Good for Charlie Crist

[geauxtohell]

When a doctor tells a patient that the fetus is completely undeveloped when he knows that their are organs, arms and legs, wouldn't you call that lying. Talking to a patient who wants an abortion or a reporter should not make a difference, they both should hear exactly the same thing when they ask questions, and it should be the truth.

Does the video I posted have an agenda? Of course, but that does not change the underlying fact that abortion providers have a problem telling the truth.

No. I'd call it splitting hairs. What does "undeveloped" mean? Any premature baby has undeveloped lungs and risks death through respiratory distress. I don't think the Dr.'s who use this term mean to imply that a child is a mass of cells for 35 weeks that magically develops in the last week. I don't think they are being dishonest either. After all, embryology isn't some secretive affair. Anyone, regardless of educational background can look at a developmental chart.

Additionally, I don't think any child had survived being born before 22 weeks. The odds are against a premature baby surviving up until the 26th week (if I remember correctly). So, in effect, they are undeveloped. I don't take that to mean the physicians are claiming that no organogenesis or limb development occurs. In fact, we know that limbs develop in the fourth week.

Again, most of this is based on silly semantics. I don't see it being germane to the issue. I also don't see it as an indication to force women to get an ultrasound.

So, aside from more semantics in the "heart tones" versus heart beats debate, what lies were told in that video?

 

[geauxtohell]

Doctors are required to state the truth, to the best of their knowledge per scientific research. Do you believe it to be any different in this particular topic?

I linked a JAMA article on this (peer reviewed for the naysayers). Pretty interesting stuff. All about the devolopment of the thalamus and 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order neurons.

At any rate, the consensus seems to be that pain is perceived in the third trimester.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That the best medical evidence suggests that a fetus can't perceive pain until around the third trimester.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/brownbag/brownbag0506/fetalpain.pdf

There is plenty of debate about that. The study you cited is based on the presumption that pain requires consciousness.

While the presence of thalamocorti-
cal fibers is necessary for pain per-
ception, their mere presence is in-
sufficient—this pathway must also be
functional. It has been proposed that
transient, functional thalamocortical
circuits may form via subplate neu-
rons around midgestation, but no
human study has demonstrated this
early functionality. Instead, constant
SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and
EEG patterns denoting wakefulness
appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of
these tests of cortical function suggest
that conscious perception of pain does
not begin before the third trimester.
Cutaneous withdrawal reflexes and
hormonal stress responses present ear-
lier in development are not explicit or
sufficient evidence of pain perception
because they are not specific to nox-
ious stimuli and are not cortically
mediated.

It strikes me as poor procedure to define your findings before examining your data.

 

[geauxtohell]

That the best medical evidence suggests that a fetus can't perceive pain until around the third trimester.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/brownbag/brownbag0506/fetalpain.pdf

There is plenty of debate about that. The study you cited is based on the presumption that pain requires consciousness.

While the presence of thalamocorti-
cal fibers is necessary for pain per-
ception, their mere presence is in-
sufficient—this pathway must also be
functional. It has been proposed that
transient, functional thalamocortical
circuits may form via subplate neu-
rons around midgestation, but no
human study has demonstrated this
early functionality. Instead, constant
SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and
EEG patterns denoting wakefulness
appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of
these tests of cortical function suggest
that conscious perception of pain does
not begin before the third trimester.
Cutaneous withdrawal reflexes and
hormonal stress responses present ear-
lier in development are not explicit or
sufficient evidence of pain perception
because they are not specific to nox-
ious stimuli and are not cortically
mediated.

It strikes me as poor procedure to define your findings before examining your data.

It's meta analysis, what else did you expect? The authors didn't have their own data, because they weren't conducting their own research.

I'd be happy to review any of your sources if they were properly peer reviewed and published in a reputable source (i.e. JAMA).

 

[Immanuel]

Are you talking about your video? Frankly, I thought it was silly. Again, I don't give two damns about getting in the "baby" vs. "fetus" debate. I think they gave the woman bad information about the heartbeat, which starts at around four weeks. Other than that, I didn't really see anything that indicated the woman was given bad information.

The staff were operating under the assumption that this woman intended to get an abortion and was not an undercover reporter. It is correct that there are less complications with abortion the earlier you do it.

All this is aside the point: "education" and informed decisions do not require an ultrasound.

So again, how are Doctors lying to a patient? If this is going to turn into histrionics over "THEY DON'T CALL IT A BABY!!!!" then that's just an absurd.

Once again, the issue here isn't the ultrasound. Any woman can have one of those.

The issue is forcing a women to get an ultrasound.

So if you are in a position of doing an abortion, and the mother asks you whether her baby will feel it? Will it hurt? Will it suffer in any way?

What will you tell her?

