• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

Northern Light said:
I don't get why pain is even a consideration of the morality.

Pain and suffering are two different things. Anyone who has spent significant time with a baby knows that they don't even understand what pain is at first, they just react to it, just like they react to bright lights or noises, or anything else they don't understand.

But since we're not dealing with full term fetuses, it's even more irrelevant. An embryo implanted on the wall of a uterus is no more aware of pain than a fingernail.

I think this is a lousy way to discuss abortion, regardless of which way you lean. Pro-lifers don't care if there's pain or not, the life is sacrosanct. Pro-choicers don't care because it has no bearing on whether or not abortion should be allowed.

Life is full of pain and suffering. Maybe we should promote abortion to spare people such trials. See what I did there?

In short, it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

It's a moot point because women have the Constitutional rights to equal protection under the law; the state cannot deny women life, liberty, or property without due process of law; women have all areas of right to privacy....and equally to men with regard to all of the aforementioned.

In other words, women can't be discriminated against for because they have a uterus.

Men have no moral or legal obligation to reproduce. And by equal standards - neither do women.

Eons of years of the medical institution's experience in repeatedly dissecting every stage of the yet to be born that is humanly possible - offers all the necessary evidence to conclude that 12 week and under fetuses don't have the brain or neural development to feel pain. And we know that well over 90 percent of abortions are performed at 12 weeks and under. And actually 60% of those are 10 weeks and under.

Yes, these yet to be born stages of human life...are actually homo sapiens, or aka human life. I know that stuns some pro-life advocates. Many are stunned because they want to add the word "Holy" to all of the yet to be born stages.
 
Lursa said:
It's not a vaild concern regarding abortion, period.

More than 90% of all abortions take place before the unborn feels pain or has awareness.

And in the uncommon late term abortions done out of medical necessity (mother or unborn), anesthesia is used.

It's a non-issue except for those that either ignorantly or dishonestly want to use it to prevent abortion.
Click to expand...

But it is an issue if we (who hate abortion) do want to prevent abortion, but I am curious. Why would we be ignorant, or dishonest when we say that it's wrong?

There is evidence that fetuses do live, and that abortion does kill. What do you think turning into non-existence is? It's death, and you all have been trying to hide that for a long time. So why is killing right?
 
Removable Mind said:
Wow...thanks for sharing DR. Truthatallcost! And your credentials somehow qualify to be a JAMA critic?
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous...as if the professor/Dr from Harvard would have accepted the research and put her name on it if it wasnt valid data. :roll:
 
RamFel said:
But it is an issue if we (who hate abortion) do want to prevent abortion, but I am curious. Why would we be ignorant, or dishonest when we say that it's wrong?

There is evidence that fetuses do live, and that abortion does kill. What do you think turning into non-existence is? It's death, and you all have been trying to hide that for a long time. So why is killing right?
Click to expand...

We are talking about the ability to feel pain. Not if something is alive.

Once again you prove you have zero capacity to discuss or absorb anything related to facts on this issue.
 
RamFel said:
But it is an issue if we (who hate abortion) do want to prevent abortion, but I am curious. Why would we be ignorant, or dishonest when we say that it's wrong?
...
Click to expand...

It would be ignorant or dishonest to use the "pain" tack in argument against abortion. You are arguing something off topic.
 
Removable Mind said:
One of the contributors in the article, which you so proudly pointed out as Eleanor Dray as having no credentials is your proof that the information in JAMA is biased, has no basis in facts, has no credibility? And good lord, she worked for an abortion rights group? :shock: So her being an activist on behalf of women's rights makes her credentials not worthy? Really? Even the Pope won't make that claim.
Click to expand...

Yet, they probably believe everything David Reardon, CMP etc. puts out.....
 
Manc Skipper said:
It would be ignorant or dishonest to use the "pain" tack in argument against abortion. You are arguing something off topic.
Click to expand...

