Would you have an abortion if...

[Hooboy !!]

So, in another thread a random thought went through my head that got me thinking about abortion again. There has been some recent controversy in the scientific community about whether or not babies feel pain. I am not going to cite anything specific. Google is just a click away.

The first time I thought about it was when my first son was born and the doctor wanted to know if I wanted to have him circumcized. I really didn't want to, but it is customary and I did not want him to be a topic of conversation in the school gym locker room. So, I agreed to have him circumcized and it is one of the few things that I regret doing as a parent. At the time, the prevailing belief amongst doctors was that pain killers were unnecessary; that either the baby did not feel the pain, or that they would not remember it or in other words: cause them trauma. I do/did not believe this, but took my doctor's advice much to my shame. He did use a topical to numb the penis, but that was all. My son suffered for at least a week while it healed. It was awful.

The experience got me interested in the subject about infant pain and I have done a lot of reading on the subject since.

But, what I was wonder was...

If you knew that a late term abortion would cause a baby pain, would you still be in favor of having a late term abortion?

[HaysooChreesto!]

It depends on if the health of the mother is at stake. Personally, I loathe the idea of late term abortion when used as a form of birth control; if you're going to get an abortion then get the goddamn thing done ASAP. I'm pro-choice but I understand why many want late term abortions to be outlawed. If you're going to wait until 6 or 7 months to finally decide you don't want it then too bad, give it up for adoption, but don't kill it at that point; not when it can survive outside the womb.

[fast]

If you knew that a late term abortion would cause a baby pain, would you still be in favor of having a late term abortion?Do atheists consider pain harmful?

If I were an atheist, and if my guiding light was to act as I please so long as I cause no harm, then I'm not particularly sure that the pain a baby may feel is an issue.

Interesting question.

[nuntooshinydat]

I'm pro-choice. My personal choice in most cases would be not to have an abortion. If I did choose to have an abortion for some reason which I can only imagine would have to be pretty dire, I'd do it whether or not I thought the baby would feel pain.

[Headache]

Late term abortion, like in the third trimester? Only if the mothers life is in danger.

I support free access to abortion in the first trimester (which is the normal way for most countries with legal abortion), second and third trimester abortions only in case of medical complications.,

[Loren Pechtel]

Non-issue. Anesthesia.

[mga]

If you knew that a late term abortion would cause a baby pain, would you still be in favor of having a late term abortion?

Do atheists consider pain harmful?

If I were an atheist, and if my guiding light was to act as I please so long as I cause no harm, then I'm not particularly sure that the pain a baby may feel is an issue.

Interesting question.

what?????

are you saying that a christian considers pain to be something other than harmful?

[Hooboy !!]

Non-issue. Anesthesia.
I would like to elaborate on the issue of consciousness as it relates to pain. One of the arguments has been that the pain experienced is reflexive and is not part of consciousness. From my personal experience though, I know that pain felt when a baby is just a few hours old affects a babies personality for a lifetime.

Do you think the ability to experience pain is evidence of a human consciousness?

[Vampyroteuthis]

I'm pro-choice. My personal choice in most cases would be not to have an abortion. If I did choose to have an abortion for some reason which I can only imagine would have to be pretty dire, I'd do it whether or not I thought the baby would feel pain.

Same here.

[Vampyroteuthis]

Non-issue. Anesthesia.

Excellent point!! I didn't think of that!

[fast]

Do atheists consider pain harmful?

If I were an atheist, and if my guiding light was to act as I please so long as I cause no harm, then I'm not particularly sure that the pain a baby may feel is an issue.

Interesting question.

what?????

are you saying that a christian considers pain to be something other than harmful?

I wasn't saying anything about Christians at all.

You highlighted my question, so I'll elaborate.

When we give our children immunization shots, they are painful, but they are not harmful, so not all acts, which cause pain, are acts that cause harm. There are a variety of examples where we cause others pain that are not considered harmful but instead beneficial.

Just to make sure I'm not assuming something I ought not be, let me ask you this, as it’s not my intent to put all atheists in the same category--that's why I formed my response as a conditional.

Is abortion harmful? I confess that I was assuming that most atheists would answer no.

[laughing dog]

From my personal experience though, I know that pain felt when a baby is just a few hours old affects a babies personality for a lifetime. How does one know that? Wouldn't you have to know that the person's personality would have been like without the pain to make a relevant comparison?

[Nice Squirrel]

This is best suited for MF&P.

[Keith&Co.]

Do atheists consider pain harmful?
I would think that pain is certainly a form of harm.

But vaccination doesn't create lasting harm, and the pain's more than outweighed by the benefits of vaccination vice the alternatives.

Any surgery includes cutting through living tissue, to get to the bad stuff or to make the correction. Generally the harm of such cuts can be corrected by stitches, subdued by anathesia, and again it's a small price to pay considering...

[Keith&Co.]

From my personal experience though, I know that pain felt when a baby is just a few hours old affects a babies personality for a lifetime. How does one know that? Wouldn't you have to know that the person's personality would have been like without the pain to make a relevant comparison?

My children were all 3 months premature. Preemie babies got blood samples taken by stabbing the soles of their feet and wicking up the blood. The general idea was that they weren't using the surface at the time, what with not walking, and it didn't interfere with the various other pipes and sensors and probes festooning the rest of the kid.
They've come to find out that as veterans of such treatment, preemie survivors are incredibly sensitive about their feet. This has shown up in literature a doctor shared with us recently.

I can attest to that from personal experience. A cut on any part of the body and my kids can be relatively stoic during treatment. But let one of them step on a piece of glass, as one did at age four, and it takes three adults to immobilize him for removal. I had one leg and upper body, nurse had one leg, doctor had all she could do to deal with the one foot.

So, with sufficient assault, a baby can pick up an affect that follows them much later in life. I'm not sure that any one surgery can have the same effect as two months in the NICU, but can't say that it won't.

[fast]

I would think that pain is certainly a form of harm.

I don't understand.

Some acts that are harmful cause pain.
Some acts that are harmful don't cause pain.
Some acts that are not harmful cause pain.
Some acts that are not harmful don't cause pain.

I don't see pain as a form of harm, although as I said, some harmful acts entail pain.

Some acts may contain elements of both harmful and not harmful effects, but we only call the act harmful if the harm present outweighs the other.

For example, if a police officer kills the mad gunmen, then he has benefited society--not harmed it.

With the issue of abortion, most atheists say that they are not harming society.

[Autonemesis]

If you knew that a late term abortion would cause a baby pain, would you still be in favor of having a late term abortion?Do atheists consider pain harmful?

Do you? If I cause pain to set a broken bone... if I cause pain to pull a decayed tooth.... was that pain harmful?

If I were an atheist, and if my guiding light was to act as I please so long as I cause no harm

These first clause is not logically connected to the second, or to the conclusion.

, then I'm not particularly sure that the pain a baby may feel is an issue.

Only the second clause is connected to the conclusion. The first clause is a superfluous attack on atheists that is not logically connected to the rest of the statement. "If I were an atheist" could as easily be replaced with "If I were black" and it would not affect the conclusion.

[Hooboy !!]

From my personal experience though, I know that pain felt when a baby is just a few hours old affects a babies personality for a lifetime. How does one know that?
How? By observing their child's behavior.

Wouldn't you have to know that the person's personality would have been like without the pain to make a relevant comparison?
No, not when there are simple cause and effect observations that can be made. Your question assumes that exhibited behavior would have occurred regardless. That is highly unliklely in this case.

[Hooboy !!]

They've come to find out that as veterans of such treatment, preemie survivors are incredibly sensitive about their feet. This has shown up in literature a doctor shared with us recently.
Bingo.

I can attest to that from personal experience. A cut on any part of the body and my kids can be relatively stoic during treatment. But let one of them step on a piece of glass, as one did at age four, and it takes three adults to immobilize him for removal. I had one leg and upper body, nurse had one leg, doctor had all she could do to deal with the one foot.

So, with sufficient assault, a baby can pick up an affect that follows them much later in life. I'm not sure that any one surgery can have the same effect as two months in the NICU, but can't say that it won't.
Sounds like you have had a similar experience that I had.

[fast]

Do you [consider pain harmful]?No. However, I do believe that some harmful acts cause pain.

If I cause pain to set a broken bone... if I cause pain to pull a decayed tooth.... was that pain harmful?Overall, no.

As to the remainder of your post, wow!

Atheists in general argue that acts are morally permissible so long as they don't cause harm. Blacks as a group don't argue that.

[Hooboy !!]

I would think that pain is certainly a form of harm.

I don't understand.

Some acts that are harmful cause pain.
Some acts that are harmful don't cause pain.
Some acts that are not harmful cause pain.
Some acts that are not harmful don't cause pain.

I don't see pain as a form of harm, although as I said, some harmful acts entail pain.

Some acts may contain elements of both harmful and not harmful effects, but we only call the act harmful if the harm present outweighs the other.

For example, if a police officer kills the mad gunmen, then he has benefited society--not harmed it.

With the issue of abortion, most atheists say that they are not harming society.
So, in brief, inflicting pain is not necessarily a moral issue for you.

BTW, pain is a form of harm. Period. Arguing otherwise is just mental gymnastics. At issue here is whether or not inflicted pain is in the best interest of the individual and for some, in the best interest of society.

So, is the pain inflicted on a late term baby during an abortion in the best interest of the baby? Nope. I know what your counter to this is, so let's save some time...

Let me ask you another question then. Do you think it is moral to euthanize a dog by beating it to death with a bat?

[Karalora]

From my personal experience though, I know that pain felt when a baby is just a few hours old affects a babies personality for a lifetime.

This would be a moot point with respect to an abortion, for obvious reasons.

Do you think the ability to experience pain is evidence of a human consciousness?

No. Consider all the non-human animals that are capable of experiencing pain.

As for the question asked in the OP, yes, I would have the abortion. If it were possible to do so in such a manner as to spare the fetus pain, I would pursue that route, but in the absence of such means, I would console myself with the fact that its suffering would be brief.

I must note, however, that should I find myself pregnant I will waste no time in procuring an abortion, making it highly unlikely that the embryo/fetus would be capable of feeling pain at that point.

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd say that if it's at the point where it can feel pain, then it's a person and aborting it a couple of months before the due date really does strike me as being as much of an act of murder as killing it a couple of months afterwards. I just don't see the difference.

I'm not sure exactly where I'd draw the line between hunk of flesh and human being, but at some point, by waiting that long to make a decision, you've implicitly made the choice to have the baby and rescinding your choice is making a decision to kill it, not a decision to abort it. I'd say that first trimester is a hunk of flesh and third trimester is a human being - where in the second trimester the line would be drawn, I don't know.

[Keith&Co.]

I don't see pain as a form of harm, although as I said, some harmful acts entail pain.Exactly how do you define harm?
With the issue of abortion, most atheists say that they are not harming society.Oh. You mean harm-to-society? As opposed to harming the individual?

[fast]

So, in brief, inflicting pain is not necessarily a moral issue for you.We have to be careful with our words, for they go along way in conveying what we mean.

Inflicting pain for the sake of inflicting pain is in my opinion wrong, but of course, no one is talking about inflicting pain just for the sake of inflicting pain.

But, is inflicting pain immoral? Not necessarily, for it depends on why we are inflicting pain. If we inflict pain, and if it's for a good reason, then that's certainly much better than if we inflict pain for a bad reason, so inflicting pain need not necessarily be immoral. Indeed, some acts of inflicting pain are moral. Both Autonemesis and I have come up with examples showing that.

BTW, pain is a form of harm. Period. Arguing otherwise is just mental gymnastics. I need more than your word on that. I understand that pain can sometimes be a consequence of harmful acts, but that is not to say that pain is a form of harm. A form of harm? Form? How do you get to that?

Let me ask you another question then. Do you think it is moral to euthanize a dog by beating it to death with a bat?I have no idea where you're going with this, but the answer is no.

[Keith&Co.]

Bingo.I don't know if that's a good response. I'm not entirely agreeing with you.Sounds like you have had a similar experience that I had.Not necessarily. We also circumcised the little buggers and i haven't noticed a lingering trauma from the event in any of them.

Kids suffer a lot of harm. Bumps, bruises, tiger mauls, bb's in the ass, broken teeth and bones... some seems to have a deep impact, others don't even affect them an hour later.

The same kid that got glass in the foot got his finger caught in a shutting door. By the time the Emergency Room doctor saw him, kid had to be reminded which finger was hurt.

The one with scars on his chest from the heart surgery has to be reminded that he has a scar. While I ahve a childhood amputation and remember it daily (i have ot reach extra far for the 'i' key on the keyboard).

I don't think just one surgery is going to have that much trauma on a child...unless there are complications. Is there any chance your guilt informs whatever affects he shows?

[fast]

Exactly how do you define harm?

One definition for the word, "harm" is physical injury or mental damage.

Oh. You mean harm-to-society? As opposed to harming the individual?Yes, I'm saying that most atheists believe that the act of abortion does not harm society.

[javarush]

I voted other.

The mainstream believes that pain is defined by both physiologic and psychologic components. If either one of sensation or emotion is absent, then there is no pain. Under this definition, the reflexive withdrawal from noxious stimuli is not necessarily interpreted as the registration of pain.
APS on fetal pain 2003 (http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm)
BMA on fetal pain 2005 (http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~Factors~pain)
JAMA on fetal pain 2005 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947)

ahdenai is the expert in this area.

[Hooboy !!]

Not necessarily. We also circumcised the little buggers and i haven't noticed a lingering trauma from the event in any of them.

Kids suffer a lot of harm. Bumps, bruises, tiger mauls, bb's in the ass, broken teeth and bones... some seems to have a deep impact, others don't even affect them an hour later.
Kids are pretty resilient and they learn how to cope with events, but that does not mean that those events do not help to form their personalities.

The point where we found agreement was on the observation that a newborn child whose heel was pricked over and over again will remember that pain for a long long time. There is no way that it does not have an effect on behavorial development.

[laughing dog]

How does one know that?
How? By observing their child's behavior. I find that hard to believe that someone can tell how something that happens to a baby that is few hours old affects its behavior.

No, not when there are simple cause and effect observations that can be made. Your question assumes that exhibited behavior would have occurred regardless. That is highly unliklely in this case. No, your response assumes the behavior changed because of the event. My point is that a baby that is a few hours old has not developed sufficiently so that one has any reference for a change in behavior stemming from any event. Moreover, I doubt anyone can recall back that far in their life in order to analyze the effect of such an event.

So, I find it difficult to understand how anyone could be certain of diagnosing any change in the behavior of someone due to an event that occurred so early in that person's life.

[Hooboy !!]

I voted other.

The mainstream believes that pain is defined by both physiologic and psychologic components. If either one of sensation or emotion is absent, then there is no pain. Under this definition, the reflexive withdrawal from noxious stimuli is not necessarily interpreted as the registration of pain.
APS on fetal pain 2003 (http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm)
BMA on fetal pain 2005 (http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~Factors~pain)
JAMA on fetal pain 2005 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947)

ahdenai is the expert in this area.
From the first source...

The undisputed discovery that the neonate and fetus launch a hormonal and neural response to invasive practice cannot be considered proof there is an experience of pain. An experience implies sensations have been interpreted in a conscious manner.
This is the real debate. What constitutes "consciousness"?

I really hate this rationalization myself, which is why I ask the question... Is it OK to beat a dog to death with a bat? A dog is not conscious, not in human terms, then how can it feel pain then?

[Hooboy !!]

How? By observing their child's behavior. I find that hard to believe that someone can tell how something that happens to a baby that is few hours old affects its behavior.
I do not care.

[Vampyroteuthis]

Is it OK to beat a dog to death with a bat? A dog is not conscious, not in human terms, then how can it feel pain then?

If the dog is suffering and the only way to relieve it's pain is to club it to death, then the answer is yes. That would be humane.

[laughing dog]

I find that hard to believe that someone can tell how something that happens to a baby that is few hours old affects its behavior.
I do not care. Whether or not you care is irrelevant. What is relevant that you cannot document or explain how one can observe how an event to a baby who is a few hours old affects his or her behavior.

[apatura_iris]

Other-- to save the life of the mother, or, if the baby were diagnosed prenatally with a fatal abnormality and would die shortly after birth anyway (like Trisomy 18). Maybe I would if the baby had another disorder that was not necessarily life threatening, like DS, but that would be a hard one to decide. It would depend on what the father thought, too.

[Hooboy !!]

Is it OK to beat a dog to death with a bat? A dog is not conscious, not in human terms, then how can it feel pain then?

