belief.
The other fellow claims that opposition to procured abortion has nothing to do with science. I challenged him to demonstrate, without reference to science (or superstition), that procured abortion is in any way reprehensible.
He has not responded.
You have failed. Post #11 definitely references science.
BTW, if my tagline does not make it clear, my posting history on this forum can leave no possible shred of doubt as to my position on this matter.
Your comment indicates an understanding of science which has not progressed much beyond early elementary school ... and is quite ironic in a post transmitted to the world via a computer network.
Oh?
Then why do so many PhDs in so many fields disagree with one another?
They look at the SAME data, and come up with different 'theories'.
That ain't science; Buster; that's BELIEF!
Blind, unsupported "belief" doesn't make the computer network ... or the multiple layers of tools and tools to build tools ... function according to design. That was all done by engineers and scientists; their theories and designs aren't "faith based". Their theories and designs either work, or they don't work. They're reality based.
You don't show much evidence of understanding that.
Buster.
Then why do so many PhDs in so many fields disagree with one another?
That's what we call "begging the question". Who says "so many" (how many?) people with advanced degrees in the natural sciences, but in "so many" (how many?) different disciplines mutually disagree? You assume, without evidence, that this is the case. Define your terms (How many is "so many"? Is that number significant? Why?) and then prove your assertion. Provide evidence.
Or just admit that you're blowing smoke.
BTW, the controversies over "global warming" and "evolution" show what happens when politicians and philosophers (I'm being generous) attempt to draw conclusions which exceed the scope of available evidence, and in fields beyond their expertise.
Now why you bein' dis way?
I did not bombard YOU with questions to prove your assertions.
Let'st say we're both right in these matters and quit this nitpicking before we REALLY aggravate one another; ok?
You actually think God in his infinite mercy cares whether a aborted baby was baptised....?
Are you serious or just that dense?
You don’t know much about the Christian faith, do you?
Actually I know quite about the christain faith....
Are you implying that baby whether in the womb or breathing Gods fresh air if not baptised is not going to heaven. ..?
Cuz yoo axed fer it.
And I'm really tired of a reflexive and ignorant anti-science attitude I see too often on this forum.
How often is "too often"?
Often enough to seriously annoy me.
Yes, it's a completely subjective measure, but I never claimed otherwise.
I made my living from 'science'.
I, for one, really like to see FACTS to back up one's pet 'theories'.
That isn’t what I’m implying, that is what I am saying. Does the phrase conceived in sin, born into sin ring a bell?
This is the reason children are baptized, to be forgiven for original sin.
If a newborn is in dire straits it will be baptized ASAP for this reason.
Maybe God makes a distinction between in the womb and out; don’t know he hasn’t told me. But my understanding is that anyone who has not been forgiven spends eternity in hell.
You do understand “baptism” is a symbolic act...of repentance of your sins when you are of age to recognize your sin nature ?
It has nothing to do with your salvation. ..for by grace you are saved though faith and..not by works.
Baptism is an outward act when you became saved as a show of repentance...
You guestion my knowledge...?
-——This is the reason children are baptized, to be forgiven for original sin.-——
I also might add that baptism does not erase your sin...the precious blood of Christ does...
Again you question my knowlegde when you seem to be unaware of basic christian doctrines...
I await your response.....
Ever hear the phrase:
“one baptism for the remission of sins”?
I was unaware the Nicene Creed was the Word of God...
Who knew...!
It is true, but it doesn't mean all of them.
Tortuous Pain.
Drawing and Quartering behind closed doors, nothing more, nothing less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.