Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

oldrnwisr

fran17 wrote: »

From what I gather you are basing the majority of your conclusions on an article published in a 2005 edition of the journal of the American medical association(JAMA).This bases it's study under the belief that it is the cerebral cortex which is principally responsible for pain perception.However,there is now a large body of evidence to support the belief that it is in fact the thalamus which is primarily responsible.The JAMA report is quite frequently sited regarding this matter but is also quite frequently refuted.

OK, let's clarify a few things.

Firstly, my conclusions are based on the totality of the evidence, it's just that the JAMA paper I cited is the single strongest paper on the topic. It isn't an observational study in that it doesn't gather any empirical evidence of it's own. It is a systematic review one of the two most powerful tools in modern research (alongside meta-analyses). It's easy in a debate for both sides of an argument to start tossing out individual studies to support their views. However, it doesn't really matter what an individual study concludes, it matters what the totality of evidence says, what conclusions can be drawn by looking at all of the research on a particular topic. There are two ways to do this. Firstly, you can take all the individual results and reanalyse them as a single dataset to see if this produces the same or different conclusions to the individual studies. This is a meta-analysis. The second way is to review each and every one of the relevant studies and see if there is a solid conclusion which can be drawn from all the studies when the sample size, methodology and analysis is taken into account. This is a systematic review. A lot of modern evidence-based medicine is indebted to such systematic reviews such as those undertaken by the Cochrane collaboration. They help to sift through the often enormous numbers of individual studies and distill the results into solid conclusions. This is what the 2005 JAMA study did. It reviewed 2103 papers on the topic of foetal pain, analgesia and anaesthesia and examined all relevant papers in detail (i.e. only those which studied foetuses less than 30 weeks gestation). It cites 96 papers in its text. It is a distillation of all the research in the area and not simply a single study.

Secondly, the JAMA isn't the only study which articulates the consensus view. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in a 2010 paper state:

"The neural regions and pathways that are responsible for pain experience remain under debate but it is generally accepted that pain from physical trauma requires an intact pathway from the periphery, through the spinal cord, into the thalamus and on to regions of the cerebral cortex including the primary sensory cortex (S1), the insular cortex and the anterior cingulated cortex.3,4 Fetal pain is not possible before these necessary neural pathways and structures (figure 1) have developed."

Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice


Similarly in the textbook Essential Reproduction, Martin Johnson outlines the consensus position:

"Given the obvious complexity of the neural processessubserving pain, focusing on neural maturation of a specific part of the brain’s nociceptive system will not necessarily help the determination of when a fetus feels pain. But there is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (the pathway by which peripheral sensory information arrives at the cortex, where conscious sensation and feelings are processed) must be a critical event. The penetration of thalamic fibres into the developing cortex occurs between weeks 22 and 34 of gestation and evoked potential recordings have suggested that sensory impulses cannot reliably be detected in the cortex before week 29 of gestation. Such data have led to the suggestion that a fetus cannot ‘feel’ pain before the cerebral cortex is able to process incoming sensory, including noxious, information and that this is therefore most unlikely to be the case before about week 26 of gestation."

Essential Reproduction - 7th Edition


Thirdly, regarding the thalamus and pain perception, it seems that whatever source that you as yet have not cited has got the wrong end of the stick. The thalamus is involved in pain processing but as an intermediate pain mediation site. You see, it's like this. Imagine pain as a train and its infrastructure. The peripheral pain receptors are the first things to develop around week 7. This is like the origin station. The train can't go anywhere if it doesn't have anywhere to go from. Then you have the spinothalamic fibres which is like the track. It is the main thoroughfare for transmitting impulses from the peripheral receptors. These develop between weeks 12 and 20 and become operational between weeks 20 and 21. Then you have the thalamus. This is best imagined as a switching station. Since it has been recognised that there are three components to pain: the sensory discriminative, affective-motivational and cognitive-evaluative. Sensory discriminative pain is essentially the raw sensory input, affective-motivational is kind of the memory of pain, a crude evaluation of the unpleasant character of the pain, and cognitive-evaluative, the conscious thinking evaluation of pain (so you know that a paper cut is less important than a broken leg). The thalamus can route these signals through other pain mediating areas of the brain to reduce the overall sensory information received by the destination station, the cerebral cortex. This part of the brain, in particular the anterior cingulate part of the cortex which develops at week 26.

