Congressman, Dr claims that a fetus masturbates

[Spafranco]

How many of you have heard the idiotic claim that a fetus masturbates? It was made by a representative in Congress, a doctor.

I understand this is a family forum but the topic in 2013 should not offend anyone.

What should offend is the fact that a medical doctor made this downright idiotic claim. It is probably one of the saddest, dumbest claims by a scientist I have heard in my lifetime.

[SGWilko]

Stimulation may be a better description. Babies rub themselves sometimes because they like the feeling - doesn't mean they know what they are doing though.

[Donney]

Which is exactly the case with this Doc Spa mentions :D

[steveaki13]

Had a double take at the title of the thread.

Strange statement but as said above its probably all in the wording.

[Starter]

How many of you have heard the idiotic claim that a fetus masturbates? It was made by a representative in Congress, a doctor.

I understand this is a family forum but the topic in 2013 should not offend anyone.

What should offend is the fact that a medical doctor made this downright idiotic claim. It is probably one of the saddest, dumbest claims by a scientist I have heard in my lifetime.
Whom?

[Rollo]

What should offend is the fact that a medical doctor made this downright idiotic claim. It is probably one of the saddest, dumbest claims by a scientist I have heard in my lifetime.

It probably is an idiotic claim but bear in mind that this was in the context of an anti-abortion bill.
"'They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain,"
- Michael Burgess.

This has made the news because it is daft but the concern is real; namely to what extent should an unborn person be given the protection of law.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx)
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",
- from the Preamble, The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

It's worth noting at this point that the CRC has been adopted, signed by and ratified by all nations except the United States and Somalia (and South Sudan which has only existed since 2011).

[Spafranco]

Whom?

Starter, I have gone around and around with you and at this stage I am going to take the wording of one of your minions "why should xxxxxx look it up. Find out for yourself.

[Starter]

Starter, I have gone around and around with you and at this stage I am going to take the wording of one of your minions "why should xxxxxx look it up. Find out for yourself.
I asked a simple question, I had not seen that particular report and was just wondering who, sitting congressman no less, would be so foolish as to say something like that. You really need to stop being so defensive. Everything I post is not either a direct or implied assault on you personally. Give it a rest for goodness sake.

[Spafranco]

I asked a simple question, I had not seen that particular report and was just wondering who, sitting congressman no less, would be so foolish as to say something like that. You really need to stop being so defensive. Everything I post is not either a direct or implied assault on you personally. Give it a rest for goodness sake.

While my response to your request was curt and deliberate it was in no way defensive. Don't pay the psycho analyst with me. I'm the wrong person.

And, by the way, how come you did not respond to Sifter or Keiser when they told me to do my own research.

As for your last comment. Don't make excuses for your intemperate comments from the past to me and others.

If it walks like a duck.........

[Jag_Warrior]

This has made the news because it is daft but the concern is real; namely to what extent should an unborn person be given the protection of law.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx)
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",
- from the Preamble, The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

It's worth noting at this point that the CRC has been adopted, signed by and ratified by all nations except the United States and Somalia (and South Sudan which has only existed since 2011).

I'm guessing that's because there are a number of objectionable things which we allow to happen to babies/children here that both conservatives and liberals feel a need to turn a blind eye toward, in order to protect certain special interest groups, which make up small, yet very influential portions of their respective bases. Both of our political extremes are made up of complete hypocrites when it comes to the (true) health and well being of children, IMO.

[D-Type]

Folks, please keep your personal squabbles off the forum. I don't want to have to take action

[/moderator]

[Roamy]

whacking in the Womb - I wonder if I did that :)

[Starter]

I'm guessing that's because there are a number of objectionable things which we allow to happen to babies/children here that both conservatives and liberals feel a need to turn a blind eye toward, in order to protect certain special interest groups, which make up small, yet very influential portions of their respective bases. Both of our political extremes are made up of complete hypocrites when it comes to the (true) health and well being of children, IMO.
An important point in Rollo's post. Please note the date: The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

Science and technology have either overtaken or soon will overtake this issue. The ability to clone things out of any cells, living or dead, is already upon us. What human rights will we assign to our fingernail parings or haircuts? How do you make a difference between a fetus (up to a certain point in development), which can not survive on it's own and your hair; or appendix; or fat from a liposuction which also can not survive on its own? I ask this not to be a smart ass, but because there are brand new ethical questions which will need to be answered. I can see several very reasonable arguments both for and against different view points. With cloning, all of the above have the potential to be human beings. When exactly does a fetus become a human? It's going to be very interesting over the next decade as people struggle to find answers.

[Rollo]

I ask this not to be a smart ass, but because there are brand new ethical questions which will need to be answered. I can see several very reasonable arguments both for and against different view points. With cloning, all of the above have the potential to be human beings. When exactly does a fetus become a human? It's going to be very interesting over the next decade as people struggle to find answers.

I think that they're very serious and worthwhile questions, but I don't think that the ethics are necessarily new. Those sorts of questions have been asked for a very long time.


What human rights will we assign to our fingernail parings or haircuts? How do you make a difference between a fetus (up to a certain point in development), which can not survive on it's own and your hair; or appendix; or fat from a liposuction which also can not survive on its own?

Is a fetus a different person to the mother? Likewise, are fingernail parings or haircuts or fat from a liposuction fundamentally different people from the person they came from?

[donKey jote]

Is a fetus a different person to the mother?
different DNA = different (potential) person

[Starter]

different DNA = different (potential) person
Good answer. But the question is what exactly defines a "person". And when does that person come into existence? Some say at conception. But others say at that time it's just a bunch of cells growing in a helpful environment with no brain or any other discernible human feature (other than the DNA of course). There are lots of opinions as to when that glop of cells becomes a human.

[Starter]

Good answer. But the question is what exactly defines a "person". And when does that person come into existence? Some say at conception. But others say at that time it's just a bunch of cells growing in a helpful environment with no brain or any other discernible human feature (other than the DNA of course). There are lots of opinions as to when that glop of cells becomes a human.
That also doesn't answer the question of whether something grown from human cells, cloned, is human. Would the human version of Dolly the sheep be a person? If not, could we raise a host of cloned slaves to do our work for us? Would it be a different kind of person, maybe with different rights? Lots of questions to be answered.

[airshifter]

That also doesn't answer the question of whether something grown from human cells, cloned, is human. Would the human version of Dolly the sheep be a person? If not, could we raise a host of cloned slaves to do our work for us? Would it be a different kind of person, maybe with different rights? Lots of questions to be answered.

And as anything with lots of questions, we will have lots of opinions. Eventually the majority opinion will try to force that everyone obey the majority. When you think about it, forcing a belief on anyone is somewhat violating their human rights. ;)

And as usual, while people protest over such things, human rights on a much larger scale are ignored. We now have about 1.5 million people displaced from Syria, including many women and children. And it will continue until a major world power steps in, at which point they will be condemned by much of the world regardless of how they are trying to deal with it.


"History bears the scars of our civil wars"

[Rollo]

Good answer. But the question is what exactly defines a "person". And when does that person come into existence? Some say at conception. But others say at that time it's just a bunch of cells growing in a helpful environment with no brain or any other discernible human feature (other than the DNA of course). There are lots of opinions as to when that glop of cells becomes a human.

Of course my questions were in the hyperbole but Starter makes a valid point here. Let's tie this to Spafranco's original post:


What should offend is the fact that a medical doctor made this downright idiotic claim. It is probably one of the saddest, dumbest claims by a scientist I have heard in my lifetime.

How do you define the difference between something which is just a glop of cells and the point at which it becomes a human? The so-called "saddest, dumbest claim by a scientist" is a perfectly reasonable method of empirically asking the question. If the glop of cells is capable of feeling pain, pleasure, emotions (?) is that a reasonable yard stick to determine what is and isn't human?

[Jag_Warrior]

An important point in Rollo's post. Please note the date: The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

Science and technology have either overtaken or soon will overtake this issue. The ability to clone things out of any cells, living or dead, is already upon us. What human rights will we assign to our fingernail parings or haircuts? How do you make a difference between a fetus (up to a certain point in development), which can not survive on it's own and your hair; or appendix; or fat from a liposuction which also can not survive on its own? I ask this not to be a smart ass, but because there are brand new ethical questions which will need to be answered. I can see several very reasonable arguments both for and against different view points. With cloning, all of the above have the potential to be human beings. When exactly does a fetus become a human? It's going to be very interesting over the next decade as people struggle to find answers.

Yes, I agree that would be the most logical and reasonable approach in discussing and deciding this issue. But the issue will be discussed and (actually) decided by politicians - not this powerless international convention. And all of the politicians (both left and right) will be pulled back & forth by their respective bases for political/social/religious reasons, having nothing at all to do with science and facts. That's very unfortunate, but that's where we are.

[markabilly]

different DNA = different (potential) person


Good answer. But the question is what exactly defines a "person". And when does that person come into existence? Some say at conception. But others say at that time it's just a bunch of cells growing in a helpful environment with no brain or any other discernible human feature (other than the DNA of course). There are lots of opinions as to when that glop of cells becomes a human.
One clear answer is the placenta demonstrates it from the start. A few years ago, I learned what I found to be amazing and surprising facts.

The placenta consists of basically two different organs that are interconnected. One comes from the fetus and the second from the mother. The moment that the egg has been fertilized, the placenta for the fetus begins to develop from the fertilized egg. When the egg attaches to the uterus, it attaches via the fetus placenta as it starts to develop at the same rate as the egg. In response, the mother begins developing her part of the placenta that attaches not to the egg, but to the fetus placenta.

