Replies

Further support comes from the work of Fitzgerald (1987, 1994), who has reviewed the biological development of the fetus and examined the possibility of fetal pain at each stage of development. At 7.5 weeks’ gestation, reflex responses to somatic stimuli begin, and touching the perioral region results in a contralateral bending of the head.

I saw that as well, but it just indicates that some of the pathways are being laid down at that point. Not enough of the pain system is in place at 7.5 weeks for the pain to be felt. Only pathways for reflex actions are in place which do not flow to the brain.

I don't want you to get the wrong idea - i appreciate the link. I just want to make sure that we don't grab onto shaky science to try to prove a point. We don't have to because there are so many other solid pieces of science that we can point out at the 8 week stage.

The fetal pain in the first trimester is easily cast into doubt by pro-choicers. Honestly, it is hard to know who is right - most people don't have a biological or medical background so it will all be confusing to them. If they see contradictory evidence they may decide that the pro-lifers are playing fast and loose with the facts.

Pro-choicers can't refute, however, things like a beating heart during the first trimester. They also can't refute after the 2nd trimester. I'm just saying that seems like it would be best to use the huge stockpile of irrefutable evidence and not mix in some that is debatable.

Jeff! Stop making so much sense!

LOL:-)

I can't believe this thread is still going........

Just some observations to report that I feel are worth writing down for the sake of clarity.

This exercise of verbal exchanges is occurring post election and is a good example of some of the problems we have internally in the Republican Party.

I saw this after the 2000 election and the mid terms as well and it concerns me greatly.

When you stand back from it, what you see is a family that is in distress. Some members feeling left off the Christmas card list are lashing out at the rest, not really knowing why they are doing it or who exactly is responsible for the bad feelings.

But looking at the repartee, we are all....all of us....are most certainly on the same page!

The differences are only superficial or a matter of degree. Some here are activists for a particular point of view, some here believe in that point of view yet have so many other concerns that activism in only one area is impossible, and still others are the quiet majority that stays informed, participates when time allows and stands back from the fray on most occasions.

But we all, every one of us share the same goals and have the same wants and desires. The only problem I see here is the same exact thing that occurs when a group of single issue advocates feels the need to somehow convince the rest of the family to share their passions.

This caused grief, every single time on every subject where it occurs. I see it on the immigration threads (regarding amnesty), the financial threads (regarding Greenspan) the science threads (regarding NASA) and of course the political threads.

Since our common enemy is now defunct, (John Kerry) we once again turn our passions against each other. Frankly speaking, it is a real insidious and self destructive thing to do. Arguments are one thing, but when they get personal, as some have done here, the original points and premises are lost in the fog of emotional hyperbole, canned rhetoric and insulting jabs that are meat to do only one thing, and that is to divide the family into warring camps so that a more prolonged battle can ensue.

A battle over what???????????????

I suggest we all cease this madness and reconfigure our targeting array to locate the issues, the people, the organizations and the socialist progressive political groups who threaten our Republic.

Not each other.

This is far too counter productive to continue for even one single minute.