It's not off topic, but very much on topic because the last time I checked, it was about abortion. I say open up. You have something that you're all hiding and it's something that I know you DO NOT want to talk about because people who come and read here will see it, and you all hope it all just go away but I am always here to remind everyone who reads these posts are important to maintain an air of honesty and concern for the women and you are still guilty as charged.

This discussion is leading others away from what really is important.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't get why pain is even a consideration of the morality.

Pain and suffering are two different things. Anyone who has spent significant time with a baby knows that they don't even understand what pain is at first, they just react to it, just like they react to bright lights or noises, or anything else they don't understand.

But since we're not dealing with full term fetuses, it's even more irrelevant. An embryo implanted on the wall of a uterus is no more aware of pain than a fingernail.

I think this is a lousy way to discuss abortion, regardless of which way you lean. Pro-lifers don't care if there's pain or not, the life is sacrosanct. Pro-choicers don't care because it has no bearing on whether or not abortion should be allowed.

Life is full of pain and suffering. Maybe we should promote abortion to spare people such trials. See what I did there?

In short, it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know about all that. I think losing your life is extremely important. Even if you are not aware of this, but it is still extremely important.
 
RamFel said:
It's not off topic, but very much on topic because the last time I checked, it was about abortion. I say open up. You have something that you're all hiding and it's something that I know you DO NOT want to talk about because people who come and read here will see it, and you all hope it all just go away but I am always here to remind everyone who reads these posts are important to maintain an air of honesty and concern for the women and you are still guilty as charged.

This discussion is leading others away from what really is important.
Click to expand...

The topic is the evidence that fetal pain is not possible until the third trimester of development. Anti-choicers often use imaginary fetal pain as part of their emotive arguments. The "wrongness" or otherwise, is a different topic, which is why you seek to divert from reality.
 
minnie616 said:
Well, I guess I look at fetal pain from a different prospective.
I miscarried a very malformed fetus at about 20 weeks gestation.
Since that happened I have read scores of peer reviewed studies on fetal pain.

It gives me relief and peace knowing that my little malformed one did not suffer pain because of its malformation or from its natural death within me at about 20 weeks gestation.
Click to expand...

And some of you thing that WE are the only ones who use emotion! Caught again.
 
Removable Mind said:
It's a moot point because women have the Constitutional rights to equal protection under the law; the state cannot deny women life, liberty, or property without due process of law; women have all areas of right to privacy....and equally to men with regard to all of the aforementioned.

In other words, women can't be discriminated against for because they have a uterus.

Men have no moral or legal obligation to reproduce. And by equal standards - neither do women.

Eons of years of the medical institution's experience in repeatedly dissecting every stage of the yet to be born that is humanly possible - offers all the necessary evidence to conclude that 12 week and under fetuses don't have the brain or neural development to feel pain. And we know that well over 90 percent of abortions are performed at 12 weeks and under. And actually 60% of those are 10 weeks and under.

Yes, these yet to be born stages of human life...are actually homo sapiens, or aka human life. I know that stuns some pro-life advocates. Many are stunned because they want to add the word "Holy" to all of the yet to be born stages.
Click to expand...

concerning abortion, women are not being denied a single thing! This is just a cover that you people use to keep abortion alive and operating.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The topic is the evidence that fetal pain is not possible until the third trimester of development. Anti-choicers often use imaginary fetal pain as part of their emotive arguments. The "wrongness" or otherwise, is a different topic, which is why you seek to divert from reality.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I don't care about the pain issue. Every aborted (killed) baby is denied life.

Like you care.
 
RamFel said:
Oh, I don't know about all that. I think losing your life is extremely important. Even if you are not aware of this, but it is still extremely important.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you can lose something that you don't own.

That goes for anything or anyone that's alive.
 
Removable Mind said:
It's a moot point because women have the Constitutional rights to equal protection under the law; the state cannot deny women life, liberty, or property without due process of law; women have all areas of right to privacy....and equally to men with regard to all of the aforementioned.

In other words, women can't be discriminated against for because they have a uterus.

Men have no moral or legal obligation to reproduce. And by equal standards - neither do women.

Eons of years of the medical institution's experience in repeatedly dissecting every stage of the yet to be born that is humanly possible - offers all the necessary evidence to conclude that 12 week and under fetuses don't have the brain or neural development to feel pain. And we know that well over 90 percent of abortions are performed at 12 weeks and under. And actually 60% of those are 10 weeks and under.

Yes, these yet to be born stages of human life...are actually homo sapiens, or aka human life. I know that stuns some pro-life advocates. Many are stunned because they want to add the word "Holy" to all of the yet to be born stages.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir.

However, what I'm asking is: why does a post-12 week fetus have a right to life when one beforehand doesn't? Why does pain and suffering matter? If we're dealing with a sentient life form that allegedly has a right to life, then that right (whether misguided or not) is irrelevant to pain response.

All a pain response would do is trigger our empathy, and empathy alone does not a law make.

The nature of this question is existential. I don't see why pain and suffering entitles anyone, born or not, to have a right to life. The sad fact is that life is all about suffering, whether you live through it or it kills you. We all suffer as part of the human condition. I don't see why fetal suffering means it gets special rights or veto power over a woman's bodily sovereignty.

If we were a society who universally valued the sanctity of life; if we were a society that didn't execute people, bomb people, shoot one another dead, torture each other, and all the myriad of human cruelties, I would find it morally consistent to perhaps furnish a fetus with right to life. But because we have an inconsistent treatment of life across the board - a treatment that is mostly based on natural, animal responses to the external world - I see no reason to give a fetus special status.

Not every instance of homicide is murder. Many instances of homicide are justifiable. A fetus, by default, does not have a right to life -- I'm sorry but they don't. Endless children don't have a right to be born and thrive because it would bankrupt this planet and cause our species to go extinct.

People like to come up with these perfected, black and white rules about morality and values, but the world is full of grey. Nature doesn't give two ****s about right to life. Fetuses will always die, so will babies, children, and adults.

These are uncomfortable truths, but we must face them. Denying abortion to save a person is no different than having a funeral to honor the dead. It's all about appeasing those who have the luxury of awareness. The objects being mourned over don't care one way or another.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Well, I guess I look at fetal pain from a different prospective.
I miscarried a very malformed fetus at about 20 weeks gestation.
Since that happened I have read scores of peer reviewed studies on fetal pain.

It gives me relief and peace knowing that my little malformed one did not suffer pain because of its malformation or from its natural death within me at about 20 weeks gestation.
Click to expand...

I understand. But what I'm saying is that pain and suffering as a means to leverage abortion bans is little more than moral equivocation. Humans suffer in much worse ways until they die, under legal conditions.

And on a spiritual level, we have no way of knowing what a being's suffering is really about. It's arrogant to say all fetuses should live when maybe that's not part of the divine plan -- and clearly it isn't, since not all live anyway. (I mention the divine plan because most pro-lifers are religious and think they're doing God's handy work.)
 
Northern Light said:
I don't believe you can lose something that you don't own.

That goes for anything or anyone that's alive.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right, partly, but babies do live in the womb, or outside the womb. Do you think a fetus is not alive ?
 
RamFel said:
Yes, that's right, partly, but babies do live in the womb, or outside the womb. Do you think a fetus is not alive ?
Click to expand...

Yes of course they are, but I don't think you understood what I just said. That's okay though.
 
Northern Light said:
You're preaching to the choir

However, what I'm asking is: why does a post-12 week fetus have a right to life when one beforehand doesn't? Why does pain and suffering matter? If we're dealing with a sentient life form that allegedly has a right to life, then that right (whether misguided or not) is irrelevant to pain response.

All a pain response would do is trigger our empathy, and empathy alone does not a law make

The nature of this question is existential. I don't see why pain and suffering entitles anyone, born or not, to have a right to life. The sad fact is that life is all about suffering, whether you live through it or it kills you. We all suffer as part of the human condition. I don't see why fetal suffering means it gets special rights or veto power over a woman's bodily sovereignty.

