You can no longer get an abortion as of week 20

[EternalFantasies]

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017...-ban-pain-capable-unborn-child-protection-act

The House voted on Tuesday to pass a bill that would make abortion after 20 weeks illegal in every state in the country. Called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, it’s based on the idea that a fetus at 20 weeks’ gestation can feel pain.

 

[about_average]

Regardless of the merits, it's not law until passed by the Senate and signed by Trump.

 

[OldJourno]

Regardless of the merits, it's not law until passed by the Senate and signed by Trump.

Civics? We don't need no stinkin' civics.

 

[someoneyouknow]

But it's okay to murder 59 of them after they're born, right?

 

[EternalFantasies]

No one's gonna block this bill.

 

[OldJourno]

But it's okay to murder 59 of them after they're born, right?

Why would you say that? Is there supposed to be some logic in that statement?

 

[adrina]

"pro-life" congressman caught telling his extramarital affair to get abortion

Has to get 60 votes in the senate. I am hoping the blue dog democrats don't betray women on this one. They might though.

Dumbass thing is that abortions that happen after 20 weeks are the most tragic cases. They are the wanted ones but for health or deformation reasons, the pregnancy is not viable. They are not covered by insurance and there are only two clinics in the country that will perform them. Both under heavy guard because of fanatical idiots. It's not a fun experience. It's just more ignorance trying to control legislation on an issue they clearly don't understand.

 

[DMBFFF]

If animals can feel pain, so might 5 month-old fetuses.

Any women out there don't know they're pregnant after 5 months?

 

[DMBFFF]

Dumbass thing is that abortions that happen after 20 weeks are the most tragic cases. They are the wanted ones but for health or deformation reasons, the pregnancy is not viable. They are not covered by insurance and there are only two clinics in the country that will perform them. Both under heavy guard because of fanatical idiots. It's not a fun experience. It's just more ignorance trying to control legislation on an issue they clearly don't understand.

Good point.

 

[OldJourno]

"pro-life" congressman caught telling his extramarital affair to get abortion

Has to get 60 votes in the senate. I am hoping the blue dog democrats don't betray women on this one. They might though.

Dumbass thing is that abortions that happen after 20 weeks are the most tragic cases. They are the wanted ones but for health or deformation reasons, the pregnancy is not viable. They are not covered by insurance and there are only two clinics in the country that will perform them. Both under heavy guard because of fanatical idiots. It's not a fun experience. It's just more ignorance trying to control legislation on an issue they clearly don't understand.

Does the link indicate you are surprised some members of Congress are sleazy individuals?

 

[adrina]

If animals can feel pain, so might 5 month-old fetuses.

Any women out there don't know they're pregnant after 5 months?

See above post.

Most fetal abnormalities aren't detected until after the 20 week mark. Usually the 22-24th week.

Abortions performed after 20 weeks are worse than a miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy. They are forced to take control of a situation they never wanted to handle.

Why assume that it is irresponsible or stupid women? That's rather judgmental. And sexist.

 

[adrina]

Good point.

Thank you.

Does the link indicate you are surprised some members of Congress are sleazy individuals?

Not at all. He's not the first and won't be the last. But the question is, why is it once again the "do as I say and not as I do" BS when it comes to this? And why is that acceptable to his constituents and the American public?

 

[DMBFFF]

I'm assuming a proportion of them.

Medical reasons are quite understandable.

But if some woman doesn't deal with it after 5 months and the fetus is healthy, why should it be subjected to pain?

 

[adrina]

I'm assuming a proportion of them.

Medical reasons are quite understandable.

But if some woman doesn't deal with it after 5 months and the fetus is healthy, why should it be subjected to pain?

The reality is that even IF that is the case - and it's not been readily demonstrated at all - you would be advocating passing legislation that is quite harmful to what is the NORM in cases of abortion after 20 weeks.

How much sense does it make to legislate based on a possible fractional minority when the law would very much so harm the overwhelming majority?

 

[DMBFFF]

The reality is that even IF that is the case - and it's not been readily demonstrated at all - you would be advocating passing legislation that is quite harmful to what is the NORM in cases of abortion after 20 weeks.

How much sense does it make to legislate based on a possible fractional minority when the law would very much so harm the overwhelming majority?