If the dog is suffering and the only way to relieve it's pain is to club it to death, then the answer is yes. That would be humane.
Is a baby dying when it is being aborted?

[Natural]

Feel like I got tricked on this one.
I saw the thing about the pain, & late term too late. Had already voted yes. Now, I'm undecided.
But, I do not believe abortion before conscious recognition is wrong.

[Hooboy !!]

I do not care. Whether or not you care is irrelevant. What is relevant that you cannot document or explain how one can observe how an event to a baby who is a few hours old affects his or her behavior.
Two people have basically said the exact same thing. That is enough explanation.

[Hooboy !!]

Feel like I got tricked on this one.
I saw the thing about the pain, & late term too late. Had already voted yes. Now, I'm undecided.
But, I do not believe abortion before conscious recognition is wrong.
;)

So, at what point in a child's congnitive development do you think they are conscious of pain?

Keep in mind that a child does not achieve self-awareness until about the age of 2.

[Keith&Co.]

Kids are pretty resilient and they learn how to cope with events, but that does not mean that those events do not help to form their personalities.One of those he said/he said things.
Can you show that a single event from a time when the brain is physically incapable of forming long-term memories can possibly affect their personality?

The point where we found agreement was on the observation that a newborn child whose heel was pricked over and over again will remember that pain for a long long time. There is no way that it does not have an effect on behavorial development. Pricked over months, after a premature birth. Another aspect of preemie birth is a sped-up development. If the kid's going to have any chance of survival they have to play catch-up fast. The learning curve of a preemie kid is not exactly comparable to a full-term newborn.
As i understand it, most circumcisions are performed within a few days of birth. They're not traumatized by it because most brains at that moment in time are literally unable to remember it. Any more than getting their umbilical cut or when the last bit of it falls off.

[Hooboy !!]

Kids are pretty resilient and they learn how to cope with events, but that does not mean that those events do not help to form their personalities.One of those he said/he said things.
Can you show that a single event from a time when the brain is physically incapable of forming long-term memories can possibly affect their personality?
Simple observation. My kid was pricked in the heel repeatedly over night in the hospital. She was sensitive about her foot for months afterward, long after she was home and the pain had gone away. Too, without getting into details, other behaviors developed that were related to her sensitivity that have persisted throughout her life.

Why does a person need to be conscious of an event in order to learn from it? I can teach a computer to do all kinds of things, but you would not argue that it is "conscious" would you? It is all about conditioning and it does not have to be conscious for an experience to leave a permanent effect.

Is that what people think... that the only kind of learning that human beings experience is done consciously?

[Keith&Co.]

Two people have basically said the exact same thing. That is enough explanation.Hoo, Schwait!

In response to a question about kids displaying behavior and connecting it to childhood trauma, i mentioned research and personal experience.

That would have been your cue to provide the behavior you've seen and the trauma you've isolated it to, to say 'basically the same thing.'

[Keith&Co.]

One of those he said/he said things.
Can you show that a single event from a time when the brain is physically incapable of forming long-term memories can possibly affect their personality?
Simple observation. My kid was pricked in the heel repeatedly over night in the hospital. She was sensitive about her foot for months afterward, long after she was home and the pain had gone away. Too, without getting into details, other behaviors developed that were related to her sensitivity that have persisted throughout her life.Um...how old was she for that overnight? How did you know she was sensitive about the foot? How did you know the pain had gone away, especially if she was sensitive?

Why does a person need to be conscious of an event in order to learn from it? Who said conscious? I said memories. IF we can't form memories, we can't learn. Kind of a 'by definition' thing.

I can teach a computer to do all kinds of things, but you would not argue that it is "conscious" would you? Nope. Then again, if you write a horribly long program but never save it to disk, then power cycles, you find that you've taught the computer bupkes.

Is that what people think... that the only kind of learning that human beings experience is done consciously?On and on about consciousness....when i was talking about long term memory.

Most kids below 3 months are physically incapable of forming long term memories. They cannot learn.

My wife went into labor at the 5 month point. Her adrenaline spurred development of &Co. Number Two from that point one. I'm not sure what comparable age his brain would have been at during the month within and the two months he was in NICU. But clearly (to me and a few doctors at least) at some point he crossed the threshold, thus the death threats while checking his injury.

[J.F. Gaul]

In terms of human values, I think the life and well-being of the mother must always take precedent over the life of the fetus, even if it is possible that the fetus will feel pain. Having said that, I also feel that the if the outcome of the abortion is not favorable over the outcome of not having the abortion, then the abortion is harmful to society.

[Riley Stone]

Exactly how do you define harm?

One definition for the word, "harm" is physical injury or mental damage.

Oh. You mean harm-to-society? As opposed to harming the individual?Yes, I'm saying that most atheists believe that the act of abortion does not harm society.

In Post #21, you said: Is abortion harmful? I confess that I was assuming that most atheists would answer no.

In this post, you state it as a fact: Most atheists believe that . . .

Which is it? Do you know x or are you assuming x to be true?

Or, as a Christian, do you think that assuming x and knowing x to be true are one and the same thing?

By the way, as a Christian, do you believe that killing an abortion doctor is harmful to society?

And as a Christian, do you believe that abortion is, ultimately, harmful to the fetus, since the fetus would go immediately to heaven to be with God?

For myself (and I can only speak for myself) as an atheist, I do care about other people. I care about the well-being of others, and I desire for people to be happy and free of pain. These concerns factor in to my thinking on this subject.

While I have never been in a situation in which I was called upon to choose whether or not to have an abortion, I like to think that I would choose not to have an abortion in most situations. However, in making such a decision, one of the factors that I would give serious consideration to would be the amount of pain (short-term and long-term) any such decision may impose on others. So, for me, knowledge that the fetus was able to feel pain would be knowledge that would factor in heavily to my decision about whether or not to have an abortion. However, many other things would factor into such a decision as well. In the end, I think a decision to have an abortion is often (if not always) a very complicated, very personal decision. While I personally detest the idea of abortion being used as a form of birth control, I also would not be critical of those who made the painful decision to abort a fetus based on a careful evaluation of their own circumstances.

[Hooboy !!]

Um...how old was she for that overnight? How did you know she was sensitive about the foot? How did you know the pain had gone away, especially if she was sensitive?
No offense, but I find this rather personal and really nobody's business. I really do not care if people believe me or not. What you described sounds very similar to my daughter's experience as well. Take it or leave it.

Who said conscious? I said memories. IF we can't form memories, we can't learn. Kind of a 'by definition' thing.
What is a "memory"? What you are saying here is that a person has to be able to recall the experience to have learned from it? That about it?

Most kids below 3 months are physically incapable of forming long term memories. They cannot learn.
This is false btw. Children begin learning before they are born.

[Riley Stone]

Having said that, I also feel that the if the outcome of the abortion is not favorable over the outcome of not having the abortion, then the abortion is harmful to society.

Very well said, and I agree.

[Selam]

If you knew that a late term abortion would cause a baby pain, would you still be in favor of having a late term abortion?Do atheists consider pain harmful?

If I were an atheist, and if my guiding light was to act as I please so long as I cause no harm, then I'm not particularly sure that the pain a baby may feel is an issue.

Interesting question.

What is sort if interesting to me is that I am an atheist.

However I do believe in the golden rule that extends beyond what we call humans and humanity to include all sentient beings.

So to summ it up I am an atheist that is a vegetarian, do not believe in the death penalty and do not believe in abortions.

I guess I am odd but I guess atheits come in all shapes and colors.

:cool:

[laughing dog]

Whether or not you care is irrelevant. What is relevant that you cannot document or explain how one can observe how an event to a baby who is a few hours old affects his or her behavior.
Two people have basically said the exact same thing. That is enough explanation. Ah, theory based on anecdote. Very very convincing - not.

As to the basic question, whether or not the baby would feel pain would not alter my decision about having an abortion.

[Hooboy !!]

Two people have basically said the exact same thing. That is enough explanation. Ah, theory based on anecdote. Very very convincing - not.
Like I said... take it or leave it. There are lots of things available for reading on the Internet BTW regarding cognitive and behavorial development in babies, pre- and post-natal. Several links have already been provided in this thread.

As to the basic question, whether or not the baby would feel pain would not alter my decision about having an abortion.
That is really all you have to say.

[laughing dog]

Ah, theory based on anecdote. Very very convincing - not.
Like I said... take it or leave it. There are lots of things available for reading on the Internet BTW regarding cognitive and behavorial development in babies, pre- and post-natal. Several links have already been provided in this thread. I know, and they tend to contradict your claim.

That is really all you have to say. It really is not up to you to determine that.

[Hooboy !!]

I know, and they tend to contradict your claim.
Oh? How so? Be specific.

[Doddy]

Ok, I shall summarize my views on this.

Firstly, I do consider pain to be a form of harm. However, harm is not necessarily wrong, as evidenced by the many acts of harm which are not wrong, such as vaccination and surgery. Therefore, it is not wrong to cause harm to a person in order to prevent a greater harm from occurring to them, (or possibly to others).

Secondly, I think that painience, the ability to perceive pain, comes after sentience, the ability to perceive, but before self-awareness, the ability to perceive oneself. If a creature, or human, can conclude that a painless state is more desirable than a painful state, I believe it is wrong to cause that creature pain (except, as stated above, to prevent a greater pain). However, I think that death is only wrong once a person can comprehend that a dead state is worse than an alive state, and hence does not want to die (in other words, the only thing wrong with death is being forced to do it against one's will).

Therefore, I think to cause an organism, including a human foetus or neonate, to perceive pain without preventing a greater pain is a morally wrong act. However, the painless death of such a human, given that they cannot comprehend their own life, is not wrong. Thus, painful abortions would seem to me to be wrong except when preventing a greater wrong (such as death) onto the mother, but painless ones not wrong unless it goes against the mother's wishes.

So, because I interpreted the question of the poll as "would you have an abortion if such an act would cause the embryo/foetus to feel pain?", I answered only in the case that it would kill, or seriously injure, the mother. It is of note, however, that Loren Pechtel is completely right in saying that pain killers would render any extrapolation of these results into the abortion clinic to be fruitless.

[spikepipsqueak]

Originally Posted by laughing dog
Ah, theory based on anecdote. Very very convincing - not.

Anecdote with theory to explain it - bit different.

Humans have an animal as well as mental nature.

Certainly conscious recognition of pain is unlikely and LTM of the event pretty well impossible from that age.

But.

The child has a nervous system which is capable of forming associations between stimuli. If the kid repeatedly forms an association b/w having her feet handled and pain, and nothing in the intervening years to modify the conditioning, then yes, it is possible that having her feet touched in later years will elicit an aversive response without her being conscious of the reason why. Ask any head-shy horse or Pavlov's dogs.


OP. If I was having an abortion at all it would be because the child had no chance of survival with even a minimum quality of life. Under those circumstances, fleeting pain would be the least of my concerns.

[J.F. Gaul]

Humans have an animal as well as mental nature.


No, humans are animals, and their mental nature is animal nature.

[Hooboy !!]

Ok, I shall summarize my views on this.

Firstly, I do consider pain to be a form of harm. However, harm is not necessarily wrong, as evidenced by the many acts of harm which are not wrong, such as vaccination and surgery. Therefore, it is not wrong to cause harm to a person in order to prevent a greater harm from occurring to them, (or possibly to others).

Secondly, I think that painience, the ability to perceive pain, comes after sentience, the ability to perceive, but before self-awareness, the ability to perceive oneself. If a creature, or human, can conclude that a painless state is more desirable than a painful state, I believe it is wrong to cause that creature pain (except, as stated above, to prevent a greater pain). However, I think that death is only wrong once a person can comprehend that a dead state is worse than an alive state, and hence does not want to die (in other words, the only thing wrong with death is being forced to do it against one's will).

Therefore, I think to cause an organism, including a human foetus or neonate, to perceive pain without preventing a greater pain is a morally wrong act. However, the painless death of such a human, given that they cannot comprehend their own life, is not wrong. Thus, painful abortions would seem to me to be wrong except when preventing a greater wrong (such as death) onto the mother, but painless ones not wrong unless it goes against the mother's wishes.

So, because I interpreted the question of the poll as "would you have an abortion if such an act would cause the embryo/foetus to feel pain?", I answered only in the case that it would kill, or seriously injure, the mother. It is of note, however, that Loren Pechtel is completely right in saying that pain killers would render any extrapolation of these results into the abortion clinic to be fruitless.
Excellent post BTW.

I am personally opposed to all abortions myself for reasons other than the value of human life, but understand a woman's right to choose. In the case of late term abortions, I think requiring painless euthansia (because that is what it is) would be a reasonable requirement.

[laughing dog]

I know, and they tend to contradict your claim.
Oh? How so? Be specific. 1st, The links refer to fetuses, not babies. So they do not provide support for your claim. 2nd, the 2nd anecdote disputes your claim -#5359324 (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5359324#post5359324) / #42 (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=5359324&postcount=42) - that two posters are saying basically the same thing.

[credoconsolans]

Did we define "pain"?

Don't plants also have a reaction if someone does damage (flick, bruise, squeeze, pluck, etc) to them?

If we mean conscious pain, then I'm with the anesthesia group. Some of the women who had late term abortions when asked why they waited so long replied that that's how long it took them to save the money.

[Godless11]

If you knew that a late term abortion would cause a baby pain, would you still be in favor of having a late term abortion?Do atheists consider pain harmful?

If I were an atheist, and if my guiding light was to act as I please so long as I cause no harm, then I'm not particularly sure that the pain a baby may feel is an issue.

Interesting question.

Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense. Causing pain to another human being is causing harm so, that does make it an issue.

[Hooboy !!]

Oh? How so? Be specific. 1st, The links refer to fetuses, not babies.
Oh. Well then. :rolleyes:

[laughing dog]

1st, The links refer to fetuses, not babies.
Oh. Well then. :rolleyes: Why don't you show how those links to the possibility of fetal pain provide evidence for your contention that one can observe the effects on behavior on very young babies of a painful event. Be specific.

[Ruiner]

All things being equal we have to make a judgment call we're uncomfortable with. The mother is more important than the fetus.

Neither the unborn nor mother are ever irrelevant. And to state that the unborn is more important (because the mother surely feels pain as well) is a judgment call no worse or better than the alternative.

It is what it is.

[PopeInTheWoods]

Feel like I got tricked on this one.
I saw the thing about the pain, & late term too late. Had already voted yes. Now, I'm undecided.
But, I do not believe abortion before conscious recognition is wrong.
;)

So, at what point in a child's congnitive development do you think they are conscious of pain?

Keep in mind that a child does not achieve self-awareness until about the age of 2.

I thought more in the 3-6 month range, but ultimately irrelevant. Until birth, a baby/fetus/widget is a drain on the resources of, and a direct threat to, the life and health of the mother. So my vote is "Yes".

[Sabine Grant]

So, in another thread a random thought went through my head that got me thinking about abortion again. There has been some recent controversy in the scientific community about whether or not babies feel pain. I am not going to cite anything specific. Google is just a click away. The controversy revolves around PRENATAL stages not post natal. However, we know that the activation of neurotransmitters is very much dependent on chemical synapses. Which does not occur until about the 22 week of gestation. I will assume that your poll question then addresses the experiencing of pain from that gestational stage on.

The first time I thought about it was when my first son was born and the doctor wanted to know if I wanted to have him circumcized. I really didn't want to, but it is customary and I did not want him to be a topic of conversation in the school gym locker room. So, I agreed to have him circumcized and it is one of the few things that I regret doing as a parent. At the time, the prevailing belief amongst doctors was that pain killers were unnecessary; that either the baby did not feel the pain, or that they would not remember it or in other words: cause them trauma. I do/did not believe this, but took my doctor's advice much to my shame. He did use a topical to numb the penis, but that was all. My son suffered for at least a week while it healed. It was awful

The experience got me interested in the subject about infant pain and I have done a lot of reading on the subject since. That would not concern prenatal stages. "infants" do not reflect the level of neuro genesis in utero.

But, what I was wonder was...

If you knew that a late term abortion would cause a baby pain, would you still be in favor of having a late term abortion? Such late term abortions are extremely rare and certainly NOT elective. Which challenges the notion of "being in favor of". I just find your scenario to be misguiding as it suggests a matter of choice. The only way such late term abortion would become necessary it would be as the pregnancy presents a clear threat to the life of the mother.

Further, there would be a window of only 2 weeks during which such scenario would be "realistic". Due to advanced NICU technologies, a 24 week old fetus has now a chance of survival. Meaning that the life of the mother could be preserved while the fetus would be delivered and placed in NICU. No doubt that such prematurely delivered fetus would necessitate stimulating treatments to complete pulmonary development.

