Fetuses can't feel pain (http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/04/14/hscout532137.html) according to scientists.

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."

Well if REASON doesn't get in the way of legislation, why should science? Fair is fair. Give equal time to EVERYTHING that doesn't make sense!!

Of course they can feel pain.

What a stupid notion.


"This is an unwarranted piece of legislation because there is good evidence that the fetus cannot feel pain at any stage of gestation," said Stuart Derbyshire, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Birmingham, U.K.

Again, more proof that morons can get degrees.

Reading that article in full, it seems what he is saying, that after 20-26 weeks, a fetus does not feel pain because it doesn't have a definition of pain, which it learns after being born. Up to 20-26 weeks, the fetus doesn't feel pain because the physical requirments for feeling pain aren't there. I'm pro-choice, but even I find his assertions a bit disingenous about the post-22 week feelings of pain.

The guy is lying.

The fetus does feel pain.

This is not dependant upon whether or not you are pro abortion or anti abortion.


If you care about the fetus feeling pain, give the thing MORPHINE for cripes sake. If you don't, its gonna be dead anyway and won't remember the pain, then don't.

Nociceptors, pain neurons, are developed at about 2 weeks gestation. Some may argue, that because of the newness of the nociceptors, and developmental unbalances, the fetus feels MORE pain than post natality.
http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2001/10_01/white.htm

Even the author of that article did not conclusively determine at what stage a fetus can feel pain. Just because some nerves are developed does not mean the message gets to the brain and comes back in what we call pain. I'm a light weight when it comes to medicine, but even basic biology (and experience with numbness and parapalegics) has shown me that actual pain is dependent upon numerous biological and neurological factors. Common sense tells me that those factors only come together as the fetus develops, not during the entire fetal stage.

This is not dependant upon whether or not you are pro abortion or anti abortion. I disagree Fyyr. Just as we look for bias in political articles, whether one is pro or against abortion can bias an article on this topic. It is why I expressly stated my view on the topic. Normally I tend to post more conservative views on this message board. I thought it relevant to know my bias when I made my comment abut the psychologist's article.

Nociceptors, pain neurons, are developed at about 2 weeks gestation. Some may argue, that because of the newness of the nociceptors, and developmental unbalances, the fetus feels MORE pain than post natality.
http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2001/10_01/white.htmThis anesthesiologist didn't seem to be arguing the point, but rather he seemed to me to be making a statement "I wonder if..." Nothing conclusive whatsoever.

I disagree Fyyr.

I don't have an agenda.

Almost everyone in this discussion does.

Whether or not you are pro abortion or anti abortion, does not change the fact that a fetus shows obvious signs of pain when it is aborted. Just because it can not speak, and has fluid in its lungs preventing it from crying, or that you can not hear it, does not change the fact that it is showing obvious signs and evidence of pain.

Even if the responses are reflexes, reflexes operate on the PAIN level, firstly. Re coiling in/from pain are the first reflexes developed, and the last to be lost. You can see facial grimacing with sonography.

If you need to lie to yourself that the fetus feels no pain, in order to go through with your abortion, go for, I don't care. You are just lying, is all. A defense or coping mechanism needed to do what you are doing, killing your in utero baby.

It is not like life is really sanctified or anything. Geez. Kill it already, and stop making excuses and rationalizations.


Edit.
You, is not you Remi. You general.

Of course he did not come to any definitive conclusion.

The article was his opinion. Just like the first one was from that idiot British college professor.



Form your own opinions.

I would imagine that once the nerve endings are there, and so is the brain, a fetus could feel pain. Even before hand I have to wonder when I read that according to scientists even plants feel pain, and communicate that pain to other plants.

The guy is lying.

The fetus does feel pain.


If you read the article carefully you will find that the scientist does not deny that the fetus reacts to stimuli. What he said is that until about 22 weeks the ability to experience the sensation as pain does not exist. In other words a fetus feels pain much the same as a tree would. If you cut off a tree branch the tree will react to the trauma, but it will not experience it as pain. With a fetus it is much the same. The nerve system may respond to damage or damaging stimuli, but that is not the same as experiencing pain.


If you care about the fetus feeling pain, give the thing MORPHINE for cripes sake. If you don't, its gonna be dead anyway and won't remember the pain, then don't.


