Fetus Cannot Feel Pain, Expert Says

[Carpedm9587]

I'm going to make a radical suggestion here - perhaps even a challenge. Why don't we see if it's possible to have this discussion without assuming that the intent of the other person is to act immorally or do harm. Clearly the nature of the unborn child is the issue. If it is indeed a lump of tissue - there is no moral problem and no intent to harm a human being. If it is indeed a child, then there is actually harm being done to a human being. If we keep focused on why we believe as we do about what that collection of tissue actually is - we may learn something.

Just a thought...

Michel

P.S. The real moral issue here is whether Garnet should be permitted to continue to post in such garish colors!

[Minnesota]

Garnet,

FYI,
For fear of encouraging you to dot your "I"s with little hearts, and end each paragraph with scrolling wild flowers or a Huggy Bear icon, posting in color will assure you of never having to endure another direct response from me. Probably more people would find this a relief as not, but then most are battling personal issues, which prevents them from recognizing the wisdom I proffer. Your choice, of course, be wise or colorize.


Carpe,

Just a suggestion,
If you really want a neutral, sober discussion on the issue, I suggest not referring to a human embryo or fetus as an "unborn child," or "human being." I know the anti-choice people like these unwarranted euphemisms but they imply a undeserved status, and taint perceptions. It would be like pro-choice people repeatedly referring to a human embryo or fetus as a "lump of tissue." It is more than that but less than a unborn child or human being.


For those who disagree

[Jme]

I'm curious as to the standard you use to determine how big someone has to be in order for you to consider them to be a person?

That would be based on what I believe is necessary for personhood - a functional brain, which allows a personality to be present. That is what I think a person is. This is based on my knowledge of the brain.

It is the same being that it started out as, only bigger and more developed.

Wait - can you define being? I would say it was a being at very early stages of development as I see it as meaning the same as person.

Do you see any difference as to the value of a 1 week old baby and a 49 year old man? One is bigger, but is the 49 year-old man more human and more of a person than the newborn?

No major differences as I see it - welll not in terms of personhood - as they both would have functional brains. An embryo on the other hand does not.

[Splint]

That would be based on what I believe is necessary for personhood - a functional brain, which allows a personality to be present. That is what I think a person is. This is based on my knowledge of the brain.


[color=RoyalBlue]

Wait - can you define being? I would say it was a being at very early stages of development as I see it as meaning the same as person.



No major differences as I see it - welll not in terms of personhood - as they both would have functional brains. An embryo on the other hand does not.

I find this debate fascinating as I have been on ‘one side of the fence’ and am now on the other.
Allow me to me to explain.

During my first marriage, I led a life knowing that I would be parentless. So I was rather blasé about abortion, foetal life and the associated political fights that abounded then and still do.
Now, with a 2 year old son, I am certainly not blasé.
I first saw my son when he was about 2 cm in length and watched (and felt) his growth right up to the time when I held his head as he entered his new world.
How could I look at my son at 2 cm, at 10 cm, at 30 cm, etc, and think that he was not my child!!!! The emotional attachment and feelings to my child at those very early stages in his life is beyond explanation as many of you would understand.

What is important to me is not whether my son could feel pain, had a brain, was a person but that he was LIFE, no matter what stage of development. A life shed from my wife and me. It is such a privilege to have my son. It’s such a privilege to be on the other side of the fence.

I can try to appreciate (but never understand as I have not been there) the pain people go through in loosing a child that has not entered this world.

Cheers

Splint

[Glenn P]

Provided as a service to the anti-choice people who use the pain issue as an argument.

#1 So what? (as though the presence of pain makes killing wright or wrong)
#2 Oooo, really? An expert said it? It's true then!

[Carpedm9587]

If you really want a neutral, sober discussion on the issue, I suggest not referring to a human embryo or fetus as an "unborn child," or "human being." I know the anti-choice people like these unwarranted euphemisms but they imply a undeserved status, and taint perceptions. It would be like pro-choice people repeatedly referring to a human embryo or fetus as a "lump of tissue." It is more than that but less than a unborn child or human being.

An interesting observation, and a correct one AFAICT. Fetus is a technical term that refers to the second and third trimester. Conceptus is often used in the first trimester. Baby clearly presumes a POV. Lump of tissue does the same.

Suggestions? I'm at a loss.

Michel

[$cirisme]

The discussion on Digg was also a heap of burning trolls. Very unproductive.

But the gem was this post by PktLoss, who makes a lot of sense, I think:

I think that you either have to take the stance that life begins at conception, or birth. Anything in the middle seems like an arbitrary selection. Fundamentally nothing changed about the child from the 26th to 27th week. He or she is still a child, they've just grown a little bit. What changed at the end of the first trimester (I beleive that abortions are generally only permitted in the first trimester) that made the child worthy of life? Each step of growth from conception to birth seems like a logical progession of development, none of the individually stand out to me as the "Life begins here" point.