[fast]

Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense. Causing pain to another human being is causing harm so, that does make it an issue.Tell that to the doctors.

[Tom Sawyer]

Secondly, I think that painience, the ability to perceive pain, comes after sentience, the ability to perceive, but before self-awareness, the ability to perceive oneself. If a creature, or human, can conclude that a painless state is more desirable than a painful state, I believe it is wrong to cause that creature pain (except, as stated above, to prevent a greater pain). However, I think that death is only wrong once a person can comprehend that a dead state is worse than an alive state, and hence does not want to die (in other words, the only thing wrong with death is being forced to do it against one's will).

Therefore, I think to cause an organism, including a human foetus or neonate, to perceive pain without preventing a greater pain is a morally wrong act. However, the painless death of such a human, given that they cannot comprehend their own life, is not wrong. Thus, painful abortions would seem to me to be wrong except when preventing a greater wrong (such as death) onto the mother, but painless ones not wrong unless it goes against the mother's wishes.


How do you use this to distinguish between a fetus and a newborn, though? Can a one week old child comprehend its own life and if not, is it OK to kill it provided that you do so painlessly? Terminating a one month old child that was born two months premature is murder, but terminating a fetus that's eight months along is an abortion, yet I fail to see the difference between the two organisms.

[Sabine Grant]

How do you use this to distinguish between a fetus and a newborn, though? Can a one week old child comprehend its own life and if not, is it OK to kill it provided that you do so painlessly? Terminating a one month old child that was born two months premature is murder, but terminating a fetus that's eight months along is an abortion, yet I fail to see the difference between the two organisms. Just as an aside, your last question is a bit bizarre considering the viable alternative of delivering a 32 weeks old fetus considering the high probability of survival out utero at 8 months.:huh:

[Karalora]

Terminating a one month old child that was born two months premature is murder, but terminating a fetus that's eight months along is an abortion, yet I fail to see the difference between the two organisms.

The difference is in where it lives. One is parasitizing the body of a woman, the other is not. Note that this doesn't mean I think an abortion at eight months would be ethical (by that point, surely it would be less hassle to just wait the extra month and deliver), but people keep fixating on the age of fetuses vs. newborns/preemies when the crux of the matter is their location.

The discussion about pain and the ethics of inflicting it is very interesting not so much for what has been included but what has been omitted. Most people would agree that it is ethical to inflict pain on someone in order to prevent them inflicting greater pain on you, further down the line. Yet somehow the issue of the pain suffered by a woman in childbirth has not been raised. Until now. Hmmm...

[Hooboy !!]

The controversy revolves around PRENATAL stages not post natal. However, we know that the activation of neurotransmitters is very much dependent on chemical synapses. Which does not occur until about the 22 week of gestation. I will assume that your poll question then addresses the experiencing of pain from that gestational stage on.
My personal experiences on the effects of trauma on very young children got me thinking about the pre-natal issue, but as has been pointed out... the pre-/post-natal issue is a little clouded considering, like you have pointed out, that a 22 week old fetus is viable.

Such late term abortions are extremely rare and certainly NOT elective. Which challenges the notion of "being in favor of". I just find your scenario to be misguiding as it suggests a matter of choice.
It appears that it is a matter of choice in 14 states...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#United_States_2

Further, there would be a window of only 2 weeks during which such scenario would be "realistic". Due to advanced NICU technologies, a 24 week old fetus has now a chance of survival.
I am pretty sure there is at least once case of a 23 week old and I thought I recall a 21 week old surviving.

For the sake of this discussion though, the two important milestones are at 22 weeks and 24 weeks, which are the points in developemnt where the brain is able to actually process the "feelings" of pain and universal bans on abortions respectively.

The point is... it is a choice, in 13 (not sure why not 14, I didn't read it all) states to abort when the fetus is capable of feeling pain. And I would bet a steak dinner than 22 weeks is an arbitrary milestone and can vary significantly.

[Hooboy !!]

The discussion about pain and the ethics of inflicting it is very interesting not so much for what has been included but what has been omitted. Most people would agree that it is ethical to inflict pain on someone in order to prevent them inflicting greater pain on you, further down the line. Yet somehow the issue of the pain suffered by a woman in childbirth has not been raised. Until now. Hmmm...
Hmmmm?

At issue is whether or not a fetus feels pain when it is aborted and the effects this knowlege would have on the person planning on having an abortion.

The issue is not whether or not it is possible to rationalize an abortion using relative pain/harm to the fetus versus the mother.

[Tom Sawyer]

Just as an aside, your last question is a bit bizarre considering the viable alternative of delivering a 32 weeks old fetus considering the high probability of survival out utero at 8 months.:huh:

I fail to see how it's bizarre considering that this is a thread about late term abortions. One would assume that the majority of the fetuses under discussion would be viable at this point.

[Sabine Grant]

Ok, I shall summarize my views on this.

Firstly, I do consider pain to be a form of harm. However, harm is not necessarily wrong, as evidenced by the many acts of harm which are not wrong, such as vaccination and surgery. Therefore, it is not wrong to cause harm to a person in order to prevent a greater harm from occurring to them, (or possibly to others). However, in order to introduce the notion of pain=harm, the subject has to have sufficient neurocognitive capacities to experience pain.

Secondly, I think that painience, the ability to perceive pain, comes after sentience, the ability to perceive, but before self-awareness, the ability to perceive oneself. The experience of pain results from reception and interpretation of stimuli. Some PVS patients will experience pain YET have no self awareness or ability to "perceive oneself". In either case, in order for neurotransmitters to interact and trigger interpretation, chemical synapses are necessary. In that sense, "painience", is very much dependent on the entire development of the Central Nervous System and its completed bio chemistry.



If a creature, or human, can conclude that a painless state is more desirable than a painful state, I believe it is wrong to cause that creature pain (except, as stated above, to prevent a greater pain). However, I think that death is only wrong once a person can comprehend that a dead state is worse than an alive state, and hence does not want to die (in other words, the only thing wrong with death is being forced to do it against one's will). Sorry, but your reasoning does not make any sense to me. Considering that it is only in early childhood and several years after birth that we develop the capacity to comprehend various concepts such as death or life. And what they mean to each of us.

Therefore, I think to cause an organism, including a human foetus or neonate, to perceive pain without preventing a greater pain is a morally wrong act. Pain prevention is used when and if the subject can experience pain. That experience, once more, is dependent on the development and function of the CNS. Following such evaluation, it matters not whether the subject is self aware of his/her own existence. In any case, pain prevention is quite efficient in modern medicine and I am not aware of licensed physicians and other medical professionals not taking precautions to avoid causing pain on any patient who was evaluated to have the capacity to experience pain.



However, the painless death of such a human, given that they cannot comprehend their own life, is not wrong. You would have to extend that moral evaluation and conclusion into early childhood. And to any person who suffers of severe mental disability.


Thus, painful abortions would seem to me to be wrong except when preventing a greater wrong (such as death) onto the mother, but painless ones not wrong unless it goes against the mother's wishes. Do you have examples of such painful abortions? keeping in mind that without chemical synapses being active, less than 22 weeks fetuses are going to have a hard time experiencing pain. And considering that after 24 weeks, NICU technology can provide a chance of survival to such prematurly delivered fetus, there would be an almost close to non existent "painful abortion" scenario.

So, because I interpreted the question of the poll as "would you have an abortion if such an act would cause the embryo/foetus to feel pain?", I answered only in the case that it would kill, or seriously injure, the mother. And with definite "ifs" and resulting "woulds". Fortunately, such dilemma is not part any longer of our current medical realities. Even a fearing for her life mother to be, can be reassured that her fetus prior to 22 weeks will not experience pain and if closer to 24 weeks, can still be delivered and placed in NICU.



It is of note, however, that Loren Pechtel is completely right in saying that pain killers would render any extrapolation of these results into the abortion clinic to be fruitless. But "abortion clinics" perform ONLY elective abortions. And way before there is any possible claim that a fetus may experience pain. As a reminder, there are only two legally sanctioned terminations of pregnancy methods in NON elective abortions:

1) the fetus has died in utero and will be delivered by C section to prevent toxic effects on the mother. C Section is done only as a diagnosis presents a dead fetus in utero.
2) in second trimester abortions : induced dilation and evacuation(meaning evacuation by the birth canal) known as D&E.