If we were a society who universally valued the sanctity of life; if we were a society that didn't execute people, bomb people, shoot one another dead, torture each other, and all the myriad of human cruelties, I would find it morally consistent to perhaps furnish a fetus with right to life. But because we have an inconsistent treatment of life across the board - a treatment that is mostly based on natural, animal responses to the external world - I see no reason to give a fetus special status.

Not every instance of homicide is murder. Many instances of homicide are justifiable. A fetus, by default, does not have a right to life -- I'm sorry but they don't. Endless children don't have a right to be born and thrive because it would bankrupt this planet and cause our species to go extinct.

People like to come up with these perfected, black and white rules about morality and values, but the world is full of grey. Nature doesn't give two ****s about right to life. Fetuses will always die, so will babies, children, and adults.

These are uncomfortable truths, but we must face them. Denying abortion to save a person is no different than having a funeral to honor the dead. It's all about appeasing those who have the luxury of awareness. The objects being mourned over don't care one way or another.
Click to expand...

Thanks, NL...

I should have thrown in a little disclaimer, or the like, to indicate my agreement with your perspectives regarding pain and right to life. Actually, I was using your post as a springboard to remind pro-life advocates about what the core pro-choice issue is. And perhaps, IMO, it is the most important issue that women face today.

Rather than pro-life seeking realistic solutions to abortion they want to attack women's fundamental rights - which they simply don't see as being equal to those of men.

Pro-life advocates want women's constitutional rights significantly diminished or dismantled. Why? It can't be any other way in order for all stages of the yet to be born to gain equal rights with the born. But that's where they become completely myopic in their reasoning. It's not possible to give a yet to be born equal rights to the born. Or even in limited ways that would be important to the yet to be born so they can be protected in the same manner as the born.

The pain argument is just one more derailing argument. And I think that you've nicely pointed that out. Also you've expounded on right to life. You're right on. Nature doesn't give a **** about the right to life. In fact, Nature has been pretty damn very successful at the destruction of life.

So again:

The right to life argument is based on natural rights/natural law theories. Once breaking down these theories to their core elements - it is evident that they don't hold up. In other words, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE! Not for any stage of development - born or not yet born.

There is evidence that there's no true right to life in any nation - anywhere. All one needs to do is open their eyes and use a tool that allows us all to travel around the world 24/7.

Based on incredible knowledge regarding every developmental stage of life - and the fact that every stage has been dissected over and over and over for eons - tells us that it is biologically impossible for 1st and section trimester fetuses to feel pain. The don't possess the neural or brain development that would allow the "FEELING" of pain to occur. Yet pro-life will repeat this myth over and over and over when all of the evidence points to the contrary. They're great at clinging to a lot of myths. Why? Because their fundamental argument that human life is special, sacrosanct for many is what they're taught from an early age. They don't believe they need to look for other evidence outside of their personal beliefs, which have been handed down for perhaps generations. Or they've had some revelation about some power outside themselves - which beckons them to carry out some mission on its behalf. You've pointed that out as well.

Thanks
 
Like all rights the one to life is only a right, where it is enforced.
 
joG said:
Like all rights the one to life is only a right, where it is enforced.
Click to expand...

How is it enforced? Constitutions define the powers of the government and of the people. Laws define social consequences for engaging in behaviors that communities, states, or a republic claim causes harm.

Once any behavior has been engaged that has resulted in harm - it's after the fact by the time governments intervene. They haven't prevented anything. They can't protect each and every individual's life because somebody has concluded that each individual has a right to life.

Everyday we see some violent act by individuals who don't care about legal consequences for taking a life. Or people simply lose control and out of rage take a life. How can those incidents be prevented. Persons who believe in "right to life" unjustly take the lives of others. It happens somewhere probably every minute of the day.

In the US prior to Roe v Wade, there were tens of thousands of "illegal abortions" performed year after year. Abortion is noted as far back as recorded history.

Pro-life need to wake up. They need to focus on supporting causes and scientific advancements that PREVENT unwanted pregnancies. Stop judging every woman on the planet who chooses to have an abortion. Stop trying to degrade or terminate their individual rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom