Heres another site http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/845410 So does the fetus, in fact, feel pain? A growing body of evidence says yes. The fetus is known to have pain receptors throughout the body by 8 weeks of gestation.[4] By 20 weeks gestational age, the fetus will react to a painful stimulus in the same manner that adults do.[5] A stress response to needling of the fetal tissue with production of beta endorphins, cortisol, and noradrenaline can be seen by 20 weeks gestational age. The same response is not seen when needling the umbilical cord, which does not contain pain fibers.[6] Some researchers argue that cortical function is required for pain sensation and that this is not functional until 29-30 weeks gestational age.[7] The presumption is that pain cannot be perceived until neural fibers connect the thalamus to the cortex, a process usually not completed until this time. There is evidence, however, that the thalamus is capable of integrated nociception, which can explain the pain response in anencephalic children and those without an intact cortex.[8]
Can't see the reference as it requires membership. The preponderance of the evidence is against you A March 2010 report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the United Kingdom concluded similarly: RCOG, 2010: In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has agreed with RCOG’s and the JAMA study’s findings, writing in 2012 that “upporters of fetal pain legislation only present studies which support the claim of fetal pain prior to the third trimester. When weighed together with other available information, including the JAMA and RCOG studies, supporters’ conclusion does not stand.”
The assertion this article is making, and the implications of the study referenced in it, are actually more on the lines of the fetus being able to feel pain at 20 weeks gestation – not eight. The article’s title is simply misleading, for obvious click-baity reasons. The confusion is probably due to a misinterpretation of this particular finding: “The earliest reactions to painful stimuli motor reflexes can be detected at 7.5 weeks of gestations [5.5 weeks post-fertilization].” That quote can easily be misunderstood, but it is most likely not an indication of pain - electroencephalographical studies on premature infants suggest that withdrawal reactions (as well as changes in heart rates and hormone levels) in response to invasive procedures are actually nothing but reflexes, and that functional pain perception probably does not develop fully until about 29 weeks. In short, it is the inherent instinct of survival that causes this phenomenon, not an actual physiological ability to experience pain.
When Roe vs Wade was decided, there was a lot of uncertainty about whether the brain was functional at the same time the heart and lungs were viable, so the Supreme Court did not address the issue of personhood. They drew lines based on viability. Here is an article from 2009 in Scientific American that explains why it would be impossible for a fetus (until sometime in the third trimester) to process a meaningful thought. Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ It explains that the brain circuitry necessary for conscious thought is just getting into place by the third trimester: Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. It goes on to explain that the fetus is sedated by the environment of the womb: What is fascinating is the discovery that the fetus is actively sedated by the low oxygen pressure (equivalent to that at the top of Mount Everest), the warm and cushioned uterine environment and a range of neuroinhibitory and sleep-inducing substances produced by the placenta and the fetus itself... This article continues, explaining why the brain is activated by the profound changes associated with birth: The dramatic events attending delivery by natural (vaginal) means cause the brain to abruptly wake up, however. The fetus is forced from its paradisic existence in the protected, aqueous and warm womb into a hostile, aerial and cold world that assaults its senses with utterly foreign sounds, smells and sights, a highly stressful event. Since the cerebrum is not capable of conscious thought before the third trimester, any movement observed prior to the third trimester is simple reflex response to pressure (controlled by the primitive brain stem). EEG readings just suggest that electrical signals are generated by cellular activity. They are not evidence of meaningful brain function. Do you have scientific evidence (more recent than 2009) that the fetus is actually capable of meaningful thought prior to birth?
These are biased pro-life interpretations of scientific observations. For example, the presence of nerve cells does not mean the fetus is experiencing pain. The last paragraph you quoted even alludes to that: "Mechanisms that inhibit or moderate the experience of pain do not begin to develop until 32 to 34 weeks post-fertilization." but (putting the pro-life spin on it) they presume: Any pain the unborn child experiences before these pain inhibitors are in place is likely more intense than the pain an older infant or adult experiences when subjected to similar types of injury.” (2004 expert testimony before Congress of Dr. Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand)" There is no mechanism (prior to that point) for the fetus to experience the pain at all until the mechanisms are in place to interpret and "moderate" the signals arriving from the nervous system. Before that, the signals from the nervous system are just electrical "noise" which (at the most) will solicit a reflex response from the primitive brain stem.
Yes most are from pro life sites but the studies are not. It makes no difference to me. Its a potential human life from the moment of conception. Killing it just because its an inconvenience is intolerable to me. There is a long line of people waiting to adopt new born babies. So long they will even accept ones that are defective. Again I think this is a matter best left to the states as per the 10th amendment.