That the best medical evidence suggests that a fetus can't perceive pain until around the third trimester.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/brownbag/brownbag0506/fetalpain.pdf


This is the disconnect I see a lot on this issue. As a potential future physician (god forbid), my obligation is to tell the truth, be it good, bad, ugly, convenient, or inconvenient. It hardly begins and ends with abortion. It's not a lot of fun to break the news to a family that their mother has a rare autosomal dominant completing debilitating condition and all of her children have a 50% chance of getting it too. People seem to think Doctors are into propaganda or hiding the truth from patients. That is simply not the case. Doctors aren't perfect, but they aren't trained to be politicians or propagandists. They are trained to give medical fact.

However, as for you directing the issue to me. I don't ever want to participate in an abortion. It would be a procedure I would opt out of as a medical student or a resident.

And in the case of abortion how often is that the case?

Most abortions are performed for convenience sake according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute itself and even those numbers may be inflated. Very few are performed on the grounds of the health of the mother, the fetal condition itself, rape or incest.

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Introduction: The reasons given for having abortions are relevant to the policy debate on the abortion issue. In many countries, abortions are permissible only for limited reasons.[1] In the United States, abortion on demand and for any reason is the existing state of law (with a few limitations in some states[2]). As debate continues regarding this practice, advocates of unrestrained abortion often cite the "hard cases"--cases of rape, incest, life or health of the mother or baby--in defending access to abortion. It is widely acknowledged that such cases are rare; however, available data suggest that some commonly cited figures are exaggerated.

Further, the prevailing preferences of the American electorate are often cited in regard to U.S. abortion legislation. Some will claim, for example, that most Americans support legal abortion. While majority vote is an unconstitutional means of limiting human rights (regardless of what position on abortion one thinks is the one consistent with human rights), the claim itself is a half-truth. Most Americans would oppose banning abortions for hard cases, but at the same time most Americans would support limits on elective abortions, e.g. abortions for convenience or for sex selection.

This article will review some available data that addresses the reasons cited for abortions in the United States

AGI studies: The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) has published several studies examining reasons for abortions in the United States. Two studies surveyed women obtaining abortions; these were conducted in 1987 and 2004. A third survey conducted in 2000-2001 surveyed abortion seekers about contraceptive use; this study provided limited data on reasons for abortions. These studies are discussed in chronological order.

The 1987 AGI study (published in 1988)[3] surveyed 1,900 women who had abortions. The results of this survey are among the most commonly cited figures regarding reasons for abortions in the United States. The 1,773 women who responded gave an average of 3.7 reasons from the list, with the most important reasons cited by respondents tabulated below. It should be noted that only rounded percentages, not raw numbers, were provided; an AGI review article in 1998 [4] cited the 1988 study but gave slightly different figures, shown below in parenthesis (the parenthetical figure for rape and incest is a range of uncertainty derived from breakdowns in the 1988 report).

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 1987 [3, 4]

reason % of abortions
rape or incest 1 (0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems 3 (2.8)
possible fetal health problems 3 (3.3)
unready for responsibility 21
is too immature or young to have child 11(12.2)
woman's parents want her to have abortion <0.5
has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 12(14.1)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion 1
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown 8 (7.9)
can't afford baby now 21 (21.3)
concerned about how having baby would change her life 16
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant 1
other 3

An AGI study published in 2005 [6] was modeled after the 1987 study, providing an update to that work. This survey was conducted from December 2003 to March 2004; of approximately 2,000 women obtaining abortions who were surveyed, 1,209 completed questionnaires. As with the 1987, only rounded percentages as opposed to raw numbers were reported. Again, respondents could give multiple reasons, and the median number of four reasons were given. The table below gives reported percentages for the most important reason and for all reasons cited.

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2004 [6]
Most All
Impt. Reason Reas
% of abortions, Import
rape <0.5 (1)
incest (<0.5)
mother has health problems 4 (12)
possible fetal health problems 3 (13)
unready 25 (32)
is too immature or young to have child 7 (22)
woman's parents want her to have abortion <0.5 (6)
has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 8 (48)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion <0.5 (14)
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown 19 (38)
can't afford baby now 23 (73)
--unmarried (42)
--student or planning to study (34)
--can't afford baby and child care (28)
--can't afford basic life needs (23)
--unemployed (22)
--can't leave job to care for baby (21)
--would have to find new place to live (19)
--not enough support from husband/partner (14)
--husband/partner unemployed (12)
--currently on welfare or public assistance (8)
concerned about how having baby would change her life (74)
--would interfere with education plans 4 (38)
--would interfere with career plans (38)
--would interfere with care of children or dependents (32)
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant <0.5 (25)
other 6

I tried to line the columns up. I'm not positive that works, if not, it may be easier to go to the link itself. edit: obviously, that did not work

Rape, Incest, health of the mother or health of the fetus is less than 8% of the reason for abortions. In the second survey, they give the Most important reason and a percentage of "all reasons". Justify it however you want, but the percentage of all reasons is the excuse given.

Summary and conclusions: Based on these figures, the following estimated percentages are suggested (along with ranges of values from the above studies and analyses):

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES

rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already
--sex selection 98% (78-99 %)
--(32 %)
--30% (21-36 %)
--(16 %)
--(12-13 %)
--(4-8 %)
--(<0.1 %)

To summarize it, 98% of abortions are performed for "personal choice" reasons. Meaning if there are 1 million abortions performed this year, 980,000 of them will be for convenience sake. Could I live with 20,000 abortions a year, if we eliminated the convenient ones? I suppose I would have to, but it certainly would be preferable to 1 million.

Immie

 

[SmarterThanHick]

There is plenty of debate about that. The study you cited is based on the presumption that pain requires consciousness.

No. No there's not. There's plenty of random unqualified people on the internet disagreeing with the findings, despite being unable to point out actual study flaws. In your case, it is because you don't understand what a meta-analysis is, or how they draw conclusions.

This was a peer reviewed article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most reputable medical organizations and journals in the US. So if qualified members of the scientific community can review the content of this article and get it to publication, and it is not actively contested by the remainder of the qualified scientific community, why do you think that you're personally in a position to shoot it down? I recommend you find another scholarly article which refutes this one if you want to make a point, because yelling "nuh uh! that's not true!" doesn't quite cut it.

This is the disconnect I see a lot on this issue. As a potential future physician (god forbid), my obligation is to tell the truth, be it good, bad, ugly, convenient, or inconvenient. It hardly begins and ends with abortion. It's not a lot of fun to break the news to a family that their mother has a rare autosomal dominant completing debilitating condition and all of her children have a 50% chance of getting it too. People seem to think Doctors are into propaganda or hiding the truth from patients. That is simply not the case. Doctors aren't perfect, but they aren't trained to be politicians or propagandists. They are trained to give medical fact.

And in the case of abortion how often is that the case?

You completely missed his point. He wasn't saying anything about abortion in that paragraph. He was saying that doctors need to tell the truth regardless of what they feel about it personally. Again, there's the disconnect between rational professionalism and your methods of emotional outbursts. The example he gave spoke to a genetic disorder of an adult, whereas the diagnosed disease also applies to the family to whom the doctor is addressing. In other words: telling a family that grandma has Huntington's is very difficult, especially because it means that all of grandma's already born and living offspring have a 50% chance of also having the disease. It does not mean that grandma is going to abort her 47 year old children.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. No there's not. There's plenty of random unqualified people on the internet disagreeing with the findings, despite being unable to point out actual study flaws. In your case, it is because you don't understand what a meta-analysis is, or how they draw conclusions.

This was a peer reviewed article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most reputable medical organizations and journals in the US. So if qualified members of the scientific community can review the content of this article and get it to publication, and it is not actively contested by the remainder of the qualified scientific community, why do you think that you're personally in a position to shoot it down? I recommend you find another scholarly article which refutes this one if you want to make a point, because yelling "nuh uh! that's not true!" doesn't quite cut it.

Why don't you give me another lecture about reacting emotionally? It might help you as I explain some simple facts.

Mere publication in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that there is no debate, or even that the study is properly done, the peer review happens after publication. All the editors determine, if they are doing there jobs properly, is that the article meets journalistic standards and that it is not outright bunk. The peer review process occurs after publication, not before. Nice attempt at misdirection there.

At the time of Roe v Wade the scientific consensus was that even newborns could not feel pain. The very doctor that managed to prove that newborns can feel pain believes that embryos can feel pain as early as 17 weeks, and even thinks that that pain might be more pronounced for them because their nervous system is not fully developed.

IF THE NOTION that newborns are incapable of feeling pain was once widespread among doctors, a comparable assumption about fetuses was even more entrenched. Nicholas Fisk is a fetal-medicine specialist and director of the University of Queensland Center for Clinical Research in Australia. For years, he says, “I would be doing a procedure to a fetus, and the mother would ask me, ‘Does my baby feel pain?’ The traditional, knee-jerk reaction was, ‘No, of course not.’ ” But research in Fisk’s laboratory (then at Imperial College in London) was making him uneasy about that answer. It showed that fetuses as young as 18 weeks react to an invasive procedure with a spike in stress hormones and a shunting of blood flow toward the brain — a strategy, also seen in infants and adults, to protect a vital organ from threat. Then Fisk carried out a study that closely resembled Anand’s pioneering research, using fetuses rather than newborns as his subjects. He selected 45 fetuses that required a potentially painful blood transfusion, giving one-third of them an injection of the potent painkiller fentanyl. As with Anand’s experiments, the results were striking: in fetuses that received the analgesic, the production of stress hormones was halved, and the pattern of blood flow remained normal.Fisk says he believes that his findings provide suggestive evidence of fetal pain — perhaps the best evidence we’ll get. Pain, he notes, is a subjective phenomenon; in adults and older children, doctors measure it by asking patients to describe what they feel. (“On a scale of 0 to 10, how would you rate your current level of pain?”) To be certain that his fetal patients feel pain, Fisk says, “I would need one of them to come up to me at the age of 6 or 7 and say, ‘Excuse me, Doctor, that bloody hurt, what you did to me!’ ” In the absence of such first-person testimony, he concludes, it’s “better to err on the safe side” and assume that the fetus can feel pain starting around 20 to 24 weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html

The debate does not just exist in the minds random unqualified people on the internet, it exist in the minds of doctors who preform life saving surgery on those embryos in utero. I think they are a lot more qualified to hold an opinion than some random author of a study who obviously has an agenda.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Mere publication in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that there is no debate, or even that the study is properly done, the peer review happens after publication. All the editors determine, if they are doing there jobs properly, is that the article meets journalistic standards and that it is not outright bunk. The peer review process occurs after publication, not before. Nice attempt at misdirection there.

If there was an actual debate instead of some random unqualified journalist trying to stir up a story that isn't there, you'd be able to provide scholarly articles that refute the findings instead of individual unsupported statements and anecdotes from individual doctors. One of the many purposes of evidence based science is to remove such individual opinions to instead find factual evidence.

You also once again demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge on scientific literature. The peer review process occurs before publication. Note the link that provides supporting evidence to the statement. You should try that some time. Now, what were you saying about misdirection?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html

The debate does not just exist in the minds random unqualified people on the internet, it exist in the minds of doctors who preform life saving surgery on those embryos in utero. I think they are a lot more qualified to hold an opinion than some random author of a study who obviously has an agenda.

Yes, you have found individual doctors with no actual scientific study that are basing their opinions off of personal interpretation. This is not science. This is cherry picking outliers. Even the one doctor they found from the other side of the world who "did research" appears to not have the research findings they state published in a peer reviewed journal. Instead, he has several opinion pieces that are not supported with any form of primary research. The only published study he authored includes this quote:
"Pain and stress reactivity appear to be inhibited during fetal life"
That was published in the Journal of Perinatology in 2009, a full year after your opinion pieces in the unscientific non-peer-reviewed magazine portion of a newspaper.

If there was a debate, you would have a meta-analysis that contradicts the one posted. Again, unqualified lay people splicing together anecdotal opinions against highly regulated peer reviewed scientific research as if they were weighted equal is a joke. Try harder.

 

[geauxtohell]

To summarize it, 98% of abortions are performed for "personal choice" reasons. Meaning if there are 1 million abortions performed this year, 980,000 of them will be for convenience sake. Could I live with 20,000 abortions a year, if we eliminated the convenient ones? I suppose I would have to, but it certainly would be preferable to 1 million.

Immie

I thought I had responded to this. At any rate, the reasons behind why women get abortion are not terribly relevant in the larger picture (I certainly concede that it is upsetting to a lot of people that abortions are elective in the vast majority of cases). In the eyes of the law, however, it's entirely irrelevant. A woman can abort her fetus for no other reason than she doesn't want to have a bump during bikini season.

It would be virtually impossible to start delineating what was necessary and what wasn't and the core issue still comes down to a woman's right to privacy.

However, that is not what this thread is about and really has nothing to do with requiring women in the 1 TM to get an abortion.

That is, unless you are ready to concede that the goal of this law was to attempt to shame women out of their decision.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why don't you give me another lecture about reacting emotionally? It might help you as I explain some simple facts.

Mere publication in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that there is no debate, or even that the study is properly done, the peer review happens after publication. All the editors determine, if they are doing there jobs properly, is that the article meets journalistic standards and that it is not outright bunk. The peer review process occurs after publication, not before. Nice attempt at misdirection there.

At the time of Roe v Wade the scientific consensus was that even newborns could not feel pain. The very doctor that managed to prove that newborns can feel pain believes that embryos can feel pain as early as 17 weeks, and even thinks that that pain might be more pronounced for them because their nervous system is not fully developed.

......

The debate does not just exist in the minds random unqualified people on the internet, it exist in the minds of doctors who preform life saving surgery on those embryos in utero. I think they are a lot more qualified to hold an opinion than some random author of a study who obviously has an agenda.

Please. Your last statement was just absurd. There is debate about everything in science. However, if we are going to discuss the basic medical sciences, then the standard is peer review and to claim that the JAMA article (which had several authors by the way) was some sort of agenda piece is beyond silly. Consider their audience. There are plenty of physicians, Ph.D.'s, and Pharm.D's whos sole hobby in life is to analyze statistical methodology to refute a study or punch holes in it.

Like I said, I'd be happy to consider an alternative perspective if it has meet the same scientific standards as what I produced. OPED/book plugs in the New York Times is not going to cut it. Now, if all the Doctors in Ms. Paul's article published their own study, it would be worth considering. However, the whole reason peer review exists is to separate speculation and opinion from the facts as they are supported by the evidence.