The argument against this is that any drug to be applied to the fetus must either be injected directly into the fetus, which involves sticking a needle through the mother's abdomen and womb, with all the (unneccesary) risks involved. Or the drug must somehow be made to pass through the placenta, whose primary function is to prevent that thing from happening. Again this means risking the health of the mother for no clear reason.


Eri

Erianaiel,

Do you have any idea what is involved with an abortion procedure?

Do you know how developed a 22 week fetus is?


Because your last paragraph borders on parody.

Erianaiel,
Do you have any idea what is involved with an abortion procedure?


yes I do. While not familiar with the exact technical details I do know what is involved and some of the different procedures possible. And while I have not personally undergone the procedure a very good friend of mine did of necessity so I am also indirectly familiar with the emotional pain involved.


Do you know how developed a 22 week fetus is?


Of course.

[/quote]
Because your last paragraph borders on parody.[/QUOTE]

*blinks* really? In what way? That doctors do not tend to go at the womb through the belly rather than through the vagina? Or that the placenta does not keep medicines out of the fetus's bloodstreem?
I do suppose it is possible to use an endoscope to locate the fetus, then in addition to that push a flexible injection needle through the vagina and womb mouth.
But let's be real here. The reason for this 'baby's feel pain' lecture is first and foremost to present the abortion in as gruesome a light as possible to women seeking to undergo the procedure in the hope they will be schocked out of it.
Also, the average time for abortions (at least in the Netherlands) is about week 13. Abortions after week 20 must have a medical reason, usually a genetic or development defect so severe that the chances of the child surviving birth (or its first few weeks) are practically non-existent and continuing the pregnancy is only a risk for the mother's life.


Eri

The reason for this 'baby's feel pain' lecture is first and foremost to present the abortion in as gruesome a light as possible to women seeking to undergo the procedure in the hope they will be schocked out of it
Eri
My posit is that the fetus can feel pain at 2 weeks gestation, because that is when the nociceptors have been built.

We were discussing 22 weeks gestation, well within the legal limits in this country for an abortion.

If you want to make me, a pro-abortionist, out to be some monster because I am enlightening you to the fact that a 22 week old fetus exhibits all the signs and symptoms of pain as a 12 month old, go for it.

It IS gruesome. No woman should go through with an abortion without knowing that it is gruesome. To her and to the fetus. It is not some clean clinical act, at 22 weeks. It is dirty, mean, and bloody. The abortionist will insert a needle, in through the vagina, through the cervix, and inject the fetus with salt water to kill it, most probably through the fontanale of the head, into the brain. Then he or she, will use whatever means are necessary to extract the dead fetus. Hooked scalpels, garrotes if necessary, and tongs.

That, of course, is just one type of procedure. There are others(vacuum and lavage, etc.).

If women are not made aware of the procedure, and what it entails, then they have no ability to rationally give Informed Consent to that procedure.

Don't you dare try and fluffy-bunny what it really is.

I don't care about pain myself. I like pain. Pain is relative to the individual. I have seen an asthmatic complain of pain 10 out of 10. I have seen a 19 year old boy, with his pelvis crushed by a semi, and is entrails were ex-trails(and he was holding them with his hands), and he only had pain of 5 out of 10.

If you got pain, and want it killed, I will kill it. Don't you dare say that just because he(or she) is only 22 weeks gestation, that he does not feel pain. I got pictures, I can show you what a 22 week old gestation fetus looks like. My best friend's nephew's funeral is on Thursday, he was only 21 weeks(gestation).

And when I get my license, if you want your fetus and baby killed, I will kill it for you. So, don't sappy honey it up, for me please. I don't need that ****, you will want me to kill your baby, and suction it out of you, or scrape it out of you, nonetheless. Lie to yourself all you want, don't try and lie to me.

I would think information relating to abortions should be on the same scale as that given about any other surgery would be sufficient for abortions. "Hooked scalpels, garrotes if necessary, and tongs," among some of the other things you mentioned is a bit dramatic for any informed consent form I've ever seen. Indeed, I don't recall ever seeing an informed consent form that mentions the specific surgical tools that will be used. :p

Don't forget the hunchback with red hot pokers.

