User Panel
Posted: 2/9/2006 2:47:41 PM EDT
As some of you may be aware, Senator Sam Brownback has introduced legislation (Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act to inform women that an unborn child past 20 weeks fertilization could feel pain during the abortion procedure.
The law, if passed,:
Some anti-abortion sites argue that a fetus can 'react' to pain as early as 8 weeks gestation. They also make many other claims, backed up by physicians in the field, that prove a fetus can 'feel' pain after 20 weeks of gestation: Fetal Pain Much of the controversy surrounding fetal pain was rekindled after the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article (JAMA 2005; 294: 947-954) stating that: "a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until 28-30 weeks (emphasis added) after conception, when the nerves that carry painful stimuli to the brain have developed. Before that, the fetal reaction to a noxious stimulus is a reflex that does not involve consciousness." A lay article that supports the JAMA findings:
www.discover.com/issues/dec-05/rd/fetus-feel-pain/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's not get this locked. I want a serious discussion here based on facts. |
||
|
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. |
|
I don't know much about this kind of thing but couldn't the anesthesia itself possibly kill the fetus?
|
|
Everybody reads Roe, but nobody ever reads Doe. In Roe, the Court did imply that the state had an interest in the third trimester. But in the companion case, Doe, the Court said that no state could ever pass a restriction unless it had an exception for the "health of the mother" and then defined "health of the mother" to basically include whatever her doctor says is dangerous to her health. So far, I don't believe any state has passed a third-trimester ban which would satisfy the Doe test. Such a law would, of course be useless since you could simply shop for a doctor who would tell you what you wanted to hear. The last time the S. Ct. visited the issue, IIRC, was Stenberg v. Carheart where the State of Nebraska passed a law banning partial birth abortions, and had a string of well-respected doctors saying "this procedure is never medically necessary." That law was struck down under the Doe standard because there was no exception for health of the mother, even though the experts said it wasn't necessary. The only plus side was that Dr. Carheart, the abortion doctor who challenged the law, in doing so pissed of the guy who owned his parking spots, and refused to lease them back to him again. Dr. Carheart now has to park his Porsche somewhere else. |
|
|
The idea is to kill the fetus without causing it pain, much like they do with lethal injection of murderers. You give the latter sodium pentothal to 'knock them out' so they don't feel the suffocation when you inject the succinylcholine. Now does it all make sense? |
|
|
except for the fact that they don't feel "pain" the way we do. Hell, even a fish reacts to stimuli, including pain, does that mean that we should dope up fish whenever we cut their heads off? |
||
|
19 pages, two accounts locked.
I could never kill my child. That's my opinion on the matter. |
|
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. |
|
Some people are anti-abortion, some people are pro-choice, I figured out I am NO-Choice.
One day, some girlfriend in college comes up and does the; “I am late this month, I think I am pregnant.” At that moment, I knew I didn’t have a choice on the future of that embryo. How can I ask she keep it? How can I ask she rid of it. I am stuck with her values, no matter what. |
|
Oh really? How is that? Are unborn babies' synapses that different from those of an adult? Are they lacking in ACh? Does their sodium-potassium pump operate differently? Oh...I KNOW...babies don't have any ATP until they are born...right? Please... |
|||
|
The purpose of this thread is to discuss: At what stage of an abortion should anesthetics be used to blunt fetal pain?
After catching a fish I always 'bonk' it in the head unless I am releasing it (too small). Don't you? |
||
|
What I don't get is the "murder" bit.
Laws in the US are based on the majority opinion of Americans. (or at least should be) Abortion is legal within whatever months of conception so in theory, the majority of Americans think that Abortion is OK. Calling something that is presently legal, murder, doesn't make sense to me. Concerning the post topic, if there is any chance of the foetus feeling pain, use anaesthetics if there is no reason not to. No expert but I think that whatever cc's of anaesthetics shouldn't add much on to the medical bill. |
|
When I recently pressed on a pregnant woman's belly (26 weeks) I felt something hard. It went away and then I felt 2 or 3 kicks, so presumably it was the fetus' foot. I'm sure that it was 'its' reptilian 'spinal reflex' acting up again. |
|
|
Abortion is an abomination. That being said, its likely to remain a part of our culture up until the day when somebody uninvents the pill. Too many people want it as birth control in case they get pregnant at an "inconvenient" time. Treating people as chattel is simply par for the course in human history. Slavery existed for the first 10,000 years of civilization, and is now making a comback in the form of human trafficking. Color me not surprised.