Before I go on further, I might as well lay my cards on the table. I tend towards the pro-choice position, but given some moral ambiguity—right to body autonomy versus right to life—and this is though I'm not one of those "we-must-balance-rights" kinda person—I'm not terribly bothered by the prospect of a speed bump for women with fetuses who may be as sentient as some of the animals that animal welfare and rights activists champion.

Years ago, they thought animals didn't feel pain like us wonderous humans do. I've greatly limited my eating of chicken—I think Alice Walker says it's eating misery; and I wonder if lobsters should be killed humanely before going into the boiling water. Then there's the Gaia theory—or whatever that is.

So when some perhaps overconfident expert or 2nd/3rd wave feminist insists they don't feel pain, I'm not so sure. They start sounding like the know-it-all ideologues who have infested the White House.

How would it harm the overwhelming majority?

Presumably most abortions are done far earlier, and again, I'd make exceptions for rape and medical necessity—in the same way raising animals for human reasons; but I'm not really bothered by the idea of a ban after 5 months in cases where such aren't the case.

and yes, as you've indicated, it might not even pass.

 

[OldJourno]

Thank you.



Not at all. He's not the first and won't be the last. But the question is, why is it once again the "do as I say and not as I do" BS when it comes to this? And why is that acceptable to his constituents and the American public?

My own experience is that you vote for the candidate before you are betrayed by his behavior. After that the candidate, who is now an incumbent, is either run out of office or strongly protected by special interests.
For Republicans, bad moral behavior usually results in losing your seat in Congress.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I wonder if the bill has provisions for defects, etc.

 

[Froya]

The reality is that even IF that is the case - and it's not been readily demonstrated at all - you would be advocating passing legislation that is quite harmful to what is the NORM in cases of abortion after 20 weeks.

How much sense does it make to legislate based on a possible fractional minority when the law would very much so harm the overwhelming majority?

It sounds good to voters, many of whom will never be in such circumstances. They don't have to think it through, so they don't.

 

[adrina]

Before I go on further, I might as well lay my cards on the table. I tend towards the pro-choice position, but given some moral ambiguity—right to body autonomy versus right to life—and this is though I'm not one of those "we-must-balance-rights" kinda person—I'm not terribly bothered by the prospect of a speed bump for women with fetuses who may be as sentient as some of the animals that animal welfare and rights activists champion.

Years ago, they thought animals didn't feel pain like us wonderous humans do. I've greatly limited my eating of chicken—I think Alice Walker says it's eating misery; and I wonder if lobsters should be killed humanely before going into the boiling water. Then there's the Gaia theory—or whatever that is.

So when some perhaps overconfident expert or 2nd/3rd wave feminist insists they don't feel pain, I'm not so sure. They start sounding like the know-it-all ideologues who have infested the White House.

How would it harm the overwhelming majority?

Presumably most abortions are done far earlier, and again, I'd make exceptions for rape and medical necessity—in the same way raising animals for human reasons; but I'm not really bothered by the idea of a ban after 5 months in cases where such aren't the case.

and yes, as you've indicated, it might not even pass.

The vast overwhelming majority of abortions are performed prior to the 12th week. And even more before the 10th week.

Speaking of "speed bumps" - things like ultrasounds, waiting periods, fetal heartbeat stuff etc - actually cause a delay in the abortion procedure and have caused more abortions to be performed after the 12th week up into the 16th week. And the entire medical community - AMA, OBGYN people etc - all heartily disagree with these things as not only medically unnecessarily but intrusive into the doctor patient relationship. These "speed bumps" are nothing but cloaked efforts from the anti-choice fanatics who wish to end abortion.

For the majority (all?) of those women seeking abortions beyond the 20 week mark it is because of severe fetal abnormality or extreme risk to the mother. In all cases they are recommended by the physician as usually the fetus will be either dead by delivery or shortly thereafter. It causes harm to those women not only psychologically and emotionally - imagine being forced to carry a fetus that has no chance for survival, knowing that the child you wanted is going to either suffer unnecessarily or perhaps die before it is even born. Then there is the physical risk to the mother herself - carrying a dead or dying fetus carries with it not only the usual risks of pregnancy but the toxemia risks as well.

Frankly it is, again, more anti-choice fanatics that know nothing about the realities of abortion being squeamish because they think their ideology is more important than medical knowledge or the woman's very life.

