nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index nglreturns.myfreeforum.org
Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Project Reason
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:34 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Absolutely not. What I am talking about is when I give reasons for wanting abortion restricted etc. - which I do without any reference whatsoever to God or religion - they often end up saying things like "you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on everyone"

Perhaps not with regard to you personally but in general there's a precedent for this, is there not?

Quote:
or quite often "if God doesn't like abortions why are there miscarriages?"

In itself a perfectly good question.

Quote:
It is they who are trying to use religion as a discussion stopper, in fact. Although I don't mention religion, they are playing a "Your views are religious, and therefore inadmissable" card.

You don't mention religion? Ever? At all?


Not when I'm having that particular debate, no. What would be the point? It would be like you telling me that voting for party X is clearly what David Lloyd George or the Harlem Globetrotters would have wanted me to do. Why would I care?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
that specific position isn't supported by any current medical evidence..


It is.

In neonatal units they used ot not give pain relief to prems born at 23 - 25 weeks, because they thought they could feel no pain. Now they know that that is not the case, so now they do give them pain relief. I have first hand experience of this. Why would they waste all that morphine if there was no evdience at all that the babies felt pain?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
that specific position isn't supported by any current medical evidence..


It is.

In neonatal units they used ot not give pain relief to prems born at 23 - 25 weeks, because they thought they could feel no pain. Now they know that that is not the case, so now they do give them pain relief. I have first hand experience of this. Why would they waste all that morphine if there was no evdience at all that the babies felt pain?


So where is the medical evidence, or rather, at what point in the last four years did the evidence appear to render this story out of date?
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
that specific position isn't supported by any current medical evidence..


It is.

In neonatal units they used ot not give pain relief to prems born at 23 - 25 weeks, because they thought they could feel no pain. Now they know that that is not the case, so now they do give them pain relief. I have first hand experience of this. Why would they waste all that morphine if there was no evdience at all that the babies felt pain?


So where is the medical evidence, or rather, at what point in the last four years did the evidence appear to render this story out of date?


I don't know. But eight years ago when my daughter was born she was given morphine, as were the 23 weekers (mine was 25 weeks) and we were told that this was a change as in the recent past it had been thought that they didn't feel pain.

So my evidence is medical professionals telling me so. I don't know what their evidence is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
So my evidence is medical professionals telling me so. I don't know what their evidence is.

That's rather what I was hoping to find out!

ETA: Hold on, I knew something was niggling away at me and I've just re-read your latest post. You wrote:

Quote:
But eight years ago when my daughter was born she was given morphine, as were the 23 weekers (mine was 25 weeks) and we were told that this was a change as in the recent past it had been thought that they didn't feel pain.


Eight years ago - 2006. But the article I linked to comes from 2010 - four years later. The evidence supporting no pain before 24 weeks is more recent than what you were told.

What you can take from this is that what you were told in 2006 - that it was formerly believed that 23-weekers felt no pain, though that was no longer believed by somebody or other in 2006 - was actually subsequently borne out by later evidence.
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It clearly isn't compelling, because they haven't reverted the practice; and it certainly was the case that when they spoke to me, they had previously believed that they felt no pain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
It clearly isn't compelling, because they haven't reverted the practice; and it certainly was the case that when they spoke to me, they had previously believed that they felt no pain.

Why isn't it "clear"? You're referring to something said to you eight years ago. I'm referring to a scientific study of four years ago.
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ketty
Moderator


Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 7376


Location: Walking the narrow path, singing merrily and living Victoriously

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...nce/3-documentation/#.U8YTxqhg-t8

It seems that this subject to ongoing research in medical science with no total agreement.  The dead foetus is not going to spring back to life with the gift of speech to say 'actually, when you ripped off my leg, to say it hurt is an understatement'.
_________________
<><Although Christians and Mormons use the same words such as grace, faith, God and sin, they mean very different things by them. Beware the poison!><>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
It clearly isn't compelling, because they haven't reverted the practice; and it certainly was the case that when they spoke to me, they had previously believed that they felt no pain.

Why isn't it "clear"? You're referring to something said to you eight years ago. I'm referring to a scientific study of four years ago.


Oh I see - no, I am still in touch with neonatal nurses and doctors, and I know they haven't stopped giving them morphine. Out of interest, if you were to stand there day and night jabbing pins into a premature baby delievred at, say, 24 weeks, at what point do you imagine it would start to hurt them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Betty



Joined: 24 Jul 2014
Posts: 4



PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:


I think my reasons for believing that, for example, 23 week foetuses feel pain and have a right to be resuscitated if delivered early etc., which don't require the hearer to share my ideas about God.


It's very rare for a healthy 23 week foetus to be aborted, mind you. Most abortions are carried out on foetuses that are less than 16 weeks. It's not sensible to use your understanding of the foetus at 23 weeks to support your view on abortion generally.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum