• 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!

Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

why up to the doctor? when did the doctor get the legal right to force a person to risk their life against their will?
no thanks i want rights to remains where they should

Because a doctor would know better than you whether a woman's life is at risk or not.
 
I didn't say you did. I pointed out a fact.

oh so you were making a meaningless post that nobody was talking about and qouted me by accident then? got it, im fine with that, your mistake
 
Because a doctor would know better than you whether a woman's life is at risk or not.

its ALWASY at riske, ALWAYS

this is a simple fact

how much risk can be debated but its always at risk simply because the ZEF is present.

so now please answer my question.

when did the doctor get the legal right to force a person to risk their life against their will?
 
oh so you were making a meaningless post that nobody was talking about and qouted me by accident then? got it, im fine with that, your mistake

No, I was pointing to a fact for your education....You're welcome.
 
Do you not understand that doctors can assess risk? That is a discussion that would take place between the doctor and the patient.

I AGREE

yes they can access how much risk
but the fact still remains the risk is there no matter what so the the decision comes down to the doctor saying what they think and the patient making the choice

do you not understand the risk wont magically go away?

so i stated a fact, "I" didnt decide anything like you falsely implied.
 
No, I was pointing to a fact for your education....You're welcome.

nope, already knew it but since it was meaningless to the topic at hand nobody was discussing it because that would be illogical, again your mistake
 
nope, already knew it but since it was meaningless to the topic at hand nobody was discussing it because that would be illogical, again your mistake

Ok, so when you said:

no thanks i want rights to remains where they should

Then you were purposely being misleading in your statement so you could play this game.

And you really don't think that women have a right to an abortion...Got it.
 
Ok, so when you said:



Then you were purposely being misleading in your statement so you could play this game.

And you really don't think that women have a right to an abortion...Got it.

LMAO100% WRONG

pleae qoure my WHOLE post LMO

here is my WHOLE post
why up to the doctor? when did the doctor get the legal [B]right to force a person to risk their life against their will?[/B]
no thanks i want rights to remains where they should

sorry you fail again, the right i was referring too was in the FIRST sentences of my post

next tome dont make stuff up in your head and make illogical assumptions that arent supported by anything so you wont look so silly

like i said, YOUR mistake
 
From where does the "right" originate?

If this is aimed at starting a discussion on whether the right exists in the American constitution - I'm going to point out that abortion is not just an American issue and the treatment or view of what a person can do with their own body in western culture is fairly common. I bow out if you want to argue about the US constitution and abortion, I'm not American and I'm not interested.

-- I purpose that this so called "right" of the woman to have the complete say of whether or not to allow the unborn child to live is not a right at all, and actually takes away the rights of not only the man involved in creating the pregnancy, but the rights of the unborn child as well.

Society places some limits on rights - after 24 weeks and viability has been established, a woman's rights are limited by the child's growing rights but these are minimal before 24 weeks. Regarding your comment about men's rights - your rights to a woman's body or to do what you will with a woman's body should never be enforcible in law. Personally, I believe a father who does not wish to become a father should have the right to withdraw from his responsibility until a reasonable period has passed. This is the subject of another thread though - currently a father has no right to absolve himself of childcare but that again is simply the state making sure someone pays the bill for childcare later in life. Fathers are the easiest targets where childcare costs are concerned.

It's fine if it's used in the medical profession, of course, but now it is being used by the non-medical profession, such as politicians and the courts. Deciding someone's life or death because of their 'viability' was probably never intended by the originators of the term.

What happens in hospitals is still affected and defined by courts and politicians who represent the views of the public. This is not an argument about good or bad politicians but the role politicians should play - advocates of the public.

And why not? Unless there are lies being told then all information should be made available.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, I thought I was agreeing with you about information being available for pregnant mothers?

Morality has to play a part in these decisions. How can it not?? Also it will probably encourage more young women to take extra precautions and make the right decisions in her life.

