posted
WASHINGTON (AP) -- While they still can, House Republicans are looking at scheduling a vote next week on a fetal pain abortion bill in a parting shot at incoming majority Democrats and a last bid for loyalty from the GOP's base of social conservatives.
posted
Aside from the fact that the evidence isn't anything close to conclusive, I don't understand how this helps their cause:
quote:The bill, by Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, defines a 20-week-old fetus as a "pain-capable unborn child" -- a highly controversial threshold among scientists.
20 weeks is 5 months. How many women (medical conditions aside) are getting abortions 5 months into their pregnancies?
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Requiring abortion doctors to say that the fetus feels pain and offer anethesia will impress upon their patients that the fetus is, in fact, a child. This will undoubtedly cause some mothers to stop the abortion, and create feelings of guilt in those mothers who continue. The wording of the bill also describes the 20-week-old fetus as a child, which will help the pro-life movement define the law on their own terms during future debates.
Regardless of my own feelings on the pro-life/pro-choice debate, I don't like this. It's an underhanded political move, and the idea behind it is obviously to intimidate and shame people away from doing something (something legal) that the drafters can't gather the political clout to prohibit outright.
Posts: 236 | From: Iowa | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't like it either. But I'm just wondering who these women are deciding at 5 months that they changed their mind about whether or not to have a baby. Does this mean that women don't have to be notified of this before 20 weeks? 'Cause that is when most of them are having elective abortions.
So...sweet for us that this bill seems to be missing the Conservative aim, but I don't know what they think this will do to curb abortion.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I take forever to write replies -- I didn't even see your first reply before I submitted mine.)
I don't think it's necessarily missing the mark. The intent of the bill seems to be like that of the which requires the Surgeon General's Warning on cigarette packs -- it is meant to discourage abortions, because they can't get the support to outlaw them completely.
The important part is the language it forces people to use. It's easier to "abort a fetus" than it is to "painfully kill an unborn child".
I don't have any knowledge of abortion statistics, but that's a good point -- five months seems like a lot of time to discover a pregnancy, schedule an abortion, and get it done. Of course, I'm of the opinion that the timing of an abortion is (morally) irrelevant until you cross that mythical threshold from inert fetus to sapient child. So the five month thing doesn't bother me that much.
Posts: 236 | From: Iowa | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are already places in which an abortion will not be performed at 20 weeks into a pregnancy.
Some places, it's 24 weeks.
So, they want to put forth useless legislation, defining "when a fetus feels pain".
There aren't many reasons a person would abort after 20 weeks. Most of those reasons would fall under the unfortunately labelled category of "therapeutic abortions" (and I say unfortunate not because I have an inherent anti-abortion stance, but because making that decision based on testing is often heartbreaking).
So, is this meant to be an end run around partial-birth abortion again? Is this meant to be a back-door effort to outlaw abortion?
Nope. It's meant to be a sneaky way to make sure that women know that while they have the legal RIGHT, they're painfully killing the pre-born. Gee, how nice is that!
I'm being hugely annoyed at this point. I hate bullshit legislation to begin with, and this falls under that category, IMHO.
-------------------- Beware corporate zombies! They will purchase your brain on E-Bay! Posts: 2310 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from the attempt to legislate by deceptive language what they can't straightforwardly, this is a disturbingly anti-science bill. It basicly says "We are going to take a vote on "truth" which will be whatever we say it is, regardless of actual scientific evidence." Its like if some racist group couldn't stop interracial marriage so instead they made it the law that couples had to be told "mixed race children have lots more birth defects" and sign a statement of whether they would protect their future children through surrogacy.
Gah, now I'm all cranky....
In other news, this guy : "Next year, the leadership of the House will be hardcore pro-abortion loyalists," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "They will block votes on even modest pro-life measures like this one." just won the gand prize in "framing the debate buzzword bingo". Posts: 96 | From: Attleboro, MA | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's quite ironic that his second name is Johnson, if you get what I mean...
-------------------- "The United States Government: significantly less cruel and sadistic than the Taliban." - Dara Posts: 1289 | From: Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. It's meant to be a sneaky way to make sure that women know that while they have the legal RIGHT, they're painfully killing the pre-born. Gee, how nice is that!
What I am confused about is this: Would they have to inform women of this before ANY abortion? or just ones performed after 20 weeks? (I am against it either way, but just wondering)
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it very interesting that they want fund experimentation to see if fetuses feel pain. This would, of course require some sort of deliberate infliction of pain upon a fetus. Which sounds pretty darned invasive to me. And could cause the pregnancy to terminate.
