Foetuses 'cannot experience pain'

[JAG]

Just thought I might post this new study, thought the moral majority needed to show their damnation again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4905892.stm

Foetuses 'cannot experience pain'
Pregnant woman
The debate about whether foetuses feel pain is long-running
Foetuses cannot feel pain because it requires mental development that only occurs outside the womb, says a report in the British Medical Journal.

Dr Stuart Derbyshire, of the University of Birmingham, said a baby's actions and relationships with carers enabled it to process the subjectivity of pain.

Pro-life groups say foetuses respond to stimuli from 20 weeks.

The US is considering legislation to make doctors tell women seeking an abortion it will cause the foetus pain.


We know for certain is that by the age of 20 weeks unborn children can respond to external aural stimuli such as music and conversation
Anna Pringle, Life
It is also being suggested that, if the pregnancy is over 22 weeks, foetuses should be given pain-relieving drugs.

Dr Derbyshire, who is linked to pro-choice groups, said there were various stages of a foetus' gestation at which certain parts of the body's pain "alarm system" developed.

He concludes that pathways in the brain needed to process pain responses and hormonal stress responses are in place by 26 weeks.

But he says the crucial factor is the environmental difference between the womb - where the placenta provides a chemical environment to encourage the foetus to sleep - and that of a newborn baby, who is exposed to a wide range of stimuli and environments.

'Unnecessary' procedures

"Pain is something that comes from our experiences and develops due to stimulation and human interaction.

"It involves concepts such as location, feelings of unpleasantness and having the sensation of pain.

"Pain becomes possible because of a psychological development that begins at birth when the baby is separated from the protected atmosphere of the womb and is stimulated into wakeful activity."

Dr Derbyshire said whether or not foetuses felt pain did not affect the abortion debate because it did not change the moral viewpoints of the pro-choice and pro-life lobby, or the legality of terminations.

But he said: "Avoiding a discussion of foetal pain with women requesting abortions is not misguided paternalism but a sound policy based on good evidence that foetuses cannot experience pain."

And he said giving foetuses painkilling drugs - which would have to be given through the placenta - involved procedures which may expose the woman to unnecessary risks and distress.

But Anna Pringle, a spokeswoman for the pro-life charity Life, said: "This complex debate has been ongoing for a long time.

"Of course, if the unborn child can feel pain - as has been suggested by other research - then it makes abortion all the more horrifying.

"What we know for certain is that by the age of 20 weeks unborn children can respond to external aural stimuli such as music and conversation, and the 4-D ultrasound techniques used by Professor Stuart Campbell have shown that a child also responds to physical stimuli."

But she agreed that the issue of whether foetuses felt pain was irrelevant to the abortion debate.

"A human person is a human person, and as such has the right to life, which is quite literally fundamental to all other rights."

[Crazed Rabbit]

His argument seems to be that since babies can not experience pain until they are outside the womb, like people ahve to learn the experience of pain before they can be hurt. What a load of rubbish. Pain is nervous signals to the brain, not a developed thought process.

And, as was said in the article, the whole thing is irrelevant. You can't harm someone becuase they can't feel pain.

Crazed Rabbi

[Xiahou]

What a load. By his definition, you could wait til the baby is born and then strangle it- no pain, no harm right?

Honestly, how many months old does a baby need to be to understand it's "location"?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Honestly, how many months old does a baby need to be to understand it's "location"?

Varies between 1.5 and 2.5 years, I think. The question isn't really about whether the fetus can feel pain, but whether we consider it morally correct to kill a fetus after conception. I'd say the main reason isn't that you're killing a fetus that can't feel anything, but that a couple that can't make up their mind on whether to have a baby or not before they go to bed aren't fit to have a child, and then should never allow a conception to take place in the first place, therefore the need for abortion would never occur. As for rape victims, it's important to make sure people who don't rape carry on their genes to another generation, therefore abortion for rape victims is a necessity.

Edit: when I say a person should have made up their mind before sex aren't grown-up enough to have a child, then it might look like an argument for abortion. But as long as there is abortion, they'll keep repeating this behavior because they know they can always stop the pregnancy. So it's an argument against abortion. The matter is complicated because if rape victims are the only to be allowed abortion, then women who want an abortion might accuse their partner of rape in order to get permission for abortion. Not an easy question at all IMO.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Pro-Abortionists can't experience pain either, because they lack the mental development needed to.

Don't insult fetii! And it doesn't matter if it can feel pain; shoot someone up with enough novacain they won't feel pain either, but that don't mean we can kill them.

[Navaros]

There is no such thing as a "foetus" or "fetus", only unborn babies.

They definitely can feel pain, no matter what any quack study says.

And murdering them will always be the epitome of evil, and proof that much of "society" are nothing more than evil barbarians rather than civilized human beings.

[Radier]

JAG, you do not feel pain either if I give you some pills and then kill you.
Just because very young babies do not feel pain you don't have the right to kill them. That's murder.

[Duke Malcolm]

I have to admit "Linked to pro-choice groups" suggests that this professor is somewhat biased on the matter. An independent study would be better -- this is comparable to those studies funded by tobacco companies into the effects of tobacco which come out saying cigarettes do no or very little harm...

[Vladimir]

It reminds me of another BBC story that claimed that the Black Death brought on the Medieval cooling period because of all the nasty tree cutting Europeans that it killed. Rubbish.

[Proletariat]

Sweet. I'm going to go torture a quadriplegic from the neck down.

[Reverend Joe]

Being anti-life myself, I really can't say I give a good goddamn whether the little bugger feels it or not. The fact is, it is fully inside the woman, and therefore it is her goddamn choice whether to kill it or not. Until it can survive independantly of the mother (i.e. when the umbilical cord is cut) it is her property, because it is part of her.

Also, look at it this way: if you had a person inside you, wnd you wanted them out, would you really care what they thought?

Edit: I should make it clear that this is all my deranged, fevered opinion. It is not an attempt to state fact.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just thought I might post this new study, thought the moral majority needed to show their damnation again.

I am not so sure about the merits of that study. But I do know you're still the king of working up the moral majority, JAG.

[Strike For The South]

Abortion. I dont understand it. Its a sign of the times. If dont want the kid (even though you made the damn decsion!) Have it and put it up for adoption. The child has done nothing to you.

[Strike For The South]

A child is a beuaifual thing. A sign of a time we are debateing this sort a thing. This sort of thing should be celebrated not put on a scale. If my mum thought like of some of yall I might not be here. DONT YALL LOVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111