[Tom Sawyer]

The difference is in where it lives. One is parasitizing the body of a woman, the other is not. Note that this doesn't mean I think an abortion at eight months would be ethical (by that point, surely it would be less hassle to just wait the extra month and deliver), but people keep fixating on the age of fetuses vs. newborns/preemies when the crux of the matter is their location.

That has always struck as a fairly weak argument. The central crux of the abortion debate is when does something become a person, not where it becomes a person. If someone is in an accident and getting their oxygen and nutrients through a plastic tube, it doesn't affect the status of their personhood, so why would the fact that they're getting these through a fallopian (sp?) tube do so? What makes it a person is not dependent on whether it breathes through a tube or breathes through its lungs.

The fact that it's inside the woman's body does not mean that it has developed any less than something of similar age outside of the woman's body and in or out of the womb strikes me as a pretty fatuous distinction to use determine whether or not it meets the requirements of personhood.

[Sabine Grant]

Just as an aside, your last question is a bit bizarre considering the viable alternative of delivering a 32 weeks old fetus considering the high probability of survival out utero at 8 months.:huh:

I fail to see how it's bizarre considering that this is a thread about late term abortions. One would assume that the majority of the fetuses under discussion would be viable at this point. I guess I do not see the point of debating on the ethics of such late term abortions when even in the extreme and rare cases of life endangering conditions for the mother, the viable alternative of delivering the fetus and placing her/him in NICU exists. Surely no one is thinking in this thread that any woman awaits 8 months to decide whether she will or not pursue her pregnancy. And that is why I drew a clear line between elective and non elective.

Realistically, such late terms abortions are extremely rare.

[Karalora]

That has always struck as a fairly weak argument. The central crux of the abortion debate is when does something become a person, not where it becomes a person.

Says who? It seems to me that a more relevant question is whether women are full persons with the same right to bodily autonomy that men have without question. Even if you could prove that a fetus has enough subjectivity to be considered a person, that wouldn't mean it had the right to parasitize a woman's body against her will. I don't have the right to parasitize your body against your will, even if I would die otherwise. I don't even have the right to demand a pint of your blood. Or vice-versa for that matter. What makes you think personhood would give fetuses a right that no other person possesses?

If someone is in an accident and getting their oxygen and nutrients through a plastic tube, it doesn't affect the status of their personhood, so why would the fact that they're getting these through a fallopian (sp?) tube do so?

It doesn't. The personhood and rights of the woman are what's at issue here. A plastic tube is not part of a living human being--you don't have to violate anyone else's rights in order to keep the patient connected to it.

Anything else I would say in response to your post would just be reiterating the above points.

[Sabine Grant]

The discussion about pain and the ethics of inflicting it is very interesting not so much for what has been included but what has been omitted. Most people would agree that it is ethical to inflict pain on someone in order to prevent them inflicting greater pain on you, further down the line. Yet somehow the issue of the pain suffered by a woman in childbirth has not been raised. Until now. Hmmm...
Hmmmm?

At issue is whether or not a fetus feels pain when it is aborted and the effects this knowlege would have on the person planning on having an abortion. And the number of pregnant females waiting until the 22 week end of gestation to plan to have an abortion is? We only find incidences of potential scenarios requiring an abortion at such late gestational stage for health reasons. And extremely rarely. And I already explained that the majority of third trimester fetuses can now benefit of out utero life prolonging measures and support to include growth stimulating treatments.

Again, we cannot consider such late term scenario as being elective. Such scenario can only occur as :
- the health of the mother is compromised by the pregnancy itself and there is a medical requirement for her to preserve her life to interrupt the pregnancy which means in no way an abortion any longer. And that because we have extended into the early 3d trimester the survival rate of premies.

"in favor of" strikes me as an ignorant assertion considering which difficult conditions such pregnant female would face. By the way, I cannot think of other medical reasons as to why such late term pregnancy would have to be interrupted. I can only think of cervical/uterine cancers which necessitate combined surgical/ radiation/ chemo treatments to offer the best chance at remission and preventing metastatic effects.

- such scenario is not to be compared with the majority of elective abortions which have absolutely no relation to medical reasons such as a pregnant female necessitating the excision of her cervix/uterus following the discovery of a malignant tumor. Obviously in such rare case to where cervical cancer can easily metastasize thus immediate treatment is vital , the fetus has to be removed. If viable out utero, the fetus does not have to be aborted. Period.



]

[Hooboy !!]

Again, we cannot consider such late term scenario as being elective.
You keep saying this, but in 13 states the law does not. It is irrelevant how rare the situations are. Infancide is also rare, but we have laws against it.

[Sabine Grant]

The controversy revolves around PRENATAL stages not post natal. However, we know that the activation of neurotransmitters is very much dependent on chemical synapses. Which does not occur until about the 22 week of gestation. I will assume that your poll question then addresses the experiencing of pain from that gestational stage on.
My personal experiences on the effects of trauma on very young children got me thinking about the pre-natal issue, but as has been pointed out... the pre-/post-natal issue is a little clouded considering, like you have pointed out, that a 22 week old fetus is viable. Correction, what I stated is that prior to 22 weeks, chemical synapses are not active. Meaning that such fetus expereriencing of pain is extremely doubtful.


It appears that it is a matter of choice in 14 states...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#United_States_2 And such are certainly not for any other reasons but medical reasons. I explained which type of medical scenario would have to occur for the removal of the fetus to be advised. You need to know that pregnant females do not wait until 22 weeks of gestation to decide whether they want to pursue their pregnancy. Such late term abortions are not regarded as elective as first trimester or early second trimester abortions.

I assumed wrongly that anyone would understand the difference between a pregnant female into her 22 week of gestation facing a medical diagnosis requiring the removal of the fetus to guarantee life preserving measures affecting her and a pregnant female "planning to have an abortion" (to use you earlier terms) from a purely elective point of view.

By Sabine:Further, there would be a window of only 2 weeks during which such scenario would be "realistic". Due to advanced NICU technologies, a 24 week old fetus has now a chance of survival.


I am pretty sure there is at least once case of a 23 week old and I thought I recall a 21 week old surviving. How does one case constitute an argument against what I stated? The general consensus is that 26 weeks is a fairly good chance of survival as the pulmonary system has developed. Which is not the case prior to that. Meaning that such premie has to also face various pulmonary growth stimulative treatments and will remain vulnerable to respiratory problems later in life. 24 weeks is already "pushing it" as it is now. But with the constant improvements in Neo Natal Intensive Care technology, we are hoping to increase survival chances of younger premies.

For the sake of this discussion though, the two important milestones are at 22 weeks and 24 weeks, which are the points in developemnt where the brain is able to actually process the "feelings" of pain and universal bans on abortions respectively. Late term abortions have been banned because of the procedure itself. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court (Roe/Wade) ventured in drawing any conclusions as to when and how fetal pain and sentience may be experienced.

The point is... it is a choice, in 13 (not sure why not 14, I didn't read it all) states to abort when the fetus is capable of feeling pain. And I would bet a steak dinner than 22 weeks is an arbitrary milestone and can vary significantly. At 22 weeks, only one procedure would guarantee that the fetus is dead prior to emerging from the birth canal : a procedure which is now banned. At 22 weeks dilation and evacuation would result in a live birth unless the fetus is injected with a lethal solution in utero. No possibility of delivery by C Section. High probability the fetus would be delivered still alive.

[Sabine Grant]

Again, we cannot consider such late term scenario as being elective.
You keep saying this, but in 13 states the law does not. It is irrelevant how rare the situations are. Infancide is also rare, but we have laws against it. No differently than cosmetic surgery is considered elective and removal of a malignant tumor is not. Removal of a fetus (which again does not have to be abortive in the 3d trimester) at such late term is not a matter of electing to be pregnant or not. It is a matter of serious health conditions where the only possible remedy is to remove the fetus. Meaning that pregnant females who face that dilemma are not making a choice based on convenience or "I would rather...". They face an urgent medical issue which if not decided upon may jeopardize their longevity.

[Hooboy !!]

And such are certainly not for any other reasons but medical reasons.
I do not see anything in there that suggests that a woman has to be in danger to choose an late term abortion (for those 13 states). All the law requires is that a second physician rule on the viability of the fetus.

You need to know that pregnant females do not wait until 22 weeks of gestation to decide whether they want to pursue their pregnancy.
This is a generalisation.