[lao tzu]

Excuse me, Minn, if I've misunderstood the point of your citation. From the article, I read:

"No one wants to inflict pain in fetuses unnecessarily, nor do physicians want to put the mother at risk by the unnecessary administration of analgesics to treat her fetus, not her," said Dr. Henry J. Ralston, a professor of anatomy and neuroscience at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco. "I agree with Dr. Derbyshire's primary conclusion, that 'Legal or clinical mandates to prevent pain in fetuses are based on limited evidence and may put women seeking abortion at unnecessary risk.'"

The U.S. government is presently considering legislation that would require doctors to inform women seeking abortions that "there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain."

Independent of one's position on choice, it seems to me that legislating that doctors should be forced to give out misinformation is ethically indefensible. If legislators want to practice medicine, they should go through medical school or suffer the consequences of illegally practicing medicine without a license.

As ever, Jesse

[Jme]

But the gem was this post by PktLoss, who makes a lot of sense, I think:

I don't makes some basic mistakes.

I think that you either have to take the stance that life begins at conception, or birth. Anything in the middle seems like an arbitrary selection.

Just how is it arbitrary? Here is a definition of arbitrary:

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.

http://www.answers.com/arbitrary&r=67

Now the first one definitely does not apply - as while some may not agree with it my position is based on reason. The second is closer but as it is my own judgement I am using - along with data/information from other sources- to form my opinions. But that is what everyone does, unless they let others do their thinking for them.

Fundamentally nothing changed about the child from the 26th to 27th week.

Correct, but lots of things change from week 1 to week 20 and this is when the vast majority of abortions occur.

He or she is still a child, they've just grown a little bit. What changed at the end of the first trimester (I beleive that abortions are generally only permitted in the first trimester) that made the child worthy of life?

Emphasis added.

Here He(?) shifts from talking about the later term of pregnancy to early pregnancy (only 12 weeks in at the end of the first) I can't think of any reason why he should do this unless he's trying to confusion the issue - or maybe he just got confused - either way a lot changes from the start of a pregnancy and the 26th week.

Each step of growth from conception to birth seems like a logical progession of development, none of the individually stand out to me as the "Life begins here" point.

And this would be a good point if and only if that was the point of contention, which it isn't - it's about what we mean by life and whether personhood is a factor.

So I don't think after the above I don't think this bloke has thought things through so good.

[lao tzu]

Greetings,

I'm somewhat puzzled by what's meant by the beginning of life in any case. It certainly doesn't seem to me that either a spermatazoan or an ovum are themselves nonliving.

As ever, Jesse

[Jme]

Oh I found this site while reading up onstuff:

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

very nice - provides details of the what occurs during the stages of pregnancy.

[Minnesota]

#2 Oooo, really? An expert said it? It's true then!

Now I'm curious about how you conduct your life. When something goes wrong with your car, which you are unable to fix, do you take it to your minister? When you need a your teeth cleaned do you go to the guy running the hardware store? When you want financial advice do you go to your dentist? Seems to me that when you want sound advice or care, going an expert in the relevant field would be the smart thing to do.

Excuse me, Minn, if I've misunderstood the point of your citation. From the article, I read:

"No one wants to inflict pain in fetuses unnecessarily, nor do physicians want to put the mother at risk by the unnecessary administration of analgesics to treat her fetus, not her," said Dr. Henry J. Ralston, a professor of anatomy and neuroscience at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco. "I agree with Dr. Derbyshire's primary conclusion, that 'Legal or clinical mandates to prevent pain in fetuses are based on limited evidence and may put women seeking abortion at unnecessary risk.'"

The U.S. government is presently considering legislation that would require doctors to inform women seeking abortions that "there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain."


Independent of one's position on choice, it seems to me that legislating that doctors should be forced to give out misinformation is ethically indefensible. If legislators want to practice medicine, they should go through medical school or suffer the consequences of illegally practicing medicine without a license.

As ever, Jesse

My only point was to let those, who are inclined to use the fetal pain issue as an anti-choice argument, know that the evidence indicates fetuses don't feel it. I agree with your summation.

Suggestions? I'm at a loss.

Personally, I think "fetus" is as good a term as any, as long as everyone understands it covers all stages: from conception to birth, erroneous as it is. If someone wants to talk about a specif stage of development, indicating so should be no problem.

[Glenn P]

Now I'm curious about how you conduct your life. When something goes wrong with your car, which you are unable to fix, do you take it to your minister? When you need a your teeth cleaned do you go to the guy running the hardware store? When you want financial advice do you go to your dentist? Seems to me that when you want sound advice or care, going an expert in the relevant field would be the smart thing to do.

Don't be obstinate. You can dig up an expert in the abortion debate to express virtually any one of the positions that are advanced, including the positions about the medical facts.

[Jedidiah]

Don't be obstinate. You can dig up an expert in the abortion debate to express virtually any one of the positions that are advanced, including the positions about the medical facts.

He already demonstrated that. That is what this thread is all about.

[neocon_voter]

Oh I found this site while reading up onstuff:

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

very nice - provides details of the what occurs during the stages of pregnancy.

Yep, like brainwaves detected while the zef (zygote/embryo/fetus) is still in the embryo stage (approximately 47-48 post ovulatory days, and the zef is called embryo the first 8 weeks according to the American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine)

from the link you have shared see stage 19
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage19.html

Good citation.

Neocon_Voter