[As a result the blood supply of fetus and mother do not intermix and the placenta forms a barrier, that is even more amazing than that found in our intestines and lungs..

HIV does not generally cross through a healthy placenta into the baby. If a baby born to an HIV positive mother has the disease, it is due to other factors such as trauma during birth exposing the baby—and with proper treatment, that percentage of transmission can be limited to a range as low as 2 percent for acquiring HIV. :D

The placenta also keeps the baby safe from drugs and other diseases. For example, syphilis can only be contracted from trauma issues if the placenta is healthy. :D

So what is worse during the first six weeks? HIV or getting drunk a few times before she knows she is pregnant?
The placenta does not protect against alcohol transmission—Just the opposite. It treats alcohol as another sugar/food and dumps it into the fetus, which leads to alcohol fetal syndrome during the first six weeks of development that causes neurological and brain damage, the kidneys to be damaged, the face, hands and ears to be deformed, all occurring while the mother may not know she is pregnant. :(

So from the start, the fetus is never just some body tissue clump of cells of the mother, but a separate organism that uses the mother as a host to provide nourishment not much different than other parasites until it can survive on its own, with its separate DNA, blood and so forth from the moment the egg is fertilized. Saying when they become a human can also be said in opposite, when does a human become not a human....for example, after severe brain damage or when they must be maintained on life support, the same as the placenta provides life support to the fetus........?????

[donKey jote]

Saying when they become a human can also be said in opposite, when does a human become not a human....for example, after severe brain damage or when they must be maintained on life support, the same as the placenta provides life support to the fetus........?????

Yep, and here is where it gets difficult.
How to differentiate a clump of human cells (no matter how large) from a human person, with a human mind, soul, feelings, emotions, thoughts or the potential to acquire or reacquire them, artificially assisted or not.
There will never be consensus for a clear cut line, and as science advances, it will get even harder.

[markabilly]

Yep, and here is where it gets difficult.
How to differentiate a clump of human cells (no matter how large) from a human person, with a human mind, soul, feelings, emotions, thoughts or the potential to acquire or reacquire them, artificially assisted or not.
There will never be consensus for a clear cut line, and as science advances, it will get even harder.

And what of the "child" who is born with such severe mental handicap so as not to have a human mind, soul, feelings, emotions, thoughts or the potential to acquire--okay to "abort" them? Is the line merely to be whether they can breathe? What about those children who have these disabilities but have problems breathing? For these reasons I can not differentiate and I do not see how anyone can differentiate on rational logical, objective grounds. That is why I have a difficult time with the permitting abortions, but then, on the other hand, I have a very difficult time outlawing it and prosecuting people for it. Ultimately, as Jag said, it will be the clueless politicians who have drawn and will continue to draw those lines ------- ------------------ btw, the person who said this is both a US Congressman and prior to his election, he practiced as a doctor of obstetrics for thirty years, graduating from a first class medical school--and yes he is from Texas---so clueless? well I dunnnooo.

[donKey jote]

Where the line is, specially when it comes to discussing abortion or euthanasia, is very personal and will always vary from case to case (unless you're blinded by dogma).
In my view even a human baby isn't a human person with a human mind until possibly around a year or two, but that obviously doesn't mean I'd be happy to somehow simply discard it... I'm human too :) .
The whole abortion debate stopped being a debate a long time ago. Now it's just political / religious trench warfare.

[A FONDO]

How many of you have heard the idiotic claim that a fetus masturbates? It was made by a representative in Congress, a doctor.

I understand this is a family forum but the topic in 2013 should not offend anyone.

What should offend is the fact that a medical doctor made this downright idiotic claim. It is probably one of the saddest, dumbest claims by a scientist I have heard in my lifetime.

People can do very idiotic things for money. :D This is part of the worldwide steps for legalizing the pedofilia after some years, with the leading argument that every living person can make its own choices and sexual attractions.

[markabilly]

Where the line is, specially when it comes to discussing abortion or euthanasia, is very personal and will always vary from case to case (unless you're blinded by dogma).
In my view even a human baby isn't a human person with a human mind until possibly around a year or two, but that obviously doesn't mean I'd be happy to somehow simply discard it... I'm human too :) .
The whole abortion debate stopped being a debate a long time ago. Now it's just political / religious trench warfare.

and I would add that this doctor was elected in one of the richest, most urban-sophisticated and modern districts to be found in the USA

[markabilly]

whacking in the Womb - I wonder if I did that :) It explains why you were born with those hairy palms

[SGWilko]

And what of the "child" who is born with such severe mental handicap so as not to have a human mind, soul, feelings, emotions, thoughts or the potential to acquire--okay to "abort" them? .

Clearly not always, but generally, the human body takes care of this by self aborting - still born. We interfere a lot more these days with keyhole surgery on the fetus.