Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks'

[Peter King]

The human foetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks, according to an official review of scientific evidence, contradicting one argument that anti-abortion campaigners have used for reducing the termination limit.

Nerve endings in the brain are not sufficiently formed to enable pain to be felt before 24 weeks, according to the report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which had been commissioned by the Department of Health.

The report said: "It can be concluded that the foetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation."

Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks' - Telegraph

Every can read the rest of the story at the link above.


Now it may be true that a fetus cannot feel pain until week 24, this does not mean that the 20 week limit should be let go. I would personally even like to see it at week 16 at the latest but that is just my personal opinion.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The human foetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks, according to an official review of scientific evidence, contradicting one argument that anti-abortion campaigners have used for reducing the termination limit.

Nerve endings in the brain are not sufficiently formed to enable pain to be felt before 24 weeks, according to the report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which had been commissioned by the Department of Health.

The report said: "It can be concluded that the foetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation."

Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks' - Telegraph

Every can read the rest of the story at the link above.


Now it may be true that a fetus cannot feel pain until week 24, this does not mean that the 20 week limit should be let go. I would personally even like to see it at week 16 at the latest but that is just my personal opinion.

Red Herring. From day 1, it is human. That's what matters.

 

[Peter King]

Red Herring. From day 1, it is human. That's what matters.

No, that is what matters to pro-lifers, for pro-choicers it is the right of the woman to decide what happens inside her body that counts (up to a point in time that is)

 

[Sykes]

The human foetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks, according to an official review of scientific evidence, contradicting one argument that anti-abortion campaigners have used for reducing the termination limit.

Nerve endings in the brain are not sufficiently formed to enable pain to be felt before 24 weeks, according to the report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which had been commissioned by the Department of Health.

The report said: "It can be concluded that the foetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation."

Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks' - Telegraph

Every can read the rest of the story at the link above.


Now it may be true that a fetus cannot feel pain until week 24, this does not mean that the 20 week limit should be let go. I would personally even like to see it at week 16 at the latest but that is just my personal opinion.

Thank you. And from a personal perspective, I can't see abortion past four months (sixteen weeks).

Fortunately, I'll never get pregnant, and so what I think doesn't matter.

 

[Serenity]

Not sure of others thoughts here, but i know for one I've never used the reason of "pain" as a primary reason against abortion. The argument is simply that killing children in the womb is morally wrong.

Whether or not unborn children feel pain is completely irrelevant as to whether or not they should be killed. At the moment of conception a new human life is created and it is this life that those opposed to abortion wish to preserve and nurture.

There are ways to kill anyone painlessly. Doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[ksu_aviator]

No, that is what matters to pro-lifers, for pro-choicers it is the right of the woman to decide what happens inside her body that counts (up to a point in time that is)

Well if the pro-choicers are conceeding that the woman doesn't have the right to determine what goes on inside her after a certain point, then why 16, 20 or 24 weeks? What's the difference? From the moment the egg was fertilized it is human. Why confer rights at any point in time after that?

 

[JayDubya]

Well if the pro-choicers are conceeding that the woman doesn't have the right to determine what goes on inside her after a certain point, then why 16, 20 or 24 weeks? What's the difference? From the moment the egg was fertilized it is human. Why confer rights at any point in time after that?

Indeed.

If the primary conceit is "choice" and "ownership of the contents of one's uterus" (which mean, respectively, "the choice to kill another human being in cold blood," and "the ability to own another human being as property"), then the age of the human in the womb should be irrelevant.

That is often their conceit, or so they claim. IF their primary argument lies in saying that non-sapient life should not or do not have rights, as they often argue, then they wouldn't even stop at birth as the cut-off for killing a kid; there's nothing magically different about a human pre-birth and post-birth, just a minor shift in relative geography.

It doesn't make any logical sense; strong contradictions...

 

[minnie616]

The human foetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks, according to an official review of scientific evidence, contradicting one argument that anti-abortion campaigners have used for reducing the termination limit.

Nerve endings in the brain are not sufficiently formed to enable pain to be felt before 24 weeks, according to the report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which had been commissioned by the Department of Health.

The report said: "It can be concluded that the foetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation."

Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks' - Telegraph

Every can read the rest of the story at the link above.