By their definition, a fetus is a person and should be granted that status legally. And we don't perform experimentation on humans without their consent. How are these experiments going to be performed while being consistent with the pro-life position?
Or are they only prolife when dictating what the woman carrying the fetus must do?
I also have a feeling that at 20 weeks and beyond, it is the sort of surgery where the woman herself is anesthesized. After 12, it usually requires hospitalization. Which would mean that the fetus is anethestisized as well.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: By their definition, a fetus is a person and should be granted that status legally. And we don't perform experimentation on humans without their consent. How are these experiments going to be performed while being consistent with the pro-life position?
I (heart) you and your logic
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: I find it very interesting that they want fund experimentation to see if fetuses feel pain.
Is this seperate knowledge from a different article than the one in the OP? Becuase it seems to me that the article says the bill is simply declaring this without additional testing despite other studies' evidence.
Regarding why this is being done on a time period where most abortions have already been done: This is the bill that let's the elephant's (intended) trunk inside the house. If this were somehow to pass, they could later move the time period up to 12 weeks or 4 weeks or whatever. Also, by putting the time period at such a place, they hope to make it seem like they are being moderate and center of the road and only the evil Democrates who want to require the killing of all tiny helpless babies are the reason the bill didn't pass.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought studies have already shown that since fetuses never reach full consciousness until after birth, whatever "pain" might occur from nerves being severed never really gets processed. This was from an article in New Scientist about this a year ago: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18725154.200-why-fetuses-do-not-feel-pain.html and I'll repost the important part since you need to be a subscriber to view: "the New Zealand research, published by David Mellor of Massey University in Palmerston North and colleagues in Brain Research Reviews (DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.01.006), says that babies are sedated and unconscious throughout pregnancy, as both the fetal brain and placenta produce potent sleep-inducing hormones, including the neurosteroidal anaesthetic pregnanolone.
That view is backed by Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, a co-author of a report into fetal awareness by the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1997. "It is unlikely that the fetus is ever awake or aware at any point during gestation, due to the high levels of endogenous neuroinhibitors," she says.
More recently, Mellor and his colleagues have reviewed experiments which challenge the assumption that towards the end of pregnancy, babies spend around 5 per cent of the time fully awake. "We've explored this at some depth and come to the conclusion that those periods of wakefulness are actually sleep transitions from one state to another," says Mellor.
His conclusions are also supported by David Walker of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, who has performed experiments on sheep fetuses. These usually produce very similar physiological results to those seen in humans. Chemically blocking the production of some of the sleep-inducing hormones actually triggers a burst of electrical activity in the brain and muscles of a sheep fetus, says Walker. Other experiments show that the higher areas of a sheep's brain receive no sensory information until after birth.
That supports the notion that hormones actively suppress mental activity in the fetus. "The purpose is for the baby not to be able to perceive a lot of physical sensation, because otherwise it would be reacting to things it can't do anything about."
That also means doctors are wrong to assume that because a premature baby can feel pain, a fetus of the same age can too. If anything, it would not benefit a fetus to do so, as it cannot alleviate its discomfort or move to escape what is causing the pain."
Posts: 439 | From: Redondo Beach, CA | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow! Thanks magpie. That was interesting. But it would make sense.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Abortion providers would be required to inform the mothers that evidence exists that the procedure would cause pain to the child and offer the mothers anesthesia for the baby. The mothers would accept or reject the anesthesia by signing a form.
I think they should inform women in labor that evidence exists that the birthing process would cause pain to the baby
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And why should we just be concerned with human beings? Isn't that an arbitrary line that we've made--specism? If we are going to extend rights to a fetus because it can feel pain then surely we ought to ban farming animals because we cause a signifigant amount of suffering to those animals.
The argument that a fetus is a potential person is a whole lot stronger than the argument that they feel pain, IMO.
-------------------- Obi Wan: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes!" Anakin: "Um, isn't your last statement an absolute?" Posts: 166 | From: San Antonio, Texas | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mad Jay: I think they should inform women in labor that evidence exists that the birthing process would cause pain to the baby
That's brilliant.
I've been debating abortion a lot lately on facebook (some excellent arguments from Chloe and a few other posters here have officially convinced me to leave the dark side; I'm pro-choice now ). Several people have argued that women should be required to view photos of aborted fetuses before they're allowed to have an abortion. I keep asking them if they also think women should be required to watch videos of c-sections before they're allowed to have one of those... but so far I haven't gotten a good answer.
posted
To counter Magpie's wonderful post, I am sure that with very little effort, I could visit the local hospital and come up with a load of evidence that newborns do not feel pain and are not either conscious or sentient as well. Expanding the criteria just a bit, I could also include 'non-viable fetii' up to and including somewhere around 20 years of age... and some even higher.
