Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act --research on the question

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
federal legislation, introduced by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, in 2004 and again this year as the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," says there is "substantial evidence" of "substantial pain to an unborn child" during abortions performed after 20 weeks. The bill includes a script doctors must read to women, offering to deliver anesthesia directly to the fetus and stating, "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."


Study Finds 29-Week Fetuses Probably Feel No Pain and Need No Abortion Anesthesia




By DENISE GRADY, New York Times

Published: August 24, 2005

Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the abortion debate, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.

Their report, being published today in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks.

The finding poses a direct challenge to proposed federal and state laws that would compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus.

About 1.3 million abortions a year are performed in the United States, 1.4 percent of them at 21 weeks or later.

Bills requiring that women be warned about fetal pain have been introduced in the House and Senate and in 19 states, and recently passed in Georgia, Arkansas and Minnesota. The bills are supported by many anti-abortion groups. But advocates for abortion rights say the real purpose of the measures is to discourage women from seeking abortions. It is too soon to tell what effect the new laws are having in abortion clinics.

The finding was considered persuasive by many scientists but is unlikely to settle the controversy. Most scientists agree that fetuses probably do not feel pain in the first trimester, but there remains wide disagreement over when, in later pregnancy, the fetal brain is sufficiently developed for pain to register. Some think that, with the current state of knowledge, it is impossible to know for sure. In Britain, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has said that fetuses probably do not feel pain before 26 weeks, which is into the third trimester.

"This is an unknowable question," said Dr. David A. Grimes, a former head of abortion surveillance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who now delivers babies and also performs abortions in Chapel Hill, N.C. "All we can do in medicine is to infer." Nonetheless, he said, the new article makes a compelling case for lack of pain perception in fetuses before 29 weeks.

The federal legislation, introduced by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, in 2004 and again this year as the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," says there is "substantial evidence" of "substantial pain to an unborn child" during abortions performed after 20 weeks. The bill includes a script doctors must read to women, offering to deliver anesthesia directly to the fetus and stating, "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."

Mr. Brownback said he hoped Congress would act on the bill sometime next year. "It is one of the top priorities of the pro-life movement to address this issue," he said.

But Dr. Mark A. Rosen, an author of the journal article and chief of obstetric anesthesia at the University of California, San Francisco, said such measures were misguided.

"From the available biological evidence, it seems very unlikely that a fetus experiences what we think of as pain before 29 weeks of gestation," Dr. Rosen said in a telephone interview. Giving anesthesia to the fetus could be difficult and would needlessly expose the pregnant woman to additional risks, he said, adding, "Policy decisions should be based on evidence, scientific evidence, not our emotional beliefs."

The federal legislation is based in part on observations that 20-week-old fetuses pull away if they are poked or prodded, in much that the same way children and adults react to pain.

But Dr. Rosen said that response in the fetus did not mean it felt pain, but was instead more likely to be a reflex, like the leg jerk that occurs in adults when doctors tap them on the knee with a rubber hammer.

After studying the medical literature, Dr. Rosen and his co-authors concluded that critical wiring in the brain, between the cerebral cortex and a lower region, the thalamus, was not complete until about 29 weeks. Without that connection, they said, a fetus cannot feel pain.

Not all physicians agree. Dr. K. S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said, "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus."

For example, he said, tiny premature babies, as young as 23 or 24 weeks, cry when their heels are stuck for blood tests and quickly become conditioned to cry whenever anyone comes near their feet. "In the first trimester there is very likely no pain perception," Dr. Anand said. "By the second trimester, all bets are off and I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt if we are going to call ourselves compassionate and humane physicians."


Dr. Anand said he did not oppose abortion, but had testified at hearings called by legislators seeking to ban late-term abortions that fetuses feel pain.

The authors of the paper said that even crying or grimacing in a very premature infant did not necessarily signify pain because such infants often cry at even the lightest touch. Dr. Eleanor A. Drey, one of Dr. Rosen's co-authors, said that as an obstetrician who performed abortions and the medical director of an abortion clinic, she would find it troubling to be compelled to bring up the subject of fetal pain with her patients. "I would be forced to drag them through potentially a lot of misinformation," Dr. Drey said. "Our systematic review has shown it's extremely unlikely that pain exists at a point when abortions are done. I'm going to have to talk about something I know will cause the patient distress, something that by our best assessment of the scientific data is not relevant."