Now it may be true that a fetus cannot feel pain until week 24, this does not mean that the 20 week limit should be let go. I would personally even like to see it at week 16 at the latest but that is just my personal opinion.

I have researched this issue a lot and everything I have read also supports the fact before 24 weeks gestation a fetus has not developed enough to feel pain.
There are also natural chemicals in the amino fluid which limit feeling of pain even after the nervous system is more developed.
Perhaps that helps during childbirth ...not sure.

Anyway this subject is of special interest to me since I had a miscarriage between ny 2 ed and 3 rd child at 20 weeks gestation over 30 years ago.

I was about 20 weeks gestation when I went into early labor.
I went to the ER hoping they could stop the labor so I could continue my pregnancy.
They took a pregnancy test and informed me I was no longer pregnant.
They gave me meds hoping to stop the labor because the doctor covering for my doctor who was out of town did not want to come that day.

When they took me to my room and I was transferring from the gurney to the bed the fetus was expelled and I accidentally saw it and how deformed it was.

Later my doctor told me even if I had carried longer it never would have survived. It was so deformed they could not even tell the sex.

I am at peace of mind knowing that poor little deformed fetus felt no pain.

 

[Peter King]

Well if the pro-choicers are conceeding that the woman doesn't have the right to determine what goes on inside her after a certain point, then why 16, 20 or 24 weeks? What's the difference? From the moment the egg was fertilized it is human. Why confer rights at any point in time after that?

Because it is their right to have an abortion. We will never concede that a woman does not have the right to determine what is inside her and the constitution protects her right to privacy.

From the moment the egg is fertilized it is a clump of cells, with no substance with no qualities that make it a human being, just human material. A tumor is also human material and we have no problem removing that. As long as the clump of cells is early enough in the pregnancy it is not a human being and thus the only human being in the issue has the right to decide.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Red Herring. From day 1, it is human. That's what matters.

Why does that matter?

 

[ksu_aviator]

Because it is their right to have an abortion. We will never concede that a woman does not have the right to determine what is inside her and the constitution protects her right to privacy.

She had every right to make that determination prior to sex. The commission of sex is the choice. The possibility of pregnancy is always there, no matter what protections you use. After that, I don't see any rights bestowed upon the woman or state to sentence the child to death.

From the moment the egg is fertilized it is a clump of cells, with no substance with no qualities that make it a human being, just human material. A tumor is also human material and we have no problem removing that. As long as the clump of cells is early enough in the pregnancy it is not a human being and thus the only human being in the issue has the right to decide.

I'm 36 years old and you can describe me as nothing more than a clump of cells. A much larger clump, but a clump none the less. Same goes for you, Obama, Boehner, and every other adult. In the literal sense, we are all a clump of cells. We have every quality of a human being as does the clump of cells inside a woman. Developmental stages do not determine species. Not in this case. Unless you can tell me that that clump of cells is even remotely likely to be another species (dog, cat, snake, or anything else), it is disingenuous to label it anything other than human.

Going back to the Constitution for a moment, do you recognize this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That of course, does not come from the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence. I bring up the DOI because it is the basis for the separation from Great Britain and the formation of a new set of states. It is the principle behind our Constitution. It states we are created equal. Not born equal. Those are two different times. We are created equal and we have rights, natural rights, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is where the 5th Amendment comes in: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." The death penalty cannot be assigned without a proper trial. These "clumps of cells" are not given trials, therefore their death is not constitutional.

 

[minnie616]

The fetal right to life argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Roe vs Wade decision.

 

[Goshin]

Ah.

So if an accident leaves me unable to feel pain in my right foot for a period of 24 weeks, during that period it would be perfectly fine for you to cut off my foot without my leave, right?


Right. No pain makes it moral. :doh

 

[minnie616]

Ah.

So if an accident leaves me unable to feel pain in my right foot for a period of 24 weeks, during that period it would be perfectly fine for you to cut off my foot without my leave, right?


Right. No pain makes it moral. :doh

Who on this thread said no pain makes anything moral ?

 

[Goshin]

Who on this thread said no pain makes anything moral ?

Didn't say they did. However, it did seem to be implied.

 

[minnie616]

Didn't say they did. However, it did seem to be implied.

