There is little doubt in my mind that a fetus of sufficiently developed term can feel sensations, including pain.
With this in mind, should a doctor be made to administer an anasthetic to a fetus prior to an abortion? I can’t imagine how doing so would endanger the life or health of the mother.
I maintain that society ought to require, by law, the mitigation of pain in organisms likely to experience what we call “pain.” We can (and do) argue the question of whether abortion is murder, but perhaps we can nearly all agree that pain is an inherently bad thing, whether the organism in question is a human person or not.
Enola:
Interesting point. I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding that male babies are circumcised w/o anesthaesia.
The idea of performing an aborition w/o thought of eliminating pain on the part of the fetus is, frankly, horrifying.
Perhaps we should also aneasthetize cows,pigs, and chickens before we kill them as well. They can feel pain too you know.
Is the abortion procedure so quick that the pain is, essentiallly, irrelavent? I’d bet it’s not in the so-called partial birth abortions.
Question: By the time higher brain functions come on-line (like the ability to process pain, isn’t too late for a legal abortion?
But humans aren’t as tasty.
anesthetizing a fetus before abortion is conceding that it might just be more than an unfeeling meaningless bunch of tissue and and and that might just make someone feel bad about aborting something that might need anesthesia and and and that’s unConstitutional and imposing one’s religious and moral values and just one more step towards forcing desperate women into back alleys to be butchered with coat hangers!!!
Damn anti-choice fundy extremist!!!
No. Abortion is legal up to the last moment of pregnancy – hence the term “late term abortion.”
In cases of Partial Birth Abortion or Salting Out, I can’t imagine a thrashing, writhing fetus being simply dismissed as unconcious reflex action.
Speak for yourself.
I’m willing to assume that nonhuman organisms with a sufficient degree of neural development can, indeed, feel pain.
I’ll let others try to draw the line. Intuitively, I “feel” that such entities as bacteria, fleas, grasshoppers, lizards, and anchovies do not have “consciousness” and thus by definition (namely mine) do not have (what WE call) “sensations,” including “pain.”
At the other end, I “feel” that dogs and cats, horses, sheep, bovines, monkeys, dolphins, whales, and at least some avians, do, do, and do. At least in a dim and flickering way. Yes, I believe we ought to mitigate their fear and pain.
(Which does not entail, by the way, that they have a “right to life.”)
—BUT, BUT, BUT… —
Exactly. And I feel exactly the same way as a vegitarian about non-vegitarians.
—conceding that it might just be more than an unfeeling meaningless bunch of tissue —
That’s not a “concession” for everyone in favor of keeping abortions (at least in some terms) legal. Zygotes and early embryos are unfeeling. More developed fetuses clearly are not (and indeed we can pinpoint with a fairly good estimate just when their nervous systems begin delivering pain information). So? Where do you take the argument from there?
if an aneasthetist administer pain relief the foetus becomes their patient.
it is illegal to kill your patient.
that’s it. the sole reason you can’t administer pain relief, is because you open yourself up to charges.
APOS:
Your last post whooshed right over–or under–my head…Was it in response to mine?
IRISHGIRL:
“…if an aneasthetist administer pain relief the foetus becomes their patient…it is illegal to kill your patient…that’s it. the sole reason you can’t administer pain relief, is because you open yourself up to charges…”
Maybe the laws work different where Irish girls come from. In America it is not illegal to kill your “patient” per se, but rather to kill human beings per se. Veterinarians do regularly “kill” their patients; it’s termed “putting them down.”
It was to FriarTed.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding of the situation is that late abortions were permitted not because of some rationalisation that the foetus ‘isn’t human’ or ‘isn’t alive’, but rather on the basis that the health needs of the female patient outweigh those of the foetus.
So one can grant the life and humanity of the fetus, but still claim that the health of the woman outweighs the very life of the fetus? Talk about twisted logic.
I was stating my understanding of the situation (which may actually be incorrect), not affirming it.
Anyway, the values ‘human’ and ‘alive’ aren’t (IMHO) boolean.
Hmmm, sounds kind of like administrating pain killers to a condemned criminal before pulling the switch or whatever.
By offerin anasthesia to an unborn baby, you’re admitting that this is a person that deserves humane treatment. Of course, I don’t consider killing them to be humane.:dubious:
Why don’t we just admit that an unborn baby is a human being:confused: