nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

stefanovich

recedite wrote: »

I presume being expelled from the body prematurely would not be a painful experience for it, even if it had full pain sensory awareness. It would be different if somebody was attempting to do a vivisection on it.

So if you expel it alive and then kill it is it murder? Do you have to kill the baby inside its mother's womb first?

recedite

stefanovich wrote: »

So if you expel it alive and then kill it is it murder? Do you have to kill the baby inside its mother's womb first?

Legally speaking, I suppose so. But if it was simply left to die, that would not be murder.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

If these facts mean that the 16 week fetus may actually feel pain (which I gather is your implied claim) would you care to speculate as to why nobody ever suggests anesthetizing a fetus during miscarriage?

Do you think this is a terrible oversight which science requires to be rectified asap, or are you only interested in abortions and don't actually care one hoot about whether fetuses might suffer during miscarriage?

Sorry I don't speculate on red herrings,it's both time and energy consuming and ultimately futile.While a miscarriage is both devastating and heart breaking for all involved it certainly is not the deliberate and pre planned taking of the unborn child's life.Regarding your second and rather derogatory question,I'm in favour of any and all means available which reduce or eliminate the pain.
I would say the logical objective conclusion would be that at 16 weeks the unborn does indeed feel pain,at 20 weeks absolutely,and individuals overwhelmingly more qualified than you or I would concur.I believe in America the requirement of anaesthesia for the 20 week unborn child is law in some states.Is this something you would agree with?And on the issue of foetal pain as a whole,if the scientific data is inconclusive regarding certain periods of the unborns development,why do you not support the measure of protecting the unborn against pain rather than claiming he/she does not feel pain during D&E abortions?The effect it has on the ultimate outcome is zero.

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

Sorry I don't speculate on red herrings,it's both time and energy consuming and ultimately futile.While a miscarriage is both devastating and heart breaking for all involved it certainly is not the deliberate and pre planned taking of the unborn child's life.Regarding your second and rather derogatory question,I'm in favour of any and all means available which reduce or eliminate the pain.
I would say the logical objective conclusion would be that at 16 weeks the unborn does indeed feel pain,at 20 weeks absolutely,and individuals overwhelmingly more qualified than you or I would concur.I believe in America the requirement of anaesthesia for the 20 week unborn child is law in some states.Is this something you would agree with?And on the issue of foetal pain as a whole,if the scientific data is inconclusive regarding certain periods of the unborns development,why do you not support the measure of protecting the unborn against pain rather than claiming he/she does not feel pain during D&E abortions?The effect it has on the ultimate outcome is zero.

But it's ok for you to speculate on pain in the 16 week fetus, despite there being zero evidence for that? And while speculating that this pain wouldn't matter for a miscarried fetus of the same gestation, which is both speculative and completely illogical.

As for why the death happens, that's totally irrelevant to the claim of fetal pain.
It's either possible or it isn't. Claiming that it is but only when a pregnancy is artificially terminated is evidence though. Evidence of your agenda, which is not about fetal pain at all.

Ok. Gotcha now.

Cabaal

So here's a question for the so called pro-life crowd.

If a women's life and a fetus life is equal and a women can't have an abortion because its "murder".
Then why aren't you lobbying to make it a crime for women to binge drink when pregnant?

It's proven alcohol can damage the development of the fetus and yet its fine and dandy for a women to drink to the point where should could miscarry the fetus and it would come with no criminal sentence for the women.

Surely if a fetus has the equal rights of a baby and its also illegal to give alcohol to a baby then it should by extension be illegal to give some to a fetus incorrectly via the women.

Thoughts and comments on a postcard please

frag420

Jaeger Bomb Abortions!

Il get the first round in...

aloyisious

I took the liberty of looking up US law on anaesthesia of fetus for abortion procedures..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwin0tOsxOPSAhVDC8AKHcTEC8cQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2016%2F03%2F29%2Fhealth%2Futah-abortion-law-fetal-pain%2F&usg=AFQjCNG6iePs6mo5a4Mus-I1guK8nyRfwA

I don't know the hows and where-fors on it's application but assume it's through the woman's veins, similar to the way the male parentage is found. I don't know how medical science, or the people who came up with the law, made judgement on what would be safe and non-fatal for the feotus. A wrong result would be embarrassing to put it mildly, for the people who initiated the law.

oldrnwisr

fran17 wrote: »

...by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb.
So knowing all these facts and many more,Do you still maintain that your morals and ethics would be compatible with Dilation and evacuation(Dismemberment of the foetus with a surgical forceps)abortion?

fran17 wrote: »

I would say the logical objective conclusion would be that at 16 weeks the unborn does indeed feel pain,at 20 weeks absolutely,and individuals overwhelmingly more qualified than you or I would concur.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you're not trying to deliberately mislead people because your argument as it's currently phrased is not supported by the evidence.

It's important, in the context of this argument, to distinguish between nociception (the reaction to a noxious stimulus) and pain perception (the sensation in the brain of an unpleasant or painful experience). Nociception doesn't involve the brain at all and relates to a reflex away from a noxious stimulus which involves only cutaneous pain receptors and the muscles. Pain receptors form beginning with the perioral (in and around the mouth) area around 7 weeks gestational age. However, pain perception in the way you or I experience pain requires sensory input to be interpreted by the brain. This is where the pro-life foetal pain argument falls apart. Pain perception not only requires the formation of pain receptors (between 7 and 20 weeks) but also the spinothalamic pathways which transmit said information to the brain (between 16 and 20 weeks) and thalamocortical connections which allows the brain to interpret the sensory input (between 23 and 30 weeks).
On its own nociception is a local response similar to the patellar reflex when the doctor hits your knee with that little rubber hammer. Pain perception on the other hand is a complex process which requires not only pain receptors but also the formation and functioning of the pathways in the brain and spinal cord which transmit and interpret the sensory input. From the available evidence, pain perception is unlikely in the foetus before week 25 (gestational age).

Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

However, even introducing the idea of foetal pain kinda annoys me because it distracts from the reality of when and how abortions are performed.

Firstly, in the UK in 2015 there were 185,824 abortions performed. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you were correct about fetal pain. 178,417 or 96% of all abortions are performed before 16 weeks making talk of fetal pain irrelevant. We are talking about a scenario which is grossly unrepresentative of the overall topic.

UK Abortion Statistics 2015

Secondly, in your response to Nozz in post 4346 you also mention D&E abortions (dilatation and evacuation) in the context of the foetal pain argument. D&E accounts for just 5% of all abortions. It is the dominant method of abortion between 15 and 19 weeks (accounting for 72% of abortions in this period) but its use decreases after this point. This is because of the difficulty of using the technique after week 20:

"However, most surgeons find dismemberment at twenty weeks and beyond to be difficult due to the toughness of fetal tissues at this stage of development. Consequently, most late second trimester abortions are performed by an induction method."

Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion

If we look at probable D&E elective abortions in the period where foetal pain actually merits consideration then we are talking about just 131 abortions. That's 131 out of 185,824 or 0.07% of all abortions. So, like I said this is grossly unrepresentative of the overall abortion debate. This is something that is and should be dealt with by medical best practice guidelines, not a blunt instrument like legislation. There isn't enough flexibility and nuance to deal with something like this constitutionally or in statute.

Regarding the US legislation you mention in post 4354 about the requirement for foetal anaesthesia, this legislation exemplifies the problems in dealing with complex medical problems using biased, politically motivated legislation. Firstly, in the US just 1.4% of abortions are performed on or after 21 weeks gestational age. Secondly, there are important issues surrounding the use of foetal anaesthesia.
As the authors of the JAMA study linked above state, foetal anaesthesia is not used for the sole purpose of analgesia:

"Surgical procedures undertaken for fetal benefit use anesthesia to achieve objectives unrelated to pain control, such as uterine relaxation, fetal immobilization, and possible prevention of neuroendocrine stress responses associated with poor surgical outcomes. Thus, fetal anesthesia may be medically indicated for fetal surgery regardless of whether fetal pain exists."

Furthermore, requiring foetal anaesthesia through legislation may compromise patient safety contrary to medical best practice:

"In the context of abortion, fetal analgesia would be used solely for beneficence toward the fetus, assuming fetal pain exists. This interest must be considered in concert with maternal safety and fetal effectiveness of any proposed anesthetic or analgesic technique. For instance, general anesthesia increases abortion morbidity and mortality for women and substantially increases the cost of abortion. Although placental transfer of many opioids and sedative-hypnotics has been determined, the maternal dose required for fetal analgesia is unknown, as is the safety for women at such doses. Furthermore, no established protocols exist for administering anesthesia or analgesia directly to the fetus for minimally invasive fetal procedures or abortions. Experimental techniques, such as administration of fentanyl directly to the fetus and intra-amniotic injection of sufentanil in pregnant ewes, have not been shown to decrease fetal pain and are of unknown safety in humans."

In the end, decisions about foetal anaesthesia and late-term abortions are best left to those best qualified to make them, doctors not lawmakers.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

The claim that human life,no matter which stage of development it is at,is in any sense comparable with a rock in unworthy of serious discussion.

No, it really is not. What THINGS are being compared is not what makes a comparison worthy of discussion. The attribute that is being compared does.

For example it might seem a nonsense to compare a pencil with a tank. If however I am comparing the attribute "grey" it might very well hold.

The point of my comparison between a zygote and a rock was PURELY on the attribute of sentience. Nothing more. And nothing is wrong with that comparison.

If you extend that comparison to include OTHER attributes however then it would be rendered "unworthy" by you. Not me.

The capacity for sentience of a zygote and a rock ARE comparable. Neither of them have that faculty. At all. Why exactly, to your mind, does the comparison fail therefore?

Me - the cells that comprise me are human.This human life possesses its own gender,its own unique DNA and blood type.[/QUOTE]

But, as I just wrote above, gender and DNA were not the attributes upon which the comparison was mediated. YOU have extended the comparison beyond the attribute I was focused on and then acted like somehow I have made a bad comparison. It is exactly like I said "This pencil and that airplane are both grey" and you responded with "That is ridiculous, you can put people inside an airplane but not inside a pencil!!!!!"

fran17 wrote: »

the case for abortion seems to be unique in its attempts to redefine the definition of a human being and thus deny the rights which that recognition bestows.

I see it EXACTLY the opposite of what you present here. I see the case for choice based abortion being that we need to be as exact as possible about what it means to define something as a "Human Being" or a "person" in an effort to avoid affording things rights and ethical concern at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

My ENTIRE approach to the abortion discussion therefore comes from an exploration of EXACTLY what it means to be a human person, EXACTLY what it means to have rights, EXACTLY what it means to afford an entity moral or ethical concern and..... most of all....... EXACTLY what attributes an entity must possess in order to be worth of moral and ethical concern.

So, unlike your description above, it is not about "denying rights" to anyone or anything. It is about ensuring the the application and assigning of rights is done in a coherent and meaningful fashion.

It is not about removing rights from anything, but ensuring we do not assign them before their due.

fran17 wrote: »

The human heart beat begins at 6 weeks,by 10 weeks the circulatory/digestive/nervous systems are developing,by 12 weeks the limbs are well developed and the child makes fists with his/her fingers,by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb.

Great! Now you are taking the first steps I took years ago when I first tackled the moral issue of abortion for myself. I too listed all the things you list here and MANY more. And then I went down through that list to ask myself "Which of these attributes that I have listed, if any, is the focal point of the concepts of rights and moral and ethical concern?".