The Role of the Thalmus in Modulating Pain

Finally, you seem to have ignored my main point. What relevance does fetal pain have to the debate anyway? Let's say for a second you're totally right about fetal pain despite the evidence presented above. Let's say, hypothetically that fetal pain exists from week 16. In 2015, there were 185,824 abortions in the UK. From week 16 to week 24 there were 7230 abortions. Of this approximately two-thirds or 4844 abortions were elective abortions (i.e. ground B/C of the legislation). Of this subset, approximately 55% or 2664 abortions were performed using dilatation & evacuation. So, the total number of abortions where fetal pain needs to be considered (from your argument) is 2,664 out of 185,824 or 1.4%. So 98.6% of abortions occur before a foetus can feel pain even under your definitions. So it's a red herring.
Also, even if we take it that fetal pain is a consideration in those 2,664 abortions. That just means that the best practice is changed so that any one of feticide, medical abortion or fetal analgesia is chosen instead of D&E based on the health needs of the mother. It's not an impediment to legislating for abortion. It is, and this can't be stressed often enough, a decision that ought to be made by doctors, not lawyers.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would not be a fair summary no. What they are saying is that there is no reason TO BE concerned with pain relief for the fetus per se, because there is no evidence they are feeling any.

What there is evidence for however is autonomic and natural responses to our invasive procedures that cause responses that are THEMSELVES detrimental to the development process of the fetus.

The way you summarize it, whether you intended to word it that way or not, implies there IS fetal pain to be concerned with...... but they just aren't bothered. You make it sound like we believe we ARE inflicting pain but do not really care about that. Whereas the reality is that we do not think we ARE causing any entity any experience of pain at all and the reasons we use pain medication have nothing to do with it.

Here's what they said;
"evidence for the subconscious incorporation of pain into neurological development and plasticity is incontrovertible"
Now, how can something that does not in itself exist cause this developmental damage? You are bending over backwards to say the effects do exist, but there is "no evidence" for the cause of those effects. Its a bizarre position to take.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You see, it's like this. Imagine pain as a train and its infrastructure. The peripheral pain receptors are the first things to develop around week 7. This is like the origin station. The train can't go anywhere if it doesn't have anywhere to go from. Then you have the spinothalamic fibres which is like the track...
Then you have the thalamus. This is best imagined as a switching station. Since it has been recognised that there are three components to pain: the sensory discriminative, affective-motivational and cognitive-evaluative..

The thalamus can route these signals through other pain mediating areas of the brain to reduce the overall sensory information received by the destination station, the cerebral cortex. This part of the brain, in particular the anterior cingulate part of the cortex which develops at week 26.

Its a good description of how a fully formed human receives a pain signal. But it does not take into account that process by which an embryo/foetus goes through various stages which mimic our evolution. At earlier stages it seems reasonable to assume that it would feel pain in a more reptilian way ie without the using the more advanced structures of the fully formed human brain. Similarly, just because the lungs are not functional does not mean the foetus requires no oxygen.
I would assume that a reptile or a foetus feels pain in a different way to us. But even fruit flies can be trained to avoid electric shocks in a maze. Some might say that is only the conditioned response of the fly as an automaton, but I don't think we adult humans are so special that our version of pain perception is the only valid one.

oldrnwisr

Just one point I missed previously.

fran17 wrote: »

Even now when I expose one of the most widely sited sources for foetal pain denial as a discredited sham you just brush it off as unimportant.

This is doubly wrong. Firstly, even taking into account Susan Lee's eight months working for NARAL, the other authors are respected experts in the field:

Henry J Peter Ralston (Neuroscientist) - Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of California San Fransisco

Eleanor A Drey (OBGYN) -Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Fransisco

John Colin Partridge (Paediatrician) - Professor Emeritus Paediatrics, University of California, San Fransisco

Mark A Rosen (Anaesthesiologist) - Professor Emeritus, School of Medicine, University of California San Fransisco

Secondly, you didn't actually demonstrate any bias which would undermine the conclusions. All you did was post what you thought was unfavourable information in the hopes of undermining a study you couldn't attack on its merits. A classic example of the Poisoning the Well fallacy.

Finally, one of the articles which initially reported Ms. Lee's previous employment was the New York Times. In the article the journal editor Catherine DeAngelis was reported as saying:

"The editor, Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis, of The Journal of the American Medical Association, said in an interview that had she been aware of the activities, the journal most likely would have mentioned them. But she added that the disclosure would not have kept the article from being published, because editors and outside experts who had read the manuscript before publication had found it scientifically sound."

So you haven't discredited anything, much less offer any evidence to back up your own claims.

recedite wrote: »

Its a good description of how a fully formed human receives a pain signal. But it does not take into account that process by which an embryo/foetus goes through various stages which mimic our evolution. At earlier stages it seems reasonable to assume that it would feel pain in a more reptilian way ie without the using the more advanced structures of the fully formed human brain. Similarly, just because the lungs are not functional does not mean the foetus requires no oxygen.
I would assume that a reptile or a foetus feels pain in a different way to us. But even fruit flies can be trained to avoid electric shocks in a maze. Some might say that is only the conditioned response of the fly as an automaton, but I don't think we adult humans are so special that our version of pain perception is the only valid one.

Firstly, it's important to point out that the description that you quote above was in response to a specific claim by fran17 that the thalamus was responsible for processing pain which is a position not supported by the scientific literature.
Secondly, you're right in a way about the development of the foetus mimicking our evolution. As far as stimulus response is concerned it is a case of one system being replaced entirely by a better one. So initially, the foetus only has a peripheral nervous system where the pain receptors talk directly to the muscles. This is like the patellar reflex, it doesn't involve the brain and isn't pain in any real sense. This is replaced by a primitive pain processing around week 26 when the foetus is capable of feeling pain but is incapable of discriminating it, mainly because the affective-emotional and cognitive-evaluative processing isn't functional yet. This means that any sensory input from the cutaneous nociceptors will trigger a stress response whether the stimulus is noxious or not. This is commented by the authors of the JAMA study as having been observed under different conditions:

"Vital signs also have been used to assess neonatal pain. However, heart rate, respiratory rate, and transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide levels do not necessarily differ significantly between alcohol-swabbing and lancing the heels of preterm neo-nates. Another group found that a similar proportion of neonates became hypoxic during tracheal suction, as well as during nonnoxious routine care such as washing and weighing."

Pain perception requires a recognition by the brain that the stimulus is unpleasant. The foetus (and even neonate) lacks the cognition to classify the stimulus as unpleasant and so everything from washing to swabbing to injections all register as negative stimuli.

However, like fran17 you seem to focus on the minor issue rather than the elephant in the room. 98% of abortions occur at a point where fetal pain, even according to fran's claimed position is irrelevant. So why is fetal pain relevant to the debate at large at all?

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So why is fetal pain relevant to the debate at large at all?

Because it's emotive. And to the pro-life side, the issue of abortion is often phrased in nothing but emotive terms, rendering almost impossible the tough job of having to think about it.

The main difference between the pro-life and pro-choice sides concerns the question of when the foetus becomes a human, and therefore, when a clump of cells acquires the rights of a fully-grown human being. People on the pro-life side saying this acquisition happens at the moment of conception while people on the pro-choice side defer that moment until some later time.

The debate would generate more light than heat if both sides understood the essential similarity of their position, and instead just discussed where best to place the date-slider, and why it belongs there and nowhere else.

robindch

Mod:

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

It's drawn from the esteemed source known as 'the voices in Fran's head'.

Not a useful comment - please cut out the personal jibes.

Thanking youze.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Because it's emotive. And to the pro-life side, the issue of abortion is often phrased in nothing but emotive terms, rendering almost impossible the tough job of having to think about it.

The main difference between the pro-life and pro-choice sides concerns the question of when the foetus becomes a human, and therefore, when a clump of cells acquires the rights of a fully-grown human being. People on the pro-life side saying this acquisition happens at the moment of conception while people on the pro-choice side defer that moment until some later time.

The debate would generate more light than heat if both sides understood the essential similarity of their position, and instead just discussed where best to place the date-slider, and why it belongs there and nowhere else.

Well, yes. But doesn't that point to a possible relevance for the question about the capacity to experience pain? This is certainly a capacity enjoyed (if that's the right word) by fully-developed humans so, if nothing else, the capacity of the foetus to feel pain would be a characteristic shared with fully-grown humans, and that would be a relevant data point, surely?

But there's a bit more to it than that. You describe (dismissively?) the question about pain as "emotive". But isn't the capacity to empathise also a characteristic - and a morally signficant characteristic - of developed humanity? Therefore the ability of the foetus to feel pain would bring it within the sphere of beings that we identify with, because we empathise with them. So it's a characteristic, perhaps, that's of particular relevance to where we stand on the question of when the developing being must be treated as "human".