Conception is not always planned or convenient, sex is not always done at the right time with all the right information, equipment, state of mind. What I find interesting is that countries with the widest availability of abortion and sexual reproductivity information tend to have lower abortion rates than those with greater limits on abortion and less planned information about sexual reproduction. The evidence is against the anti-abortion crowd. Abortion rates in Holland, Sweden, Finland and other such countries is much lower than many other western countries such as the UK and US.

-- There are plenty of good people ready to help with the care, feeding and attention of children. We need to have more trust in our fellow citizens rather than assuming the worst and heading directly to the abortion clinic.

US children's foster and care centre statistics don't support this.
 
If this is aimed at starting a discussion on whether the right exists in the American constitution - I'm going to point out that abortion is not just an American issue and the treatment or view of what a person can do with their own body in western culture is fairly common. I bow out if you want to argue about the US constitution and abortion, I'm not American and I'm not interested.

Well, the OP was about an American State, and the law they passed on a Breaking News forum that deals mostly with American issues, or issues that effect America. So, yes the constitutional question has bearing.

Society places some limits on rights - after 24 weeks and viability has been established, a woman's rights are limited by the child's growing rights but these are minimal before 24 weeks.

Why? Is there some magic that happens between the 23rd, and the 25th week? Is it not still growing inside the mother?

What we are talking about is the state of medical, and technological advance at this moment in time. That is a moving target. For the pro abortion to say that it is more a baby at 25 weeks than it was at 23 weeks is ridiculous.

Regarding your comment about men's rights - your rights to a woman's body or to do what you will with a woman's body should never be enforcible in law.

Is there some advance in pregnancy that allows a woman to become pregnant without the male sperm now? Did I miss it? Until that happens the man should have a say.
 
Well, the OP was about an American State, and the law they passed on a Breaking News forum that deals mostly with American issues, or issues that effect America. So, yes the constitutional question has bearing.

Yes but the constitutional argument is of no interest outside the USA where abortion still happens. I am not interested in the constitution - just a mother's rights to her own body and choices.

-- Why? Is there some magic that happens between the 23rd, and the 25th week? Is it not still growing inside the mother?

Well, you quoted me from part of a conversation I am having with another poster who is also not American. If you trawl back using the links, I explain the "magic" that happens.

What we are talking about is the state of medical, and technological advance at this moment in time. That is a moving target. For the pro abortion to say that it is more a baby at 25 weeks than it was at 23 weeks is ridiculous.

OK, now we're dealing with abortion and not the US constitution, thank you. Both Grant and I have addressed this element of technology and law. Currently and for the forseeable future, viability is limited to 24 weeks - not being more a "baby" or "human" or person. It is simple biological fact that a baby / child / person / fetus (I am not interested in the emotional argument behind what "it" is called) is not viable before 24 weeks. Please read back because I'm talking about medical science, not "ridiculous"
Before 24 weeks, a baby / child / person / fetus is highly unlikely to survive outside the uterus; the ratio being approx 9 in 100 births at this stage. That ratio changes after this stage in development.

-- Is there some advance in pregnancy that allows a woman to become pregnant without the male sperm now? Did I miss it? Until that happens the man should have a say.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Did you read my post properly?
 
What happens in hospitals is still affected and defined by courts and politicians who represent the views of the public. This is not an argument about good or bad politicians but the role politicians should play - advocates of the public.

Agreed, but "viability" is a medical term and once the politicians begin using it, it can lead to other areas as well.
I'm not sure what you're arguing, I thought I was agreeing with you about information being available for pregnant mothers?

We were, until you said "I have no problem with high quality information being presented to a pregnant mother about alternatives she may have if she allowed the baby to carry to term however anti-abortionists already use emotive and highly charged terms to describe abortion and mothers who have abortions. I don't trust that alternatives won't be presented in ways that pressurise women to keep their unwanted babies or simply end up with many unwanted children living in childcare where the next problem arises which is who will pay for them".

That seems to mean that you are all for women having information but that it should be selective information.

Conception is not always planned or convenient, sex is not always done at the right time with all the right information, equipment, state of mind. What I find interesting is that countries with the widest availability of abortion and sexual reproductivity information tend to have lower abortion rates than those with greater limits on abortion and less planned information about sexual reproduction. The evidence is against the anti-abortion crowd. Abortion rates in Holland, Sweden, Finland and other such countries is much lower than many other western countries such as the UK and US.

