fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks

[Fandango 1,439]

Let me make something clear: I'm not here to sway anyone to or from their opinions on abortion. What you do is your biz, and that's between you, your partner, and perhaps your God (if you have one).

My point was: 22 week old fetus responds to stimuli. There's the proof. So this study, imo, is BS.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't see anything wrong with HP posting her picture. Yes, this is an emotive subject, and part of the reasoning she feels the way she does is due to the picture and experiences she's had with her own fetus. I might be mis-remembering this, but people in the past have posted videos of how abortions are conducted, which you could argue sways people from then on to be emotionally pushed in that way.

Fine, I'm wrong. It's perfectly normal to use a personal photograph to rebut scientific evidence because the mother of the fetus in question knows that how her baby moves in the womb in response to something that happened at the time fetal picture was taken can be properly interpreted as the fetus responding to 'pain' or 'stimuli' and is in no way an emotive and adult interpretation of that response? That in fact, scientists that conduct these studies are as dumb as #### compared to a mother looking lovingly at her fetal photos?

As to whether it's ever a useful exercise to use photographs of fetus to advance any form of debate on abortion, well I think it's ridiculous but then cute pictures really don't have any place in objective discussions period.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't have any facts or figures offhand to know how many healthy babies are aborted, first of all. Secondly, I didn't see in the article where they referenced the 'not being able to feel pain' only to babies who are unhealthy or not viable. In fact, that angle was not referenced in the article once.

No, I'm not a scientist, but you tell me, if a 22 week old fetus can respond to stimuli, how can we be sure they can't feel pain? I think it's a valid question.

The article refers to the 24 week limit in the UK and a proposal by MPs to lower it - which is why I thought that a study was done about the issue of whether or not a fetus feels pain was likely initiated by the government under the premise that that was a major (or the overriding reason) to lower the limit.

It doesn't matter whether this article makes the distinction between viable and non-viable pregnancies - if the issue with late term abortions is largely to do with pregnancies that aren't viable (hence getting an abortion at 22, 23 weeks) then surely the issue of pain is entirely irrelevant to the discussion outside of refining the procedures to ensure that they are as humane as possible.

Neither I nor you can dispute the research as neither of us has seen it to question it, furthermore likely neither of us is qualified to understand it anyway. I am prepared to take on trust that the conclusions were arrived at honestly and that the scientists involved did their due diligence - because on some level you have to place trust in professional people to know what they're doing. If you trust your doctor, your lawyer, your accountant etc - why would you not place trust in the competence of scientists?

I will say outright what side of the fence I'd fall on. In fact, we were just faced with it 10 weeks ago. Doc said that the US is 20 weeks for an abortion, and wanted to give us the option to have an amnio done. We chose not to do the amnio, because at the end of the day, I wouldn't abort, regardless. And yeah, it was something we seriously discussed and didn't just say 'oh well, the religious right says this, or conservatives say this' It was real-world scenario, 'what are YOU gonna do if?' type stuff. I can appreciate how hard that kind of dilemma is for the best of us, when I struggled myself and consider abortion murder. But that's not what this topic was about. This was about '24 week old fetuses (fetii??? idk), cannot feel pain. And in my unscientific brain, that is bs based on what I myself have noticed.

I'm sorry - but I really have a hard time believing that. At the risk of getting into an area of extreme bad taste (yet another reason why personalising this topic wasn't a great idea) if you found out tomorrow that your baby had catastrophic brain damage and would likely spend his entire life in a quadriplegic, vegetative state - I honestly doubt that you wouldn't find yourself agonising over what course of action to take. I really do...

Edited June 25, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Fandango 1,439]

The article refers to the 24 week limit in the UK and a proposal by MPs to lower it - which is why I thought that a study was done about the issue of whether or not a fetus feels pain was likely initiated by the government under the premise that that was a major (or the overriding reason) to lower the limit.

It doesn't matter whether this article makes the distinction between viable and non-viable pregnancies - if the issue with late term abortions is largely to do with pregnancies that aren't viable (hence getting an abortion at 22, 23 weeks) then surely the issue of pain is entirely irrelevant to the discussion outside of refining the procedures to ensure that they are as humane as possible.

Neither I nor you can dispute the research as neither of us has seen it to question it, furthermore likely neither of us is qualified to understand it anyway. I am prepared to take on trust that the conclusions were arrived at honestly and that the scientists involved did their due diligence - because on some level you have to place trust in professional people to know what they're doing. If you trust your doctor, your lawyer, your accountant etc - why would you not place trust in the competence of scientists?

Just because it's 'scientific' doesn't mean it's right. I personally saw a 22 week old fetus respond to stimuli several times over an hour. If a fetus can feel that, I am hard pressed to believe it cannot feel pain.