I assumed wrongly that anyone would understand the difference between a pregnant female into her 22 week of gestation facing a medical diagnosis requiring the removal of the fetus to guarantee life preserving measures affecting her and a pregnant female "planning to have an abortion" (to use you earlier terms) from a purely elective point of view.
I understand fine.

At 22 weeks, only one procedure would guarantee that the fetus is dead prior to emerging from the birth canal : a procedure which is now banned.
Which I suspect is designed to effectively ban late term abortions when there is also the requirement that the fetus be given a chance to survive.

[Sabine Grant]

And such are certainly not for any other reasons but medical reasons.

I do not see anything in there that suggests that a woman has to be in danger to choose an late term abortion (for those 13 states). All the law requires is that a second physician rule on the viability of the fetus. Thus if the fetus passes the required viability testings (after 20 weeks)' she has to have a compelling medical reason to pursue a voluntary termination of her pregnancy. The viability testing requirements are not only Constitutional but also place such cases back under the initial status of limitation communicated in Roe/Wade.


This is a generalisation. Evidence that it is please? I suggest you submit statistics of terminations in the third trimester versus first and early second. Oh and my alleged generalization is based on several years of working in a CPC and being a trained PAS counselor with ample observation and studies of at which gestational stages the great majority of abortions are performed. I can already tell you that third trimester abortions represent only 1.8 % of all abortions (and that includes after 20 weeks.. meaning late second trimester). Now, please provide evidence that 1.8 % represent females who do not meet medical issues as a reason to terminate their pregnancy. Meaning that you will need to provide figures reflecting that 1.8% as a "choice" made for non medical reasons.




I understand fine.Good. Then this may become a productive exchange.

]At 22 weeks, only one procedure would guarantee that the fetus is dead prior to emerging from the birth canal : a procedure which is now banned.


Which I suspect is designed to effectively ban late term abortions when there is also the requirement that the fetus be given a chance to survive. Suspicions set aside (though I agree with you), I had to mention it to show that neither sentience nor pain were used as conclusive arguments in the Final Decision of 1973 in Roe/Wade or by Congress in voting for the PBA ban. Though we are all educated enough to grasp the reality that human "viability" implies sentience as defined in both medical and legal terms. That is why the viability factor comes in play as "cortical and stem activity" in the Brain Death Determination Act which sanctions under specific conditions the withdrawal of life prolonging devices.

[Hooboy !!]

Evidence that it is please?
Your statement implies knowing motive. Your anecdotal experiences are not a compelling argument. The law does not require that the mother's life be in danger. Generally speaking, and in your experiences, mothers do not choose to abort a pregnancy so late. So what? It is irrelevant to my point that it is a choice for those 13 states, regardless of the mother's health. All the law does is protect those babies if they are viable, which may effectively prohibit the abortion. I do not know. Certainly not in all cases. It is a statistical inevitability that some will not be viable.

Your point then that the number of late term abortions that are performed as a choice and not to protect the mother is statistically an improbability of it ever happening does not refute my point that it is a choice and that it is possible.

Regardless... what if you are wrong? What if the baby feels pain sooner than 22 weeks? There is still a lot of controversy on that subject.

[Jo]

I voted "other". I would not abort a foetus of my own for any reason. Because the OP asked "would YOU.. " then I wouldn't, however what choices other women wish to make with their bodies, for whatever reason (including if the foetus feels pain), is theirs. I selected other to show the distinction of my choice vs. anyone elses.

[Jo]

Regardless... what if you are wrong? What if the baby feels pain sooner than 22 weeks? There is still a lot of controversy on that subject.

Reading that statement for me is like asking a man who was shot to death, what it was like to be killed.

[Hooboy !!]

I would not abort a foetus of my own for any reason.
I personally do not like such absolute statements, though I admire your point of view. My point of view is from a very primitive perspective. Human beings evolved to reproduce and doing so satisfies some very significant evolutionary imperatives. I think going through the process of reproduction changes a person in very positive ways. So, it is not about the value of human life, or seeking to avoid causing pain, or anything like that, why I am opposed to abortion. I simply think that if people like to have sex with the opposite sex, then they should have babies. Its good for them.

So... I can imagine some situations where I would think an abortion would make a lot of sense. My tendency though would be to let nature takes its course no matter how irritating, annoying, inconvenient, risky, etc etc etc, it may be. The course we find ourselves on was set a long time ago, by forces that transcend generations. The universe is a complex thing and thinking we have some control over it is a Grand Illusion.

[javarush]

...
This is the real debate. What constitutes "consciousness"?

I really hate this rationalization myself, which is why I ask the question... Is it OK to beat a dog to death with a bat? A dog is not conscious, not in human terms, then how can it feel pain then?

In mainstream medicine, the concept of "consciousness" is framed by its opposite, unconsciousness. It's a point of function and not a point of philosphy or intelligence (in whatever sense that may be defined). Briefly, degrees of unconsciousness are tied to tests of unresponsiveness to various stimuli and to the integrity of certain brain and neurologic structures which are known to be active in an awake and aware person.

As for the dog example, in the mainstream, pain stands on having both intact sensation pathways and emotion. The latter is admittedly hard to define but IMHO, it's this: It's the ability to abstract a sensation as (1) recall the sensation in the absence of the original or repeated stimulus and (2) apply that to a new situation. A dog can apply tail wagging and submissive postures to get a person to change his behaviour and give a treat or play or go for a walk. That's social interaction based on evoked gestures; the interaction is attributable to emotional states and responses. This is a more complicated behaviour than withdrawal reflexes mediated by spinal arcs. Thus, dogs can register pain.

As for a fetus, we infer that emotions are possible when the brain structures associated with emotional processing are formed.

[Doddy]

How do you use this to distinguish between a fetus and a newborn, though? Can a one week old child comprehend its own life and if not, is it OK to kill it provided that you do so painlessly? Terminating a one month old child that was born two months premature is murder, but terminating a fetus that's eight months along is an abortion, yet I fail to see the difference between the two organisms.
Who said I make such as distinction? Why would you assume I think infanticide is wrong? I didn't, and I don't.

The experience of pain results from reception and interpretation of stimuli. Some PVS patients will experience pain YET have no self awareness or ability to "perceive oneself". In either case, in order for neurotransmitters to interact and trigger interpretation, chemical synapses are necessary. In that sense, "painience", is very much dependent on the entire development of the Central Nervous System and its completed bio chemistry.
Yes, I agree. I was not addressing the question of whether a foetus can feel pain, but what to do about abortion if we assume that they can.

Sorry, but your reasoning does not make any sense to me. Considering that it is only in early childhood and several years after birth that we develop the capacity to comprehend various concepts such as death or life. And what they mean to each of us.
And? So the ability to comprehend one's own existence only arises much after birth, then death only becomes wrong much after birth. Sure, different stages of maturity may cause us to place different levels of value on our own life, but the important factor to me is the ability to place any value at all on it. I don't see any contradiction in my logic.

Pain prevention is used when and if the subject can experience pain. That experience, once more, is dependent on the development and function of the CNS. Following such evaluation, it matters not whether the subject is self aware of his/her own existence. In any case, pain prevention is quite efficient in modern medicine and I am not aware of licensed physicians and other medical professionals not taking precautions to avoid causing pain on any patient who was evaluated to have the capacity to experience pain.
Yes, I agree.

You would have to extend that moral evaluation and conclusion into early childhood. And to any person who suffers of severe mental disability.
Yes, and I do.

Says who? It seems to me that a more relevant question is whether women are full persons with the same right to bodily autonomy that men have without question. Even if you could prove that a fetus has enough subjectivity to be considered a person, that wouldn't mean it had the right to parasitize a woman's body against her will. I don't have the right to parasitize your body against your will, even if I would die otherwise. I don't even have the right to demand a pint of your blood. Or vice-versa for that matter. What makes you think personhood would give fetuses a right that no other person possesses?
Your extension of that argument into the realm of reproduction is faulty.

In a pregnancy, the foetus is already attached to the woman's uterine wall. So, it is not a question of whether the foetus has a right to do that, but rather whether the woman has a right to undo it. Thus, the wrongness of parisitising another person's body would only give the woman the right to prevent impregnation of blastocysts onto her uterus, not necessarily the right to remove them once implanted.

Therefore, a more sensible comparison would be a thought experiment where you wake up one morning with another person's head attached to your shoulder, right next to your own head. Just imagine, for the sake of argument, that both your brain and this other person's are fully functional (so much so that the person turns his head as much as possible and apologises to you). Do you then have the right to have that person (or their head) killed?