And you quickly realize that saying something like "Oh this entity has a heart beat" can not coherently be linked to morality and ethics and rights. Especially in a world where we end the lives of MANY things "with heart beats" every day.

And when I was finished that process I realized there was only one coherent focal point for moral and ethical concern..... which also happened to be the SOURCE of the concept of rights and morality in the first place........ the faculty of consciousness/sentience.

If THAT is not the attribute we are assigning rights to, mediating them by, and if morality means something other than the maximization of well being for sentient agents............ then I genuinely have to admit I do not know WHAT we are doing it based on.

And since a fetus at, say, 12 weeks not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks that faculty in any way.......... I see no coherent basis to afford it moral or ethical concern of any type. It is, I repeat despite the risk of triggering you again for the same reason as before, the moral equivalent of a rock for me.

fran17 wrote: »

Sorry I don't speculate on red herrings

Yet it was you, not the user you are being dismissive of here, that brought up the subject of things like Pain Receptors. So it was you serving the herring salad here, not them.

What have pain receptors got to do with anything if there are no lights on, and no one is home, in terms of actually processing or experiencing that pain at any level of sentience or consciousness?

fran17 wrote: »

I would say the logical objective conclusion would be that at 16 weeks the unborn does indeed feel pain

Unfortunate you would present a "logical conclusion" without presenting the "logic" on which it was based. Could you elaborate on the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning involved in making the claim you are very explicitly making here? I am, entirely, agog.

What I SUSPECT you are doing is a common lay man error of mistaking the ability of an entity to respond to a pain stimulus autonomically, as being an entity that "feels" pain. There are points in the fetal process where the fetus will be seen to withdraw from a pain stimulus, like a needle. But that does not mean anything is "feeling" the pain. The fetus is a relatively complex multi-cellular entity. If you stick a needle into a single celled Amoeba it will withdraw from that stimulus. There is no reason to think it "feels" anything, yet we observe this behavior all the same. So it is hardly surprising to see similar responses in an entity massively more complex than an amoeba.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

But it's ok for you to speculate on pain in the 16 week fetus, despite there being zero evidence for that? And while speculating that this pain wouldn't matter for a miscarried fetus of the same gestation, which is both speculative and completely illogical.

As for why the death happens, that's totally irrelevant to the claim of fetal pain.
It's either possible or it isn't. Claiming that it is but only when a pregnancy is artificially terminated is evidence though. Evidence of your agenda, which is not about fetal pain at all.

Ok. Gotcha now.

Please don't misrepresent me,It really does not further your argument in any sense.I never indicated that I felt the pain an unborn child would feel during miscarriage would not matter.On the contrary,I made it crystal clear that I was equally in favour of alleviating any or all pain experienced.
The unborn child is responsive to touch from as early as 6 weeks and as already established he/she has developed pain receptors no later than 16 weeks.These receptors are linked,via nerves,to the brain no later than 20 weeks.So pardon me,but to deny that the unborn child can feel pain by 20 weeks really makes you the illogical one.But in your defence the entire abortion argument,that the unborn child is not a human being,is built on a fallacy.And honestly,anybody who argues against a contingency measure which would eliminate human suffering and pain really needs to reevaluate which way his/her moral compass is pointing.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

The unborn child is responsive to touch from as early as 6 weeks and as already established he/she has developed pain receptors no later than 16 weeks.

And an amoeba is sensitive to touch too. I expressed the suspicion in my last post, and you appear to confirm it here, that you are conflating an entities response to a stimulus, with their ability to actually experience it.

A fetal response to stimulus is NOT the same as the lights being on, and someone home, actually registering and experiencing that stimulus. The autonomic system is perfectly capable of responding thus without any presence of consciousness or awareness or sentience.

You are not alone in making this error. We have another user on this very forum who goes around clinging to a report where music was played intra-vaginally (I would NOT have liked to be the one trying to get explain that one for grant funding) at the fetus and it illicted autonomic responses.

Using the artistic license that some scientists use when writing report he attempted to describe this response to the reader so they could picture what it looked like. So the author described it as "looking like trying to speak".

Of course the boards.ie user grabbed that description and ran with it as not just LOOKING LIKE that fetus was trying to speak....... but the fetus ACTUALLY WAS trying to speak.

I can understand such emotional responses. I am not a vulcan automaton. But we have to clarify them and be sure what reality is compared to our subjective responses to it. A fetus responding to stimulus....... audio or pain stimulus or whatever........ should not be used to indicate more than is actually true about the fetus.

fran17 wrote: »

These receptors are linked,via nerves,to the brain no later than 20 weeks.So pardon me,but to deny that the unborn child can feel pain by 20 weeks really makes you the illogical one.

Except it really doesn't. It is still you.

I have a mouse on my computer at home. If you move it it starts sending signals up to the computer. It does this even if the computer is entirely unplugged and "off". That the mouse exists and sends signals towards the computer does not mean the computer is on or processing those signals.

Just because pain receptors exist and are capable of sending signals in the direction of the brain...... that does not mean the brain is receiving them, or processing them, or doing anything with them at all.

So to support the claim the fetus "feels" the pain, and to declare everyone around you to be failing in logic, you have to do more than show the existence of the pain receptors and signals firing out of them. You have to, instead, show A) where those signals are going and

what is actually being done with them (if anything).

Yet that is EXACTLY the step you are not making, despite it being the only one that would make sense of your assertions.

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

Please don't misrepresent me,It really does not further your argument in any sense.I never indicated that I felt the pain an unborn child would feel during miscarriage would not matter.On the contrary,I made it crystal clear that I was equally in favour of alleviating any or all pain experienced.
The unborn child is responsive to touch from as early as 6 weeks and as already established he/she has developed pain receptors no later than 16 weeks.These receptors are linked,via nerves,to the brain no later than 20 weeks.So pardon me,but to deny that the unborn child can feel pain by 20 weeks really makes you the illogical one.But in your defence the entire abortion argument,that the unborn child is not a human being,is built on a fallacy.And honestly,anybody who argues against a contingency measure which would eliminate human suffering and pain really needs to reevaluate which way his/her moral compass is pointing.