The larger point, as the question was directed at me, is that I would answer truthfully and in accord with the scientific consensus at the time. Can the consensus be wrong? Absolutely. It's still the obligation of a physician to defer to it. It's not appropriate to simply blow off the evidence and facts, because you find them inconvenient.

 

[Immanuel]

To summarize it, 98% of abortions are performed for "personal choice" reasons. Meaning if there are 1 million abortions performed this year, 980,000 of them will be for convenience sake. Could I live with 20,000 abortions a year, if we eliminated the convenient ones? I suppose I would have to, but it certainly would be preferable to 1 million.

Immie

I thought I had responded to this. At any rate, the reasons behind why women get abortion are not terribly relevant in the larger picture (I certainly concede that it is upsetting to a lot of people that abortions are elective in the vast majority of cases). In the eyes of the law, however, it's entirely irrelevant. A woman can abort her fetus for no other reason than she doesn't want to have a bump during bikini season.

It would be virtually impossible to start delineating what was necessary and what wasn't and the core issue still comes down to a woman's right to privacy.

However, that is not what this thread is about and really has nothing to do with requiring women in the 1 TM to get an abortion.

That is, unless you are ready to concede that the goal of this law was to attempt to shame women out of their decision.

Once again where does shame fit into this when you have the people who are actually selling the abortions providing the ultrasounds?

Shame is not the issue. The issue is full disclosure.

Abortion has become the birth control method of "choice". It should not be used in that manner. It should only be used in those rare instances where true health risks exist.

This law will most likely not reduce the number of abortions significantly as the vast majority of women who contemplate an abortion already know what they have inside of them and have already made up their minds. The vast majority... not all of them. I would question why anyone would not want full disclosure in any case.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please. Your last statement was just absurd. There is debate about everything in science. However, if we are going to discuss the basic medical sciences, then the standard is peer review and to claim that the JAMA article (which had several authors by the way) was some sort of agenda piece is beyond silly. Consider their audience. There are plenty of physicians, Ph.D.'s, and Pharm.D's whos sole hobby in life is to analyze statistical methodology to refute a study or punch holes in it.

Like I said, I'd be happy to consider an alternative perspective if it has meet the same scientific standards as what I produced. OPED/book plugs in the New York Times is not going to cut it. Now, if all the Doctors in Ms. Paul's article published their own study, it would be worth considering. However, the whole reason peer review exists is to separate speculation and opinion from the facts as they are supported by the evidence.

The larger point, as the question was directed at me, is that I would answer truthfully and in accord with the scientific consensus at the time. Can the consensus be wrong? Absolutely. It's still the obligation of a physician to defer to it. It's not appropriate to simply blow off the evidence and facts, because you find them inconvenient.

I am not qualified to discuss the basic medical science, so you go along and have a debate about it with yourself if you like. You claimed there was no debate except in the minds of random unqualified people on the internet, now you have admitted that you were just using hyperbole. I think that means I am right in my contention that the debate exists.

The fact that just 30 years ago basic medical science thought newborn babies did not feel pain, that turned out to be an erroneous conclusion based on prejudice, not science. The very doctor that proved that babies do feel pain happens to think that the 28 week limit is also wrong, and has argued his conclusion in peer reviewed journals, just like the authors of the study you cited. Presently the consensus is against him, but that does not make him wrong. There is evidence that pain is felt before that point of development, even if current scientific opinion challenges that evidence.

Another thing, I thought that scientist were supposed to rely on facts, not opinions. You prefer rely on an opinion simply because more people agree with it than not, that is the type of attitude that stifles progress.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. I'd call it splitting hairs. What does "undeveloped" mean? Any premature baby has undeveloped lungs and risks death through respiratory distress. I don't think the Dr.'s who use this term mean to imply that a child is a mass of cells for 35 weeks that magically develops in the last week. I don't think they are being dishonest either. After all, embryology isn't some secretive affair. Anyone, regardless of educational background can look at a developmental chart.

Additionally, I don't think any child had survived being born before 22 weeks. The odds are against a premature baby surviving up until the 26th week (if I remember correctly). So, in effect, they are undeveloped. I don't take that to mean the physicians are claiming that no organogenesis or limb development occurs. In fact, we know that limbs develop in the fourth week.

Again, most of this is based on silly semantics. I don't see it being germane to the issue. I also don't see it as an indication to force women to get an ultrasound.

So, aside from more semantics in the "heart tones" versus heart beats debate, what lies were told in that video?

Roe v Wade is based, at least in part, on those issues you are dismissing as semantics. In 1973 SCOTUS ruled that the right to abortion did not apply in the 3rd trimester because that was deemed to be the limit of viability. You are trying to look at this is a medical issue, while the truth is it is a legal one.

 

[geauxtohell]

[
Once again where does shame fit into this when you have the people who are actually selling the abortions providing the ultrasounds?

When it becomes a requirement, even if the woman doesn't want it.

Shame is not the issue. The issue is full disclosure.

