Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says

[Quantum Windbag]

no, idiot, but it knocks down the arguement that abortion is wrong because fetuses feel pain

It is funny though, I have never heard or read any pro-life people that make that claim especially not as the sole basis for their argument. I have, however, read pro-choicers who make the claim that is the case.

Immie

Then you haven't heard or read the pro-life arguments against third-trimester abortions. Here's a link to Reagan making the argument

Reagan on Fetal Pain During Abortion

Wouldn't the fact that fetuses feel pain at 24 weeks, which is in the second trimester, strengthen the argument that fetuses feel pain in the third trimester? Yet you are attempting to prove that abortion is right because a fetus does not feel pain, when it is now scientifically accepted that they do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you haven't heard or read the pro-life arguments against third-trimester abortions. Here's a link to Reagan making the argument

Reagan on Fetal Pain During Abortion

Thank you.

I am trying to download the link but not getting the full copy at the moment for some reason. Give me a minute.

Immie

Try this link to a Wisconsin law that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 -- S51

So much for your claim that pro-life groups arent' pushing this. They are even getting laws passed about it

He did not claim that no one is pushing it, he claimed that no anti abortion group is using it as their primary argument.

 

[Immanuel]

Either show me where I asked "Which came first" or admit you're just making stuff up because you can't debate what I actually said



Umm, no. As I proved with a link to a law that was passed, it's the pro-life crowd who has argued that the pain a fetus feels is a reason to ban abortions. That's why you can't post ANY EVIDENCE to support your claim that pro-choice people think "It's OK to abort because a fetus feels no pain"




I posted another link. In this thread. It's not my fault if you don't have the balls to read about the fact



Wrong. The article does not have one pro-choicer saying that it's OK to abort because a fetus feels no pain. Pro-choicers think it's OK to abort after 24 weeks EVEN THOUGH the fetus can feel pain, so it's absurd to argue that pro-choicers think the absence of pain makes it OK to abort.



Mature people don't make wild claims and then completely fail to back it up with evidence. Mature people have the courage of their convictions, and don't run away from their own words.

If you won't stand up for yourself, you'll fall for anything

Let's see if I can straighten you out. I doubt it, but I will try.



I told you in the post that you quoted, that we could argue about which side made the argument first, but that it was ridiculous to do so, so, I would simply say, that you won that argument and move on. The first thing you reply with was:



Chicken before the egg, my friend. A frigging waste of time that you want to continue with, because you can't form your own arguments.

Ok, let's see if I can straighten you out. I doubt it, but I'll try

Pro-choicers support abortions after the 24th week, even though they acknowledge that the fetus can feel pain after the 24th week. Therefore, it makes no sense for pro-choicers to argue that it's OK to abort because the fetus feels no pain because that would undermine their support for abortions past the 24th week

Was that too complicated for you?





Nope. I did prove that "major news media' had reported on the issue. You just didn't want to look past the 2nd page. The info was on the third page.

Not the article, idiot, the post itself. HB's insinuation is that we should change our minds about the abortion issue because the fetus doesn't feel any pain. If that was not her point, then this thread is absolutely POINTLESS.

The OB did not insinuate that it's OK to abort because a 24 week old fetus feels no pain. This is just another lie.



Now you're backing away from your own words. You said that pro-choicers have argued that it's OK to abort a fetus if it feels no pain. You even repeated that charge by claiming the OP insinuated this.

NOw, you're claiming you never said it.





No, Reagan wasn't responding to a pro-choice argument because, as I've proven, pro-choicers are not making that argument

Neither one of us, know for sure which side started that argument and you can spend your day looking up the first one who did if you want to, but I am not going to because it doesn't matter.

Speak for yourself. I know it, and I have proven it here.

But I'm not surprised to see you run away from your own words and refuse to defend them

The rest of your post is just more of the same

All of your post except for the first part is more of the same and you prove that you are a liar, because in that other thread, you did not prove jack shit which by the way you have not done here either.

If you care to continue this part of the argument:

Pro-choicers support abortions after the 24th week, even though they acknowledge that the fetus can feel pain after the 24th week. Therefore, it makes no sense for pro-choicers to argue that it's OK to abort because the fetus feels no pain because that would undermine their support for abortions past the 24th week

Please let me know.

In the meantime my argument will be that some pro-choicers support abortions after the 24th week and some acknowledge that the fetus can feel pain after the 24th week, not all of them.

You make it sound as if all people of "choice" are of one mind in this.

In the mean time, would you please learn how to use the damned quote button?

I see another lie of yours.

The OB did not insinuate that it's OK to abort because a 24 week old fetus feels no pain. This is just another lie.

Convenient of you to wait for so many sets of posts between us on this one and then not post my quote but to change my words. Here is what I actually said:

That letter simply confirms that the President, the signers of the letter AND at least one abortionist believe that the fetus can feel pain. I see no argument involved stating that this is a reason for making abortions illegal. At best, it can be described as being in opposition to the pro-choice argument that states that "since the fetus cannot feel pain abortion should remain legal."

And by the way, for your ease to go back and confirm what I said, that is post number 228.

No where in that quote or any other quote did I say that the abortionist insinuated anything at all about abortion, only that he believes that the fetus feels pain. The only statement I made about the OB was that he believes that the fetus feels pain. In fact, the very next sentence (underlined for you) says that the letter does not indicate that this should be a reason to make abortion illegal. So again that proves you are a liar. You deliberately changed my words and misquoted me.

Now you're backing away from your own words. You said that pro-choicers have argued that it's OK to abort a fetus if it feels no pain. You even repeated that charge by claiming the OP insinuated this.

By Immanuel

I hardly doubt you have any idea what mature people do. And I have backed up my statements, everyone of them. I also pointed out that 1) there are arguments from the pro-life side regarding fetal pain and 2) that there are also arguments from the pro-choice side about the very same issue.

By Sangha

NOw, you're claiming you never said it.

Quote:By Immanuel
What I did not do, was what you did, and claim that the other side started it, because I don't know for sure which side did. My statement was that I could turn your argument back on you and say that Reagan was responding to pro-choice arguments.

I seriously think you have reading comprehension problems. You see in that first quote of mine I state that both sides make the argument. I do not state which side started the argument.

Please by all means, point out in the first quote where I stated that one side or the other started the argument note especially the underlined phrase in the second quote?

Have you ever provided any evidence if any of the idiocies you spout, snaga?

nope. So dr., heal theyself.

Nope, he backs himself into these corners and can't fight his way out.

I have faith though. He's relatively new. He'll learn and someday make a decent opponent. At least he will if he can ever get over that "the other side is totally evil" mentality he seems to have.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Thank you.

I am trying to download the link but not getting the full copy at the moment for some reason. Give me a minute.

Immie

Try this link to a Wisconsin law that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 -- S51

So much for your claim that pro-life groups arent' pushing this. They are even getting laws passed about it

He did not claim that no one is pushing it, he claimed that no anti abortion group is using it as their primary argument.

I'm not sure he understands the concept.

And thank you for providing the link he wanted me to hunt down, I see it was intended for me and I had missed it, so I extend me apology to Sangha. I had not seen it.

If It had any basis in regards to our conversation, I would give it some heed, but since it really doesn't seem to fit as he and I are not debating whether or not women are fully informed or need to be, I wonder how it affects our conversation.

And to correct one thing on your part. I did state that I had not seen any arguments from pro-lifers pushing the argument. I thought I had cleared that part up with him when I went on the record stating that there were arguments from both sides. At least, that was my intention when I posted that. But, I did also state that it was not being used as a primary argument and I don't believe it is.

So, in this case, he is correct, there are arguments on both sides. But, now we get back the the chicken before the egg argument. Which side started it? He claims he knows, but then he also seems to believe that everyone that does not agree with him are stupid imbeciles. And no, he has not stated that. It is what he seems to think.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try this link to a Wisconsin law that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 -- S51

So much for your claim that pro-life groups arent' pushing this. They are even getting laws passed about it

He did not claim that no one is pushing it, he claimed that no anti abortion group is using it as their primary argument.

I'm not sure he understands the concept.

And thank you for providing the link he wanted me to hunt down, I see it was intended for me and I had missed it, so I extend me apology to Sangha. I had not seen it.

If It had any basis in regards to our conversation, I would give it some heed, but since it really doesn't seem to fit as he and I are not debating whether or not women are fully informed or need to be, I wonder how it affects our conversation.

And to correct one thing on your part. I did state that I had not seen any arguments from pro-lifers pushing the argument. I thought I had cleared that part up with him when I went on the record stating that there were arguments from both sides. At least, that was my intention when I posted that. But, I did also state that it was not being used as a primary argument and I don't believe it is.

So, in this case, he is correct, there are arguments on both sides. But, now we get back the the chicken before the egg argument. Which side started it? He claims he knows, but then he also seems to believe that everyone that does not agree with him are stupid imbeciles. And no, he has not stated that. It is what he seems to think.

Immie

I have no idea which side started it myself. My impression from my vague memories is that the anti abortion side started it, but I will not try to defend that position because the internet did not exist in the 70s, and not everything is on the internet, despite some youngsters thinking otherwise. Regardless, if this study does change anyone's position, it should be those who support abortion, as I still believe that no one opposes abortion because it causes pain. They oppose abortion for other reasons, and use the possibility of pain to sway those who disagree with them.

Just like no one I know supports abortions because they are painless, even though some of them argue that because they are painless I should not oppose them. Never quite saw the logic of that position, and I will freely admit that it is a fringe position, but it does exist.

 

[Immanuel]

He did not claim that no one is pushing it, he claimed that no anti abortion group is using it as their primary argument.

I'm not sure he understands the concept.

And thank you for providing the link he wanted me to hunt down, I see it was intended for me and I had missed it, so I extend me apology to Sangha. I had not seen it.

If It had any basis in regards to our conversation, I would give it some heed, but since it really doesn't seem to fit as he and I are not debating whether or not women are fully informed or need to be, I wonder how it affects our conversation.

And to correct one thing on your part. I did state that I had not seen any arguments from pro-lifers pushing the argument. I thought I had cleared that part up with him when I went on the record stating that there were arguments from both sides. At least, that was my intention when I posted that. But, I did also state that it was not being used as a primary argument and I don't believe it is.

So, in this case, he is correct, there are arguments on both sides. But, now we get back the the chicken before the egg argument. Which side started it? He claims he knows, but then he also seems to believe that everyone that does not agree with him are stupid imbeciles. And no, he has not stated that. It is what he seems to think.

Immie

I have no idea which side started it myself. My impression from my vague memories is that the anti abortion side started it, but I will not try to defend that position because the internet did not exist in the 70s, and not everything is on the internet, despite some youngsters thinking otherwise. Regardless, if this study does change anyone's position, it should be those who support abortion, as I still believe that no one opposes abortion because it causes pain. They oppose abortion for other reasons, and use the possibility of pain to sway those who disagree with them.

Just like no one I know supports abortions because they are painless, even though some of them argue that because they are painless I should not oppose them. Never quite saw the logic of that position, and I will freely admit that it is a fringe position, but it does exist.

As stated before, I don't know which side started it.

My thought is that it was the pro-choice side because they tried to justify early abortions stating that early abortions do not cause pain and from there the argument went back and forth.

However, I admit to still being a little bit biased and I may be wrong on that.

Immie

 

[arKangel]

Reading the full report right now...

http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf

FYI,
This is technically a report, not a "study".
It is simply a review of prevous studies, where a panel of RCOG simply were cherry picking their way through other works and rehash the same "findings" they made in 1997.

Following concerns generated by the debate on fetal awareness and, particularly, the controversy around whether the fetus could feel pain, the RCOG published, in October 1997, a working party report.1 A guiding principle in that report was concern that the fetus should be protected from any potentially harmful or painful procedure but, at the same time, the assessment of the capacity to be harmed should be based on established scientific evidence. A major and important conclusion of the report was that the human fetus did not have the necessary structural integration of the nervous system to experience awareness or pain before 26 weeks of gestation. In addition, the report recommended that those carrying out diagnostic or therapeutic procedures on the fetus in utero at or after 24 weeks should consider the need for fetal analgesia.

Oh yeah then there is this, funny how MSNBC and other baby haters leave this stuff out...

A minority report, however, recorded in the minutes of the Committee on 29 October 2007 said, ‘We are deeply concerned that the RCOG failed to give full information to the House of Commons Select Committee…since 1997 the RCOG has consistently denied that foetuses can feel pain earlier than 26 weeks, without acknowledging that amongst experts in this field there is no consensus. Professor Anand is a world authority in the management of neonatal pain and has put forward a cogent argument suggesting that the RCOG position is based on a number of false or uncertain presuppositions’.1

Wow, seems I was correct, RCOG has been wrong before, and is working based on false preconceptions... there is an absolute lack of integrity in this report....

The Working Party was established in May 2008 with the following remit:
1. To review the RCOG Working Party Report Fetal Awareness, published in October
1997.
2. To review all evidence submitted to the Science and Technology Committee relating to
the Abortion Act 1967.
3. To review all other evidence of relevance to fetal awareness and pain.
4. To publish a report based on the Working Party’s findings.
The Working Party met on four occasions between July 2008 and July 2009 and reported to
Council in November.

There was only one nuerologist on the panel by the way...

The Membership of the Working Party was:
Professor Allan Templeton FRCOG (Chair)
Professor Richard Anderson FRCOG, Reproductive Medicine Specialist, University of Edinburgh
Ms Toni Belfield, Member of the RCOG Consumers’ Forum
Dr Stuart Derbyshire, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham
Mrs Kay Ellis, Department of Health Observer
Ms Jane Fisher, Director, Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC)
Professor Maria Fitzgerald, Professor of Developmental Neurobiology, UCL London
Dr Tahir Mahmood, RCOG Vice President (Standards)
Professor Neil Marlow, Neonatologist, UCL London
Professor Vivienne Nathanson, Director of Professional Activities, British Medical Association
Professor Donald Peebles FRCOG, Obstetrician, UCL, London
Ms Stephanie Michaelides, Royal College of Midwives

The one nuerobiologist on the panel, actually appears to disagree with philosophical ideas expressed in the report.
lifeissues.net | Fetal Pain: Real or Relative?

More recently, reported in April of 2006, a research team from University College London analyzed brain scans of premature infants when blood samples were drawn using a heel lance.
The researchers observed surges of blood and oxygen during the procedure indicating conclusively that pain registered in the sensory levels of the infants' brains.
"We have shown for the first time," the lead researcher, Professor Maria Fitzgerald stated, "that the information about pain reaches the brain in premature infants."

Back to the report itself:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf

A further important feature is the suggestion, supported by increasing evidence, that the fetus never enters a state of wakefulness in utero and is bathed in a chemical environment that induces a sleep-like unconsciousness, suppressing higher cortical activation. Although this cannot be known with certainty, the observation highlights important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the potential pitfalls of extrapolating observations in newborn preterm infants to a fetus of the same gestational age.

The exact timing of the first nociceptive reflex responses to more traumatic mechanical stimulation is not known but they are unlikely to occur before the second trimester, somewhat later than responses to touch. It is known that the fetus withdraws from a needle from about 18 weeks and also launches a stress response following needle puncture.

18 weeks isn't 24 weeks...
Moreso isn't moving away from a puncture with an increased stress clearly a reaction to PAIN?

Be back later.

 

[JBeukema]

A minority report, however, recorded in the minutes of the Committee on 29 October 2007 said, ‘We are deeply concerned that the RCOG failed to give full information to the House of Commons Select Committee…since 1997 the RCOG has consistently denied that foetuses can feel pain earlier than 26 weeks, without acknowledging that amongst experts in this field there is no consensus. Professor Anand is a world authority in the management of neonatal pain and has put forward a cogent argument [read: not demonstrated, but has argued] suggesting that the RCOG position is based on a number of false or uncertain presuppositions’.1

Wow, seems I was correct, RCOG has been wrong before, and is working based on false preconceptions... there is an absolute lack of integrity in this report....

So a minority is skeptical and one man argues that their report might not be 100% accurate. Pretty much holds true for everything.

You treat this as if it's some real evidence or demonstration of flaws in their methodology or other refutation of their report that's been reviewed and accepted by respected medicine at large or other shown demonstrably true.

I question your reading comprehension skills and your character.

Here's an idea: stop with your sad appeal to a minority and present his arguments. See whether his case stands on ts own.


Preemies aren't infants, and I noticed that your quote didn't specify the level of development.

Now, two things to consider:
-Is consciousness (sentience) necessary for the presence of a pain response? As the response is, by definition, involuntary, can it be triggered entirely by automatic processes that do not require the presence of a sentient mind and higher brain functions?

-If the issue is pain, then what if anesthesia or analgesia is used? The argument forwarded in this thread seems to be that homicide is wrong only if it induces pain. This would necessarily imply, logically, that any painless homicide is not objectionable on these grounds. That the argument several persons have forwarded suggests that killing a man in his sleep, or with opiates, or while he is drugged is not objectionable (at least not using the arguments that have been forwarded by said persons against the homicides in question in this discussion) raises serious questions as to viability and usefulness of 'pain' and its presence or infliction as a criterion for determining the morality of homicide or other termination of life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A minority report, however, recorded in the minutes of the Committee on 29 October 2007 said, ‘We are deeply concerned that the RCOG failed to give full information to the House of Commons Select Committee…since 1997 the RCOG has consistently denied that foetuses can feel pain earlier than 26 weeks, without acknowledging that amongst experts in this field there is no consensus. Professor Anand is a world authority in the management of neonatal pain and has put forward a cogent argument [read: not demonstrated, but has argued] suggesting that the RCOG position is based on a number of false or uncertain presuppositions’.1

Wow, seems I was correct, RCOG has been wrong before, and is working based on false preconceptions... there is an absolute lack of integrity in this report....

So a minority is skeptical and one man argues that their report might not be 100% accurate. Pretty much holds true for everything.

You treat this as if it's some real evidence or demonstration of flaws in their methodology or other refutation of their report that's been reviewed and accepted by respected medicine at large or other shown demonstrably true.

I question your reading comprehension skills and your character.

Here's an idea: stop with your sad appeal to a minority and present his arguments. See whether his case stands on ts own.


Preemies aren't infants, and I noticed that your quote didn't specify the level of development.

Now, two things to consider:
-Is consciousness (sentience) necessary for the presence of a pain response? As the response is, by definition, involuntary, can it be triggered entirely by automatic processes that do not require the presence of a sentient mind and higher brain functions?

-If the issue is pain, then what if anesthesia or analgesia is used? The argument forwarded in this thread seems to be that homicide is wrong only if it induces pain. This would necessarily imply, logically, that any painless homicide is not objectionable on these grounds. That the argument several persons have forwarded suggests that killing a man in his sleep, or with opiates, or while he is drugged is not objectionable (at least not using the arguments that have been forwarded by said persons against the homicides in question in this discussion) raises serious questions as to viability and usefulness of 'pain' and its presence or infliction as a criterion for determining the morality of homicide or other termination of life.

No, the argument in the thread is that lack of pain does not justify homicide, so why are you attempting to twist it to support your position?

 

[Jack Fate]

A human egg and a human sperm cell is not a human.

They are not a human being, but they are human.

So is my hair, but there's nothing wrong with cutting it or shaving it off my face.

Not logical. Your hair is always hair. A human egg and a human sperm create a human being. Your hair cannot create anything.

 

[AllieBaba]

They are not a human being, but they are human.

So is my hair, but there's nothing wrong with cutting it or shaving it off my face.

Not logical. Your hair is always hair. A human egg and a human sperm create a human being. Your hair cannot create anything.

True, but he doesn't want to hear it.

 

[Ravi]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

Some asshole posted a picture of a fetus grasping something...a finger, I believe of a doctor performing in utero surgery...and presenting that as proof that a fetus was an aware and living human being.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

Some asshole posted a picture of a fetus grasping something...a finger, I believe of a doctor performing in utero surgery...and presenting that as proof that a fetus was an aware and living human being.

Because we see clumps of cells with no awareness doing stuff like that all the time.

 

[Zoom-boing]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

Some asshole posted a picture of a fetus grasping something...a finger, I believe of a doctor performing in utero surgery...and presenting that as proof that a fetus was an aware and living human being.

A fetus is a living human life.

 

[Ravi]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

Some asshole posted a picture of a fetus grasping something...a finger, I believe of a doctor performing in utero surgery...and presenting that as proof that a fetus was an aware and living human being.

Because we see clumps of cells with no awareness doing stuff like that all the time.

As a matter of fact...go to an execution and learn something.

 

[Charles_Main]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

Some asshole posted a picture of a fetus grasping something...a finger, I believe of a doctor performing in utero surgery...and presenting that as proof that a fetus was an aware and living human being.

Because we see clumps of cells with no awareness doing stuff like that all the time.

As a matter of fact...go to an execution and learn something.

ouch.

 

[PixieStix]

A human egg and a human sperm cell is not a human.

They are not a human being, but they are human.

So is my hair, but there's nothing wrong with cutting it or shaving it off my face.

You hair is composed of "dead" cells, silly

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the record, I've never seen anyone argue that abortion should be legal because fetuses cannot feel pain.

I have seen several arguments that appeal to emotion: arguing that abortion is wrong because fetuses can feel pain.

Some asshole posted a picture of a fetus grasping something...a finger, I believe of a doctor performing in utero surgery...and presenting that as proof that a fetus was an aware and living human being.

Because we see clumps of cells with no awareness doing stuff like that all the time.

As a matter of fact...go to an execution and learn something.

That abortionists are not the only ones who kill living, breathing, human beings? I already know that.

 

[Ravi]

Because we see clumps of cells with no awareness doing stuff like that all the time.

As a matter of fact...go to an execution and learn something.

That abortionists are not the only ones who kill living, breathing, human beings? I already know that.

I proved you wrong and you aren't man enough to admit it.

Sad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a matter of fact...go to an execution and learn something.

That abortionists are not the only ones who kill living, breathing, human beings? I already know that.

I proved you wrong and you aren't man enough to admit it.

Sad.

How did you prove me wrong? If you could explain it so anyone outside your head gets it I might see it, and admit it.