Except that I'm not the one making that claim, it's been objectively studied (and links posted on here iirc) and there is no evidence that the fetus is capable of experiencing pain before at least the 23/24th week.

As for why I suggested you were saying pain during miscarriage didn't matter, well, I pointed out that if scientists had any evidence that pain was possible at an earlier stage, it would be impossible to avoid the question of whether anesthesia of the fetus was needed during miscarriage.

That no doctor has even suggested doing this speaks very strongly to the possibility that it isn't an issue, and therefore that people taking this one-sided approach, i.e. claiming that fetal pain during abortion is a thing, but not during miscarriage, are only interested in banning abortion, not in fetal pain at all.

When I asked you about this, you blew me off with some irrelevance about abortion being deliberate.

Which just confirms my suspicion.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

Except that I'm not the one making that claim, it's been objectively studied (and links posted on here iirc) and there is no evidence that the fetus is capable of experiencing pain before at least the 23/24th week.

As for why I suggested you were saying pain during miscarriage didn't matter, well, I pointed out that if scientists had any evidence that pain was possible at an earlier stage, it would be impossible to avoid the question of whether anesthesia of the fetus was needed during miscarriage.

That no doctor has even suggested doing this speaks very strongly to the possibility that it isn't an issue, and therefore that people taking this one-sided approach, i.e. claiming that fetal pain during abortion is a thing, but not during miscarriage, are only interested in banning abortion, not in fetal pain at all.

When I asked you about this, you blew me off with some irrelevance about abortion being deliberate.

Which just confirms my suspicion.

I would be rather hesitant to believe in the objectivity of such reports which conclude that the unborn child is void of the ability to feel pain.The majority of these publications are associated with either abortion providers or advocates of such.Rather than immediately accepting it as truth,you do because you wish it to be true,judge it on it's merits.
We have already established the anatomical reasons for the unborn child's ability to feel pain prior to 20 weeks,now let's examine the issue of prenatal surgery.Unborn children as young as 16 weeks can be treated for a number of conditions.During such procedures the patient,the unborn child,can be visibly seen to flinch or recoil when a surgical implement is used on him/her.Identical reactions to that which a young boy or girl would show.The unborn child is commonly anaesthetised because of his/her reaction to this.Also,and most tellingly,the unborn produces stress hormones which the administration of anesthesia has been shown to reduce.These same hormones are produced in an adult in response to pain.
I very much believe that these behavioural responses indicate that he/she feels pain and the physiological evidence confirm such beliefs.And on a human level,well,it's undeniable.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

I would be rather hesitant to believe in the objectivity of such reports which conclude that the unborn child is void of the ability to feel pain.The majority of these publications are associated with either abortion providers or advocates of such.

That is no small assertion you have made there. Care to back it up with..... well..... anything?

fran17 wrote: »

Rather than immediately accepting it as truth,you do because you wish it to be true,judge it on it's merits.

Nope, it is YOU that is accepting/denying things based on what you want to be true. Meanwhile people like myself do so because we KNOW the facts on developmental biology, fetal development, the neural-correlates of consciousness and perception of pain, and more.

And we know NOTHING in there supports the suggestion of the fetal perception of pain at the stages the VAST majority of choice based abortions are taking place (Nearly all by 12 weeks and pretty much all by 16 weeks)

We know withdrawal reflexes and hormonal responses to invasive stimulus is not indicative of pain perception without conscious cortical processing. We know what it means to have functional thalamocortical connections and when they even BEGIN to form (> 23 weeks gestation) and we know what it means to look at electroencephalography and suggest pain perception is unlikely before 29 or 30 weeks.

In journals like Bioethics when writers do suggest that there is pain before 29 weeks they do not go much before it. David Benatar and Michael Benatar for example wrote in Bioethics in 2001 that there is at least SOME evidence for "the claim that fetuses of around 28 to 30 weeks' gestation are capable of feeling pain."

While in "BJOG" an Obstetrics and Gynecology journal Fisk and Glover write "The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage"

In Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine Vol. 20 we have Richard Rokyta telling us that "While the fetal nervous system is able to react through protective reflexes to potentially harmful stimuli, there is no accurate evidence concerning pain sensations in this early period. Cortical processes occur only after thalamocortical connections and pathways have been completed at the 26th gestational week."

And in fact in The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Volume 25 - Issue 8 we are told that pretty much the evidence "In favor of a 2nd trimester perception of pain" is limited to nothing more than "the early development of spino-thalamic pathways (approximately from the 20th week), and the connections of the thalamus with the subplate (approximately from the 23rd week)." but they mediate even that by pointing out that "Against this possibility, some authors report the immaturity of the cortex with the consequent lack of awareness, and the almost continuous state of sleep of the fetus."

But of course you are going to show us that MOST of these authors / journals are associated directly with advocates or even providers of abortion aren't you? Can not wait to see this.

NONE of this stuff can be dismissed by a "You believe what you WANT to believe" narratives, especially presented by someone who is themselves a slave to just such a narrative.

fran17 wrote: »

We have already established the anatomical reasons for the unborn child's ability to feel pain prior to 20 weeks,now let's examine the issue of prenatal surgery.Unborn children as young as 16 weeks can be treated for a number of conditions.During such procedures the patient,the unborn child,can be visibly seen to flinch or recoil when a surgical implement is used on him/her.