Pain is part of life. I have no squeamishness toward the possibility that a fetus may feel a moment of pain. Especially when their is no proof that the do feel any pain. Many in the medical profession don't even think they feel pain until the 8th or 9th month when certain neural pathways are intact. I will always opt for the live, born, already in existent mother and trust her with her choice.

To me it's a simple matter of trust: you either trust women to know what is best for their bodies, their lives and their situations or you don't.

It sounds good to voters, many of whom will never be in such circumstances. They don't have to think it through, so they don't.

Sad but true. Feel good legislation. The road to hell.

 

[adrina]

I wonder if the bill has provisions for defects, etc.

Nope. Not if history is any guide. They don't care. It's about how they feel about abortion. Not the reality of it.

 

[MGurkus]

Thats a shame. I was a big fan of the 22nd week abortions. They always seemed to bring good luck.

 

[DMBFFF]

The vast overwhelming majority of abortions are performed prior to the 12th week. And even more before the 10th week.

Speaking of "speed bumps" - things like ultrasounds, waiting periods, fetal heartbeat stuff etc -

......

are nothing but cloaked efforts from the anti-choice fanatics who wish to end abortion.

So have the abortions before 16th week.

For the majority (all?) of those women seeking abortions beyond the 20 week mark......

......

...... pregnancy but the toxemia risks as well.

Again, I'd support their continued right to have abortions if health required it.

Pain is part of life. I have no squeamishness toward the possibility that a fetus may feel a moment of pain. Especially when their is no proof that the do feel any pain. Many in the medical profession don't even think they feel pain until the 8th or 9th month when certain neural pathways are intact. I will always opt for the live, born, already in existent mother and trust her with her choice.

To me it's a simple matter of trust: you either trust women to know what is best for their bodies, their lives and their situations or you don't.

Pain may be a part of life, but must we inflict unnecessary pain on others?



I admit a fair amount of ignorance in the process of abortion.

First, until the abortion, the pre-born is likely doing well—not at all like a factory farmed animal (this assuming the woman isn't harming herself with things like liquor or drugs).

As for that "moment" of pain: what is it? A few minutes? A few seconds? A large fraction of an hour?

What is the intensity? Does it involve injections of poison or acid? Does it involve being torn assunder?

Maybe the fetus should be anesthetized or euthanized before the abortion—ah, but some feminists—I'll grant not all—might not only oppose it on the grounds that the reasons for such might be used against their right to abort a day-to-be-born fetus without any means of reducing pain, but could be a slippery slope for earlier types.

A while ago—maybe several months or a few years—there was some legal brouhaha because some woman went to a slaughterhouse to give water to some pigs before they were slaughtered. Now most would figure she's a bit crazy and/or figure she's mostly harmless—maybe be a little touched by her concern for and kindness to animals, but for those opposed to any concession to animal welfare or rights—well it was the typical right-wing sexist-misogynist-laced rants. Me? If I was in charge, I'd let her water the pigs, then have her escorted off the premises, and have the pigs slaughtered as per course (assuming I'd work at a slaughterhouse much less run one).



"Especially when their is no proof that the do feel any pain."

Again, some people think crustaceans don't feel pain when they're dropped in boiling water. I suppose some experts would say that when a barbed hook goes through its lips/cheeks and it is pulled into a media (air) which it is unaccustomed to, it isn't painful to the fish—why can't that human have a can of beans: it's about as nutritious and causes far less pain.


Cui bono?

It is in the interest of 2nd/3rd wave feminists to dismiss the possibility of suffering: give a sexist patriarch an inch and he'll take a mile. Still, the possibility exist and I don't think is easily ignored.


"Many in the medical profession don't even think they feel pain until the 8th or 9th month when certain neural pathways are intact."

Lobsters are even more primitive. Do octopi and squid even have brains?


"I will always opt for the live, born, already in existent mother and trust her with her choice."

and so would I if its a fetus versus her physical, or in the case of rape, her psychological, well-being. Ditto with animals versus the well-being of humans. What I posed, however, isn't this.


"To me it's a simple matter of trust: you either trust women to know what is best for their bodies, their lives and their situations or you don't."