I think this law COULD be a good thing... in about 300 years - after we can come up with a good idea of what the reality of the entire situation is, and when we can properly define when a fetus really DOES feel pain.
Bad idea for now.
-------------------- Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices...
Babies are like tattoos. You see other peoples' & they're cool, but yours is never as good & you can't get rid of it. Posts: 5622 | From: Jax, Florida | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Malruhn: To counter Magpie's wonderful post, I am sure that with very little effort, I could visit the local hospital and come up with a load of evidence that newborns do not feel pain and are not either conscious or sentient as well.
I'm sure you could. I'm also quite sure that evidence would be crap. But, hey. Evidence is, after all, evidence.
If we pass this, I say we take Mad Jay's idea and inform all women considering bearing a child that it might experience pain during labor and afterward (we can also show them photos of kids tortured to death and child rape victims and all sorts of horrible things) and see what they choose.
Being informed is, after all, being informed.
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dreams of thinking machines:
The argument that a fetus is a potential person is a whole lot stronger than the argument that they feel pain, IMO.
I think you hit on a point here. The pain that the fetus may/may not feel is not an argument at all. Pro-lifers oppose abortion because they beleive that the fetus is a human life. That's the argument. If that belief is true, then it should be illegal to kill the fetus, irrespective of whether it can feel pain or not. The pain experienced by the fetus is a red herring no matter where you stand on the issue
This is merely an emotional ploy to make women think twice about the abortion. Since, they cannot stop women from aborting, Plan B is to put as many emotional hurdles along the way to make the decision as difficult as possible. That includes a)telling the woman that the baby will feel pain b) showing ultrasounds of the fetus c) making the woman hear the heartbeat, and anything else they can come up with.
I think emotional ploys like these are underhanded and sneaky, and shame on pro-lifers for manipulating a woman's emotions to take control over her body
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Abortion providers would be required to inform the mothers that evidence exists that the procedure would cause pain to the child and offer the mothers anesthesia for the baby. The mothers would accept or reject the anesthesia by signing a form.
I think they should inform women in labor that evidence exists that the birthing process would cause pain to the baby
I would love to see the response to that!
"You want pain! I'll give you pain. And where's my NFBSKing epidural".
Besides I thought magpie's source said that consciousness did not occur until after birth...
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mad Jay: The pain that the fetus may/may not feel is not an argument at all. Pro-lifers oppose abortion because they beleive that the fetus is a human life. That's the argument. If that belief is true, then it should be illegal to kill the fetus, irrespective of whether it can feel pain or not. The pain experienced by the fetus is a red herring no matter where you stand on the issue
I would agree. It is interesting to see these folks borrow a page from PETA's arguments.
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if hormones are keeping the fetus in a sleeplike state prior to birth, does it dream?
And if a fetus did dream, what would it dream about?
Just pondering, not seriously expecting answers.
Nonny
-------------------- When there isn't anything else worth analyzing, we examine our collective navel. I found thirty-six cents in change in mine the other day. Let no one say that there is no profit in philosophy. -- Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 10141 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I would doubt a fetus' dreams would be anything we could comprehend. A fetus has not used its eyes to see and what it hears is limited and muffled. Its experiences are so foreign to our own that I think it wouldn't be possible to describe. It would be like telling a blind person about blue.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, maybe if you beleive the whole re-incarnation thing, then it's dreaming about it's previous life.
Seriously, I heard somewhere that dreams are merely our brain trying to make sense of the random signals firing in the brain; the equivalent of making pictures out of the snow on TV. Maybe the baby sees dreams in their raw form, without nasty logic intervening and trying to make sense out of it. Just guessing here.
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would agree. It is interesting to see these folks borrow a page from PETA's arguments.
Hmmm.. You have a point here.. And perhaps this is a good thing.. Its a sign that their logic and argumenets are going down the drain, getting sillier and sillier and more hinged in emotion and less in logic that eventually they will have no support at all.
To be clear, I have no problem with people who are personally pro-life, as in against having an abortion ever for any reason (or whatever personal cutoffs they have).. However I have zero respect for those who are politically pro-life, partially becuase they are almost always hypocritical and use emotioanlly based arguments (take the OP for example..) and secondly because they generally base it on religiously based logic (I have yet to see any "good" science that suggests "life" begins at conception) which is essentially trying to force their own personal beliefs on everybody else in the country.
-------------------- "All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do" Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mickey Blue: I have yet to see any "good" science that suggests "life" begins at conception.