I thought it referred to states that passed 20 week gestation abortion limits on the unfounded fetal pain theory .
By the way most of those 20 week gestation limits have been struck down the federal courts as unconstitutional.
Arizona and seven other states that had 20 week gestation laws were struck down in May.
Idaho's law was struck down earlier this year.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The fetal right to life argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Roe vs Wade decision.

Did they rewrite the Constitution when they did it?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

IF their primary argument lies in saying that non-sapient life should not or do not have rights, as they often argue, then they wouldn't even stop at birth as the cut-off for killing a kid; there's nothing magically different about a human pre-birth and post-birth, just a minor shift in relative geography.

I agree

Some pro choicers like myself see no relative difference that happens at birth besides now the human no longer interferes with the women's right to abort.

 

[sangha]

Why does that matter?

It doesn't matter to me

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

1. The argument is simply that killing children in the womb is morally wrong.

2. Whether or not unborn children feel pain is completely irrelevant as to whether or not they should be killed.

3. At the moment of conception a new human life is created and it is this life that those opposed to abortion wish to preserve and nurture.

4. There are ways to kill anyone painlessly. Doesn't make it any less wrong.

1. Morals this and that and this and that. One of the most overused words in the abortion debate

2. It's completely irrelevant to you but probably not for someone else

3. Pro lifers are not the ones preserving or ''nurturing'' the unborn here. The women are being the containers for what you value so much and we can afford to allow a nice sum of the unborn ''children'' to die while we focus on the entities that actually have put some trace of value on their own existence

4. Yes you're correct but you need to look at why the deaths are treated differently. Once you answered that we can talk about personhood here

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Who on this thread said no pain makes anything moral ?

that's pretty much the point of the OP

 

[ksu_aviator]

1. Morals this and that and this and that. One of the most overused words in the abortion debate

Morality is the central question to abortion. You can't dismiss it and it can't be over used.

2. It's completely irrelevant to you but probably not for someone else

It is not relevant. What is relevant is the debate about when the right to life begins. Pain is not relevant.

3. Pro lifers are not the ones preserving or ''nurturing'' the unborn here. The women are being the containers for what you value so much and we can afford to allow a nice sum of the unborn ''children'' to die while we focus on the entities that actually have put some trace of value on their own existence

What? Why do you feel the need to reduce human life to inanimate objects?

4. Yes you're correct but you need to look at why the deaths are treated differently. Once you answered that we can talk about personhood here

There is no difference between killing someone that is born and someone that isn't born. Death is death.

 

[Sykes]

She had every right to make that determination prior to sex. The commission of sex is the choice. The possibility of pregnancy is always there, no matter what protections you use. After that, I don't see any rights bestowed upon the woman or state to sentence the child to death.



I'm 36 years old and you can describe me as nothing more than a clump of cells. A much larger clump, but a clump none the less. Same goes for you, Obama, Boehner, and every other adult. In the literal sense, we are all a clump of cells. We have every quality of a human being as does the clump of cells inside a woman. Developmental stages do not determine species. Not in this case. Unless you can tell me that that clump of cells is even remotely likely to be another species (dog, cat, snake, or anything else), it is disingenuous to label it anything other than human.

Going back to the Constitution for a moment, do you recognize this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That of course, does not come from the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence. I bring up the DOI because it is the basis for the separation from Great Britain and the formation of a new set of states. It is the principle behind our Constitution. It states we are created equal. Not born equal. Those are two different times. We are created equal and we have rights, natural rights, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is where the 5th Amendment comes in: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." The death penalty cannot be assigned without a proper trial. These "clumps of cells" are not given trials, therefore their death is not constitutional.

Again with the celibacy argument.


And you don't see brain function as the difference between yourself and just a bunch of cells?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Again with the celibacy argument.

It's not an argument for celibacy, but pointing to the fact that sex has known risks ( a point we all likely agree on). How the potential consequences of that risk (in this case pregnancy) are dealt with depends on your views of the fetus, and if, when, and what rights it has

But clearly we are not talking about a state of being that magically pops into existence

 

[sangha]

Morality is the central question to abortion. You can't dismiss it and it can't be over used.

No, morality is not the central issue for abortion.

There is no difference between killing someone that is born and someone that isn't born. Death is death.

No, death is not death, and there is a difference between killing a person and killing a ZEF.

What you've stated are just your opinions. Nothing more. Just as what I've stated is my opinions. The difference is, my opinions are supported by the constitution and thousands of years of civilization.