I suppose any decently intelligent woman knows what's good for her body. Again, that's not the issue here. The issue is the inconvenience of a pregnancy for a woman who likely didn't practice birth control—as many sexually active women do in one way or another—or didn't get early abortions, versus a pre-born life-form not suffering unduly.

Thats a shame. I was a big fan of the 22nd week abortions. They always seemed to bring good luck.

and now for my blatant plugs:

for two threads I've create on Literotica:
in Story Ideas

CMNF club

and

It is a place where women rule.

To divulge more, I'm thinking more of Islamic countries—like Israel's neighbours. I'm thinking Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia. In the 1940s, things in many of those places were in flux and the Islamacists (at least the modern types we've come to hear about), if any, were nascent. By the time they have gotten powerful and threatening, the women's country/country-of-sorts was also strong. For Israelis it's a religio-tribal thing. For the women, it's a sisterhood thing: some have been intimately acquainted with male oppression and would rather die than suffer it again.

As for male babies, I'm still thinking that out. Some ideas—and the women's country/country-of-sorts might practice a few of these:

1. the aforementioned commuting
2. sex-selected abortions
3. medical therapies to increase the chances that children would be girls

I've also thought of transgenderism, though these women insist on it being serious. I'm thinking castration, but as I know little about gender-reassignment, I'm not sure.

Currently my rule is boys have to leave around 6 to 12 years of age—a boy with two blood sisters gets to stay until he's 12 (and 2 brothers need 4 blood sisters), with one it's until he's 9, and with none then it's 6 . Between that and his 18th birthday, where does he go? I've thought of transgirls. Such is somewhat happening in society, but again, Literotica rules re depictions of minors.

Another are switcheroos. In many countries, boys are favoured over girls; in the women's country/country-of-sorts the reverse is true. So imagine a couple from a traditional country are trying to have a son because, for among other reasons, the head of the house needs a son to carry the name and someone to escort his daughters when they're in public when he's gone. Meanwhile, in the country/country-of-sorts a woman in a separatist-lesbian couple/polyamorous-group—impregnated either artificially or with a few male studs—the latter generally in the previously mentioned small districts—bore a son. Fine while gender dimorphism isn't as pronounced, but as he gets older others might not want their daughters at that couple/group's house—after all, he'll soon be turning into a man and that's discomforting: and really, do we really want a boy to grow up in a place where males—or at least many male—really don't belong?

Hence the switcheroo. I was even thinking of a ritual where the former gives up their baby girl to the latter and the latter give up their baby boy to the former.

This way there's a bit of a, I think they called it in Rome, imperial hostage situation. The traditional couple will raise the boy well not only because they love him, but also they know their bio-daughter is being raised by women who while might be infidels, at least love the feminine. Ditto the reverse: the son might be indoctrinated in the patriarchal society, but at least he won't be looked down on for being male. There might even be rare visits and when they get old enough, a romance between the boy-now-man and girl-now-woman.

 

[adrina]

So have the abortions before 16th week.

That's what the overwhelming vast majority do. Are you suggesting they don't? However there is the reality that these "speed bumps" are pushing women into having abortions later as they jump through these unnecessary and ridiculous hoops.

Again, I'd support their continued right to have abortions if health required it.

Do you understand the risk involved in the average pregnancy?

Pain may be a part of life, but must we inflict unnecessary pain on others?

Please provide medical proof of any potential pain.

Do you usually like to have legislation passed on "what ifs"?

i admit a fair amount of ignorance in the process of abortion.

First, until the abortion, the pre-born is likely doing well—not at all like a factory farmed animal (this assuming the woman isn't harming herself with things like liquor or drugs).

As for that "moment" of pain: what is it? A few minutes? A few seconds? A large fraction of an hour?

What is the intensity? Does it involve injections of poison or acid? Does it involve being torn assunder?

So even though you are ignorant of the entire process of abortion, you believe that we should ignore all known medical information and all known medical recommendations because you don't know how much pain they may or may not feel? I just want to double check here because it sounds like you are saying that you don't understand something but you feel legislation should be enacted around your ignorance and that further your ignorance should take precedence over the studied opinions of the professionals and those with the most experience in such matters.

Maybe the fetus should be anesthetized or euthanized before the abortion—ah, but some feminists—I'll grant not all—might not only oppose it on the grounds that the reasons for such might be used against their right to abort a day-to-be-born fetus without any means of reducing pain, but could be a slippery slope for earlier types.