Whoa, can you expand on that? Why do you think the state should have such power? I'm genuinely interested; I've never seen anyone advocate this specific flavour of state involvement. As for my own view, I'm pro-choice, but I didn't vote on the poll because when life begins is irrelevant. The whole issue is a matter of state violence against women to force them to loan out their bodies against their will, which just looks like the state enforcing some vague arbitrary morality for the sake of controlling women's bodies and performing a similar function to e.g. laws against sodomy.
Pro-life individuals generally take actual observations and put the pro-life spin on them (e.g. Nerve cells start forming here at 5 weeks so let's assume the embryo can experience pain). If you only find a theory on the pro-life web pages, it is probably NOT a generally accepted theory. I think we agree here. The fetus is a developing human body, and it is a potential person. If you think it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy for convenience, then do not ever get an abortion (unless it threatens your life). Pro-choice advocates are not "pro-abortion," we just believe everybody should be able to make their own choice about what happens inside their own bodies. A long line of people waiting to adopt newborn babies? The last time I checked there were plenty of children in the system waiting to be adopted. It could be argued that more women being forced to produce more newborns would hurt those actual children already in line waiting to be adopted. Basic human rights (like who gets to use your kidneys or your uterus) belong to the people (not to the state). I think you would agree that a state would be infringing on your human rights to require you to get an abortion if you already have two children, or require you to produce at least two children by age 30. Yet pro-life advocates want the state to infringe on the rights of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy and wishes to terminate it. If the issue is really about the personhood of the fetus (or lack thereof), it should not matter whether the fetus is in North Carolina or North Dakota. It should be resolved by objective scientific evidence. If that is not possible, then it should be a matter of individual conscience.
Because any power not granted to the federal government under the constitution belongs to the state. Its a matter of state backed violence and murder of the most innocent among us.
I think the bottom line is this: If you do not believe in abortion, then do not have one. No one will force you to have an abortion if you do not want one plain and simple.
I think its if you dont want an abortion dont get pregnant. How about those who consider it murder? Just let it go on ?
...Or to individuals? Surely they should be the ones deciding what to do with their bodies? "The most innocent among us" being foetuses who are of no value to others and, if this somehow omnibenevolent state happened to rule against an abortion, would be literally living off someone's body against her will.
Then you have virtually eliminated all late term pregnancies. Even where there is a threat to the woman's life they will simply deliver the baby and pray it survives. These are most commonly wanted pregnancies where something terrible has occurred
And a very large prortion of those seeking abortions were using contraception. Or are you one of those who think condoms have a 100% success rate at preventing pregnancy
Yes. Also if they want to eat meat and cheese in the same meal, or be baptized by sprinkling instead of immersion, or have a shot of whiskey at the end of a long day. Those are all personal decisions.
OK then let us give the state the ultimate power. Since human history has proven that people will not refrain from sex and keep having unwanted pregnancies then let us give the state the ultimate power and require all males over puberty to donate sperm before being sterilised. Then when a couple wanted to conceive they would have to apply to the state and show ability to care for the child financially. Bingo no more unwanted pregnancies no more abortions
Because you are confusing the terms "later term abortion" with late term abortion which happens post viability
There is no single, precise definition of late-term abortion. Many of the scientific studies conducted on the matter place the gestational period of 20 weeks as a lower limit, so I consider that to be legitimate. But again, there is no consensus (as "late-term abortion" is not a scientific term to begin with, but instead evolved as a term usually associated with either the surgical dilation and evacuation or the intact dilation and extraction methods of abortion). It has been placed at 16 weeks, 20 weeks and 27 weeks by different sources. Sometimes medical associations (JAMA for example) even contradict themselves on different articles. The minimum limit for foetal viability is 22-23 weeks. To my knowledge there is no statistical data available that examines abortions that take place exclusively after this period, or exclusively after the beginning of the third trimester. However, the two studies I mentioned studied abortions performed at 16 or 20 weeks plus. They were done to include all late-term abortions. Additionally, a 2006 study of Perspectives of Sexual and Reproductive Health conducted a survey of hundreds of women who had second-trimester abortions. Though the second trimester ends at 27 weeks, the study sample did not contain a single case of abortion for health reasons (the top reasons listed were: had no pregnancy symptoms, didn’t confirm the pregnancy until the second trimester, had trouble finding abortion provider, and unsure of date of last menstrual period). Again, do you have evidence that supports your assertions? If so, you are welcome to present it. I'm only interested in an accurate representation of the truth, but right now your claims are unsubstantiated.