There are many reasons for this but it could sidetrack the debate into other areas.


That's quite an extensive report. Can you summarize briefly what the negatives are?
 
Agreed, but "viability" is a medical term and once the politicians begin using it, it can lead to other areas as well.

Good point, I accept that politicians can begin to sway the term but generally local medical knowledge and scientific information will show up many politicians who try to bring a personal agenda. I'm not familiar with many examples of politicians using the term viability in a different way from the way doctors and medical professionals use it.

-- We were, until you said "I have no problem with high quality information being presented to a pregnant mother about alternatives she may have if she allowed the baby to carry to term however anti-abortionists already use emotive and highly charged terms to describe abortion and mothers who have abortions. I don't trust that alternatives won't be presented in ways that pressurise women to keep their unwanted babies or simply end up with many unwanted children living in childcare where the next problem arises which is who will pay for them".

That seems to mean that you are all for women having information but that it should be selective information.

Maybe I put that badly, I'm all for lots of information. The extra about pressure is my suspicion about emotional blackmail once morality of having / not having an abortion becomes part of the information. If the information is factual and accurate, that any adoption facilities / support or childcare available after a birth really does exist then I would be more than happy for mothers to have such information.
I'd trust medical professionals to give impartial advice about abortion / carrying to term but I'm less willing to trust social care workers with information about adoption / adoption facilities and or statistics.

-- There are many reasons for this but it could sidetrack the debate into other areas.

True, I didn't want to go there either.

That's quite an extensive report. Can you summarize briefly what the negatives are?

Very simply, there are many children already waiting for adoptive or foster parents now - even with abortion being available. The point is how many more children there will be living in such facilities waiting for the dreamed of parents that many argue are queuing to adopt. Not even mentioning the question of who will pay for the feeding and upkeep of these children.

Apparently many of the children are African American, a disproportionate number. How many African American families are there ready to adopt into good homes? How many white / hispanic etc parents are there who will adopt a black child too?

The practicalities are a huge consideration.
 
Yes but the constitutional argument is of no interest outside the USA where abortion still happens. I am not interested in the constitution - just a mother's rights to her own body and choices.

This is a thread about a law passed in the state of Arkansas. Your interests are irrelevant.
 
No one ever said differently, but please tell me how that extends to killing a defenseless child in the womb....Their choice should begin before they contemplate committing the act that results in the pregnancy to start with. Now, you say "She/They" as if you think that the father of that unborn child has a say one way or the other. This is how disingenuous the pro abortion side of the argument really is.

My husband always has a say in things concerning our children. How many we wanted,how many we could afford, how far apart we should plan them , if a woman has good relationship with her husband or lover she would most likely discuss whether or not she have an abortion with the father of the unborn.

If however, he abuses her or she is scared of of him, if he left her, if she was raped then she might decide not to include the father of the unborn in her decision.

While you consider a pre viable fetus to be a child many pro choices do not believe it becomes a child/baby/person until it is born.
 
Last edited:
My husband always has a say in things concerning our children. How many we wanted,how many we could afford, how far apart we should plan them , if a woman has good relationship with her husband or lover she would most likely discuss whether or not she have an abortion with the father of the unborn.

If however, he abuses her or she is scared of of him, if he left her, if she was raped then she might decide not to include the father of the unborn in her decision.

While you consider a pre viable fetus to be a child many pro choices do not believe it becomes a child/baby/person until it is born.

I understand what you are saying, and if everyone was like you, and thought like you did, then it may not be as bad, but the sad fact is that they don't. An overwhelming number of abortions in this country are used as contraceptive measures. And the fact that most women getting those abortions don't feel it is a child, is of no concern to me, it is what it is...It's not a toaster, or a rubber ducky...It is a child. That feels pain at 9 weeks, and has a heartbeat earlier than that. Use what ever term you want to help you sleep better, but it is only one thing, a child.
 
