I don’t see why that would make any difference to the issue of abortion, which seems to be about the health of the pregnant female (at least it is in most cases of late-term abortion), not the definition of the foetus.
Because then women wouldn’t be able to have sex with everyone they want without any cares.
They’d actually have to take responsibility!
the OP is just a sick attempt to prey on the minds of women who have had or are thinking of having abortions. It never ceases to amaze me, the depths to which these right-to-lifers will go.:o
Huh? I hope I’ve been whooshed. How is the OP a “sick attempt to prey on the minds of women”? The OP’s contention seemed to be that once a certain level of foetal development occurs, the foetus is capable of experiencing pain, and therefore should be anaesthetised prior to abortion.
How is that inflammatory? It doesn’t presuppose humanity- just a certain level of nerve development.
You proof that a fetus is a human being/baby is where?
Yeah
Does that actually happen a lot then?
Actually, the way most beef cattle are killed today is practically instantaneous. They basically drive a large high-speed nail through the bovine’s brain.
I suppose the main reason we don’t anesthetize fetuses during abortion can be found in the old quip “If trees could scream, would we cut them down?” Fetuses don’t scream. (Movies like Silent Scream notwithstanding.)
Yeah, 'cause having abortions is such a picnic that women get pregnant on purpose just to have them!
in the UK the abortion is considered as a treatment for the woman as a patient, the foetus is considered irrelevant.
but if you treat the foetus as a patient, it becomes a person, and thus murder.
no anaesthesia, no patient, no harm, no foul.
and you’re right Scott,we can’t kill people, but it’s only a person if you treat them as one, by treating as a patient.
BTW the AMA categorically states that none of its members should be involved in executions.
doesn’t stop some doctors helping out with the lethal injections.
worry more about that.
ReligiousTolerance.org has a page discussing the issue of whether (or rather, when) the fetus can feel pain.
Irishgirl, please clarify. Are you saying that, by definition, anything a UK doctor provides anesthesia to becomes under the law, by that act, a living human person?
Let’s say an MD happened to decide to administer human-type anesthetics to his pet lamb. Does UK law then declare that said lamb is a human, gets varous social welfare benefits, can’t be sheared, has the right to an education, can vote–etc?
Of course not. So what are you saying?
i am saying that by definition if a doctor provides treatment to the foetus, it becomes their patient.
sorry, but that’s as much clarification as i can give.
i’m not trying to be obtuse, but that’s the way it’s seen here.
treatment to human organism equals them being your patient.
no kill patient. bad doctor.
you know exactly what i’m saying.
JThunder
You’re diasgreeing with a position, not with logic. Do you really not see why some people believe that people shouldn’t be legally required to risk their own life to save someone else’s life?
Actually, “lethal injection” involves three injections, one of which is a muscle relaxant. Although I think the motivation is more to prevent unsightly spasms than to reduce pain.
i think i see where some mix-up could have occurred in what i was saying.
in the US it has been legally declared that the foetus is NOT a person. personhood accompanies birth, and only when the entire body is out of the birth canal.
in the UK no such legal decisions have been made.
abortion is legal, but the status of the foetus as regards personhood is not enshrined in law. PBA doesn’t occur because of the ambiguity of “birth” (and also because it is considered medically unecessary). and foetal anaesthesia is also ruled out because of this ambiguity.
Thanks for the clarification. Then I’ll content myself with pointing out the sheer cruelty of the UK’s legal approach.
The law ought to be able to distinguish between the living product of human conception AS SUCH, and the case wherein that product constitutes a human person.
Anything that feels pain deserves mitigation of that pain.
Please tell me that I’ve been whooshed…
you have not been whooshed.
I had an abortion. Theres alwasy a chance a female will get pregnant when she has sex.
I haven’t made that mistake since.
I don’t want to get pregnant, so i have not had sex sice my abortion, which was 8 years ago.
I’ve known lots of females who have had abortions, none of their lives wer ein danger, none had been raped.
It was just an inconveinience.
I made that mistake. But only once.
Women shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married, IMHO.
When someone goes skiing, there’s always a chance that he’ll break his leg. Sure, there are medical procedures that can fix the leg, but that’s cheating, and evading responsibility.
People need to take responsibility for their actions, so they shouldn’t be skiing unless they’re willing to give up the use of their legs.
Since the overwhelming majority of pregnancies are not threatening to the mother’s life, that seems like a rather poor way to argue for abortion in general.