There is no research from the USA but other countries show a trend - although the second trimester abortions are often for delay in obtaining an abortion earlier due to limited access - the longer the pregnancy continues the more it is for abnormality. This simply makes sense - if a woman continues the pregnancy past 24 weeks it is usually because this is a wanted pregnancy and it takes tragedy to change that https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/advocacy/briefings/fetal-anomaly/ Number of post 20 week terminations in Victoria Very few post 20 weeks terminations are undertaken in Victoria. In 2004, 220 Victorian women underwent terminations later than 20 weeks gestation3. More than half of these were for foetal abnormality. From 2000 to 2004, only 35 terminations were undertaken post 28 weeks in Victoria. The vast majority of these were for foetal abnormality. For Victorian women who had post 20 week terminations in 2004 for other reasons (listed as psychosocial), most of these were young women (under 25 years). A lack of accurate data collection data in Victoria makes it difficult to identify the exact numbers of terminations carried out and what percentage of all terminations are undertaken post 20 weeks gestation. The Department of Human Services has noted that Victorian data on 2nd and 3rd trimester terminations may seriously overestimate the number actually carried out as other procedures may have been recorded using the same data code4,5. [/ COLOR] whv.org.au/static/files/assets/9dbc19ef/Abortion-issues-post20.pdf plus this one http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.2188/full
It would be nice if you could guarantee that those who didn't want to get pregnant wouldn't, but the reality is that it's going to happen regardless; those who consider it murder, again shouldn't have an abortion. It's a no brainer.
That is information specificaly on abortions performed for fetal abnormalities. It contains no data over what percentage those contitute or anything useful to the discussion. The Medical Practitioner Board of Victoria in a report on late terminations of pregnancy defined them as those undertaken at 20 weeks or more gestation. These are also known as 2nd or 3rd trimester terminations. [/ COLOR] If you accept these standards for "late-term", then the US studies I presented you with stand perfectly, since they also use this definition, and since they all confirm each other's findings. Interestingly enough, the paper also mentions: This report suggests that in at least 80% of cases, for the reasons outlined above, women seeking terminations later in their pregnancy did not realise they needed to request abortion until they were more than three months pregnant. [/ COLOR] This study specifically focuses on "fetal abnormalities leading to third trimester abortion". The study population includes "all parturient women with singleton pregnancy that underwent termination of pregnancy (TOP) in the third trimester in our institute because of fetal indications." It doesn't examine all third trimester abortions and what percentage of them are conducted due to medical reasons. Putting that aside, it makes no sense to look at pregnancies terminated only during the third trimester (28-40) weeks, when post third trimester is not the definition we are using for late-term, and when post third trimester abortions constitute the minority of late-term abortions. So whether we are setting the bar for "late-term" to be 20 weeks (as the study you cited suggests), or 22-23 weeks (post-viability), we have already established that the majority of late-term abortions (20-27 weeks) are performed for nonmedical reasons. As per your own words, there is no disagreement between us on that. (Note: It's not limited access that is the dominant reason but failure of the women to realize they were pregnant.)
Deny it as you want the Victorian study in particular, supports what I said - most are for foetal abnormality and your attempt to change this does not alter the fact that you are confusing pre-viability abortions with post viability abortions. There are few studies that focus on post viability but those that do show that the longer the pregnancy continues the more likely the termination will be for reasons other than psychosocial There is a Greenland study that I have difficulty locating but it too supports terminations in the third trimester are overwhelmingly for foetal abnormality However I found this Parisian study Yes there is some bias but the study itself admits that later term abortions are legally only performed for foetal abnormality Basically as others have pointed out where there is no legal limits to abortion the rates themselves fall with each week of gestation. What we are seeing is the later the pregnancy the less likely the termination will be for anything other than foetal abnormality
Abortion is okay for any reason before 20 weeks. The whole concept of life misses the moral point. People do not value life. We eat living things all the time. People value a particular kind of life, i.e. persons. Personhood is defined by the mind, and the mind cannot exist in even the most rudimentary sense before 20 weeks. Therefore abortion before 20 weeks is morally neutral and efforts to stop it are immoral for the harms to the privacy of the woman, and harms to women's health.
- Third trimester is 28 weeks plus. Post viability is 22-23 weeks plus. (Late-term abortion, even in the study you cited, is often placed at 20 weeks plus, but let's put that aside.) - The majority of post viability abortions occur within the second trimester. - Studies confirm that most abortions within the second trimester are done for nonmedical reasons. You have already agreed with this. Your original point was that most of late-term abortions are done for medical reasons. Therefore your original point does not stand. Am I being unclear in any way?