But Dr. Rosen acknowledged that it was impossible to say with 100 percent certainty that there was never pain before 29 weeks.

Mr. Brownback said the new report did not raise questions about whether a fetus felt pain, only about when. "The child in the womb does experience pain," he said. "We knew there was a debate about at what age the child experiences pain."

He said he would listen to debate and consider changing the fetal age specified in his legislation. But, he said, "We're clearly going to stick with the bill."
 
"The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."

Do they seriously expect doctors to be able to read this with straight face?

The wording is reminiscent of various meglomanics throughout history that have tried to change reality by decree.
 
I have the physical structures necessary to perform brain surgery. Which one of those people wants to be first?
 
Another interesting point is that while this point (week 29) may be the point where a fetus can possibly "feel" pain in an animalistic way, they still lack a consciousness or cognition. Thus it isn't human yet and possibly cannot "process" the "pain".


This is just part of the attempt to punish women for sex because after all they're the only one involved in the process and are all greedy sluts anyway. You've seen how they dress with their sexy sexy burqas.
 
What is really disturbing to me on this thread is that I had never realised this one thing. Forget the 29 weeks. Forget the 21 weeks. It is this common to perform a legal abortion after as late as 12 weeks? I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with women's right to choose.
 
Lucifer_Carroll said:
Another interesting point is that while this point (week 29) may be the point where a fetus can possibly "feel" pain in an animalistic way, they still lack a consciousness or cognition. Thus it isn't human yet and possibly cannot "process" the "pain".

Actually your average 29weeker is fully able to survive with medical intervention and function in essentially the same was as a full term child. CHildren younger than 29 weeks survive, and MANY states you can be changed with murder if you cause the death of an unborn child past 20 some odd weeks. There are thousands of babies born at less than 29 weeks in hospitals right now, who are acting like little babies. Crying when hungry and recognizing their parents, I think calling those children 'not human yet' does them a diservice.

medical opinion that a full term child, or even a 6 week old child can not feel pain still exists, my daughteers -former- pediatrician was of that school. The more that is learned about babies, the more those theories are proven false, and that a baby can feel pain every bit as much.

There are doctors that will tell you a 2 month old stil doesn't 'really' feel pain and mothers out their piecing their screaming 6 month old's ears because 'they don't feel pain' ....

-A
 
Lauren Hynde said:
What is really disturbing to me on this thread is that I had never realised this one thing. Forget the 29 weeks. Forget the 21 weeks. It is this common to perform a legal abortion after as late as 12 weeks? I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with women's right to choose.


Thank you.
 
Alex756 said:
Actually your average 29weeker is fully able to survive with medical intervention and function in essentially the same was as a full term child. CHildren younger than 29 weeks survive, and MANY states you can be changed with murder if you cause the death of an unborn child past 20 some odd weeks. There are thousands of babies born at less than 29 weeks in hospitals right now, who are acting like little babies. Crying when hungry and recognizing their parents, I think calling those children 'not human yet' does them a diservice.

medical opinion that a full term child, or even a 6 week old child can not feel pain still exists, my daughteers -former- pediatrician was of that school. The more that is learned about babies, the more those theories are proven false, and that a baby can feel pain every bit as much.

There are doctors that will tell you a 2 month old stil doesn't 'really' feel pain and mothers out their piecing their screaming 6 month old's ears because 'they don't feel pain' ....

-A

I'm talking about under normal circumstances, the biological connections which form, which are trackable, the way a human brain works. It's based on an average, yes, which I suspect is how this senator is twisting the data.

And as far as what does doctors say, it depends on the criterion they use, babies in the first weeks oft are completing neural pathways and making their conditioning connections. There are schools of thought that state that until the brain is finished, the baby can't "process" "pain" relying on pure animalistic instinctual reactions (what you refer to as normal baby action).

And it doesn't matter what the law says, the opinions of people who when they look at a biology textbook think food. It's about the nature of embryonic development for human beings and what the facts state.