That already happens in late term abortions. See this is what I'm talking about. Perhaps you would do better to look into these things before you get too far into an opinion.

A while ago—maybe several months or a few years—there was some legal brouhaha because some woman went to a slaughterhouse to give water to some pigs before they were slaughtered. Now most would figure she's a bit crazy and/or figure she's mostly harmless—maybe be a little touched by her concern for and kindness to animals, but for those opposed to any concession to animal welfare or rights—well it was the typical right-wing sexist-misogynist-laced rants. Me? If I was in charge, I'd let her water the pigs, then have her escorted off the premises, and have the pigs slaughtered as per course (assuming I'd work at a slaughterhouse much less run one).

Women's lives are a bit different than procuring bacon for market.

"Especially when their is no proof that the do feel any pain."

Again, some people think crustaceans don't feel pain when they're dropped in boiling water. I suppose some experts would say that when a barbed hook goes through its lips/cheeks and it is pulled into a media (air) which it is unaccustomed to, it isn't painful to the fish—why can't that human have a can of beans: it's about as nutritious and causes far less pain.

So you want to apply the tenets that rule veganism to medical care for women?

it is in the interest of 2nd/3rd wave feminists to dismiss the possibility of suffering: give a sexist patriarch an inch and he'll take a mile. Still, the possibility exist and I don't think is easily ignored.

I think it is in the interest of science and medicine to defer to the medical community instead of how you "feel" about something you admittedly have very little hard knowledge about. I find it amazing that the suffering of something that may or may not feel suffering is put above the life of a woman who actually does feel - on all levels: physically, emotionally, psychologically and personally.

"Many in the medical profession don't even think they feel pain until the 8th or 9th month when certain neural pathways are intact."

Lobsters are even more primitive. Do octopi and squid even have brains?

Again, do you really want to put medical practice on a level of how we deal with food? I'm wondering this quite sincerely.

"I will always opt for the live, born, already in existent mother and trust her with her choice."

and so would I if its a fetus versus her physical, or in the case of rape, her psychological, well-being. Ditto with animals versus the well-being of humans. What I posed, however, isn't this.

Again, do you understand the risks of the average pregnancy to the woman's body?

"To me it's a simple matter of trust: you either trust women to know what is best for their bodies, their lives and their situations or you don't."

I suppose any decently intelligent woman knows what's good for her body. Again, that's not the issue here. The issue is the inconvenience of a pregnancy for a woman who likely didn't practice birth control—as many sexually active women do in one way or another—or didn't get early abortions, versus a pre-born life-form not suffering unduly.

Again this word inconvenience. Have you ever been pregnant? Do you understand the practical realities of pregnancy, the risks of gestation and the risk of giving birth? Your concern for the fetus is coming across quite clearly as well as your lack of concern for the woman carrying that fetus.

Your pro-choice cred is slipping.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017...-ban-pain-capable-unborn-child-protection-act

The House voted on Tuesday to pass a bill that would make abortion after 20 weeks illegal in every state in the country. Called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, it’s based on the idea that a fetus at 20 weeks’ gestation can feel pain.

I know of no constitutional empowerment that allows Congress or any other branch of the federal government to legally dictate abortion anything to the states.

The ONLY recourse on abortion I can fathom as far as the federal government is concerned, is for Congress to pass legislation, and the President enact it, that asserts that innocent individual human life is created at conception by "the laws of nature and of nature's God", and that all innocent individual human life is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these" is "life".

I can see that legal argument winning with one more life-loving SC judge on the bench.

If federal government cannot support and defend an innocent individual human's unalienable right to life, then, well, America remains what it is now with illegal/unconstitutional statist government-sanction of the intentional murdering of almost 1 million innocent individual human lives every year, simply for convenience.

Other than that, I certainly don't see why a Governor and state legislature can't enact the very same law to so protect every innocent individual human life under its jurisdiction...

...and, if statist federal Judiciary illegally strikes that down again, the Governor should simply tell it to fuck off.

Obviously, there doesn't seem to be any governors more interested in protecting the unalienable right to life than their own political careers.

Ubersad that almost a million little innocent babies are intentionally murdered every year just because governors don't have balls.

 

[DMBFFF]

To: adrina

FFS!



