At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain? (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:16:12 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain?

Never thought about it, at what week would you suggest that it be used? I mean you're not just trolling or anything, right?

If it is against the CoC to discuss pending Federal legislation then please let me know.

I'm sorry, which week did you say?

Maybe every gunowner should get a "photos of accidental gunshot victims" because they can't be entrusted to make their own decisions without governmental interference. Sam Brownback sounds like a big government, interfere with your life type, he must be a Democrat?

If it is against the CoC to discuss pending Federal legislation then please let me know.

You're the one that posted this

The purpose of this thread is to discuss:

At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain?

You aren't, by any chance, being a tad bit dishonest about your purpose, are you?

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:25:15 PM EDT

[#2]

little babies in pain=>

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:48:20 PM EDT

[#3]

I don't have a dog in this fight but like a little kid sitting by a fire with a stick I just can't help myself. My real world theory on this topic:

If all of the (legal) abortions were stopped tomorrow we would have the same problem as before Roe i.e. back door coat hanger abortions but more importantly the number of unwanted/unloved children that would be dependant on the state would increase. Now I know that everyone is going to jump in and say what should be done but that isn't reality. As I have said before here, everyone on this board speaks loudly for 'smaller/less intrusive .gov' and less welfare, etc. Increasing the number of AFDC recipients isn't it. Now for the hot button topic, how many of the people that are posting in this thread screaming about abortion has adopted a child? No excuses but gone down and done it. I'll even expand that and say any child under 8 including the mentally handicapped kids. The only way to make the repeal of Roe work without increasing the Federal .Gov tax base is for each of you to accept the responsibility of your ideology and take an unwanted child into your home.

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:49:06 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I think that it should be the mothers decision. Why? For the same reason that she is allowed to have an abortion, the baby is part of her body.

This is also because I no faith in our government to make an inteligent decision when other peoples lives are involved.

"part of her body" argument is severly flawed. Roughly half of all babies are male. How can the woman be both male and female at the same time? All babies have their own unique DNA from conception, so although they are "inside" the woman, they are not part of her body.

And scientifically speaking, the inside of the uterus is "outside" the body. It is an exterior surface, much like the inside of your entire digestive tract. Food comes in the tube at one end, goes out the other. So If I swallow your diamond ring, I now "own" it becuase it's part of my body?

Both of your comments imply a 6year old thought process.

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:49:24 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Oy.. lots of misdirection here. Lots of right-wingers think abortions are some oh-so-convenient preferred method of birth control but I doubt any woman who has had one would say that. They often do lose their ability to get pregnant after such an operation and it can be quite painful. Moreover, one of the overriding reasons abortion IS legal in this country is because if there were no exception for a mother's health the religious right would ban it altogether and let a woman die before they'd perform the operation.

Aside from that, the religious right can't make up their mind what they're against. They talk and talk about the rare D&X or late-term abortion and flash pictures of developed fetuses but in reality they are against the mere idea of contraceptives that mess with implantation in the very beginning of the process. If they had their way things would be quite draconian.

You truly are poorly educated. Get your facts straight and come back and join us in a well thought out debate. Until then...

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:33:08 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss:

At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain?

You aren't, by any chance, being a tad bit dishonest about your purpose, are you?

You have posted several times and chosen not to discuss the question so I'm afraid that makes you the

.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:45:18 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss:

At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain?

You aren't, by any chance, being a tad bit dishonest about your purpose, are you?

You have posted several times and chosen not to discuss the question so I'm afraid that makes you the .

I'm not sure you can really call site staff a troll. But hey, I could be wrong.

Posted: 2/9/2006 8:10:42 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Past 20 weeks? Isn't that almost into the third trimester?

I thought third-trimester abortions were illegal in most place to start with? (But I'm not an expert on abortions, since I don't have a uterus and all).

Since third-trimester abortions SHOULD be illegal anyway (in my opinion, whether or not they are in reality), I'd be in favor of some kind of aneastesia, "just in case". I'm sure a third-trimester abortion is probably not cheap anyway - what's a few extra CC's of anestesia really going to add, and where's the harm in being safe - regardless of whether the concern is real or not.

Do you really think that someone who is terminating a pregnancy for convenience sake is really going to give a fuck if the child feels pain?