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But there's a bit more to it than that. You describe (dismissively?) the question about pain as "emotive". But isn't the capacity to empathise also a characteristic - and a morally signficant characteristic - of developed humanity? Therefore the ability of the foetus to feel pain would bring it within the sphere of beings that we identify with, because we empathise with them.

I'd agree that empathy is a very important human characteristic, but we also have a tendency to anthropomorphise quite a lot, i.e. attribute human attributes to things that are not human. So for example, when a child plays with a teddy, they might display empathy for it as they would a human, but that does not make the teddy a human. The same goes for the fetus. Imagining it as a fully fledged person and empathising with its feelings on that basis does not make it any more true than the child's teddy bear.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I'd agree that empathy is a very important human characteristic, but we also have a tendency to anthropomorphise quite a lot, i.e. attribute human attributes to things that are not human. So for example, when a child plays with a teddy, they might display empathy for it as they would a human, but that does not make the teddy a human. The same goes for the fetus. Imagining it as a fully fledged person and empathising with its feelings on that basis does not make it any more true than the child's teddy bear.

Well, I'm not sure the analogy is a helpful one. The child's teddy bear isn't human in any sense, whereas the foetus is human in many significant senses - hey, it's a human foetus and not, e.g. a feline foetus. There's fundamental disagreement about which particular human characteristics an, um, individual has to possess in order to have a moral status such that we can't or shouldn't kill it, but a capacity to feel pain is a characteristic which you might, reasonably and rationally, see as tending to put the foetus in the "deserves moral status" category.

In other words, I don't think you can dismiss pain-feeling as an "emotive" consideration, if that implies that it's not a relevant consideration. We're human; we feel emotions; that's part of what it is to be a (fully-developed) human, such that we consider the inability to experience emotion to be pathological. And I don't think it makes any kind of sense, in taking a position as to the human moral status of the foetus, to suggest that we should disregard or discount an essential part of what makes us developed humans.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

You are bending over backwards to say the effects do exist

Erm no, I have been saying the EXACT opposite. The EFFECTS of our invasive interventions are very very real. You are bending over backwards to say I claimed things I did not.

What I am saying is that the EFFECTS of the stimulus, including pain stimulus, during our invasive interventions are not evidence that the fetus is EXPERIENCING pain in any subjective, conscious, sentient sense.

My attempts to separate the two are not attempts to deny the existence of either.

recedite wrote: »

Its a bizarre position to take.

Lucky then, is it not, that it is not the position I take.

Let me be clear again. Stimulus, including stimulus directed at the pain receptors, has very real stress effects on a fetus. We observe physiological and hormonal changes as a result of these stimuli. And because these changes correlate with long term damage to a developing fetus we mediate the effects using things like pain medication.

No one is denying ANY of that.

The ONLY thing I would by focusing on is attempts to leap from that to declarations by fiat that the fetus is therefore "feeling" or "experiencing" pain. That leap is not substantiated well at this time and I cited 5, or 6 I am not sure, direct references making this distinction which the target of those posts..... fran...... simply contrived to ENTIRELY ignore and even later to directly claim I never cited.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure the analogy is a helpful one. The child's teddy bear isn't human in any sense, whereas the foetus is human in many significant senses - hey, it's a human foetus and not, e.g. a feline foetus. There's fundamental disagreement about which particular human characteristics an, um, individual has to possess in order to have a moral status such that we can't or shouldn't kill it, but a capacity to feel pain is a characteristic which you might, reasonably and rationally, see as tending to put the foetus in the "deserves moral status" category.

In other words, I don't think you can dismiss pain-feeling as an "emotive" consideration, if that implies that it's not a relevant consideration. We're human; we feel emotions; that's part of what it is to be a (fully-developed) human, such that we consider the inability to experience emotion to be pathological. And I don't think it makes any kind of sense, in taking a position as to the human moral status of the foetus, to suggest that we should disregard or discount an essential part of what makes us developed humans.

No, you're conflating different objections : if the teddy bear could feel pain, then the fact that it looks cute and slightly human would be irrelevant, and the question of feeling empathy towards it would no longer be merely emotional.

Similarly, if the fetus can feel pain at the stage at which abortions occur, then that would matter. Definitely. But it would also matter for miscarriages and possibly even birth, just as much. The fact that the fetal pain claim is never made for miscarriages indicates to me that the agenda of those promoting this claim is anti abortion, nothing more.