A drug was put on the mkt years ago, and it killed my grandmother. There were studies up the yin yang on how it was the latest and greatest. Yet, it killed her and hundreds of others, and was banned globally. Scientists contradict themselves all the time: 'don't eat eggs' 'wait, eggs are good for you' 'don't drink booze' 'wait, red wine is good' etc etc etc.

I cannot place blind trust in any person (other than my fam, hehehe) on this Earth...when my own experiences contradict some 'study', that doesn't mean I'm going to believe the study wholeheartedly despite my own experiences.

I'm not even going to really get into the fetal viability aspect, because even if that is the INTENT of the law, the bottom line is, regardless of intent, any pregnant woman can have one up to 24 weeks in the UK. Fetal viability was never mentioned, therefore, not part of my argument at all.

I'm sorry - but I really have a hard time believing that. At the risk of getting into an area of extreme bad taste (yet another reason why personalising this topic wasn't a great idea) if you found out tomorrow that your baby had catastrophic brain damage and would likely spend his entire life in a quadriplegic, vegetative state - I honestly doubt that you wouldn't find yourself agonising over what course of action to take. I really do...

That's exactly what I said, dunno how you didn't understand that? We did some heavy, contemplative soul searching. In the end, decided not to go with the amnio. But WADR, whether you have or haven't a hard time believing me is really pointless and insignificant to me. Again, this is superfluous to the actual topic at hand. And the ONLY topic concerning abortion that I am willing to discuss, and that is fetal 'awareness' of pain at 24 weeks and under.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[Peikko 1,575]

You clearly equate fetal awareness with adult awareness - that's like people who humanize animal actions. It's pointless from a scientific standpoint but of course highly valuable from the standpoint of a mother.

[GabiandVi 34]

Curious. When people on this thread refer to "healthy" babies, are they refering to babies without diseases? Or are we considering things such as downs syndrome "unhealthy?"

As to the study, I've seen studies that show response to stimuli at a much lower gestational age. I did a quick search and couldn't find the research I'd seen before, but I did find this.

http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm

As to whether to trust the scientists who did the research, this as well as the UK study, well, I'm not so sure about that. I think we've seen how scientists can be influenced by their own political agendas. What was that about climate change a while back?

As for the picture, the protests against it smack of fabricated outrage. If you don't think it proves anything, big f*cking deal. Say that and move on. Don't try to distract by accusing the poster of being offensive or exploitive or etc. Talk about trying to manipulate responses by appealing to emotional responses! Talk about trying to shut a person down!

[Fandango 1,439]

You clearly equate fetal awareness with adult awareness - that's like people who humanize animal actions. It's pointless from a scientific standpoint but of course highly valuable from the standpoint of a mother.

I said no such thing.

I teased that he was sayin 'leave me alone, i'm sleepin' but I never said that's what I felt he was actually conveying. I have another pic where he's flipping his middle finger...does that mean I think he's actually flipping us off? Of course not, but it makes a cute story to tell his future girlfriends 20 years from now

The bottom line is, he felt and responded to stimuli. At 22 weeks.

[GabiandVi 34]

You clearly equate fetal awareness with adult awareness - that's like people who humanize animal actions. It's pointless from a scientific standpoint but of course highly valuable from the standpoint of a mother.

You always get so confused. Are you saying it is necessary to have adult awareness in order to be protected? If not, what's your point?

[Peikko 1,575]

Fabricated outrage? Yeah, that's what it was. The picture is great and would feature wonderfully in the baby thread but it is not a good response to a scientific study - any mom is going to personalize their fetal pictures, that's human, that's natural, that's normal but it does not prove that the fetus responded with 'outrage' to being prodded, or anything close - it just shows a fetus moving in the womb. There is nothing about it that suggest the fetus has any awareness of what goes on outside.

[Fandango 1,439]

Curious. When people on this thread refer to "healthy" babies, are they refering to babies without diseases? Or are we considering things such as downs syndrome "unhealthy?"

As to the study, I've seen studies that show response to stimuli at a much lower gestational age. I did a quick search and couldn't find the research I'd seen before, but I did find this.

http://www.ampainsoc...03/article1.htm

As to whether to trust the scientists who did the research, this as well as the UK study, well, I'm not so sure about that. I think we've seen how scientists can be influenced by their own political agendas. What was that about climate change a while back?

As for the picture, the protests against it smack of fabricated outrage. If you don't think it proves anything, big f*cking deal. Say that and move on. Don't try to distract by accusing the poster of being offensive or exploitive or etc. Talk about trying to manipulate responses by appealing to emotional responses! Talk about trying to shut a person down!

+1000000

[Peikko 1,575]

You always get so confused. Are you saying it is necessary to have adult awareness in order to be protected? If not, what's your point?

No, I am saying that suggesting that the movement of the baby at the time this fetal photo was taken is as a response to any kind of awareness on the part of the fetus to outside stimulation is an adult interpretation. There is nothing scientific about that at all.

[Fandango 1,439]

Fabricated outrage? Yeah, that's what it was. The picture is great and would feature wonderfully in the baby thread but it is not a good response to a scientific study - any mom is going to personalize their fetal pictures, that's human, that's natural, that's normal but it does not prove that the fetus responded with 'outrage' to being prodded, or anything close - it just shows a fetus moving in the womb. There is nothing about it that suggest the fetus has any awareness of what goes on outside.

fetus responded with 'outrage'? oh my word!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just because it's 'scientific' doesn't mean it's right. I personally saw a 22 week old fetus respond to stimuli several times over an hour. If a fetus can feel that, I am hard pressed to believe it cannot feel pain.

A drug was put on the mkt years ago, and it killed my grandmother. There were studies up the yin yang on how it was the latest and greatest. Yet, it killed her and hundreds of others, and was banned globally. Scientists contradict themselves all the time: 'don't eat eggs' 'wait, eggs are good for you' 'don't drink booze' 'wait, red wine is good' etc etc etc.

I cannot place blind trust in any person (other than my fam, hehehe) on this Earth...when my own experiences contradict some 'study', that doesn't mean I'm going to believe the study wholeheartedly despite my own experiences.

I'm not even going to really get into the fetal viability aspect, because even if that is the INTENT of the law, the bottom line is, regardless of intent, any pregnant woman can have one up to 24 weeks in the UK. Fetal viability was never mentioned, therefore, not part of my argument at all.

Are you sure?

We can make relativistic arguments about the science, but all that does is give ignorant (as in ignorant of the facts of a particular issue) people the conceit that their opinions are as valid as those of people with specialised or in-depth knowledge about the subject.

I have no reason to suppose that the science was dishonest or that the conclusions are flawed - and I certainly wouldn't cite personal experience as a reason why it is incorrect. You can say it is BS if you want, but you have no more of an authoritative opinion on it than anyone else who read the OP article.

That's exactly what I said, dunno how you didn't understand that? We did some heavy, contemplative soul searching. In the end, decided not to go with the amnio. But WADR, whether you have or haven't a hard time believing me is really pointless and insignificant to me. Again, this is superfluous to the actual topic at hand. And the ONLY topic concerning abortion that I am willing to discuss, and that is fetal 'awareness' of pain at 24 weeks and under.

Well this is probably going to go down like a lead balloon - which is another reason why it was not a good idea to personalise this by using photos of your own unborn child - but from what you described it sounds as though you made that decision by sidestepping it. You have denied yourself the information about the health of the child in order to not have to face the decision on whether or not to abort.

Please understand, I do not mean this to sound derogatory - I'm not saying that you were wrong or negligent to not do this, but you can hardly claim to have agonised about the decision when you have essentially avoided the situation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As to whether to trust the scientists who did the research, this as well as the UK study, well, I'm not so sure about that. I think we've seen how scientists can be influenced by their own political agendas. What was that about climate change a while back?

I *knew* someone would use that argument

Well all you can really say to that is why would you be skeptical of it when you have no evidence to subject this specific research to skepticism - perhaps it is accurate, perhaps it isn't, neither of us knows - but clearly this research was necessary in order for the government to formulate whether or not to change existing policy.

Questioning the conclusions of this scientific study by citing the alleged dishonesty of other scientists is a relativistic argument. That more than anything else amounts to "shutting down" the conversation - because if you throw out the word of an "expert" out of hand then what is left except the subjective opinions of ignorant people (meaning again: people ignorant of the facts of the issue).

[GabiandVi 34]

No, I am saying that suggesting that the movement of the baby at the time this fetal photo was taken is as a response to any kind of awareness on the part of the fetus to outside stimulation is an adult interpretation. There is nothing scientific about that at all.

Have you ever had an ultrasound during pregnancy?

Any ultrasound technician or doctor who regularly performs ultrasounds will tell you that nearly all fetuses respond to the ultrasound. Starting from much earlier than 24 weeks, which is only 22 weeks post conception. At between 13 and 14 weeks (11 and 12 weeks post conception) nuchal translucencies are measured via ultrasound. These are often done with vaginal ultrasound wands. If the fetus is not positioned so that the nuchal translucency can be accurately measured, they can be nudged so that they might move into a better position.