And that is EXACTLY what you read too much into. Again for a citation:

"The fetus reacts to nociceptive stimulations through different motor, autonomic, vegetative, hormonal, and metabolic changes relatively early in the gestation period. With respect to the fact that the modulatory system does not yet exist, the first reactions are purely reflexive and without connection to the type of stimulus. While the fetal nervous system is able to react through protective reflexes to potentially harmful stimuli, there is no accurate evidence concerning pain sensations in this early period"

fran17 wrote: »

The unborn child is commonly anaesthetised because of his/her reaction to this.Also,and most tellingly,the unborn produces stress hormones which the administration of anesthesia has been shown to reduce.These same hormones are produced in an adult in response to pain.

And again you read too much into this. Such hormones are produced regardless of the type of stimulus. That is to say you can cause them to be produced by non-painful stimulus too. So it is not evidence that these are a response to pain.

And, contrary to the narrative that you might wish to erect, the treatment of the fetus with anesthesia for this reason is not done to treat pain or stop the fetus from feeling it. They do it solely because the Perinatal stress may have long-term neurodevelopmental implications.

In other words even if we 100% proved tomorrow that the fetus feels or is aware of no pain whatsoever..... we would STILL use anesthesia for reasons entirely unconnected to the mediation of pain, because it has nothing to do with pain why we apply it now and EVERYTHING to do with the long term development impacts of the fetal autonomic responses to our invasive procedures. This is because, as written in a 2007 Journal "Seminars in Perinatology":

" Physiological stress is different from the emotional pain felt by the more mature fetus or infant, and this stress is mitigated by pain medication such as opiates. The plasticity of the developing brain makes it vulnerable to the stressors that cause long-term developmental changes, ultimately leading to adverse neurological outcomes. Whereas evidence for conscious pain perception is indirect, evidence for the subconscious incorporation of pain into neurological development and plasticity is incontrovertible."

fran17 wrote: »

I very much believe that these behavioural responses indicate that he/she feels pain and the physiological evidence confirm such beliefs.And on a human level,well,it's undeniable.

Except what you are pedaling is anything BUT undeniable. You are entirely conflating two different things..... the physiological and autonomic responses to pain stimuli......... and the conscious perception and experience of pain. Your entire narrative here is built upon pretending the two are somehow the same thing.

They are not. And as I said the practices you point to, such as anesthetics used on the fetus during invasive surgery, are things we would STILL do tomorrow EVEN IF we have 100% undeniable proof of a complete lack of pain awareness or experience in that fetus......... and that is BECAUSE of the distinction you entirely ignore when you conflate the two so erroneously and..... I suspect..... willfully.

fran17

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is no small assertion you have made there. Care to back it up with..... well..... anything?

Nope, it is YOU that is accepting/denying things based on what you want to be true. Meanwhile people like myself do so because we KNOW the facts on developmental biology, fetal development, the neural-correlates of consciousness and perception of pain, and more.

And we know NOTHING in there supports the suggestion of the fetal perception of pain at the stages the VAST majority of choice based abortions are taking place (Nearly all by 12 weeks and pretty much all by 16 weeks)

We know withdrawal reflexes and hormonal responses to invasive stimulus is not indicative of pain perception without conscious cortical processing. We know what it means to have functional thalamocortical connections and when they even BEGIN to form (> 23 weeks gestation) and we know what it means to look at electroencephalography and suggest pain perception is unlikely before 29 or 30 weeks.

In journals like Bioethics when writers do suggest that there is pain before 29 weeks they do not go much before it. David Benatar and Michael Benatar for example wrote in Bioethics in 2001 that there is at least SOME evidence for "the claim that fetuses of around 28 to 30 weeks' gestation are capable of feeling pain."

While in "BJOG" an Obstetrics and Gynecology journal Fisk and Glover write "The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage"

In Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine Vol. 20 we have Richard Rokyta telling us that "While the fetal nervous system is able to react through protective reflexes to potentially harmful stimuli, there is no accurate evidence concerning pain sensations in this early period. Cortical processes occur only after thalamocortical connections and pathways have been completed at the 26th gestational week."

And in fact in The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Volume 25 - Issue 8 we are told that pretty much the evidence "In favor of a 2nd trimester perception of pain" is limited to nothing more than "the early development of spino-thalamic pathways (approximately from the 20th week), and the connections of the thalamus with the subplate (approximately from the 23rd week)." but they mediate even that by pointing out that "Against this possibility, some authors report the immaturity of the cortex with the consequent lack of awareness, and the almost continuous state of sleep of the fetus."

But of course you are going to show us that MOST of these authors / journals are associated directly with advocates or even providers of abortion aren't you? Can not wait to see this.

NONE of this stuff can be dismissed by a "You believe what you WANT to believe" narratives, especially presented by someone who is themselves a slave to just such a narrative.

And that is EXACTLY what you read too much into. Again for a citation:

"The fetus reacts to nociceptive stimulations through different motor, autonomic, vegetative, hormonal, and metabolic changes relatively early in the gestation period. With respect to the fact that the modulatory system does not yet exist, the first reactions are purely reflexive and without connection to the type of stimulus. While the fetal nervous system is able to react through protective reflexes to potentially harmful stimuli, there is no accurate evidence concerning pain sensations in this early period"

And again you read too much into this. Such hormones are produced regardless of the type of stimulus. That is to say you can cause them to be produced by non-painful stimulus too. So it is not evidence that these are a response to pain.

And, contrary to the narrative that you might wish to erect, the treatment of the fetus with anesthesia for this reason is not done to treat pain or stop the fetus from feeling it. They do it solely because the Perinatal stress may have long-term neurodevelopmental implications.