Okay, here goes:

That's what the overwhelming vast majority do. Are you suggesting they don't?

No—I figure it's less than that. That's why I'm not too bothered by a 20 week ban.

However there is the reality that these "speed bumps" are pushing women into having abortions later as they jump through these unnecessary and ridiculous hoops.

A woman discovers she's pregnant and wants an abortion. What's stopping her from getting it before 20 weeks? Probably nothing. Are you telling me that for +99% of women the time between discovering they're pregnant and the 20 week mark is short—so short that a week appointment for a check-up will kick it to the 20th week mark?

Please explain to me, because I'm apparently the dumb ignorant guy with a pro-choice cred problem.

Do you understand the risk involved in the average pregnancy?

No. What is it? In days of old the fatality rate was likely high for a woman and fetus/baby. These days less so. Now I might be a stupid fucking ignoramus, but I figure the fatality rate for women is less than 1% these days in the developed world. Maybe a fraction of that.

and again, if pregnancy was such an unhealthy dangerous thing, then women should get those abortions as early as possible.

Please provide medical proof of any potential pain.

I was hoping that I wouldn't have to quote mine Wikipedia, but here goes:


The Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_perception
seems to bear out your contention

Typical of irksomesauce's links, this source is slow to download.
https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html


The large bold and brackets is my doing.

The problem with pain
One reason the question of fetal pain is so controversial is because pain is always a subjective experience, said Dr. Anne Davis, an OB/GYN and the consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health. Davis is an abortion provider. [cui bono?]

Unlike with blood pressure or body temperature, for example, there's no definitive way to measure pain, Davis said. People do have ways of communicating how much pain they're feeling; for example, doctors often ask people to rate their pain on a scale of 1 to 10. But the experience of pain is fundamentally subjective, Davis said. In other words, what might be very painful to one person may cause very little pain to someone else.

Still, even though doctors can't objectively measure pain, research has revealed much about how pain is experienced in the body and, more importantly, in the brain.

"Pain occurs in [the] brain," Davis said. When a person is injured — say, you stub your toe, for example — a signal travels from the foot up through the nerves in the leg to the spinal cord, and then from spinal cord up to the brain, Davis said. Once that signal gets into the brain, the information is transmitted through a complex web of neurons to an area of the brain called the cortex, she said.

It's in this sophisticated part of the brain that a person actually perceives the feeling of pain, Davis said.

"We know that there are a lot of steps in between the thing that could cause pain and the actual experience of pain," Davis said. For the system to work — whether in an adult or a fetus — all of the pathways of the nerves need to be connected and functioning, she said.

Clinical Review | Clinician's Corner
August 24/31, 2005

6.^ Jump up to: a b c d Lee, Susan J.; Ralston, Henry J. Peter; Drey, Eleanor A.; Partridge, John Colin; Rosen, Mark A. (2005). "Fetal Pain". JAMA. 294 (8): 947–54. PMID 16118385. doi:10.1001/jama.294.8.947

Fetal Pain
A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429

Conclusions

Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.

Which means that after 30 weeks a fetus might experience pain. 30 weeks being, what, 7 months? What about a ban for 30 week pregnancies? Betcha many feminists would oppose such.

d Lee, Susan J.; Ralston, Henry J. Peter; Drey, Eleanor A.; Partridge, John Colin; Rosen, Mark A. (2005). "Fetal Pain". JAMA. 294 (8): 947–54. PMID 16118385. doi:10.1001/jama.294.8.947.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429
August 24/31, 2005

Fetal Pain
A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence


Conclusions Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.

Over the last several years, many states, including California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, have considered legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions that the fetus feels pain and to offer fetal anesthesia. This year, Arkansas and Georgia enacted such statutes.1,2 Currently, [Congress is considering legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions 20 or more weeks after fertilization (ie, 22 weeks’ gestational age) that the fetus has “physical structures necessary to experience pain,” as evidenced by “draw[ing] away from surgical instruments.” The physician must also offer anesthesia or analgesia “administered directly” to the fetus. Physicians who do not comply may be subject to substantial fines, license revocation, and civil suits for punitive damages.3

Although this legislation would not affect most US abortions because only 1.4% are performed at or after 21 weeks’ gestational age,4 this legislation raises important scientific, clinical, ethical, and policy issues. When does a fetus have the functional capacity to feel pain? If that capacity exists, what forms of anesthesia or analgesia are safe and effective for treating fetal pain? As a first step in answering these questions, we reviewed the literature on fetal pain and fetal anesthesia and analgesia.