I understand what you are saying, and if everyone was like you, and thought like you did, then it may not be as bad, but the sad fact is that they don't. An overwhelming number of abortions in this country are used as contraceptive measures. And the fact that most women getting those abortions don't feel it is a child, is of no concern to me, it is what it is...It's not a toaster, or a rubber ducky...It is a child. That feels pain at 9 weeks, and has a heartbeat earlier than that. Use what ever term you want to help you sleep better, but it is only one thing, a child.

One question..
Where did you read or hear that a fetus can feel pain at 9 weeks gestation?

I have read a lot of studies and from everything I read experts agreed that fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks gestation. Most feel it would fall somewhere between 26 weeks gestation and 39 weeks gestation.

I would like to share with you that the numbers of abortions per 1000 women are falling .
In 1982 they stated falling and by 2008 ( the lastest stats I could find) a bit more than one third.
1981 6.87
1982 6.79

[By]2008 they fell to 3.99

United States abortion rates, 1960-2008

Yes we still have quite a ways to go but as better methods of birth control are made available the numbers could reduce significantly.

I think making birth control availble to anyone with no co pay is a step in the right direction.

Delaying parenthood until one wants to become a parent would cut down the number of "welfare" moms as well as the number of abortions that are occuring at the present time.

In the following privatly funded study the poor used free contraceptives and unwanted pregnancies dropped dramatically.


SNIP>

The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured.
They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.

When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert.
These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result,

reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.


The effect on teen pregnancy was striking:

There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.


There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally:[/B]
4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region,[/B]
Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.

.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/October/05/public-health-birth-control.aspx

From the following article:
But when cost and other barriers are lifted, the opinion notes that the Contraceptive CHOICE Project found that
]U]more than two-thirds of women age 14-20 chose LARC methods.[/U]

The project, at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, recruited 9,256 women and studies the effect of free access to birth control methods.

Perhaps the biggest consideration for women -- and especially adolescent girls -- is a contraceptive's upfront cost.

At an average of about $700-$800 before insurance, the $10-$50 cost of a monthly pack of birth control pills can seem favorable.

Without a reduced fee, the lowest price Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania can offer Mirena is $800, said Rebecca Cavanaugh, vice president for public affairs for the local chapter.

Experts recommend women pick long-term birth control method - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Peventing pregnancy is happening in fact pregnancy among teens has gone down.
From this article:
There’s good news from researchers at the Guttmacher Institute. “Only” 7% of teens and “only” about 16% of sexually experienced teens got pregnant in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.

It’s good news because the U.S. teen pregnancy rate continues to drop. Way back in 1990, the teen pregnancy rate peaked at 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 teen females. That means 11.7% of all teens got pregnant that year.

Among sexually experienced teens — those who ever had intercourse — 22.3% got pregnant in 1990.

The teen birth rate and the teen abortion rate also went down:

4% of teens gave birth in 2008, down from the 1991 peak of 6.2%.
1.8% of teens had an abortion in 2008 — the lowest abortion rate since abortion was legalized and down from the 1988 peak of 4.35% in 1988.
From 1986 to 2008, the proportion of teen pregnancies ending in abortion dropped by a third, from 46% to 31%.

Why is the teen pregnancy rate dropping? According to a 2007 study, it’s mainly due to better use of birth control. Teens are using more effective forms of contraception.

Drop in Teen Pregnancy Due to Birth Control « WebMD Newsroom
 
Last edited:
One question..
Where did you read or hear that a fetus can feel pain at 9 weeks gestation?

I have read a lot of studies and from everything I read experts agreed that fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks gestation. Most feel it would fall somewhere between 26 weeks gestation and 39 weeks gestation.
I've done some research and seen mostly 19-21 weeks. That makes more sense to me. Wouldn't it have to be at least as low as the youngest premature baby known to survive? Could a sense of pain develop after birth?
 
I've done some research and seen mostly 19-21 weeks. That makes more sense to me. Wouldn't it have to be at least as low as the youngest premature baby known to survive? Could a sense of pain develop after birth?