"The strong do as they will, and the weak submit as they must." - Thucydides |
|
Well I'm sitting here playing with my mini-me and trying to contemplate why somebody would want to have an abortion.
|
|
Read my earlier post. The Supreme Court makes abortion law, not the people. |
|
|
Never thought about it, at what week would you suggest that it be used? I mean you're not just trolling or anything, right? |
|
|
The first post is full of facts that can be independantly verified. Make your decision on that. I'll say this though, I fully support the morning after pill in cases of rape, or even abortion when the baby is known to have severe complications that will prevent it from ever having a happy, healthy life or pregnancy is a danger to the mother. Other than that I detest anyone who would use it as a form of birthcontrol. USE A CONDOM and don't have sex (even with protection) if your not 100% willing to take care of a child. That's reproductive choice, don't want kids? don't make the beast with 2 backs. How simple is that?
|
|
Well said, my friend. |
|
|
Now you want to force responsibility on people. Don't they have a right to be irresponsible? Never mind. I won't even make cynical jokes in this thread. The very topic turns my stomach. |
|
|
Offering pain meds will only attract more loser scum to murder their children. Seriously. I would actually suyspect there will be some who become pregnant intentionally just for the buzz. In fact, I would just about guarantee it.
How about abortion thru suicide? Sounds like a better alternative to me, all the way around. |
|
Murder!!!
If you have an abortion as a birth control substitute, you should have your tubes tied by law. |
|
|
|
|
Similar thing, the courts should be an average of what Americans think, or at least in theory. If enough people think strongly enough that what the courts decide is wrong, the courts decision would change. Or should I sue my teachers for not teaching me right about the legal system |
||
|
Fixed. |
|
|
I think I rember a thread similar to this one.
Or is it just me? |
|
You think a bunch of Harvard Lawyers are representative of the people? |
|||
|
Prove it - the evidence presented thus far would seem to indicate otherwise. |
|
|
If it is against the CoC to discuss pending Federal legislation then please let me know. |
||
|
Well, put that way, certainly not. But am I right in theory, or am I just plain wrong A bit late now, but I wish that I had payed more attention during civics. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Personal Responsibility is lost in this country Its murder. Period. |
|
|
If that were true, then what is the point of having a Constitution and its Amendments. The problem is that most people don't think beyond their own noses. |
|||
|
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? |
|||
|
Locked because of what? There are a heck of a lot more important issues to be discussing? Brokeback Mountain, Chuck Norris, etc. No one wants to think about the issue? Don't post in the thread then...
I think pain meds for the baby is a great idea; give them as early as 8 weeks (of course, I prefer that it were illegal to kill babies in the first place) or whatever the earliest they determine it can feel pain. It's a step in the right direction, though - one that of course will be fought tooth and nail by the usual suspects, because it nocks the legs out from under the argument that an unborn infant is something less than human. Abortion should be limited to instances where the actual life of the mother were in danger - health is too vague an exception. Furthermore, arguing from a human-rights perspective, why should it be permissable for infants conceived through rape (or who have birth defects) to be aborted - both of those are horrible situations, but in the one, they're killing the wrong person, and the other, it's like saying only "perfect" babies should be allowed to be born. "Perfect" or "damaged goods", the baby is still a human being, with human rights (among which is the right to life), and shouldn't be killed. I find it amazing that as a "civilized" society, the issue is even subject to debate. Climbs down from soapbox... |
|
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. |
|
Spoken like a true liberal du troll. |
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about do you? Most are for convenience. Often lose the ability to become pregnant? Not hardly. What is the "exception for the woman's health"? Again, wrong. Let women die? 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. Do you know anything about human developmental biology? Seems not. At least nothing more than what you read in some Planned Babykilling pamphlet. Only a tiny minority are against oral contraceptives, etc. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In short, you are as ignorant as you are stupid, which is pretty damn much. Maybe you should educate yourself on the subject before you come on a public forum, sticking your foot in your mouth...repeatedly...and make an ass of yourself. Probably how you make money though. My bad. |
|
|
If it is against the CoC to discuss pending Federal legislation then please let me know. |
||||
|
It is expected to treat members of our own speicies in a unique fashion. IOW, we don't eat one another, or kill one another. Except for those as you who want to murder babies. Premed, my ass. Maybe one day someone will trust you enough to let you do valet parking. Maybe. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.