And you never will. You will also never find any evidence that life begins at birth. The problem is the definition of "life". That is an almost impossible thing to define "scientifically".
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mickey Blue: I have yet to see any "good" science that suggests "life" begins at conception.
And you never will. You will also never find any evidence that life begins at birth. The problem is the definition of "life". That is an almost impossible thing to define "scientifically".
Which is exactly the problem with this debate, its based pretty much enteirly on belief, at least the "no abortion" side anyways.. Generally the "pro-choice" side is a bit more science friendly and is willing to draw a line somewhere based on research suggesting viability and other factors.. For example you wont find too many pro-choicers who think it should be A-OK to abort a baby five minutes before birth (barring some sort of health emergency of course, but even pro-lifes are willing to make that concession usually).
Basically if you (general you) *believe* that life starts at conception thats fine, but since virtually all good science points otherwise it seems sily to try to make medical laws/rules based on those beliefs.. Itw ould be like the Jehovas Witnesses* trying to make it illegal to get blood transfusions because they believe they are wrong.
*If this is the wrong group I apologize, I know one is agianst getting blood.
ETA: For these debates, the definition of life is generally "able to sustain life on its own", prior to that it is more akin to a parasite (all be it one many people want) then a "life"..
-------------------- "All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do" Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, if fetuses don't feel pain before 20 weeks, and most abortions are performed before 20 weeks, than wouldn't that mean that the fetus can't feel pain in most abortions? Which may well make some women feel less guilty about abortions (ok, probably not, but theorectically possible). Am I reading this right? The article doesn't go too deeply into the science; I apologize if I'm on the wrong track.
-------------------- "My sandwich choice is uncertain, until I actually order. It's like Schrodinger's Sandwich." "Is plutonium involved in this sandwich in any way?" "Maybe." Posts: 496 | From: Whitby, ON, Canada | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by MapleLeaf: 20 weeks is 5 months. How many women (medical conditions aside) are getting abortions 5 months into their pregnancies?
Not many, but it would include that handful of women who either didn't miss a menstrual period early in the pregnancy or those women who don't get a regular period and may not have realized they were pregnant until they felt the baby move and went to the doctor wondering what was wrong.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My first question. What is the definition of pain?
I was once reading a artical on a study that resoned that if it is alive it feel pain. This went right down to the smallest living part of the organism. Pain was being defined as a responce to a negitive stimuli. It was a required part of life if it was to survive. This did not in any way suggest that the organism felt pain like we do or even had knolage of it. It just responed to.
Posts: 597 | From: Bellingham, WA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mickey Blue: For these debates, the definition of life is generally "able to sustain life on its own", prior to that it is more akin to a parasite (all be it one many people want) then a "life"..
That is not a "scientific" definition by any means.
What I see the "pro-choice" side do is draw an arbitrary line in the sand, and then use "science" to "prove" that line makes sense. Viability is a good example. I will read things like, "Well life begins at viability, and study XXX shows viability is around 24 weeks, so scientifically, life begins at 24 weeks...". No, viability begins at 24 weeks, you did not prove that life begins at 24 weeks.
Now I fully understand where the "pro-choice" side is coming from. Abortion "solves" a bunch of problems, from simple birth control to not prolonging the horror of rape & incest. If it were "just a growth", I would be all for abortions. Believe me, there is a finite chance I may have to deal with the consequences of an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy.
That "other life" issue is where it gets sticky.
I feel that almost always, legislating morality is wrong. What consenting adults do on their own time is none of anyone else's business. Where that changes is when another life is involved. Parents can raise their kids just about any way they want. The state should not step in. The exceptions come from cases of child abuse. You have a right to raise your child as a racist, but you can't go around beating the crap out of them to get your racist. I feel the same way about drugs. If you want to sit around your living room stoned and watching Three's Company, that should not be against the law. If you start driving and endanger others, THEN the state should step in. If you want wild monkey sex*, then go right ahead. Use artificial birth control. However, once you have created another life...
*I'm not really sure what that means, but I've heard the term...
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so it's cruel to hook a fish, but okay to inflict pain on a human fetus which is more biologically developed than the fish. Do I have that straight?
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mickey Blue: For these debates, the definition of life is generally "able to sustain life on its own", prior to that it is more akin to a parasite (all be it one many people want) then a "life"..
Which kind of shows that "able to sustain life on its own" definition to be a false one, scientificly speaking. As I can think of no reputable biologist who would consider lampreys, remoras, tapeworms, male anglerfish, and other parasitic life forms to be "not alive."
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