In other words even if we 100% proved tomorrow that the fetus feels or is aware of no pain whatsoever..... we would STILL use anesthesia for reasons entirely unconnected to the mediation of pain, because it has nothing to do with pain why we apply it now and EVERYTHING to do with the long term development impacts of the fetal autonomic responses to our invasive procedures. This is because, as written in a 2007 Journal "Seminars in Perinatology":

" Physiological stress is different from the emotional pain felt by the more mature fetus or infant, and this stress is mitigated by pain medication such as opiates. The plasticity of the developing brain makes it vulnerable to the stressors that cause long-term developmental changes, ultimately leading to adverse neurological outcomes. Whereas evidence for conscious pain perception is indirect, evidence for the subconscious incorporation of pain into neurological development and plasticity is incontrovertible."

Except what you are pedaling is anything BUT undeniable. You are entirely conflating two different things..... the physiological and autonomic responses to pain stimuli......... and the conscious perception and experience of pain. Your entire narrative here is built upon pretending the two are somehow the same thing.

They are not. And as I said the practices you point to, such as anesthetics used on the fetus during invasive surgery, are things we would STILL do tomorrow EVEN IF we have 100% undeniable proof of a complete lack of pain awareness or experience in that fetus......... and that is BECAUSE of the distinction you entirely ignore when you conflate the two so erroneously and..... I suspect..... willfully.

Can I ask,Are you in any way associated either directly or indirectly with any grouping,institution or organisation which do or would benefit either medically or financially from the procurement of abortion?

nozzferrahhtoo

So answering a question with a question then, is that what we are doing now?

I suppose I will lead by example and answer, rather than dodge, questions:

No, I am not.

However I would ask another question, despite suspecting it will also be dodged, but even if the answer was "yes".......... what relevance would that answer have?

2+2=4 regardless of whether I personally benefit from 2+2 being 4 or not. Not one thing I just said above would be any less true or relevant if the answer had been "yes". Facts remain facts regardless of how much income I gain, or not, from their being facts.

Any chance you will now respond to anything in my post now, especially the things around the are of a "?" mark, or will you solely be asking me personal questions while avoiding what I say?

robindch

^^^ Fran, that kind of mass-text quoting doesn't make for a good discussion.

Try quoting just the text that you're replying to, or if you're replying to nothing, then don't bother quoting anything.

fran17

POST EDITED TO COMPLY WITH MODERATOR INSTRUCTION

FRAN17 - PLEASE DO NOT BLOCK-QUOTE ENTIRE POSTS

THANK YOU.

Well I've asked multiple questions to multiple users without reply either,so if it's any comfort.
I just ask because you use the terms we and us quite a bit in relation to what is perceived to be known.But now,with clarity,I understand it's simply your own assessment of the information available.

oldrnwisr

You know fran, you might have at least acknowledged my last post or attempted to engage with it instead of continuing to claim things which aren't true and ignoring the evidence which shows this to be the case.

fran17 wrote: »

The unborn child is responsive to touch from as early as 6 weeks

No. The first pain receptors to develop are the ones in the perioral area around the mouth and these don't develop until week 7.

fran17 wrote: »

and as already established he/she has developed pain receptors no later than 16 weeks.These receptors are linked,via nerves,to the brain no later than 20 weeks.So pardon me,but to deny that the unborn child can feel pain by 20 weeks really makes you the illogical one.

Again, no. Although cutaneous pain receptors have developed by 16 weeks, you are deliberately conflating nociception and pain perception. A foetus can't perceive pain at 16 weeks (or 20 weeks) because the necessary connections haven't developed. The spinothalamic fibres which connect the cutaneous pain receptors to the brain don't finish developing until week 20. The thalamocortical fibres which process the signals from the pain receptors develop between weeks 17 and 24 but are not functional until week 24/25. So it's not possible for a foetus to feel pain (as opposed to nociception) until approximately week 25. This is what the published research shows.

fran17 wrote: »

I would be rather hesitant to believe in the objectivity of such reports which conclude that the unborn child is void of the ability to feel pain.The majority of these publications are associated with either abortion providers or advocates of such.Rather than immediately accepting it as truth,you do because you wish it to be true,judge it on it's merits.

It's highly disingenuous of you to claim the "abortion argument" is based on a fallacy while invoking the Poisoning the Well fallacy. You haven't engaged with any evidence which contradicts your view nevermind showing that any of the research suffers from any kind of bias. The review study I linked to was published by the Journal of the American Medical Association and is the work of three academics from the University of California, San Fransisco. It reviews the evidence of over 1000 peer-reviewed articles listed on PubMed. So this is peer-reviewed scientific research not anything published by abortion providers or advocates of such.

fran17 wrote: »

We have already established the anatomical reasons for the unborn child's ability to feel pain prior to 20 weeks,now let's examine the issue of prenatal surgery.

Well, we haven't established anything of the sort for reasons documented above and in my last post, but since we're down the rabbit hole, let's have a look at fetal surgery.

fran17 wrote: »

Unborn children as young as 16 weeks can be treated for a number of conditions.During such procedures the patient,the unborn child,can be visibly seen to flinch or recoil when a surgical implement is used on him/her. Identical reactions to that which a young boy or girl would show.

As stated already, this isn't pain perception it's nociception, a reflex movement caused by the pain receptors talking directly to the muscles. There is no brain involvement because the necessary connections haven't developed. It might look the same to an uninformed layman but it isn't.

fran17 wrote: »

The unborn child is commonly anaesthetised because of his/her reaction to this.

No. As I quoted in my last post, there are multiple objectives in using anaesthesia for foetal surgery including both foetal objectives and maternal objectives. The foetal anaesthetic objectives include uterine relaxation and foetal immobilisation. It is indicated even when there is no possibility of foetal pain because it reduces the possibility of complications for the mother. However, it's not certain that foetal anaesthetic has any actual analgesic effect. As the authors of the JAMA study note:

"Furthermore, no established protocols exist for administering anesthesia or analgesia directly to the fetus for minimally invasive fetal procedures or abortions. Experimental techniques, such as administration of fentanyl directly to the fetus and intra-amniotic injection of sufentanil in pregnant ewes, have not been shown to decrease fetal pain and are of unknown safety in humans."