Which doesn't require an ultrasound. Hell, if "education" is the goal here you could do much better with a color chart. The pictures in my embryology text aren't ultrasounds, they are illustrations.

You and I both know the intent of this law is to try and force a connection between a mother and a fetus in order to get her to change her mind.

Abortion has become the birth control method of "choice". It should not be used in that manner. It should only be used in those rare instances where true health risks exist.

Again, that's not relevant to the issue at hand.

This law will most likely not reduce the number of abortions significantly as the vast majority of women who contemplate an abortion already know what they have inside of them and have already made up their minds. The vast majority... not all of them. I would question why anyone would not want full disclosure in any case.

Immie

Again, the issue is the fact that the ultrasounds are being forced upon the women. Not that the simple act of getting an ultrasound. As I said, nothing prevents any woman from getting an ultrasound if she so desires one.

The rub here is forcing women to get one. You know, I wouldn't even have a problem with mandating that abortion Doctors have an ultrasound on hand and give every woman the option of getting an ultrasound.

I have a huge problem with forcing women and Doctors to undergo un-necessary procedures simply because people disagree with their life choices.

 

[geauxtohell]

I am not qualified to discuss the basic medical science, so you go along and have a debate about it with yourself if you like. You claimed there was no debate except in the minds of random unqualified people on the internet, now you have admitted that you were just using hyperbole. I think that means I am right in my contention that the debate exists.

The fact that just 30 years ago basic medical science thought newborn babies did not feel pain, that turned out to be an erroneous conclusion based on prejudice, not science. The very doctor that proved that babies do feel pain happens to think that the 28 week limit is also wrong, and has argued his conclusion in peer reviewed journals, just like the authors of the study you cited. Presently the consensus is against him, but that does not make him wrong. There is evidence that pain is felt before that point of development, even if current scientific opinion challenges that evidence.

Another thing, I thought that scientist were supposed to rely on facts, not opinions. You prefer rely on an opinion simply because more people agree with it than not, that is the type of attitude that stifles progress.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe I ever stated that there was no debate. I certainly never claimed that people weren't entitled to their opinion on the matter.

What I did say was that, when it comes to medical science; peer review and scientific consensus is the standard. It's not infallible, but it's the way the system works. It's only going to become more so in the future as medicine moves towards a more "evidence based" approach. The peer-review process, though not infallible, is what keeps the venture grounded in methodology, facts, and evidence and not opinions or speculation. The Drs. you cited are shooting off opinions. Now the onus is on them to research and publish. If the paper I cited said "a fetus feels pain in the first trimester" that would be what I would say. Again, as I said earlier, the job is to give patients the good, bad, and ugly so they can make an informed decision about their health.

So, in light of the question: "can an aborted fetus feel pain" my answer would be that the consensus is that the relevant neural pathways to feel pain are not in place until the third trimester. That statement is based on the best facts at the time. As you pointed out, it could be tossed on it's head tomorrow.

Roe v Wade is based, at least in part, on those issues you are dismissing as semantics. In 1973 SCOTUS ruled that the right to abortion did not apply in the 3rd trimester because that was deemed to be the limit of viability. You are trying to look at this is a medical issue, while the truth is it is a legal one.

It's a legal and medical issue. Everything in our society is a legal issue, really. My point was that I don't want to get bogged down with a screaming match about whether it's a "clump of cells", a "fetus" or a "baby", because that is a waste of time IMO. It won't be settled here, so I'd just as soon avoid it.

However, I don't think any baby born before 22 weeks has survived. However, I notice that when I point to the issue of "viability" the anti-abortion crowd goes bonkers. That's why I just avoid it.

It's certainly not germane to this issue since we are talking about a 1st trimester procedure.

 

[Immanuel]

[
Once again where does shame fit into this when you have the people who are actually selling the abortions providing the ultrasounds?

When it becomes a requirement, even if the woman doesn't want it.

Shame is not the issue. The issue is full disclosure.

Which doesn't require an ultrasound. Hell, if "education" is the goal here you could do much better with a color chart. The pictures in my embryology text aren't ultrasounds, they are illustrations.

You and I both know the intent of this law is to try and force a connection between a mother and a fetus in order to get her to change her mind.

Abortion has become the birth control method of "choice". It should not be used in that manner. It should only be used in those rare instances where true health risks exist.

Again, that's not relevant to the issue at hand.

This law will most likely not reduce the number of abortions significantly as the vast majority of women who contemplate an abortion already know what they have inside of them and have already made up their minds. The vast majority... not all of them. I would question why anyone would not want full disclosure in any case.

Immie

Again, the issue is the fact that the ultrasounds are being forced upon the women. Not that the simple act of getting an ultrasound. As I said, nothing prevents any woman from getting an ultrasound if she so desires one.

The rub here is forcing women to get one. You know, I wouldn't even have a problem with mandating that abortion Doctors have an ultrasound on hand and give every woman the option of getting an ultrasound.