Do you usually like to have legislation passed on "what ifs"?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals
Pain in animals
History[edit]

See also: Animal consciousness

The idea that animals might not experience pain or suffering as humans do traces back at least to the 17th-century French philosopher, René Descartes, who argued that animals lack consciousness.[12][13][14] Researchers remained unsure into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain, and veterinarians trained in the U.S. before 1989 were simply taught to ignore animal pain.[15] In his interactions with scientists and other veterinarians, Bernard Rollin was regularly asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" grounds for claiming that they feel pain.[15] Some authors say that the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority view.[12] Academic reviews of the topic are more equivocal, noting that, although it is likely that some animals have at least simple conscious thoughts and feelings,[16] some authors continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined.[13][17]


Invertebrates[edit]

Main article: Pain in invertebrates

Further information: Pain in crustaceans

Though it has been argued that most invertebrates do not feel pain,[26][27][28] there is some evidence that invertebrates, especially the decapod crustaceans (e.g. crabs and lobsters) and cephalopods (e.g. octopuses), exhibit behavioural and physiological reactions indicating they may have the capacity for this experience.[9][29][30] Nociceptors have been found in nematodes, annelids and molluscs.[31] Most insects do not possess nociceptors,[32][33][34] one known exception being the fruit fly.[35] In vertebrates, endogenous opioids are neurochemicals that moderate pain by interacting with opiate receptors. Opioid peptides and opiate receptors occur naturally in nematodes,[36][37] molluscs,[38][39] insects[40][41] and crustaceans.[42][43] The presence of opioids in crustaceans has been interpreted as an indication that lobsters may be able to experience pain, although it has been claimed "at present no certain conclusion can be drawn".[44]

One suggested reason for rejecting a pain experience in invertebrates is that invertebrate brains are too small. However, brain size does not necessarily equate to complexity of function.[45] Moreover, weight for body-weight, the cephalopod brain is in the same size bracket as the vertebrate brain, smaller than that of birds and mammals, but as big as or bigger than most fish brains.[46][47]

Since September 2010, all cephalopods being used for scientific purposes in the EU are protected by EU Directive 2010/63/EU which states "...there is scientific evidence of their [cephalopods] ability to experience pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm.[48] In the UK, animal protection legislation[49] means that cephalopods used for scientific purposes must be killed humanely, according to prescribed methods (known as "Schedule 1 methods of euthanasia") known to minimise suffering.[50]

So even though you are ignorant of the entire process of abortion, you believe that we should ignore all known medical information and all known medical recommendations because you don't know how much pain they may or may not feel? I just want to double check here because it sounds like you are saying that you don't understand something but you feel legislation should be enacted around your ignorance and that further your ignorance should take precedence over the studied opinions of the professionals and those with the most experience in such matters.

No, I don't believe that we should ignore all known medical information and all known medical recommendations because I don't know how much pain they may or may not feel. I'm just taking the not-insignificant possibility of fetuses feeling pain during abortions into consideration.


Experts in the past have been wrong. People who raised questions and suggest other ways have been ridiculed. Jane Jacobs was ridiculed by Robert Moses—an expert.

I readily admit my ignorance. Are you going to insist that because the experts—who might have interests in things such as abortion and animal experimentation, and some feminists—not all—who genuflect—often rightly so—at threats to their rights and positions as defenders of women's rights—and think there is no fetal pain, that you will always side with them no matter what?

If yes, fair enough. You might be right. You are probably right, but the possibility that you are wrong mixed in with the number of post-20 week abortions with no medical necessity shouldn't, I think, be as shrugged off as you think: hence, again, my not being terribly bothered by the possible legislation against +20 week abortions-not-for-health reasons.