I would think information relating to abortions should be on the same scale as that given about any other surgery would be sufficient for abortions. "Hooked scalpels, garrotes if necessary, and tongs," among some of the other things you mentioned is a bit dramatic for any informed consent form I've ever seen. Indeed, I don't recall ever seeing an informed consent form that mentions the specific surgical tools that will be used. :p

Doctors, and nurses to an extent, use words to nullify what they are doing. Of course. To obfuscate.

Resection sounds so much more nicer, and safe, than, 'cut it out'. But it means the same thing.

But I can pretty much tell you that a patient who is going to have a resection of the bowel, because of cancer; they know EXACTLY what is going to happen before they sign the concent. They are going to be knocked out with anesthesia, cut open, the cancerous bowels are going to be cut out with a knife, the remaining bowel is going to be sewn back together, and they are going to be stitched and stapled back up. If you do not know that, you are not informed enough to give consent.

It was obvious that a previous poster on the subject had no idea what actually happens during an abortion. The pro abortion crowd implies with their back alley abortion and coathanger rhetoric, that legal abortions are 'clean', safe, 'clinical', riskfree, and bloodless. They are not. Surgical abortions. There is an implication that needles, knives, hooks, bladed scrapers, and vacuum hoses are no longer used. That is incorrect.

And, it is beyond unethical for a woman to undergo a surgical abortion and not know what is going to happen. Most people don't read the paperwork before they sign anyways. But they should still know what is going to happen.

Abortion clinics are charged with the responsibility of explaining procedure to the patient. In fact, in most states (maybe all now) the patient is required to set two appointments. One for counselling and one for the procedure... with a waiting period in between the two (ie counselling and procedure do not happen within the same day).

But I can pretty much tell you that a patient who is going to have a resection of the bowel, because of cancer; they know EXACTLY what is going to happen before they sign the concent. They are going to be knocked out with anesthesia, cut open, the cancerous bowels are going to be cut out with a knife, the remaining bowel is going to be sewn back together, and they are going to be stitched and stapled back up. If you do not know that, you are not informed enough to give consent.Any patient can be as informed or uninformed as he wants to be if they make the effort to ask the questions or ignore the answers. Doctors are required to give a patient "the basics" but typically don't get into details unless the patient asks.
It was obvious that a previous poster on the subject had no idea what actually happens during an abortion. The pro abortion crowd implies with their back alley abortion and coathanger rhetoric, that legal abortions are 'clean', safe, 'clinical', riskfree, and bloodless. They are not. Surgical abortions. There is an implication that needles, knives, hooks, bladed scrapers, and vacuum hoses are no longer used. That is incorrect.Anyone with any common sense understands that modern abortions in clinics with properly educated doctors and the right equipment is FAR safer than any of the "old style" back alley abortions. That doesn't mean "risk free" and I don't think anyone has said that they are. But I don't believe that it's necessary for every pro-choice OR anti-choice individual to understand every minute detail of an abortion procedure in order for them to take a position on the issue. ALL surgical procedures are pretty graphically ugly if one was to watch, but the decision to proceed with any should be between doctor and patient only. Making abortions more complicated and dangerous for the mother is not helping either side of the issue, and if the so called "pro-lifers" were truly concerned about human welfare they would not try to do more to endanger the patient (OR shoot doctors, OR bomb clinics...)

Anyone with any common sense

I was rebutting a, idea from a poster. She said that we should not give Morphine to fetuses before we abort them because of the risk of infection from the needle going through the mother's abdomen into the fetus. That we should not give a fetus Morphine for risk to the mother.

Correct me if I am wrong that is not what she said.

Someone who says that has no knowledge of the procedure. Hey, I am just trying to explain why someone would say such a thing. Maybe you should let her explain herself. It may or may NOT be common sense, in the sense that it is common.

Here's a little better text on the story linked in the starting post:
Fetuses Called Impervious to Sensation of Pain
(http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/tb/3099)

There is an implication that needles, knives, hooks, bladed scrapers, and vacuum hoses are no longer used. That is incorrect.

Didnt you just a few weeks ago post a picture of the abortion pill and state "THIS is what the back-ally abortions of 2006 will look like"? Aren't you just as guilty of "prettying it up" really?

No one explained to my colon just exactly what the colonoscopy was going to be like.

Didnt you just a few weeks ago post a picture of the abortion pill and state "THIS is what the back-ally abortions of 2006 will look like"? Aren't you just as guilty of "prettying it up" really?


The abortion pills work at about 7-9 weeks gestation.


They CERTAINLY will not work at 22 weeks.


At 22 weeks, you have to kill it first, then deliver(induce labor) it if she can, if she can't, then you may need to cut them up and extract them.

No one explained to my colon just exactly what the colonoscopy was going to be like.


Why would anyone explain anything to your colon? Watched Fight Club recently, perhaps.

"I Am Panamah's Inflammed Large Intestines"


Hopefully, YOU(and not your bowel) were told(or at least already knew) what what going to happen with your colonoscopy.


Edit:
I will tell you, if you are my patient, what to expect before, during, and after this procedure. I will tell you now if you like, just ask.

Anyone with any common sense understands that modern abortions in clinics with properly educated doctors and the right equipment is FAR safer than any of the "old style" back alley abortions. That doesn't mean "risk free" and I don't think anyone has said that they are.
You are assuming that all 'back alley' abortions were poorly done. I have not seen anything to imply that, let alone show it. Pro abortionists use those words for pathos, to denote cockroaches, and dripping pipes, and unsterile conditions. In all fairness, the so called back alley abortionists were doing their procedures in EQUAL conditions that legitimate doctors were performing their procedures in, by and large.

But I don't believe that it's necessary for every pro-choice OR anti-choice individual to understand every minute detail of an abortion procedure in order for them to take a position on the issue.
If you do not know what the procedure entails, then you have not the information to form an accurate opinion on the matter. If your opinion is not accurate or informed, then you should shut the fVck up. You are a mush-head automaton, regurgitating someone else's propaganda.

ALL surgical procedures are pretty graphically ugly if one was to watch, but the decision to proceed with any should be between doctor and patient only.
Says who? The informed consent issues, which were layed out by the Supreme Court, interjected between the two, for example. The fact that you are removing another human being, which is not YOUR tissue, and genetically linked to the father, as much as the mother, would leave or lead any thinking person to the notion, that he should have some say in the matter. I know that you are a woman, and that posit is completely illogical to you(because you have the genetic predisposition for choice of the next generation). But the law can and will override your irrational genetic inheritance when it sees fit.

Making abortions more complicated and dangerous for the mother is not helping either side of the issue,
Injecting Morphine Sulphate in the fontanel of the fetus prior to injecting it with saline has little to no consequence to the mother. Anyone with any common sense knows that. But most assuredly, it will remove ANY and ALL pain that a fetus may suffer when you do inject the salt water(or cut it to pieces). I can see how ignoring, justifying, rationalizing, the notion that a fetus does not feel pain will help the pro-abortion side of the issue, but it is still ignoring, justifying, and rationalizing. Just because your side wins, or will win, does not make your opinion or position accurate or correct. If your argument is so shaky and precarious, maybe it is just for that reason alone, then you need to re-assess your opinion and argument; that is to say "If abortion is horrible if the fetus feels pain, but is not when it does not" maybe instead of regurgitating propaganda and mantra, you critically think and re-think your opinion.

I personally don't care if the fetus feels pain. I like pain, personally. It let's you know that you are alive. And the fact that it does feel pain does not change my opinion on abortion. Tuff sh1t outta luck, sucks to be you, your mother has determined that you are a piece of bio-hazard waste. This ties in with the Mike Morales thing, so many people are so afraid of pain, like it is unnatural or inhuman, or something. It is not. Pain is natural and human.

and if the so called "pro-lifers" were truly concerned about human welfare they would not try to do more to endanger the patient (OR shoot doctors, OR bomb clinics...)
I will kill them myself. I am not a humanitarian, or do-gooder, or pro-lifer. What has your point got to do with the discussion, I don't see them posting in this thread?

The abortion pills work at about 7-9 weeks gestation.


They CERTAINLY will not work at 22 weeks.


At 22 weeks, you have to kill it first, then deliver(induce labor) it if she can, if she can't, then you may need to cut them up and extract them.

So what you MEANT to say is "provided the girls go soon enough to their local back alley, this is what the back ally abortions of 2006 will look like *picture of pill*".