Posted: 2/9/2006 8:16:59 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss:

At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain?

You aren't, by any chance, being a tad bit dishonest about your purpose, are you?

You have posted several times and chosen not to discuss the question so I'm afraid that makes you the .
I'm not sure you can really call site staff a troll. But hey, I could be wrong.

Not like it would be the first time.

Posted: 2/9/2006 8:18:25 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Past 20 weeks? Isn't that almost into the third trimester?

I thought third-trimester abortions were illegal in most place to start with? (But I'm not an expert on abortions, since I don't have a uterus and all).

Since third-trimester abortions SHOULD be illegal anyway (in my opinion, whether or not they are in reality), I'd be in favor of some kind of aneastesia, "just in case". I'm sure a third-trimester abortion is probably not cheap anyway - what's a few extra CC's of anestesia really going to add, and where's the harm in being safe - regardless of whether the concern is real or not.

Do you really think that someone who is terminating a pregnancy for convenience sake is really going to give a fuck if the child feels pain?

Nope. But it might get them a free buzz.

Posted: 2/9/2006 8:44:31 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
I don't know much about this kind of thing but couldn't the anesthesia itself possibly kill the fetus?

Purposeful irony?

Posted: 2/10/2006 4:02:25 AM EDT

[#12]

The whole concept is rediculous.

You cannot humanely rip a child from his mother's womb and kill him.

The whole question of whether or not we should anesthetize a baby before we tear them to pieces has got to be the stupidest question ever asked.

Posted: 2/10/2006 4:28:17 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
The whole concept is rediculous.

You cannot humanely rip a child from his mother's womb and kill him.

The whole question of whether or not we should anesthetize a baby before we tear them to pieces has got to be the stupidest question ever asked.

Yes it is. And isn't it amazing that we are even having this debate?

I still find it incredible that our enlightened, peace-loving, gentle, caring and generally likable society, who always roots for the "Little Guy" would have so little conscience over murdering the most smallest and most helpless among us. I still haven't figured that out...how convenience for an adult trumps life for a helpless baby.

I'd love to have this explained to me...and please don't use the same illogical platitudes that the Left always uses. Get off of the "choice" bit. Use the correct terms too. Don't cloud your opinions. Tell it like it is. If you want to kill unborn babies...just SAY so!

Posted: 2/10/2006 7:48:33 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The whole concept is rediculous.

You cannot humanely rip a child from his mother's womb and kill him.

The whole question of whether or not we should anesthetize a baby before we tear them to pieces has got to be the stupidest question ever asked.

Yes it is. And isn't it amazing that we are even having this debate?

I still find it incredible that our enlightened, peace-loving, gentle, caring and generally likable society, who always roots for the "Little Guy" would have so little conscience over murdering the most smallest and most helpless among us. I still haven't figured that out...how convenience for an adult trumps life for a helpless baby.

I'd love to have this explained to me...and please don't use the same illogical platitudes that the Left always uses. Get off of the "choice" bit. Use the correct terms too. Don't cloud your opinions. Tell it like it is. If you want to kill unborn babies...just SAY so!

What do you think the late, great Betty Friedan would have to say about this...

???

My take: there is no explanation, not a valid one anyway. It is inconscienable to even consider. And the whole "it's my body" thing is invalid, and lame at best. Because God/human biology pre-determines that it is the female of the species who carries the embryo/fetus/baby, does not lend legitimacy, nor justice, to a woman, nor anyone else, who chooses to use that sad argument. [sarcastic rhetoric on]So, I suppose because a woman's hand is part of "her body", that any crime committed against another using said hand would render it justified ???? [sarcastic rhetoric off] Please excuse the almost incoherent rant...this topic really turns my stomach.

Posted: 2/10/2006 8:02:01 AM EDT

[#15]

Here is what I don't get. If a "mother" is worried about hurting her child, why is she ok with killing it?

Posted: 2/10/2006 8:13:31 AM EDT

[#16]

Posted: 2/10/2006 8:18:24 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss:

At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain?

You aren't, by any chance, being a tad bit dishonest about your purpose, are you?

You have posted several times and chosen not to discuss the question so I'm afraid that makes you the .
I'm not sure you can really call site staff a troll. But hey, I could be wrong.

Not like it would be the first time.

I've been called worse, unfortunately the guy who had the "Aimless sucks" section his forum apparently couldn't keep up the payments for hosting or something.

Posted: 2/10/2006 8:20:04 AM EDT

[#18]

Abortion is the most hideous abomination I can think of.

Keep your head in the sand, people. Don't look up and realize what you are doing.

Posted: 2/10/2006 8:21:34 AM EDT

[#19]

You truly are poorly educated. Get your facts straight and come back and join us in a well thought out debate. Until then...
img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/LWilde/tool.jpg

Oh I guess I should take some debate lessons from the master.

Posted: 2/10/2006 8:21:45 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss:

At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain?

You aren't, by any chance, being a tad bit dishonest about your purpose, are you?

You have posted several times and chosen not to discuss the question so I'm afraid that makes you the .

Actually he/she asked you

at what week would you suggest that it be used?

Why do you refuse to answer?

20 week abortions? AFAIK unless it is for the health of the mother, after 12-14 weeks an abortion is already illegal. Is that not true?

Posted: 2/10/2006 8:22:59 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
This shit makes me sick.

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000

Posted: 2/10/2006 8:28:01 AM EDT

[#22]

D&X? WTF is that?
If you mean D&C they ain't rare, especially in Catholic hospitals. If you mean Dilation and extraction, what is the point of even bringing that up? I sure don't get it.

Yes it's what Republicans refer to as partial-birth abortion.

Only a tiny minority are against oral contraceptives, etc. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh? Are you or are you not against preventing a fertilized egg from implanting?

Posted: 2/10/2006 10:09:49 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Abortion is the most hideous abomination I can think of.

+ Infinity

And people wonder why the US is having problems. God will not bless a Nation that murders children.

Posted: 2/10/2006 12:59:04 PM EDT

[#24]

For you pro abortion peole, read this

Posted: 2/10/2006 1:03:28 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
For you pro abortion peole, read this

Peronsally I don't think they should be allowed to wait that long unless the mother is in danger. However it doesn't change my mind that the government shouldn't have a say over a woman's body, most especially in the early period.

Posted: 2/10/2006 1:25:46 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
For you pro abortion peole, read this

Peronsally I don't think they should be allowed to wait that long unless the mother is in danger. However it doesn't change my mind that the government shouldn't have a say over a woman's body, most especially in the early period.

When are you people going to get it????

It is NOT her body. But the body of a child!!!

That child has rights, and a soul.

Posted: 2/10/2006 1:37:39 PM EDT

[#27]

If it is deemed necessary to administer "pain killers" to the fetus then I submit there is no longer any question of the morality of the act. Any abortion that requires anesthetics should be illegal.

Posted: 2/10/2006 1:46:09 PM EDT

[#28]

That child has rights, and a soul.

This is the main point of contention, that an embryo has a 'soul'. It can't be considered anything more than a religious opinion.

Posted: 2/10/2006 1:49:30 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
That child has rights, and a soul.

This is the main point of contention, that an embryo has a 'soul'. It can't be considered anything more than a religious opinion.

How about you try and tell God that.

Posted: 2/10/2006 1:56:59 PM EDT

[#30]

IIRC, the baby begins showing brain activity at 10 weeks. IMHO, that's when it becomes a living human, and abortion after that point should be illegal.

Posted: 2/10/2006 2:18:25 PM EDT

[#31]

A 20 week(gestational age)fetus has a developed nervous system and so most likely feels pain.
If you have a nervous system and someone aborts you, you feel pain. Pain is a very basic neural reflex.
Remember neonatal intensive care units all over the country consider a child born at 24 weeks to be viable. If you were to stick a needle into the arm of a 20 week fetus in utero it would react and you could see it move on ultrasound.
Those are the facts.

Posted: 2/10/2006 2:20:10 PM EDT

[#32]

the debate

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:29:56 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
You truly are poorly educated. Get your facts straight and come back and join us in a well thought out debate. Until then...
img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/LWilde/tool.jpg

Oh I guess I should take some debate lessons from the master.

www.rhinotechnologies.com/fun/clue.gif

Debate? No. Knowledge? Without a doubt.

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:40:24 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
20 week abortions? AFAIK unless it is for the health of the mother, after 12-14 weeks an abortion is already illegal. Is that not true?

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:41:39 PM EDT

[#35]

how about when the fetus says "ouch, cut that out you asshole!"

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:43:56 PM EDT

[#36]

I would love to take a baseball bat and see if abortion docters feel pain

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:49:47 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
If it is deemed necessary to administer "pain killers" to the fetus then I submit there is no longer any question of the morality of the act. Any abortion that requires anesthetics should be illegal.

Very well said.

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:51:53 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
A 20 week(gestational age)fetus has a developed nervous system and so most likely feels pain.
If you have a nervous system and someone aborts you, you feel pain. Pain is a very basic neural reflex.
Remember neonatal intensive care units all over the country consider a child born at 24 weeks to be viable. If you were to stick a needle into the arm of a 20 week fetus in utero it would react and you could see it move on ultrasound.
Those are the facts.

The current record for a birth where the fetus lived is 19 weeks and 5 days. She's about 3 now and no noticed effects that she won't overcome 100% At 8 weeks a baby will try to dodge the tube that is there to suck it out.

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:52:46 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
This is the main point of contention, that an embryo has a 'soul'. It can't be considered anything more than a religious opinion.

FACT:

The fertilized egg is a human female's egg that was fertilized by a human male's sperm, making the product of that fertilization HUMAN.

FACT:

Every single one of us was once EXACTLY like that human embryo. The embryo IS A STAGE IN HUMAN LIFE.

FACT:

Left to nature, that embryo will most likely grow and develop AS WE DID and will one day be AS WE ARE NOW.

The only "religious" opinion I see is people who vehemently try to deny that a stage in human life isn't human life.

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:53:31 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
IIRC, the baby begins showing brain activity at 10 weeks. IMHO, that's when it becomes a living human, and abortion after that point should be illegal.

Measurable brain activity can be detected at FOUR weeks.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:13:09 PM EDT

[#41]

When the issue has anything to do with Abortion I stay away. Its not worth getting into that storm.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:13:58 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
When the issue has anything to do with Abortion I stay away. Its not worth getting into that storm.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:21:19 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
20 week abortions? AFAIK unless it is for the health of the mother, after 12-14 weeks an abortion is already illegal. Is that not true?

Is that a yes or a no?

Also

Actually he/she asked you

at what week would you suggest that it be used?

Why do you refuse to answer?

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:22:29 PM EDT

[#44]

No that's not true. AT ALL

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:23:10 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
That child has rights, and a soul.

This is the main point of contention, that an embryo has a 'soul'. It can't be considered anything more than a religious opinion.

How about you try and tell God that.

How about letting them worry about that.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:23:27 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC, the baby begins showing brain activity at 10 weeks. IMHO, that's when it becomes a living human, and abortion after that point should be illegal.

Measurable brain activity can be detected at FOUR weeks.

ETA: you're right, IIRC the brochure i read saying 10 weeks was referring to high brain activity (cerebrum not cerebellum or brain stem). i could be wrong on that though.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:28:46 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
When the issue has anything to do with Abortion I stay away. Its not worth getting into that storm.

you know, that's good advise man.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:34:55 PM EDT

[#48]

About 5 years ago, when I was a freshman in college, there was an anti abortion campaign going on at campus. They had 10 foot high posterboards with pictures of dismembered fetuses and babies

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:41:24 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That child has rights, and a soul.

This is the main point of contention, that an embryo has a 'soul'. It can't be considered anything more than a religious opinion.

How about you try and tell God that.

How about letting them worry about that.

Somebody has got to stand up to the evil. Last time I checked, it is my right. Sorry, but I will not sit idly by and not say anything while people act like murdering babies is normal, or even acceptable. It isnt. It is an abomination and murder.

Posted: 2/10/2006 7:30:54 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
20 week abortions? AFAIK unless it is for the health of the mother, after 12-14 weeks an abortion is already illegal. Is that not true?

Is that a yes or a no?

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

About 4/5 of U.S. states forbid third-trimester abortion except as necessary for the woman's health. The third trimester begins in the 28th week.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain? (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us