I have a huge problem with forcing women and Doctors to undergo un-necessary procedures simply because people disagree with their life choices.

I completely disagree with you in regards the issue of shame.

Again, an abortionist is doing the ultrasound. That abortionist is not going to come out and say, "I am an evil person for performing abortions and shame on you for even considering one." That simply is not going to happen. The abortionist says stuff like, "it is just a clump of cells. It does not feel any pain at all. It is no big deal at all."

Regarding the idea of a color chart, that might be sufficient with me and would even be preferred by me, if we could guarantee that the abortionist didn't cover it up before the woman entered the consulting room. Maybe a form that has the discussed chart at the estimated age of the fetus that the woman must sign next to the picture? I highly doubt the industry would even allow that.

Re: forcing her to change her mind... no we don't both know that this is the intent of this law. There is no forcing of anything in full disclosure. Any business that is unwilling to fully disclose items of relevance is extremely suspect in my book and the developmental condition of the fetus is an item of relevance in preparation for an abortion.

We also disagree on the relevance of abortion being used as a method of convenient birth control. If it were not being used in such a manner in more than 90% of the cases, and it is, this discussion would not be taking place.

I've said it above, I don't like the forcing either. It goes against my nature, however, the preservation of life should be top priority in government, not providing conveniences and that is what abortion is... a convenience.

I'd be willing to go with the chart if each mother was required to sign or initial the chart and that chart was kept along with her file, but I don't see that as being something the abortion industry would agree to. Do you realize how much it would cost to print up those brochures? Why, it would definitely cut into their advertising budget.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

I completely disagree with you in regards the issue of shame.

Again, an abortionist is doing the ultrasound. That abortionist is not going to come out and say, "I am an evil person for performing abortions and shame on you for even considering one." That simply is not going to happen. The abortionist says stuff like, "it is just a clump of cells. It does not feel any pain at all. It is no big deal at all."

Regarding the idea of a color chart, that might be sufficient with me and would even be preferred by me, if we could guarantee that the abortionist didn't cover it up before the woman entered the consulting room. Maybe a form that has the discussed chart at the estimated age of the fetus that the woman must sign next to the picture? I highly doubt the industry would even allow that.

Re: forcing her to change her mind... no we don't both know that this is the intent of this law. There is no forcing of anything in full disclosure. Any business that is unwilling to fully disclose items of relevance is extremely suspect in my book and the developmental condition of the fetus is an item of relevance in preparation for an abortion.

We also disagree on the relevance of abortion being used as a method of convenient birth control. If it were not being used in such a manner in more than 90% of the cases, and it is, this discussion would not be taking place.

I've said it above, I don't like the forcing either. It goes against my nature, however, the preservation of life should be top priority in government, not providing conveniences and that is what abortion is... a convenience.

I'd be willing to go with the chart if each mother was required to sign or initial the chart and that chart was kept along with her file, but I don't see that as being something the abortion industry would agree to. Do you realize how much it would cost to print up those brochures? Why, it would definitely cut into their advertising budget.

Immie

If shame is not the integral component of this law, then way are the ultrasounds mandated?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Once again where does shame fit into this when you have the people who are actually selling the abortions providing the ultrasounds?

Because ultrasounds are not educational for laypeople. They're not. You have no sense of size, function, or development. That's why specialists are trained just to read them.

Shame is not the issue. The issue is full disclosure.

False. Most abortions are preceded by an ultrasound. Any woman can ask to see the pictures. In fact, the ultrasound is right next to the woman while the procedure is being performed. If your actual intent was full disclosure, any woman who wants it can just look to the monitor that the ultrasound tech is viewing as well. It's really not that hard. But it's clear your issue is not full disclosure. No one is preventing a woman from seeing the ultrasound currently. This law just forces her to see it instead of having the option.

Abortion has become the birth control method of "choice". It should not be used in that manner. It should only be used in those rare instances where true health risks exist.

Still irrelevant to this issue. There is no part of medicine where a competent patient is forced to unnecessarily participate in part of a procedure. It doesn't matter whether you think their reasoning is good or bad. What matters is patient autonomy.

I would question why anyone would not want full disclosure in any case.

Fine. Question all you want. If you were the patient, you could ask for full disclosure. Every patient seeking an abortion can do so in the office. Staff is legally obligated to disclose all of their medical records, including ultrasound images. But again, this law has nothing to do with the ability to obtain full disclosure. That already exists. The law is about rubbings someone's nose in something you think they won't like. Forcing them.

I am not qualified to discuss the basic medical science

Hey you figured it out!

You claimed there was no debate except in the minds of random unqualified people on the internet, now you have admitted that you were just using hyperbole.

No, he claimed every aspect of science has debate, but the only real arguments are those which have supporting evidence. Primary research and peer reviewed published literature in a reputable journal is adequate to refute a claim. Opinions from random people are not. That holds true for you, for GTH, and for doctors.

