http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4905892.stm

Foetuses 'cannot experience pain'

Pro-life groups say foetuses respond to stimuli from 20 weeks.

The US is considering legislation to make doctors tell women seeking an abortion it will cause the foetus pain.

It is also being suggested that, if the pregnancy is over 22 weeks, foetuses should be given pain-relieving drugs.

Dr Derbyshire, who is linked to pro-choice groups, said there were various stages of a foetus' gestation at which certain parts of the body's pain "alarm system" developed.

He concludes that pathways in the brain needed to process pain responses and hormonal stress responses are in place by 26 weeks.


Does it matter if a fetus can feel pain or not?

No more than it matters whether or not you can feel pain.

Does it matter if Spurious Monkey feels pain?

No.

Do fish feel pain? yes. Does it matter. No.

It does if you are a fish.

Indeed. But the fisherman isn't a fish. Nor is the medical doctor a fetus.

If it does, and it seems likely, then maybe it should get anesthesia in the event it is aborted.

Indeed. But the fisherman isn't a fish. Nor is the medical doctor a fetus.We consider the egocentric world view to be primitive and strategically counterproductive.

I thought it was considered to be sophisticated and modern in this world?

If it does, and it seems likely, then maybe it should get anesthesia in the event it is aborted.
But the whole point of the research described in the linked article is that it isn't likely a foetus feels pain prior to being born, indicating that there are no requirements for foetal anesthesia during abortions.

Working with early fetuses is not very disturbing. They are so inert. It it like you are working with 'tissues', not an 'organism'. But the older ones. God dam. Then you really have to be a beast to carry on. They are aware of every thing you do to them. Although a lot of the reactions are probably reflexes. Even if they are technically dead. Well, it isn't that easy to kill them.

A newborn mouse pup cannot be gassed with CO2 for instance like an adult mouse. They just do not respond to it. Cervical dislocation is the only option.

Indeed. But the fisherman isn't a fish. Nor is the medical doctor a fetus.

But...let's be honest here, the fetus is a human.

Geoff

And a fish is a fish. I love fishes. I think they are my favourite animal.

Well, since a fetus is alive, and is a human, and (I would imagine) doesn't want to die, are we justified in saying abortion isn't murder? It's all the rage to get worked up about this and throw condoms at things, but by our own definitions isn't this murder then?

Geoff

It's a special case.

Murder is a legal term.

You certainly make it dead.

Does the definition of murder make special reference to the victim (if you will) having to be of any particular age?

Actually, even if it did, wouldn't that seem a little biased?

Geoff

It probably does. Otherwise I imagine that 'abortion' would be called 'murder'.

But it is called 'abortion'.

Murder indeed is a legal term and only applies to a person that has been born. A person which has not been born is not called a person, it does not have any legal rights or the ability to enforce those rights (with the only exception of inheritance rights in special cases).

...and (I would imagine) doesn't want to die...
Ahh yes, well there we have it. Your imagination is not a logical basis on which to debate foetal anesthesia during an abortion, or the purely unscientific notion of 'murder'.

I thought it was considered to be sophisticated and modern in this world?This world is primitive and its people are engaged in strategicaly damaging behavioural patterns. We do not approve of this.

If you look at the current state of the world it seems the 'we' you are referring to is a minority.

Murder indeed is a legal term and only applies to a person that has been born. A person which has not been born is not called a person, it does not have any legal rights or the ability to enforce those rights (with the only exception of inheritance rights in special cases).

All right, I'm going to argue this one. How does is the case that an embryo has no ability to enforce legal rights make it acceptable to terminate its life? An unconscious adult has no direct legal ability to protect its life either; yet, legal provision can be and is made for such individuals. Legal proviso - on an individual basis or a federal/state one - could be similarly made for an embryo. You raise a good point but I think that its impetus is...well, too legalistic. We might draw up any number of laws for this or that, and one can point back in history and ask whether it was acceptable that racial segregation, or the subjugation of women, or the eternal reductam ad annoyam of slavery were legal too - and they were, and are, in some places. Perhaps my objection is more moral than legal.

I'll stipulate to the legal definition of the thread - squirrely in its inception: is it reasonable to legislate someone who's committed no crime? - about euthanasia by saying that the neural systems of an embryo are not sufficiently developed to experience pain...I think...but the entire concept of abortion seems a bit barbaric to begin with. :) However, it's certainly unreasonable to assign an embryo's "will to live" to my imagination; merely slapping an ontogenetic sticker on prima facie genomic interests in fitness and survival won't do.

Geoff

If you look at the current state of the world it seems the 'we' you are referring to is a minority.

Incidentally, which we and which state of the world?

Geoff

We might draw up any number of laws for this or that, and one can point back in history and ask whether it was acceptable that racial segregation, or the subjugation of women, or the eternal reductam ad annoyam of slavery were legal too - and they were, and are, in some places. Perhaps my objection is more moral than legal.

Well, it all depends a it of course in which country you live, but I assume you are american. Then Abortion was actually illegal till quite recent ago (70s). Maybe the illegality of abortion is one of those old immoral laws, and you are figthing a don quichotte war against the windmills of modern times.

i'm not sure what you want. So I will have to stop my comment here.

Incidentally, which we and which state of the world?

Geoff

We, you should ask ophiolite that. Which state of the world? The dark one.

Well, it all depends a it of course in which country you live, but I assume you are american. Then Abortion was actually illegal till quite recent ago (70s). Maybe the illegality of abortion is one of those old immoral laws, and you are figthing a don quichotte war against the windmills of modern times.

i'm not sure what you want. So I will have to stop my comment here.

Don Quixote or not, I really have to say I don't think I could support it morally. I mean, if the supportive basis for it springs from legalism, that doesn't seem sufficient justification for an issue involving human life, if you assign any value to that. Ultimately, an embryo is certifiably i) alive, ii) human, and iii) innocent of felonious conduct. I don't know what more could be said about it than that.

Geoff

Ultimately, an embryo is certifiably i) alive, ii) human, and iii) innocent of felonious conduct.


i) so is your sperm. Do you commit genocide every time you masturbate?
ii) so is your sperm.
iii) so is your sperm.

It seems you missed something essential.

i) so is your sperm. Do you commit genocide every time you masturbate?
ii) so is your sperm.
iii) so is your sperm.

It seems you missed something essential.

Missed something essential? My sperm? *pats groin* Still here. Whew!

It would thank you for your fixation, if it could; regrettably, it is haploid and thus incapable of either speech, multicellular catabolism, empathy or even gratitude, nor anything more miraculous no matter what my past female acquaintances might say.

In fact, until the moment that it fertilizes an egg, creating a diploid individual, it is not capable of producing real, persistent life. In the same manner, neither are my somatic cells capable of so doing, save if some kind, wealthy and infinitely wise doctor were to take them all and clone out several billion new "me"s. (Incidentally, I can't advise the latter strongly enough...an excellent idea if I ever heard one.) Skin cells fall out all the time: yet, barring rare and highly advantageous circumstance (could I command the clones? would they be an army? I would assign them alphanumeric designations with loving care) they are not capable of so doing either.

Or in short: humans are diploid.

Geoff

Originally Posted by GeoffP
Ultimately, an embryo is certifiably i) alive, ii) human, and iii) innocent of felonious conduct.

i) so is your sperm. Do you commit genocide every time you masturbate?
ii) so is your sperm.
iii) so is your sperm.

It seems you missed something essential.

Or did you mean my sperm is not innocent of felonious conduct?

I take offense at your implication, sirrah.

Felonious Geoff

If you look at the current state of the world it seems the 'we' you are referring to is a minority.We never said we approved of democracies.