Anaesthesia delivered directly to the foetus has not been shown to work and anaesthesia delivered to the foetus through the mother has been shown to increase the morbidity for both the mother and the foetus.

fran17 wrote: »

Also,and most tellingly,the unborn produces stress hormones which the administration of anesthesia has been shown to reduce.These same hormones are produced in an adult in response to pain.

Well, no. The reduction of stress hormones through anaesthesia is not a reduction in pain and it is not comparable to adult respsonses to pain.

Firstly, the response of the foetus changes over time. As early as 16 weeks the foetus displays increased cerebral flow during needling or other invasive procedures. However, this is not a pain response as the authors of the JAMA study state:

"As early as 16 weeks’ gestational age, fetal cerebral blood flow increases during venipuncture and transfusions that access the fetal hepatic vein through the innervated fetal abdominal wall but not during venipuncture and transfusions involving the noninnervated umbilical cord. Increased cerebral blood flow is not necessarily indicative of pain, as this response is thought to constitute a “brain sparing” mechanism associated with hypoxia and intrauterine growth restriction."

The observed reduction in stress hormones in foetuses of later age (20-35 weeks) is also not indicative of pain relief. As the authors point out:

"However, these neuroendocrine responses do not constitute evidence of fetal pain, because the autonomic nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis mediate them without conscious cortical processing. Additionally, these responses are not specific for painful stimuli. Plasma noradrenaline concentrations may increase after umbilical cord transfusion, and plasma β-endorphin concentrations may increase after repeated cordocenteses. Plasma cortisol and β-endorphin concentrations increase during innocuous activities such as exercise. Moreover, in adults, neuroendocrine stress responses may persist despite well-controlled postoperative pain."

Effect of direct fetal opioid analgesia on fetal hormonal and hemodynamic stress response to intrauterine needling.

Anaesthesia for Fetal Surgeries

In the end though, the entire topic of foetal pain is irrelevant. Even if we take into account all elective abortions performed at a point where foetal pain is possible and performed using surgical methods we only account for 0.07% of all abortions. So how is foetal pain an argument against legalisation of abortion at all? It could be dealt with much easier by mandating medical abortions for all elective abortions between 23 and 24 weeks. That would avoid the foetal pain consideration entirely.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are points in the fetal process where the fetus will be seen to withdraw from a pain stimulus, like a needle. But that does not mean anything is "feeling" the pain. The fetus is a relatively complex multi-cellular entity. If you stick a needle into a single celled Amoeba it will withdraw from that stimulus. There is no reason to think it "feels" anything, yet we observe this behavior all the same.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

as written in a 2007 Journal "Seminars in Perinatology":
" Physiological stress is different from the emotional pain felt by the more mature fetus or infant, and this stress is mitigated by pain medication such as opiates. The plasticity of the developing brain makes it vulnerable to the stressors that cause long-term developmental changes, ultimately leading to adverse neurological outcomes. Whereas evidence for conscious pain perception is indirect, evidence for the subconscious incorporation of pain into neurological development and plasticity is incontrovertible."
Except what you are pedaling is anything BUT undeniable. You are entirely conflating two different things..... the physiological and autonomic responses to pain stimuli......... and the conscious perception and experience of pain. Your entire narrative here is built upon pretending the two are somehow the same thing.

I think you may be creating artificial distinctions here. Basically you are saying "its not pain unless its exactly the same as what I think I feel, when I feel pain".
Whereas, at a basic philosophical and indeed physiological level, "pain" is simply a nervous sensation that motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.

So if we take your quote above "The plasticity of the developing brain makes it vulnerable to the stressors that cause long-term developmental changes, ultimately leading to adverse neurological outcomes.Whereas evidence for conscious pain perception is indirect, evidence for the subconscious incorporation of pain into neurological development and plasticity is incontrovertible" what the obstetrician is really saying here, in plain English, is "We are not concerned with pain relief for the foetus per se, but we are keen to prevent the long term developmental damage which results from inflicting that pain on the foetus".

Which seems somewhat callous to me. Nevertheless I would not put an overriding emphasis on preventing all pain, or use it as the determining factor for whether an abortion should go ahead or not. Pain is a natural part of life. Death is the only surefire painkiller.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

Well I've asked multiple questions to multiple users without reply either,so if it's any comfort.

So you think the way to respond to users who have treated you poorly in that regard, is to find a user who has NOT treated you poorly in that regard..... and treat that user in that poor way?

I wonder if bully's use this one too. As they are punching their victim saying "Well some people love hitting me, if that makes you feel any better".

fran17 wrote: »

I just ask because you use the terms we and us quite a bit in relation to what is perceived to be known.But now,with clarity,I understand it's simply your own assessment of the information available.

The "we" in that context is the scientific community which, unlike you, I quoted many of above directly and indirectly. When I talk the talk of science I tend to quote some rather than "I disagree with it..... because reasons".

The simple fact is you have presented no evidence here of any fetal awareness of pain. The best (and I use that word quite loosely here) you have done is conflate physiological responses to stimulus with it in hope that the evidence for one would be mistaken for evidence for the other.

But I asked a lot of questions and you are STILL refusing to answer them. For example I asked you if you have ANY evidence for your claim that the majority of studies that do not support YOUR belief in fetal pain are " associated with either abortion providers or advocates of such."

Anything?

At all?

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

I think you may be creating artificial distinctions here. Basically you are saying "its not pain unless its exactly the same as what I think I feel, when I feel pain".

Nothing I was saying was that simplistic at all really no. There is a recognized distinction in the scientific world between autonomic and physiological responses to stimulus...... and the actual conscious or sentient experience of it. And I cited quite a few sources above going into that distinction.

Those that are claiming the fetus experiences or feels pain need to be exact about what they are saying. WHEN in the developmental process are the "feeling" it exactly (Remembering that the VAST majority of abortions are done by week 12 and pretty much all by 16). WHAT is the evidence they are experiencing anything at all, let alone the pain?

recedite wrote: »

"We are not concerned with pain relief for the foetus per se, but we are keen to prevent the long term developmental damage which results from inflicting that pain on the foetus".

That would not be a fair summary no. What they are saying is that there is no reason TO BE concerned with pain relief for the fetus per se, because there is no evidence they are feeling any.

What there is evidence for however is autonomic and natural responses to our invasive procedures that cause responses that are THEMSELVES detrimental to the development process of the fetus.

The way you summarize it, whether you intended to word it that way or not, implies there IS fetal pain to be concerned with...... but they just aren't bothered. You make it sound like we believe we ARE inflicting pain but do not really care about that. Whereas the reality is that we do not think we ARE causing any entity any experience of pain at all and the reasons we use pain medication have nothing to do with it.

looksee

I have no idea whether a fetus feels pain or not, but I do wonder why the massive pressure of contractions and the passage down the birth canal does not leave the baby emerging traumatised and distressed?

Loafing Oaf

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For example I asked you if you have ANY evidence for your claim that the majority of studies that do not support YOUR belief in fetal pain are " associated with either abortion providers or advocates of such."

Anything?

At all?

It's drawn from the esteemed source known as 'the voices in Fran's head'.

fran17

oldrnwisr wrote: »

POST EDITED TO COMPLY WITH MODERATOR INSTRUCTION

FRAN17 - PLEASE DO NOT BLOCK-QUOTE ENTIRE POSTS

THANK YOU.

Of course I'm not purposely ignoring or failing to acknowledge your posting,postings of such length take time to digest and if I was to engage with all it would require me retiring from my day job.
From what I gather you are basing the majority of your conclusions on an article published in a 2005 edition of the journal of the American medical association(JAMA).This bases it's study under the belief that it is the cerebral cortex which is principally responsible for pain perception.However,there is now a large body of evidence to support the belief that it is in fact the thalamus which is primarily responsible.The JAMA report is quite frequently sited regarding this matter but is also quite frequently refuted.

fran17

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

POST EDITED TO COMPLY WITH MODERATOR INSTRUCTION

FRAN17 - PLEASE DO NOT BLOCK-QUOTE ENTIRE POSTS

THANK YOU.

Sure,if one takes the JAMA study,which is sited quite frequently regarding this subject.Sited both here and in general might I add.It's lead author was previously employed as a lawyer for NARAL,a political pro abortion organisation.Don't you feel that is a prime reason to hold a certain level of caution when discussing this topic?

robindch

Mod:

^^^ Fran - any more block-quotes and your posts will be deleted without comment.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

Sure,if one takes the JAMA study

If one takes ANY single study one is not going about this the right way. As you can see from one of the posts I made that.......... lets face it, you pretty much wholesale ignored the content of.......... you will see I drew on citations from MULTIPLE sources.

When evaluating science on any topic the right way to go about it is NOT to trawl through it all until you find a study that matches (or with some manipulation can be spun to appear to match) your position on a given matter.

I have quoted multiple sources, and can offer you multiple more, differentiating between the physiological responses of the fetus to invasive procedures............ and any evidence the fetus is in any way feeling, experiencing or subjectively in any way aware of, pain.

So if you want to establish a "pain based" objection to abortion you have ALL your work still ahead of you in order to establish the fetus feels any pain at all.

However it should also be noted that in answer to the challenge to prove your claim that "The majority of these publications are associated with either abortion providers or advocates of such" you offer ONE single paper? Really? Are you operating under a COMPLETELY different definition of the word "majority" to me, or what is actually going on here?

And even then you link it based on the persons PREVIOUS employment, not even current employment??? Which just makes the one link you have attempted look even more tenuous.

fran17

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When evaluating science on any topic the right way to go about it is NOT to trawl through it all until you find a study that matches (or with some manipulation can be spun to appear to match) your position on a given matter.

I believe this sums up your argument adequately,despite the wholesale irony therein.
You pretty much ignore all objective evidence I have provided,be it anatomical,physiological,behavioural or on a human level.You absolutely refuse to acknowledge any or all evidence to the contrary of your belief and continue to attempt to blind people with paragraphs of subjective science.Even now when I expose one of the most widely sited sources for foetal pain denial as a discredited sham you just brush it off as unimportant.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

I believe this sums up your argument adequately,despite the wholesale irony therein.

You seem to believe a lot of things you have absolutely no substantiation for, so I can merely add this to the list.

fran17 wrote: »

You pretty much ignore all objective evidence I have provided,be it anatomical,physiological,behavioural or on a human level.

Except I replied directly to your "evidence" and you simply ignored my responses entirely. I went through the physiological and behavioural things you brought up and discussed them DIRECTLY.

In what world exactly does me discussing your "evidence" DIRECTLY equate to me having ignored it

fran17 wrote: »

Even now when I expose one of the most widely sited sources for foetal pain denial as a discredited sham you just brush it off as unimportant.

I brushed nothing off as unimportant. If you have an issue with a study that I DID NOT CITE, then take it up with the people who DID cite it. If you want to discuss something I cited however, I am here for you.

However nothing was brushed off. All I said, had you bothered to read it, was that backing up your claim that "The majority of these publications are associated with either abortion providers or advocates of such" is not going to be achieved by pointing at ONE SINGLE PAPER.

I genuinely do not want to reduce the content of this thread to equivocate over the meaning of single words, but you do actually know what "the majority" means right? Spoiler: One paper is not it.

Now you can either defend that statement, dodge that statement, or do the honest thing and retract it as the dishonest hyperbole it clearly was. Your choice.