The fact that just 30 years ago basic medical science thought newborn babies did not feel pain, that turned out to be an erroneous conclusion based on prejudice, not science.

That's because 30 years ago we were just acknowledging the need to hold our evidence base to high standards!

The very doctor that proved that babies do feel pain happens to think that the 28 week limit is also wrong, and has argued his conclusion in peer reviewed journals, just like the authors of the study you cited. Presently the consensus is against him, but that does not make him wrong. There is evidence that pain is felt before that point of development, even if current scientific opinion challenges that evidence.

And where are the citations to this doctor's published articles and research? I have yet to see them. I don't even know who you're talking about. You see? Citation and evidence is required if you want to make a medical claim in this day and age. Hand waiving and vague references do not count.

Another thing, I thought that scientist were supposed to rely on facts, not opinions. You prefer rely on an opinion simply because more people agree with it than not, that is the type of attitude that stifles progress.

False. He is stating he is relying on evidence from primary research that has not been refuted by any further evidence. The articles we are citing are not opinions. They are not a bunch of people just agreeing to things like they did even 30 years ago. They are conclusions based on logical interpretation of factual unbiased standardized research results.

You continue to not understand what a scholarly article entails, and continue making gross misinterpretations of it anyway. Please return to your original statement of "I am not qualified to discuss the basic medical science" and respond accordingly. If you don't understand something or have questions, then ask. Otherwise, stop guessing.

 

[Immanuel]

I completely disagree with you in regards the issue of shame.

Again, an abortionist is doing the ultrasound. That abortionist is not going to come out and say, "I am an evil person for performing abortions and shame on you for even considering one." That simply is not going to happen. The abortionist says stuff like, "it is just a clump of cells. It does not feel any pain at all. It is no big deal at all."

Regarding the idea of a color chart, that might be sufficient with me and would even be preferred by me, if we could guarantee that the abortionist didn't cover it up before the woman entered the consulting room. Maybe a form that has the discussed chart at the estimated age of the fetus that the woman must sign next to the picture? I highly doubt the industry would even allow that.

Re: forcing her to change her mind... no we don't both know that this is the intent of this law. There is no forcing of anything in full disclosure. Any business that is unwilling to fully disclose items of relevance is extremely suspect in my book and the developmental condition of the fetus is an item of relevance in preparation for an abortion.

We also disagree on the relevance of abortion being used as a method of convenient birth control. If it were not being used in such a manner in more than 90% of the cases, and it is, this discussion would not be taking place.

I've said it above, I don't like the forcing either. It goes against my nature, however, the preservation of life should be top priority in government, not providing conveniences and that is what abortion is... a convenience.

I'd be willing to go with the chart if each mother was required to sign or initial the chart and that chart was kept along with her file, but I don't see that as being something the abortion industry would agree to. Do you realize how much it would cost to print up those brochures? Why, it would definitely cut into their advertising budget.

Immie

If shame is not the integral component of this law, then way are the ultrasounds mandated?

Full disclosure.

To ensure that the woman has full knowledge of the developmental condition that her child is currently at.

No one is insisting that they be lectured by a pro-life counselor before or after seeing the ultrasound.

How would she be shamed by knowing the condition of the fetus in her womb? But, maybe, just maybe, she will look at the fetus and say, "But I thought it looked like a glob of snot. That is what my girlfriend told me anyway."

Most women already know and understand the condition of the Fetus before they get that far, so they don't need to see a picture of their fetus, and the ultrasound proceeds and they move on with the procedure, but you cannot convince me that all women especially the young, scared, confused ones have always been told the truth. By the way, it is not like the ultrasound is an invasive procedure. You guys make it sound like they cut open her stomach, pull out the fetus, show it to her, put the fetus back in the womb and sew her up. Then ask her if she wants to proceed with the killing of the fetus and I say "killing of the fetus" because that does sound shameful. That is not what an abortionist is going to do.

Immie

 

[SmarterThanHick]

How would she be shamed by knowing the condition of the fetus in her womb? But, maybe, just maybe, she will look at the fetus and say, "But I thought it looked like a glob of snot. That is what my girlfriend told me anyway."

Forcing women to look at these images says nothing about ensuring full disclosure, which is always an option to every single woman, and a requirement of the document every woman must sign for this or any other medical procedure. The signed informed consent document must include all risks, alternatives, etc. as full disclosure.

By the way, it is not like the ultrasound is an invasive procedure. You guys make it sound like they cut open her stomach, pull out the fetus, show it to her, put the fetus back in the womb and sew her up.

The ultrasound is not the thing in question. It's performed before most abortions anyway. That's not the issue, so why do you keep returning to it as the problem? The issue is forcing women to view it, which is in no way necessary for the procedure.

They don't need to have the tissue that is about to be removed pointed out for them to understand what is actually happening, nor does an ultrasound give any indication of size. So what benefit in "full disclosure" do you feel is provided by forcing a woman to view the ultrasound? What information is gained outside of contour and fuzziness?