So we're left with people claiming that the fetus must be able to feel pain during abortions because, well, they instinctively think so. Despite all the evidence that it doesn't, and despite their own selective view of when it might feel pain. Which is very much like a child getting upset because its teddy bear has been hurt.

fran17

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, you didn't actually demonstrate any bias which would undermine the conclusions.

Well this is interesting now,I must say.What you appear to be omitting,possible an oversight,is that Dr Eleanor A.Drey was not only a medical director of an abortion clinic but also a performer of abortions herself.Now here we have a paper which is believed by you to contain the strongest and most persuasive opinion regarding whether the unborn child is capable of feeling pain.It's lead authors are defenders of abortion and one is actually gaining financially from the conclusions you and she have drawn from the paper.Forgive me if I'm being slightly skeptical but I feel it's warranted,no?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I don't think it makes any kind of sense, in taking a position as to the human moral status of the foetus, to suggest that we should disregard or discount an essential part of what makes us developed humans.

In that case you really need to state clearly in an objective manner what exact combination of attributes distinguish us as being people deserving of human rights. After all, if you advocate against abortion you're treading on a pregnant women's rights to a such an extent her well being, livelihood and even life could be threatened.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm being slightly skeptical but I feel it's warranted,no?

You should be skeptical of ALL science papers on ALL topics, even the ones you agree with. Especially ones where the paper, as you say, happens to have results that benefit the author or the people who financed the author.

So no forgiveness is required, for THAT.

What would be worthy of asking forgiveness for is merely stopping there. Being skeptical just for the sake of it or, worse, because opposite to the author the paper happens to have results that YOU do not want to agree with.

Skepticism is a great thing, but not on it's own. Skepticism in isolation just leaves YOU looking as biased as the author(s) you would decry. Do not stop there.

Read and evaluate the paper and give your skepticism FORM and SUBSTANCE. Do what I do, and delve into the methodology, the results, the arguments, the conclusions that the paper offers and use your skepticism to CHECK if the authors biases influenced any of it.

Merely pointing at a paper you do not want to agree with and then looking for anything about the author that you can use to dismiss it........ is the very exercise in bias and agenda that you would presume to accuse, without substance, the author of.

But of course we are still waiting for you to back up the claim that not just some, not just many, but the MAJORITY of papers of this form with similar conclusions are by people who benefit from abortion. You appear to be trying to ignore your own claim, and any effort to have you back it up.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

In that case you really need to state clearly in an objective manner what exact combination of attributes distinguish us as being people deserving of human rights. After all, if you advocate against abortion you're treading on a pregnant women's rights to a such an extent her well being, livelihood and even life could be threatened.

The counter is obvious; the onus is on the pro-choice advocate to state clearly in an objective manner, etc, since, however great the injury done to the pregnant women, the injury done to the foetus is clearly greater.

For the record, I'm pro-choice. I'm interested, though, in developing a coherent consistent reason for being pro-choice. The issue, as robindch points out in post 4385, is where we draw the boundary in the continuum o human development between the entity we can destroy and the entity we can't. I don't think "it's presumed that we can destroy it unless you can state clearly and objectively why we can't" (which is more or less what you say above) has any greater appeal than "it's presumed that we can't destroy it unless you can state clearly and objectively why we can" (the pro-life position). They're just assertions of moral absolutes coupled with demands that they be embodied in the law, and neither will appeal to or convincer anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Tl;dr: I don't think you can make a coherent and convincing pro-choice case this way.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

For the record, I'm pro-choice. I'm interested, though, in developing a coherent consistent reason for being pro-choice. The issue, as robindch points out in post 4385, is where we draw the boundary in the continuum of human development between the entity we can destroy and the entity we can't.

That's fair enough, we're drawing an arbitrary line to some extent in what is as you say a continuum rather than a set of discrete events. My opinion, and it is just that, is that we start considering the entity a person somewhere between the probability of sentience and the possibility of sapience. So as per oldrnwisr's posts from if we're considering sentience we need to distinguish between subjective pain and reflexive reaction.

My point with respect to anthropomorphism is that we can easily imagine the early stage fetus to be something that it is not, and it is entirely unreasonable to trample all over the rights of a pregnant woman on that basis.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Pain perception requires a recognition by the brain that the stimulus is unpleasant. The foetus (and even neonate) lacks the cognition to classify the stimulus as unpleasant and so everything from washing to swabbing to injections all register as negative stimuli.

I think you are overreaching the facts here in saying a foetus and indeed a new born baby cannot feel pain, but only a "negative stimuli". At the end of the day, what is pain, if not a type of negative stimulus? This argument would also seem to presuppose that the lower animals cannot feel pain either, because they do not possess the advanced brain of an adult human. Its an anthropocentric argument (which ironically, has traditionally been the domain of the religious minded person, and not the scientist)

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, like fran17 you seem to focus on the minor issue rather than the elephant in the room. 98% of abortions occur at a point where fetal pain, even according to fran's claimed position is irrelevant. So why is fetal pain relevant to the debate at large at all?

Well no, that was never my rationale; I said a certain amount of pain is a natural part of living, and I would be more concerned about minimising pain for the mother than for the foetus.
But as Peregrinus pointed out, the elephant in the room is the killing of the foetus, not the level of pain it might experience during that process.
Supposing I had you as a captive hostage, and was preparing to execute you, and we entered into a debate about whether I would provide some analgesic in advance of the act. Would you be pleased that I had addressed the central issue in that situation?

aloyisious

Umm, does it not take a working brain, however small and capable it is, to put a label on stimuli for recognition purposes "oh' that is painful" and to signal the body to react to it as such?

If there is no brain with a capability to actually feel and understand that stimuli to be a painful experience, and react to it as such; as distinct from a stimuli to be reacted-to - the same as a snails reaction when it's tentacles are touched - then surely there is no pain felt as we feel and perceive pain as sentient beings long since left the womb?

The reaction to sounds by feotus in the womb are examples. The reaction is assumed to be a reaction of pleasure when it comes to music or the woman's voice "wow, look at the way he/she is moving" instead of the reaction being that of a non-sentient creature with no capability of perceiving the sound as delightful music or as a woman's voice.

fran17

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You should be skeptical of ALL science papers on ALL topics, even the ones you agree with. Especially ones where the paper, as you say, happens to have results that benefit the author or the people who financed the author.

So no forgiveness is required, for THAT.

What would be worthy of asking forgiveness for is merely stopping there. Being skeptical just for the sake of it or, worse, because opposite to the author the paper happens to have results that YOU do not want to agree with.

Skepticism is a great thing, but not on it's own. Skepticism in isolation just leaves YOU looking as biased as the author(s) you would decry. Do not stop there.

Read and evaluate the paper and give your skepticism FORM and SUBSTANCE. Do what I do, and delve into the methodology, the results, the arguments, the conclusions that the paper offers and use your skepticism to CHECK if the authors biases influenced any of it.

Merely pointing at a paper you do not want to agree with and then looking for anything about the author that you can use to dismiss it........ is the very exercise in bias and agenda that you would presume to accuse, without substance, the author of.

But of course we are still waiting for you to back up the claim that not just some, not just many, but the MAJORITY op papers of this form with similar conclusions are by people who benefit from abortion.You appear to be trying to ignore your own claim, and any effort to have you back it up.

What I actually said,if you review the text,is that the majority of these papers are associated with either abortion providers or advocates of abortion.An important distinction to make.
Lets consider what are generally recognised to be the three mostly sited papers in regard to the issue of foetal pain.Firstly we have the article published in the journal of the American medical association(JAMA) from 2005.I believe that with what we have established thus far regarding the authors of this article it can lead us to be cautious regarding,if nothing else,their motives and objectivity.It would be wrong to view them or the article as independent.
Second most sited article regarding this issue is the 2010 article which was produced by a working group for the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists(RCOG).They also draw their conclusions based on the cerebral cortex needing to be fully functional for an individual to experience pain.They also state that during gestation the unborn is in a coma like state so is unable to experience pain.An unborn child when touched will awaken.I would also say that the RCOG,rather than being independent or neutral on the issue,are indeed advocates for abortion.In a 2010 publication they state:

The RCOG view induced abortion as a healthcare need as well as an important public health intervention,and reiterates the recommendation of the RCOG working party on unplanned pregnancy.

Another frequently sited is a 2005 report from the American college of obstetricians and gynaecologists(ACOG).They claim that there is just no scientific information which question whether the unborn can experience pain.The ACOG have a history of advocacy and many of its members actually practice abortion.Also during the debates regarding "partial birth abortions" in 2007 the ACOG disputed the belief of the American medical associations that partial birth abortion was unneeded to advance the health of any woman.Their support of the abhorrent,and now banned,practice of partial birth abortion must make null and void any notion of their independence regarding the issue either.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

If there is no brain with a capability to actually feel and understand that stimuli to be a painful experience, and react to it as such; as distinct from a stimuli to be reacted-to - the same as a snails reaction when it's tentacles are touched - then surely there is no pain felt as we feel and perceive pain as sentient beings long since left the womb?

So you don't think the snail feels any pain then? I see now a certain commonality between the prochoice viewpoint of pain, and the similar viewpoint of a right to life. The assumption sees to be that only the self, or some thing very similar can feel pain and/or have a right to life. No evidence is apparently required, just an absence of evidence to the contrary.
Its a very black and white absolutist view.
Personally I would subscribe to the view that the rights of life forms should be increasing respected as they become more advanced. In parallel with that development, they become increasingly more self aware, intelligent, and capable of appreciating what pain and happiness are. The human foetus mimics this evolutionary process as it grows in the womb over 9 months. It is well known that they respond to the sound of familiar voices, and even the theme tunes to familiar TV programmes from inside the womb.

aloyisious wrote: »

The reaction to sounds by feotus in the womb are examples. The reaction is assumed to be a reaction of pleasure when it comes to music or the woman's voice "wow, look at the way he/she is moving" instead of the reaction being that of a non-sentient creature with no capability of perceiving the sound as delightful music or as a woman's voice.

That's your belief, but its not something that can easily be proved or disproved. I suppose when you here the birds singing you would also put it down to the noise of unsentient beings, no different to the clanking of a piece of machinery that needs oiling.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

So you don't think the snail feels any pain then? I see now a certain commonality between the prochoice viewpoint of pain, and the similar viewpoint of a right to life. The assumption sees to be that only the self, or some thing very similar can feel pain and/or have a right to life. No evidence is apparently required, just an absence of evidence to the contrary.
Its a very black and white absolutist view.
Personally I would subscribe to the view that the rights of life forms should be increasing respected as they become more advanced. In parallel with that development, they become increasingly more self aware, intelligent, and capable of appreciating what pain and happiness are. The human foetus mimics this evolutionary process as it grows in the womb over 9 months. It is well known that they respond to the sound of familiar voices, and even the theme tunes to familiar TV programmes from inside the womb.

That's your belief, but its not something that can easily be proved or disproved. I suppose when you here the birds singing you would also put it down to the noise of unsentient beings, no different to the clanking of a piece of machinery that needs oiling.

No, I don't think a snail necessarily feels pain when something touches it's tentacles as they are it's sensory devices to detect by touch what's in front of them. I did state I was using it as an example of sensory perception. So for pain, I believe you're misreading the example which I posted.

Re the example I used of the feotus in the womb hearing sound and being able to define it the way people outside the womb do, and thus react the same way, again I don't believe the feotus can. I see that you accept that part of what some pro-lifers claim is factual about a feotus perception and understanding capabilities is not something easily provable either way, where-as those of people outside the womb can be.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

What I actually said,if you review the text,is that the majority of these papers are associated with either abortion providers or advocates of abortion.An important distinction to make.

Distinctions are irrelevant if you are not proving anything you say. The simple fact is you have not shown the "majority" of papers are any such thing. You just declared it to be so. Nothing more. And then dodged every attempt I have made since to get you to back up your original statement.

So you can add one distinction or 100 distinctions, but the base statement is still not being supported. At all. Even a little bit.

fran17 wrote: »

Lets consider what are generally recognised to be the three mostly sited papers

Recognized by who? You? You are talking about THREE papers. Three. Not 300, not 3000. 3. How exactly do you think THREE papers backs up your statement about the "majority" of such papers? You are simply moving the goal posts now rather than have the simple decency to retract your original statement as the hyperbolic nonsense that it clearly was.

What about, for example, all the papers I cited? Not ones you imagine most other people are citing most of the time. The ones I used?

The simple fact is that you are not finding any citations supporting the claim the fetus is actively and actually EXPERIENCING any pain. And rather than acknowledge that....... because for whatever reason pain is important to your narrative............. you simply make up fantastic generalizations about the entire body of work as a whole.

So basically while screaming "bias" at everyone who fails to support your narrative, you are actually achieving nothing but putting a large very visible flag in your own bias here. And I think it is useful to highlight it as it is in play.

Cabaal

Do Christians think a women should keep a rapists fetus and go to term and then befriend the rapists?....yes it seems some certainly do think this. "shudder"

Introducing

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1514048/

This story focuses primarily on Julie Thompson (Christine Kelly),a young conservative Christian woman, who is truly tested by God, and gives birth to a child conceived in rape. This decision leads her to a journey that forces her to explore and redefine her relationships with God, her family, friends and even her rapist Mike Connor (Arturo Fernandez), as she struggles to forgive the man who violated her by boldly visiting him in prison and forging an unlikely bond.

Seriously messed up movie and for people to even think this

Here's the trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9MuFFQL87w

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Do Christians think a women should keep a rapists fetus and go to term and then befriend the rapists?....yes it seems some certainly do think this. "shudder"

Introducing

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1514048/



Seriously messed up movie and for people to even think this

Here's the trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9MuFFQL87w

Should they keep the baby? Yes, absolutely. Two wrongs don't make a right. Forgiveness is part of the healing process.

PopePalpatine

Bonus points for the dog whistles.

I wonder if Todd Akin was involved in this atrocity's production.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Should they keep the baby? Yes, absolutely. Two wrongs don't make a right. Forgiveness is part of the healing process.

You know what frostyjacks, you're right.

If a man rapes and beats a women and she gets pregnant that women should be actually forced to ensure that the rapist gets to see that baby (after the women is forced to go to term of course!)

That women should have to endure decades of having to interact with her rapist and the rapist should have full input in relation to where the mother lives (don't want her moving to another country with the child so the rapist can't see her the child), what school the kid goes to, attending communions, confirmation etc...the lot.

After all, two wrongs don't make a right and whats the harm in forcing a women to deal with her rapist for decades....you have to put the fetus/baby first eh? To hell with the women's rights and mental health.
:rolleyes:

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Should they keep the baby? Yes, absolutely. Two wrongs don't make a right. Forgiveness is part of the healing process.

On the basis of right V wrong, do you think that one tenet of this rather strange film, a testing by god, is realistic or think it is wrong of the film-makers to put forward the notion that god would act in such a way toward one of his disciples?

I take it you believe the family (and child resulting from the film's crime) of the woman should be forgiving towards the god-sent character-testing rapist of the film as well?

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Do Christians think a women should keep a rapists fetus and go to term and then befriend the rapists?....yes it seems some certainly do think this. "shudder"

Introducing

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1514048/

Seriously messed up movie and for people to even think this

Here's the trailer

A Christian being Christian?

You're right Cabaal, that's all sorts of fcuked up...

Whatever happened to the idea of a woman's right to make decisions for herself, among all the ever so enlightened, empathetic non-religious folks?

Or is it just a matter of pro-choice as long as other people make choices they agree with?

What's messed up Cabaal is the automatic assumption that a woman would want to have an abortion if she became pregnant as a result of rape. There are many, many women that don't fit that particular narrative, but because they don't choose to have an abortion, their mental health is often questioned, instead of attempting to understand their decision.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A Christian being Christian?

You're right Cabaal, that's all sorts of fcuked up...

Whatever happened to the idea of a woman's right to make decisions for herself, among all the ever so enlightened, empathetic non-religious folks?

Or is it just a matter of pro-choice as long as other people make choices they agree with?

What's messed up Cabaal is the automatic assumption that a woman would want to have an abortion if she became pregnant as a result of rape. There are many, many women that don't fit that particular narrative, but because they don't choose to have an abortion, their mental health is often questioned, instead of attempting to understand their decision.

Somehow disingenious considering you don't support the choice of a woman who has been raped to have an abortion.

I fail to see how removing the option of consent regarding the pregnancy is anything but a bad thing. That's not to say all women who have been raped must have abortions, but at the very least get them to consent to continuing with the pregnancy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Delirium wrote: »

Somehow disingenious considering you don't support the choice of a woman who has been raped to have an abortion.

Odd, I was under the impression that his position was women should be allowed to not only have an abortion for ANY reason during a pregnancy....... but also at ANY stage during the pregnancy even if it was the Monday morning just before she was due to give birth.

Or has something changed since I last read his contributions to abortion threads and I am now no longer up to date on his positions?

Delirium

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Odd, I was under the impression that his position was women should be allowed to not only have an abortion for ANY reason during a pregnancy....... but also at ANY stage during the pregnancy even if it was the Monday morning just before she was due to give birth.

Or has something changed since I last read his contributions to abortion threads and I am now no longer up to date on his positions?

No, you're right AFAIK, he hasn't changed his position. I was merely addressing the response to the posts regarding the 'Loving the Bad Man' movie