And LH, you're forgetting that here in America there is a distinct anti-abortion atmosphere that dresses it like a sin. It's a big decision for a woman to brave the giant protests and thrown rocks merely to find out the options of child care, aid, or abortion at Planned Parenthood, much less actually go through with it.

Still. Most abortion places will not do a "choice" abortion at that stage due to risk to the mother, the debated cognizance and neural network completeness, and other considerations. It is strongly frowned upon by even most abortion activists. Most abortions at this time are "need-based" abortions (having the baby will kill the mother).

So yes, it can be a choice still at the stage, it is rarely done as a choice that far in, and the biology shows that even the mythical 3rd trimester might not involve the destruction of a "person".

The further point is that all this aside, it's still about punishing women. A survey asked pro-lifers that if there was a way to remove a child from the woman at abortion and artificially carry it to term and deal with it afterwards like every other unwanted child or baby, would they support that compromise. An overwheleming majority said "no", a majority big enough that it couldn't be entirely blamed on statistical distortion.
 
Lucifer_Carroll said:
The further point is that all this aside, it's still about punishing women. A survey asked pro-lifers that if there was a way to remove a child from the woman at abortion and artificially carry it to term and deal with it afterwards like every other unwanted child or baby, would they support that compromise. An overwheleming majority said "no", a majority big enough that it couldn't be entirely blamed on statistical distortion.
The overwhelming majority of those "pro-lifers" would also say yes to the death penalty, so that throws any defensible moral stance right out the window...
 
Originally Posted by Lauren Hynde
What is really disturbing to me on this thread is that I had never realised this one thing. Forget the 29 weeks. Forget the 21 weeks. It is this common to perform a legal abortion after as late as 12 weeks? I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with women's right to choose.


having worked in a referral service, my impression is that the great majority of abortions are before or at week 14 for US and Canada.
i believe that the ideal goal of the 'choice' persons is to have things over and done with by week 12. Ironically, the barriers such as which third parties have to consent, hospital availability, etc., *rather than the mother's choice* often push things past the 12-week point. IOW, impeding abortions makes them happen later, to more developed fetuses.

many states, and some hospitals have severe restrictions on a abortions after a certain limit, usually 20-26 weeks. the restrictions make it not simply a matter of 'choice', after that limit (see Roe v. Wade--third trimester restrictions except for cases regarding the life of the mother).

therefore, let us leave aside the lifesaving measures taken after this limit; these are relatively rare-- I'd guess 5%**[Correction, this estimate is too high, according to the article, which puts 20+ week abortions at 1.4% of the total]

it follows that some minority of US/Canadian abortions--guess 15%-- are performed in the 16-20 (or thereabouts) week period.

(I do note that a fetus is sometimes viable when [prematurely, but naturally] delivered at the age of 24 weeks or thereabouts, iirc.)

Oddly, then, it follows that aside from its 'foot in the door aspect', the Brownback Child Pain act, would psychologically complicate the picture in a small minority of cases *where the issue of fetal pain* may weigh less, in the deliberations.
 
Last edited:
sweetnpetite said:
Some of the responses to this issue strike me as downright evil.

Gosh, could that be a reference to me? Seeing as I'm the sole assholic commenter so far?

Eh, yeah I know I'm being cold at Joian levels. The problem is that I'm a biologist. Beyond that, I recognize what the debate is really about that. Beyond that, I'm pro-choice for certain strong personal reasons.

So yeah, a quick apology for being "evil" about this issue, but I refuse to refer to an emryo as equal to a fully functional human being.
 
it is well known that Luc's thinking--though perhaps not Luc--is evil, so let's not belabor the point.

:devil:
 
Lucifer_Carroll said:
Gosh, could that be a reference to me? Seeing as I'm the sole assholic commenter so far?

Eh, yeah I know I'm being cold at Joian levels. The problem is that I'm a biologist. Beyond that, I recognize what the debate is really about that. Beyond that, I'm pro-choice for certain strong personal reasons.

So yeah, a quick apology for being "evil" about this issue, but I refuse to refer to an emryo as equal to a fully functional human being.

I didn't even really notice until after I had typed it in that it was you who made the comment. Well, I noticed it was you, but wasn't thinking of your name and stuff.

***But I think I was also refering to some of the responses *within* the article. I think it's an important question, but some of the 'solutions' turn my stomach. For example the idea that the fetus can feel pain, so the solution is to give it anethstisia and 'terminate' it anyway. Does not the fetus's ability to feel pain have deeper implications than that?*******

I really like you, (and we usually agree on stuff.) so I don't want to get into an ugly debate on an ugly subject. But I cringe at such statements as 'anamalistic pain'-- I mean, we euthanized dogs before putting them to sleep right? We don't just shoot them in the head, because they are not human. I don't get the concept of 'anamalistic pain.'

I guess I just wanted to regester a disagreement. And hopefully I wil stay out of this thread.

Much love,

Sweet.
(pro-life)
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
it is well known that Luc's thinking--though perhaps not Luc--is evil, so let's not belabor the point.

:devil:

I should have said, "no pun intended."
 
sweetnpetite said:
I didn't even really notice until after I had typed it in that it was you who made the comment. Well, I noticed it was you, but wasn't thinking of your name and stuff.

I really like you, (and we usually agree on stuff.) so I don't want to get into an ugly debate on an ugly subject. But I cringe at such statements as 'anamalistic pain'-- I mean, we euthanized dogs before putting them to sleep right? We don't just shoot them in the head, because they are not human. I don't get the concept of 'anamalistic pain.'

I guess I just wanted to regester a disagreement. And hopefully I wil stay out of this thread.

Much love,

Sweet.
(pro-life)

I understand. I'm sorry for offending you.
 
Considering I am far too wrapped up in biology to sound remotely human in this debate, I'm bowing out.
 
All of the "education" that many states require women to go through before having an abortion ,i.e, 24 hour waiting period, parental or spousal consent, "informational" sessions, etc. all seem designed to intimidate an woman into deciding against it. I think that very few women face the procedure without much soul searching and thought. Abortion isn't something that people choose lightly, even the staunchest pro-choicers.

All medical procedures have risks attached to them. I doubt if the consent form for liposuction, for example, contains graphic videos of mishaps, statistics of hospital staph infections, etc., lists of other horrendous side effects and a waiting period.l
 
What isn't human about a life that has to be sawed apart to be removed from a womb. I can empathize with mothers who choose to have abortions under 12 weeks, though I would never do it myself. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that a fetus isn't a baby/human just because it isn't outside of the mother yet. When a 3rd trimester abortion is performed, the fetus is sawed apart and then pieced back together to make sure no pieces are stll in the uterus. How is that reassembled person not human?
 
Lucifer_Carroll said:
Another interesting point is that while this point (week 29) may be the point where a fetus can possibly "feel" pain in an animalistic way, they still lack a consciousness or cognition. Thus it isn't human yet and possibly cannot "process" the "pain".

Key words in your post, Luc. "...the still lack a consciousness or cognition." This not only isn't proven, but cannot be.

Lucifer_Carroll said:
This is just part of the attempt to punish women for sex because after all they're the only one involved in the process and are all greedy sluts anyway. You've seen how they dress with their sexy sexy burqas.

Sorry, Luc. But this is a stretch that you should have dared and deserves no response. I love you, but when you say things like this, I wonder if you've met your testicles yet.

Lauren Hynde said:
What is really disturbing to me on this thread is that I had never realised this one thing. Forget the 29 weeks. Forget the 21 weeks. It is this common to perform a legal abortion after as late as 12 weeks? I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with women's right to choose.

Exactly.

I get the impression most of the responses were made by people before they started counting fingers. Or at least I'm hoping.

Q_C
 
?

Sweet.
(pro-life)


With all due respect, I think Luc is pro life as am I. Only undertakers, vultures, and plague bacilli are pro death.

Oddly, where we disagree is the circumstances under which death can rightfully be meted out.

While I think all living things suffer, and moreso as their lives ebb, it's far from clear to me which beings have pains more or less like we do.

How does one tell? My dog yelps, but my pet snake doesn't.
 
Back
Top