If you could find a link to the study/ studies that say the brain and nervous system are developed enough by 19 21 weeks gestation for a fetus to feel pain I would like to read. I try to keep up with the latest studies.

The youngest premie to ever survive was 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.

Experts say no fetus under 21 weeks will ever survive even with more advanced premie medical equipment...
Their lungs are just not developed enough.

The limit of viability ( when 50 percent will survive more a couple days) is currently 24 weeks gestation but major disabilities are still high. The 24 week limit of viability has remained unchanged for the last 12 years .


Most hospitals will not try to save any premie under 23 weeks gestation.

They give comfort care.. They Keep them warm and fed, until their natural death occurs.
 
One question..
Where did you read or hear that a fetus can feel pain at 9 weeks gestation?

This has been known for decades. Although there is some debate from pro abortionist doctors, (probably to justify the procedure, or ease their own coscience)...

Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child. Surgeon Robert P. N. Shearin states that: [1]

As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain…. First, the unborn child's mouth, at eight weeks, then her hands at ten weeks, then her face, arms, and legs at eleven weeks become sensitive to touch. By thirteen-and-a-half weeks, she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain.
President Ronald Reagan stated in 1984 that during an abortion:

The fetus feels pain which is long and agonizing.
After President Ronald Reagan said this then it set off a furious reaction by pro-choice advocates. They did not want to believe this, nor did they want the public to believe it. But twenty-six medical authorities, including two past presidents of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stepped forward with a letter documenting that the unborn does in fact feel pain during an abortion.

Their letter says in part: [2]

Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground…. That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the new-born of the human species is a highly complex, sentient, functioning, individual organism is established scientific fact…. Over the last eighteen years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG [electrocardiogram] and the fetal EEG [electroencephalogram] have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound.
Pioneer fetologist Albert Iiley, of the University of Auckland, says that by the fifty-sixth day after conception, the baby's spinal reflexes are sufficiently developed to feel pain.
He adds: [3]

When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion as a child would. But they soon learned he did.
Dr. Liley's observation is graphically demonstrated in Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic film, The Silent Scream, the first widely circulated ultrasound of an actual abortion. [4] It shows a child serenely resting in her mother's womb. Suddenly the child is alarmed because of the intruding abortion device. She moves as far away as she can, trying desperately to save her life. Just before her body is torn to pieces and sucked out through the vacuum tube, her tiny mouth opens in an unheard scream of terror. After the abortion the doctor who performed it was invited to view the ultrasound. He was so upset with what he saw that he left the room. Though he had performed over ten thousand abortions, he never performed another one. [5]

Fact #13: The 8 week+ unborn baby feels real physical pain during an abortion.

It is only those whom wish to cloud the facts that would deny that the fetus feels the pain of being torn apart and taken from the womb in the name of convenience of the woman consenting to kill the child....

 
I would like to share with you that the numbers of abortions per 1000 women are falling .
In 1982 they stated falling and by 2008 ( the lastest stats I could find) a bit more than one third.


United States abortion rates, 1960-2008

Yes we still have quite a ways to go but as better methods of birth control are made available the numbers could reduce significantly.

I think making birth control availble to anyone with no co pay is a step in the right direction.

Delaying parenthood until one wants to become a parent would cut down the number of "welfare" moms as well as the number of abortions that are occuring at the present time.

In the following privatly funded study the poor used free contraceptives and unwanted pregnancies dropped dramatically.

I can agree that the use of contraceptives among those sexually active will prevent unwanted pregnancies, as well as cut down on disease. You are either ignoring, or purposely dismissing not only the abundance of lower cost contraceptives like the pill, or condoms to use the most expensive example, then demand that someone else other than the people committing the act take responsibility of that act...PP, and free clinics will give you brown bags full of condom's free for the asking. Don't tell me that you need an $800. per month prescription, then tell me that I have to pay for it so that you can have sex. I don't owe you that. Get your own contraception.
 
