You said the post #1 question was the same as the post #56 question. Post #1 asked about what abortions can not be justified while post #56 asked if abortions anesthetize the pre born. Why do you think these are essentially the same?
Your post #2 covers fetus pain, abortion anesthesia availability, and in-utero surgical procedures. You said post #2 answered the post #56 question (if abortions anesthetize the pre born). Does your post #2 imply that abortions do not anesthetize the pre born?
student, you need to do more research on the net itself. I found this answer in 5 seconds.
This very question was part of the Roe v Wade case and has been well documented.
Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven’t formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, “the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn’t reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain.” Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn’t form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.
I think Student was asking about late term abortions, possibly after the sixth or seventh month. I’m sure Asanta or Macgyver could answer this very well, but I’d guess that it the woman was given a general anesthetic the fetus would also be affected. This probably doesn’t cover epidurals or spinals (same??).
I think Student was asking about late term abortions, possibly after the sixth or seventh month. I’m sure Asanta or Macgyver could answer this very well, but I’d guess that it the woman was given a general anesthetic the fetus would also be affected. This probably doesn’t cover epidurals or spinals (same??).
Occam
After the 6th or 7th months, they are called ‘deliveries’, and the fetus is viable unless something is seriously wrong with it. 23 and a half weeks is pretty much the very edge of viability. With state of the art care, there is still a very high mortality and morbidity rate at that level of development. If they are born before that age, when they miscarry, they are placed in the arms of the mother, and she holds him/her until they die, which is usually in minutes. We first examine the infant to make sure there is no error about the gestational age, or if there is some reason we think it has a chance of survival. During that birth, which occurs thousands of times a day in our country, the infant is not given anesthesia, in fact, during a term birth, which is decidedly uncomfortable for the neonate, we do not give the neonate anesthesia either, and they DO have the ability to feel pain.
You said the post #1 question was the same as the post #56 question. Post #1 asked about what abortions can not be justified while post #56 asked if abortions anesthetize the pre born. Why do you think these are essentially the same?
Your post #2 covers fetus pain, abortion anesthesia availability, and in-utero surgical procedures. You said post #2 answered the post #56 question (if abortions anesthetize the pre born). Does your post #2 imply that abortions do not anesthetize the pre born?
student
If they are second term abortion, the fetus may be given a dose of digoxin, which stops its heart painlessly, and the fetus is delivered as a stillborn.
I saw a program once that showed a beating heart completely seperated and independent from the person and not subject to any brain function. Which proves that even in humans there is no irreducible complexity.
I saw a program once that showed a beating heart completely seperated and independent from the person and not subject to any brain function. Which proves that even in humans there is no irreducible complexity.
Yes, cardiac muscles have automaticity They can generate their own rhythm. If there is no input from the heart’s electrical conduction system, and there is adequate blood flow, the underlying rate will be about 40.
Yes, you are right. There is much on the internet including the web page you linked to. Thank you.
asanta:
CFI is fortunate to have you contributing with all your medical expertise. Thank you. Makes you think the medical industry may have more influence on this blog’s title question and the whole abortion debate in the future.
I saw a program once that showed a beating heart completely seperated and independent from the person and not subject to any brain function. Which proves that even in humans there is no irreducible complexity.
student, you need to do more research on the net itself. I found this answer in 5 seconds.
This very question was part of the Roe v Wade case and has been well documented.
Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven’t formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, “the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn’t reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain.” Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn’t form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.
“In humans, painful stimuli can arrive to the brain at 20–22 weeks of gestation. Therefore several researchers have devoted their efforts to study fetal analgesia during prenatal surgery, and during painful procedures in premature babies.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/y7q8m55157487632/
It is good that there are continuing studies to learn how we can potentially improve the lives of fetuses who are destined to be born or even to make the other fetuses limited existence less aversive. However, back to the topic question of this post. Ultimately, only the woman who is pregnant can decide whether her aborting her pregnancy is “ok”.
It is good that there are continuing studies to learn how we can potentially improve the lives of fetuses who are destined to be born or even to make the other fetuses limited existence less aversive. However, back to the topic question of this post. Ultimately, only the woman who is pregnant can decide whether her aborting her pregnancy is “ok”.
The latter sounds more like an answer than the question.
If it’s up to the woman to decide then it’s also up to the woman to decide whether pain determines whether it’s okay, on an individual basis.
Tim, you’re not a woman (are you?). Why would you start a thread like this? It’s not up to us. (my bad—not Tim’s creation—sorry Tim!)
(this makes me a little curious why all individuals don’t get to decide what’s moral for them, of course)
It is good that there are continuing studies to learn how we can potentially improve the lives of fetuses who are destined to be born or even to make the other fetuses limited existence less aversive. However, back to the topic question of this post. Ultimately, only the woman who is pregnant can decide whether her aborting her pregnancy is “ok”.
The latter sounds more like an answer than the question.
If it’s up to the woman to decide then it’s also up to the woman to decide whether pain determines whether it’s okay, on an individual basis.
Tim, you’re not a woman (are you?). Why would you start a thread like this? It’s not up to us. (my bad—not Tim’s creation—sorry Tim!)
(this makes me a little curious why all individuals don’t get to decide what’s moral for them, of course)
We each generally do get to decide what to do with our own bodies. And we each generally get to decide whether it is moral, or whether to buy in to someone else’s morals.
There are cases however, when our choices about what we do with our bodies can become a burden on the larger society and society seeks to compel us to do otherwise. (e.g., motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws) But these laws are not about morality, rather they are about society not having to pay for poor decisions by some individuals. Women having abortions is not a burden to the larger society (at least not in comparison to women proceeding through unwanted pregnancies when they have neither the desire nor the means to raise a child). Of course it is morally a burden to all those who believe that abortion is murder, but that burden is due to their own sense of morality, and is their responsibility to bear without impinging on others’ rights.
There are cases however, when our choices about what we do with our bodies can become a burden on the larger society and society seeks to compel us to do otherwise. (e.g., motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws) But these laws are not about morality, rather they are about society not having to pay for poor decisions by some individuals. Women having abortions is not a burden to the larger society (at least not in comparison to women proceeding through unwanted pregnancies when they have neither the desire nor the means to raise a child). Of course it is morally a burden to all those who believe that abortion is murder, but that burden is due to their own sense of morality, and is their responsibility to bear without impinging on others’ rights.
(food-for-thought question, since it is not my aim to derail the thread):
But ... isn’t it in society’s interest to prevent a declining population that, in turn, creates potentially disastrous pressure on social programs financed on a pay-as-you-go basis?
But ... isn’t it in society’s interest to prevent a declining population that, in turn, creates potentially disastrous pressure on social programs financed on a pay-as-you-go basis?
Nah, all we have to do is get rid of the limit on the amount of income on which S.S. contributions are paid, and make sure it’s paid on ALL income including dividends, capital gains, overseas, etc.