Which was my point - presenting the pill as the back alley abortion of 2006 is just as misleading as presenting all hospital abortions as "nice and clean".

Why would anyone explain anything to your colon? Watched Fight Club recently, perhaps.

"I Am Panamah's Inflammed Large Intestines"


Hopefully, YOU(and not your bowel) were told(or at least already knew) what what going to happen with your colonoscopy.

I certainly didn't have all the details until just before I went under. I didn't know they had a vacuum cleaner built into that thing. :p

The thing I was most worried about was the prep. Good god that was hard on me. The actual procedure was a piece of cake.

I didn't know they had a vacuum cleaner built into that thing.

Well, not only a vacuum cleaner, but a blower, and a little garrote/scalpal to cut away any polyps.

While all this is fun and all...


You will have to agree with me that a doctor sticking a camera up your butt is a much different procedure that having a late-term abortion.
The worse probable conceivable complication for a colonoscopy is that you have the farts post-op. The enema pre-op may not have been all that fun either, but hardly a matter of life and death.

So what you MEANT to say is "provided the girls go soon enough to their local back alley, this is what the back ally abortions of 2006 will look like *picture of pill*".

Which was my point - presenting the pill as the back alley abortion of 2006 is just as misleading as presenting all hospital abortions as "nice and clean".

Your point is wasted space.

The context of what I was saying, that if it becomes illegal for doctors to perform abortions in the US(per the WI law), it will still be possible for women to have abortions via Plan B and the the abortion pills. And that those two things will be relatively easy to get, for it is easy to get any prescription pill now without a prescription.

Continue using your retarded rhetoric of rusty scalpals and coathangers and back alleys, all you like. It is out of proportion to what was, or what will ever happen. While what I am saying or said(about the pill) was accurate and truthful(no matter if you like it or not), your dogmatic rhetoric is a lie, and was a lie. A pathos filled and implied graphic entreaty to change people's opinions about the subject, and a successful one at that.

I am sure that someone somewhere, in the past, gave a woman a hard quick kick to the abdomen to intentionally abort a baby. Using your thinking, it happened regularly and all the time.

You will have to agree with me that a doctor sticking a camera up your butt is a much different procedure that having a late-term abortion.
The worse probable conceivable complication for a colonoscopy is that you have the farts post-op. The enema pre-op may not have been all that fun either, but hardly a matter of life and death.
Actually, worse possible complication is a perforated bowel and possible death. :\

Fortunately, I didn't wake up dead. :p

I said probable for a reason.

Perforation is not likely.
Death less than that.

Perforation(of the uterus) is much more likely in a late term abortion.
So is death.

Your point is wasted space.

The context of what I was saying, that if it becomes illegal for doctors to perform abortions in the US(per the WI law), it will still be possible for women to have abortions via Plan B and the the abortion pills. And that those two things will be relatively easy to get, for it is easy to get any prescription pill now without a prescription.

Continue using your retarded rhetoric of rusty scalpals and coathangers and back alleys, all you like. It is out of proportion to what was, or what will ever happen. While what I am saying or said(about the pill) was accurate and truthful(no matter if you like it or not), your dogmatic rhetoric is a lie, and was a lie. A pathos filled and implied graphic entreaty to change people's opinions about the subject, and a successful one at that.

I am sure that someone somewhere, in the past, gave a woman a hard quick kick to the abdomen to intentionally abort a baby. Using your thinking, it happened regularly and all the time.

I think you will find that I have never once described any form of "back alley abortions", so "my retarded rhetoric" and "my thinking" are both totally misleading and incorrect, and - using your own vocabulary - a lie.

Let me ask you - if what you said about pills and back alley abortions is true AND if what you said about the period of time the abortion pill actually works is true - What are your thoughts about the nature of hypothetical back alley abortions of 2006 after 7-8 weeks?

No need for hypotheticals.

We shall see what happens with Wisconsin, shan't we.

South Dakota.

All just "Fargo" country, eh.

What was up with Wisconsin, then, I forgot.

They banned mandatory chip implants in humans. Or are in the process of banning it. I forget.

No need for hypotheticals.

We shall see what happens with Wisconsin, shan't we.

Apology accepted