[credoconsolans]

I would not abort a foetus of my own for any reason.
I personally do not like such absolute statements, though I admire your point of view. My point of view is from a very primitive perspective. Human beings evolved to reproduce and doing so satisfies some very significant evolutionary imperatives. I think going through the process of reproduction changes a person in very positive ways. So, it is not about the value of human life, or seeking to avoid causing pain, or anything like that, why I am opposed to abortion. I simply think that if people like to have sex with the opposite sex, then they should have babies. Its good for them.


Sorry but this just popped out at me. Without medical intervention, you do realize women used to die by the cartloads during childbirth, that the child mortality rate was over 50% and pregnancy could and does carry its own health risks, some possibly fatal, others long term? You do know this, right?

What is so "good" about that?

[Hooboy !!]

Sorry but this just popped out at me. Without medical intervention, you do realize women used to die by the cartloads during childbirth, that the child mortality rate was over 50% and pregnancy could and does carry its own health risks, some possibly fatal, others long term? You do know this, right?

What is so "good" about that?
If we did not reproduce, we would become extinct. That is, in natural selection terms, a bad thing from the perspective of a given species.

[credoconsolans]

Sorry but this just popped out at me. Without medical intervention, you do realize women used to die by the cartloads during childbirth, that the child mortality rate was over 50% and pregnancy could and does carry its own health risks, some possibly fatal, others long term? You do know this, right?

What is so "good" about that?
If we did not reproduce, we would become extinct. That is, in natural selection terms, a bad thing from the perspective of a given species.

True, but not all of us have to reproduce for humans to be successful.

[laughing dog]

So... I can imagine some situations where I would think an abortion would make a lot of sense. My tendency though would be to let nature takes its course no matter how irritating, annoying, inconvenient, risky, etc etc etc, it may be. The course we find ourselves on was set a long time ago, by forces that transcend generations. If that is so, how do you know that abortion is part of the course that was set a long time ago?

The universe is a complex thing and thinking we have some control over it is a Grand Illusion. Having an abortion is a long way from controlling the universe.

[Hooboy !!]

If we did not reproduce, we would become extinct. That is, in natural selection terms, a bad thing from the perspective of a given species.

True, but not all of us have to reproduce for humans to be successful.
True.

[Sabine Grant]

Evidence that it is please?
Your statement implies knowing motive. Your anecdotal experiences are not a compelling argument. The law does not require that the mother's life be in danger. It does if the fetus passes viability testing YET cannot be delivered by C section or by inducing labor. Which is extremely rare. In most medical situations at such late term with a positive prognosis of viability of the fetus, all measures are taken to save both the fetus and the mother.



Generally speaking, and in your experiences, mothers do not choose to abort a pregnancy so late. So what? It is irrelevant to my point that it is a choice for those 13 states, regardless of the mother's health. All the law does is protect those babies if they are viable, which may effectively prohibit the abortion. Which eliminates your question about pain. What's the purpose of debating the ethics of aborting a fetus who can experience pain when fetuses who can experience pain are also the ones who will pass the viability testings? I already mentioned that there would be only about a two weeks window between 22 weeks and 24 weeks . 24 weeks being the current lowest probability survival rate in premies. I have also mentioned that such late term abortions are extremely rare. In order to speak of ethical issues revolving around fetal pain, you have to take in account neuro genesis in utero.

Reality check : such late term abortions represent less than 2 % of abortions in the US. They are done ONLY as there is no other alternative for the removal of the fetus to be done but by a D&E. I repeat, no viable fetuses are terminated by an abortive procedure. The majority of viable fetuses also experience pain. The majority of non viable fetuses do not. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses (fetus meaning at the end of the 8th week of embryonic development) CANNOT experience pain until late 2nd trimester/early third.



I do not know. Certainly not in all cases. It is a statistical inevitability that some will not be viable. And again I have been quite clear as to what is necessary for viability out utero. Meaning that a less than 24 weeks fetus has a very low chance of survival. Those requirements for viability testings address 20 weeks old fetuses and above.

Meaning this :

1) if the fetus passes the viability testing, it means that it can be delivered and not terminated. Termination occurs only as the fetus is not viable out utero. Those viability testings are meant to evaluate the prognosis of viability of the fetus if delivered.

2) any evaluated viable fetus out utero has already developed the necessary neuro cognitive capacities to experience pain. Because of the requirements by law of the viability testings, NO viable out utero fetus will be terminated.

In the case of a critical medical condition where the removal of the fetus is the only option to save the mother's life, the viability requirement laws are irrelevant. All necessary measures are taken to remove the fetus by C section and stimulate vital signs. There is no female in the US who is mandated to die to save the fetus' life.

Your point then that the number of late term abortions that are performed as a choice and not to protect the mother is statistically an improbability of it ever happening does not refute my point that it is a choice and that it is possible. What I am refuting here is the notion that there should be any ethical issues concerning the experiencing of pain in fetuses (what you refer to as "babies") in the second trimester. Only as we near the 22 weeks mark, could your concern be valid as an ethical question about pain.

Regardless... what if you are wrong? What if the baby feels pain sooner than 22 weeks? There is still a lot of controversy on that subject. It is not "I" who would be wrong. These fine minds would :

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947

[Karalora]

In a pregnancy, the foetus is already attached to the woman's uterine wall. So, it is not a question of whether the foetus has a right to do that, but rather whether the woman has a right to undo it. Thus, the wrongness of parisitising another person's body would only give the woman the right to prevent impregnation of blastocysts onto her uterus, not necessarily the right to remove them once implanted.

The type of parasitization that goes on during pregnancy is a continuous process, not a single event. If it is wrong to start it against someone's will, it is also wrong to continue it against their will.

Therefore, a more sensible comparison would be a thought experiment where you wake up one morning with another person's head attached to your shoulder, right next to your own head. Just imagine, for the sake of argument, that both your brain and this other person's are fully functional (so much so that the person turns his head as much as possible and apologises to you). Do you then have the right to have that person (or their head) killed?

Yes. It's too bad for the other person('s head), but that's how it shakes down. Don't forget that pregnancy itself necessarily involves the risk of death (however small) for the woman.

[Holly3278]

Yes, but only to save the life of the mother. That said, I would not condemn other people for getting an abortion regardless of their reasoning.

[Hooboy !!]

And again I have been quite clear as to what is necessary for viability out utero.
This is in an otherwise healthy fetus.

I get your point. No sense beating the dead horse any more. As I think about it, it seems too that my question was almost hypothetical. So, a lot of dancing around for not a lot of reason.

You do not think it is an ethical dilemma, I am not entirely convinced. If it weren't, then an outright ban on late term abortions would be in place except in the case of the mother's life being in danger. As it stands, that may be what is effectively in place and I will admit that I am not entirely sure. Regardless, there is still the hypothetical to consider for discussion.

[Sabine Grant]

And again I have been quite clear as to what is necessary for viability out utero.
This is in an otherwise healthy fetus. I had to mention that the viability requirements concern prognosis of viability out utero. The reason why it was set at 20 weeks is because it introduces the beginning of potentials for viability out utero. Prior to that stage, Hooboy, any abortive method would result in the "delivery" of a dead fetus. After that stage, there is a potential for the fetus to be alive once delivered.

I get your point. No sense beating the dead horse any more. As I think about it, it seems too that my question was almost hypothetical. So, a lot of dancing around for not a lot of reason. It is difficult for me to ignore scientifically based data and envision that the termination of non viable embryos and fetuses ( I include zygotes and blastocysts in the embryo genesis) would be considered unethical based on the hypothesis that they can experience pain.

You do not think it is an ethical dilemma, I am not entirely convinced. An ethical dilemma based on the experiencing of pain has to rely on evidence that pain can be experienced. The same way an ethical dilemma based on the experiencing of sentience, cognition, self awareness, reception and interpretation of stimuli has to rely on evidence that they can be experienced. Your question is no different than if anyone asked : if you knew that your clinically dead next of kin can experience sentience, cognition, self awareness, etc... would you request withdrawal of his/her life support devices?


If it weren't, then an outright ban on late term abortions would be in place except in the case of the mother's life being in danger. As it stands, that may be what is effectively in place and I will admit that I am not entirely sure. Regardless, there is still the hypothetical to consider for discussion. Let me check the transcripts of Roe/Wade and I will get back to you later as to the specifics of time limitation for legal and elective abortions.