That already happens in late term abortions. See this is what I'm talking about. Perhaps you would do better to look into these things before you get too far into an opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

In the article, "anesthesia" is used only 3 times and not in reference to the fetus. [my colouring of the word in the quote]

In the third trimester of pregnancy, induced abortion may be performed surgically by intact dilation and extraction or by hysterotomy. Hysterotomy abortion is a procedure similar to a caesarean section and is performed under general anesthesia. It requires a smaller incision than a caesarean section and is used during later stages of pregnancy.[58]

First-trimester procedures can generally be performed using local anesthesia, while second-trimester methods may require deep sedation or general anesthesia.[54]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

Diagnosis

The beginning of pregnancy may be detected either based on symptoms by the woman herself, or by using pregnancy tests. However, an important condition with serious health implications that is quite common is the denial of pregnancy by the pregnant woman. About one in 475 denials will last until around the 20th week of pregnancy. The proportion of cases of denial, persisting until delivery is about 1 in 2500.[53] Conversely, some non-pregnant women have a very strong belief that they are pregnant along with some of the physical changes. This condition is known as a false pregnancy.[54]


Biomarkers

Further information: Pregnancy test

Pregnancy detection can be accomplished using one or more various pregnancy tests,[59] which detect hormones generated by the newly formed placenta, serving as biomarkers of pregnancy.[60] Blood and urine tests can detect pregnancy 12 days after implantation.[61] Blood pregnancy tests are more sensitive than urine tests (giving fewer false negatives).[62] Home pregnancy tests are urine tests, and normally detect a pregnancy 12 to 15 days after fertilization.[63] A quantitative blood test can determine approximately the date the embryo was conceived because HCG doubles every 36 to 48 hours.[42] A single test of progesterone levels can also help determine how likely a fetus will survive in those with a threatened miscarriage (bleeding in early pregnancy).[64]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth
Each year, complications from pregnancy and childbirth result in about 500,000 maternal deaths, 7 million women have serious long term problems, and 50 million women have health negative outcomes following delivery.[2] Most of these occur in the developing world.[2] Specific complications include obstructed labour, postpartum bleeding, eclampsia, and postpartum infection.[2] Complications in the baby include birth asphyxia.[1]

Given the world has, what, over 7 billion people, half being women, that's fewer than 0.02% dying and 2% with negative outcomes. I suppose developed countries are porportionately much fewer, and again, most could be dealt with by early abortions or even birth control.

Women's lives are a bit different than procuring bacon for market.

True, neither women, nor men, suffer like the millions of factory farm pigs. Their deaths, however, might, just might, be less painful than some abortion-induced fetus deaths

So you want to apply the tenets that rule veganism to medical care for women?

Insofar that the concern for possible fetal suffering might be similar to animal suffering. I'm not advocating veganism per se as much as animal welfare.

I think it is in the interest of science and medicine to defer to the medical community instead of how you "feel" about something you admittedly have very little hard knowledge about. I find it amazing that the suffering of something that may or may not feel suffering is put above the life of a woman who actually does feel - on all levels: physically, emotionally, psychologically and personally.

We've walked around this ranch before. The premise of your quote here is flawed.

Again, do you really want to put medical practice on a level of how we deal with food? I'm wondering this quite sincerely.

Lobsters, octopi, and squid are not food, per se—no more than a pig is bacon or a dog is whatever-Koreans-refer-dogmeat-as. They are aquatic invertebrates that many of us consume as food. If these primitive animals can feel pain, so might human fetuses.

Again, do you understand the risks of the average pregnancy to the woman's body?

No, I don't—at least not the quality and quantity—but yes, I figure there are significant risks—and, as I've said before, if the pregnancy is endangering her health, she can get an abortion.

Again this word inconvenience. Have you ever been pregnant?

No. As a man I'm not accursed with the susceptibility to suffering that illness often referred to as pregnancy.

Again this word inconvenience. Have you ever been pregnant?

No, I've never been pregnant—though a number of people in the pro-life movement have. (Check and checkmate on your ad hominem.)

(I know: if men could get pregnant, then abortion would be a sacrament, joked the female taxi-driver to Gloria Steinem.)

Do you understand the practical realities of pregnancy, the risks of gestation and the risk of giving birth?

Another walk around the ranch.

Your concern for the fetus is coming across quite clearly as
well as your lack of concern for the woman carrying that fetus.

I'm concerned about women carrying fetuses and their right to their bodies, however we might quantify that concern—you probably being more concerned—you being a woman and likely more leftist than me.

Your pro-choice cred is slipping.

Your humanism is slipping: however minor.






To: ifrtbttrflys

Fuck off, irksomesauce.