I can agree that the use of contraceptives among those sexually active will prevent unwanted pregnancies, as well as cut down on disease. You are either ignoring, or purposely dismissing not only the abundance of lower cost contraceptives like the pill, or condoms to use the most expensive example, then demand that someone else other than the people committing the act take responsibility of that act...PP, and free clinics will give you brown bags full of condom's free for the asking. Don't tell me that you need an $800. per month prescription, then tell me that I have to pay for it so that you can have sex. I don't owe you that. Get your own contraception.

First of all I was trying to say that as methods of birth control improve the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and abortions will go down.

I think you misunderstood what I said and what the study and article were saying. Condoms and birth control pills still have a failure rate about 1 to 5 percent even when used correctly. The BC pills usually cost between 10 to 50 dollars a month.


Long term BC has a failure rate of about .03 percent so there would be many less unwanted pregnancies for women who use long term BC vs Women who count on condoms or pills as a method of BC.
Long term BC costs about 800 dollars up front ( not $800 a month) but lasts about 5 to 10 years so the cost over the long termwould be about the same if not less.

Also I did NOT say anything about free BC ( or the you/ taxes paying for it) I said if insurance companies offered long term BC along with the BC pill with no co pay I thought many more women would opt for the more reliable long term birth control and that the result would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions.

Also I personally do do not need any BC anymore since my 4 children are now grown and I am long past my child bearing years.
 
Last edited:
This has been known for decades. Although there is some debate from pro abortionist doctors, (probably to justify the procedure, or ease their own coscience)...



It is only those whom wish to cloud the facts that would deny that the fetus feels the pain of being torn apart and taken from the womb in the name of convenience of the woman consenting to kill the child....


LMAO that has to be the worse sight ever, i clicked on home because i like reading as much info as possible an learning and i stopped after so called facts 1.

those facts are OPINIONS and instantly devalue anything else they could possible say. Oh by the way, i got a date with a Swedish model tonight, she is on the Swedish bikini team, i never met her but it said so on the internet.

so please tell us about facts again

Fact #1: Every abortion kills an innocent human being.

this is 100% false and a blatant lie, credibility SHOT right from the start LMAO
 
Last edited:
Those theories from the 1980's of early fetal pain have been proven wrong by many experts.

Even states that fought for a fetal pain bill were only able fight for a 20 week gestation mark :
<SNIP>
If a fetal pain bill passes during the 83rd legislative session, which begins in January, Texas would become the 10th state to ban abortions after 20 weeks. Although some scientists have reported that fetuses have sufficient nerve development to feel pain at 20 weeks of development, a study by the Journal of the American Medical Association published in 2005 found “evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”

https://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/05/gov-perry-announces-support-fetal-pain-bill/

This UK study is in disagreeement that fetal pain starts before 24 weeks gestation;

The UK-based Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has published a government commissioned scientific review and concluded that a fetus is not conscious at 24 weeks of age.
It is also not able to feel pain.
<SNIP>

About the manner in which the report was put together, the RCOG website is completely transparent, saying that
A wide range of stakeholders including scientists, doctors, midwives and lay representatives were involved in producing these reports.

Relevant international scientific studies published since the 1990s were considered by the respective working parties as was evidence submitted to the Science and Technology Committee.

An online public consultation followed and the public were invited to submit their views.

] Both documents went through rigorous peer-review which included academics, ethicists and lawyers.


Read more: New study: Fetus not yet conscious at 24 weeks

From: The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That?:

The tricky part comes when these definitions of life get applied at the beginning of life. The landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade replaced an old marker of life — the “quickening” or first movements of the fetus — with one based on fetal viability, which typically occurs at about the 23d week.

This was a tactical move meant to provide a firmer marker for legal purposes. Law seeks clarity. Which is where a consciousness meter could be quite tempting to the courts — and discouraging to anti-abortion conservatives:

As leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn’t possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness
until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain.
]

Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead.

The consciometer may not put the abortion issue to rest—given the deeply held religious and moral views on all sides, it’s hard to imagine that anything could.

But by adding a definitive neurophysiological marker to the historical and secular precedents allowing abortion in the first two-thirds of pregnancy, it may greatly buttress the status quo or even slightly push back the 23-week boundary.


The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That? | Wired Science | Wired.com
 
Back
Top Bottom