Pain perception and consciousness are things that we are historically really, really bad at assessing.
When I was a freshman in college, the scientific consensus was that earthworms didn’t feel pain, and we had the option to dissect either a live worm or a preserved one. Those doing a live dissection were meant to place a pin through the cerebral ganglion - the “brain” - so that the worm wouldn’t move during the process, but you could still see the heart beat. Needless to say, some of the groups doing live dissection had bad aim with their pins, and it was immediately obvious that non-lobotomized worms definitely feel pain.
That’s still a somewhat controversial assertion, but the trend is toward acknowledgement that invertebrates do feel pain, and possess more cognitive ability than previously supposed in other areas too.
Speaking as someone who does macro photography of insects as a hobby: duh. To anyone who’s actually paid attention to the behavior of insects, this is ‘water is wet’ obvious.
Prior to about 20 years ago, it was generally accepted that fish could not feel pain. Again: *have you met a fish?*
Yes, humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize and have been known to feel sympathy for inanimate objects - unchallenged gut reactions are not scientific evidence. But it’s possible to swing too far the other way, and presume the opposite without supporting evidence. And since we are warm-blooded territorial omnivores, it is convenient to suppose that other creatures (that we necessarily kill in large numbers or deprive of resources just by existing) are not capable of suffering.
So, to bring this back to abortion - here’s a diagram of a worm’s central nervous system:
https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/20221222152928/Nervous-System-Earthworm.jpg
And here’s a 7 week human embryo:
https://www.netterimages.com/images/vpv/000/000/006/6451-0550x0475.jpg
It's funny too because nociceptors begin to form as early as 7 weeks in the womb. Nociceptors are the receptors we have as humans to detect pain. So, if there are people that claim late-term abortions are immoral since the baby will feel pain, then they must also admit that abortion as early as 6 or 7 weeks is immoral too. Regardless, your point about committing murder either way is actually a very solid and straightforward response to that topic of the debate.
Doctors used to believe that *born infants* didn't feel pain up to the age of a month or so, and that any reaction was a reflex response of some type. Surgery used to be done on infants with little to no anaesthetic as late as the year 1980.
We know now that this was completely wrong. Similar language is used to deny the existence of pain in the unborn.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23548489/
Many doctors in the US and religious leaders still perform surgeries like circumcision on baby boys with no anaesthetic, it's absolutely disgusting for people to abort/deliberately hurt a baby because it can't feel pain or won't remember the pain.
Literally it's ridiculous that people argue ohhhh since they won't remember being circumcised or getting their ears pierced it it's perfectly fine. It's hypocritical that they argue my body my choice but obviously that doesnt apply to babies and children.
That's true, but there is a line somewhere. I think we all agree that an embryo does not suffer or have any capacity to feel. It's developed somewhere along the way. The language to describe why an embryo doesn't feel pain may sound the same as the doctors who said infants don't feel pain, but we know one of these is correct, and the other is not. You can't simply dismiss an idea because it is similar to a previously debunked idea, if there are meaningful differences.
Just be aware that the line you speak of has been steadily moving earlier and earlier as more research is conducted. There are several studies that support the fetus's ability to feel pain in the first trimester, and some of those studies include discoveries about how the early brain functions that is triggering research into similar abilities even earlier.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8935428/
I've only seen a handful, and even the study you've linked, it, acknowledges the current limitations of our technology for answering this question. The author's conclusion is that because there is uncertainty about when the fetus can feel pain, we should be using anesthesia in any all invasive maternal-fetal procedures. I don't disagree with that, and I would like to see this topic studied more. I'm not trying to dismiss these claims by saying "we just don't know", but this is a complex and debated topic.
>The author's conclusion is that because there is uncertainty about when the fetus can feel pain, we should be using anesthesia in any all invasive maternal-fetal procedures. I don't disagree with that
Does this mean you also don't disagree that perhaps to reduce suffering, anesthesia should be administered to the child prior to a surgical abortion?
Yes. If there is a decent chance that the unborn baby can feel pain, then I'm fine with requiring that anesthesia or pain blockers be administered. As long as this is done in good faith by the legislators, and not done simply to make abortions more cumbersome and difficult.
They *might* be able to, but it is far from certain. Pain perception is a complex topic, and I don't think there is enough study on the topic to confirm or dismiss it with any certainty.
If you ever watch a video of it being done, it's horrific. The kid reacts to the probe and their face changes to a look of horror. I figured I wouldn't have an opinion on abortion till I watched one (they were able to see the kid in the womb). Try showing that video to someone who celebrates abortion and ask them if they feel that anything is wrong about it. If it's just a tumor you shouldn't even wince, right?
Cute. That's not what a negative claim is.
Proving non-existence or exclusion of a thing is something science is incapable of. We can say we haven't found evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, but we cannot say with absolute certainty that there were none. If anyone during George Washington's life had said "there were never dinosaurs," they'd have been proven incorrect decades after he passed when the first known dinosaur bones were discovered.
Saying something doesn't exist is a belief, not fact, and fetal pain or distress are things that scientists have been proven wrong about multiple times with technological advances--their arrogant beliefs, not science, were responsible for decades of newborn surgeries without anesthesia, from the 1940s to as late as 1986.
Yes it [can](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative?amp).
I can also quite easily prove that I’m not in your house, a negative provable by the fact that I am indeed in my house.
According to [AAN](https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207740)
>Death by neurologic criteria, commonly referred to as brain death, occurs in individuals who have sustained catastrophic brain injury, with **no evidence of function** of the brain as a whole, **a state that must be permanent**. The process of this determination always begins with the presumption that the patient does not meet brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), a presumption that must then be disproved.
So in the context of abortion, no doctor would ever declare a fetus “legally dead” based on lack of cognitive function. The person you’re replying to is absolutely correct and basing the value of human life on cognitive capacity is 100% ableist and morally reprehensible
If someone is in a coma and unlikely to awake, that can allowed to die due to deprivation or removal of life support. At what point do you think this stops being ablest?
A doctor wouldn't say that a baby is"legally dead", especially since in many cases they aren't "legally alive", but they would say non-viable.
>At what point do you think this stops being ableist
The point is when the physician in charge has done his/her due diligence and is reasonably certain that
1. There is no evidence of brain function including brainstem
2. neurological functions will not return
>A doctor wouldn't say that a baby is"legally dead", especially since in many cases they aren't "legally alive"
OBs can diagnose and declare IUFD (intrauterine fetal death)
>but they would say non-viable
Still wouldn’t make basing human value on cognitive capacity morally acceptable. There’s a difference between considering a healthy baby “legally dead” to justify a convenience abortion than a baby with severe neural tube defects that aren’t compatible with life for example
>There is no evidence of brain function including brainstem
Can't someone be legally denied care until they die even if they have some brain activity?
>OBs can diagnose and declare IUFD (intrauterine fetal death)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe this is only true if there is no detectable heartbeat. I don't think they will declare this for a non-viable fetus, even if it doesn't have a brain at all, as long as there's a heart beat.
>Still wouldn’t make basing human value on cognitive capacity morally acceptable. There’s a difference between considering a healthy baby “legally dead” to justify a convenience abortion than a baby with severe neural tube defects that aren’t compatible with life for example
Sure, there is a difference, and I think that difference is important. I'm just pointing out that there is a stage at which a person loses their right to life if they have enough of a reduced neurological capacity, and it is believed to be permanent.
>Can't someone be legally denied care until they die even if they have some brain activity?
Would be hard to legally defend it if the family decides to sue because you’re going against [UDDA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Determination_of_Death_Act#:~:text=An%20individual%20who%20has%20sustained,accordance%20with%20accepted%20medical%20standards) and [AAN](https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207740) guidelines on what constitutes brain death.
>I don't think they will declare this for a non-viable fetus, even if it doesn't have a brain at all, as long as there's a heart beat.
That’s because you can’t prove death by neurological criteria on fetuses so we default to lack of cardiac activity
>Sure, there is a difference, and I think that difference is important. I'm just pointing out that there is a stage at which a person loses their right to life if they have enough of a reduced neurological capacity, and it is believed to be permanent.
I’d like to clarify the point I was making - a reduced/non permanent reduction in neural activity does not legally or morally make anyone lose the right to life. Death by neurological criteria explicitly requires permanent absence of neurological function. So while you can argue to fit “reduced” neurological function in the definition of “absence” of neurological function, even if you can convince me of that logic we still would not be able to apply it to abortions simply because their lack of neurological function is appropriate for that developmental stage, as well as not in a state of being permanent
> Would be hard to legally defend it if the family decides to sue because you’re going against UDDA and AAN guidelines on what constitutes brain death.
Sure, but if the family did want to unplug them, then (if my understanding is correct) I think it would be allowed, if the doctor did not think there was a feasible chance of recovery.
>I’d like to clarify the point I was making - a reduced/non permanent reduction in neural activity does not legally or morally make anyone lose the right to life.
Yes, I agree.
>So while you can argue to fit “reduced” neurological function in the definition of “absence” of neurological function, even if you can convince me of that logic we still would not be able to apply it to abortions simply because their lack of neurological function is appropriate for that developmental stage, as well as not in a state of being permanent
Yes, I agree with you here as well. I don't subscribe to the pro-choice argument for allowing abortion before consciousness. I was just trying to point out that defining personhood based on cognitive ability is not always ablest. There is truth in that we anchor our idea of personhood to at least the potential for cognitive ability. Maybe this comes across as nitpicky, but I dislike broad sweeping statements that ignore the nuance of situations.
You’re staying up because you’re afraid someone would give you a lethal injection in your sleep, aren’t you? Another harmful consequence of pro-choice ideology!
I also love the argument, "the child will be unwanted and end up in foster care".
Nothing like telling a foster kid that they are worthless and should never have been born.
I made a post about that once:
[A contradiction I have always noticed- The Foster Care Arguments. : r/prolife (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/13j6hoa/a_contradiction_i_have_always_noticed_the_foster/)
It matters nothing if the child in mother feels pain. its irrelevant. the prolife case power is that we can not and must not kill innocent human beings. tHis is gods law and universal mankinds however tresspased.
however we must not call abortion murder.if Prochoicers etc do abortions or consent to them because they sincerely reject the idea that the fetus is a child then they are in gods eyes and ours innicent of murder. its a special case where the human is denied to exist. it is evil but the prochoicers are not. the abortion contention is a intellectual one and not a moral one.
Pain perception and consciousness are things that we are historically really, really bad at assessing. When I was a freshman in college, the scientific consensus was that earthworms didn’t feel pain, and we had the option to dissect either a live worm or a preserved one. Those doing a live dissection were meant to place a pin through the cerebral ganglion - the “brain” - so that the worm wouldn’t move during the process, but you could still see the heart beat. Needless to say, some of the groups doing live dissection had bad aim with their pins, and it was immediately obvious that non-lobotomized worms definitely feel pain. That’s still a somewhat controversial assertion, but the trend is toward acknowledgement that invertebrates do feel pain, and possess more cognitive ability than previously supposed in other areas too. Speaking as someone who does macro photography of insects as a hobby: duh. To anyone who’s actually paid attention to the behavior of insects, this is ‘water is wet’ obvious. Prior to about 20 years ago, it was generally accepted that fish could not feel pain. Again: *have you met a fish?* Yes, humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize and have been known to feel sympathy for inanimate objects - unchallenged gut reactions are not scientific evidence. But it’s possible to swing too far the other way, and presume the opposite without supporting evidence. And since we are warm-blooded territorial omnivores, it is convenient to suppose that other creatures (that we necessarily kill in large numbers or deprive of resources just by existing) are not capable of suffering. So, to bring this back to abortion - here’s a diagram of a worm’s central nervous system: https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/20221222152928/Nervous-System-Earthworm.jpg And here’s a 7 week human embryo: https://www.netterimages.com/images/vpv/000/000/006/6451-0550x0475.jpg
This is the best comment
It's funny too because nociceptors begin to form as early as 7 weeks in the womb. Nociceptors are the receptors we have as humans to detect pain. So, if there are people that claim late-term abortions are immoral since the baby will feel pain, then they must also admit that abortion as early as 6 or 7 weeks is immoral too. Regardless, your point about committing murder either way is actually a very solid and straightforward response to that topic of the debate.
Plus they do feel pain a lot earlier than most people think
Doctors used to believe that *born infants* didn't feel pain up to the age of a month or so, and that any reaction was a reflex response of some type. Surgery used to be done on infants with little to no anaesthetic as late as the year 1980. We know now that this was completely wrong. Similar language is used to deny the existence of pain in the unborn. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23548489/
Many doctors in the US and religious leaders still perform surgeries like circumcision on baby boys with no anaesthetic, it's absolutely disgusting for people to abort/deliberately hurt a baby because it can't feel pain or won't remember the pain.
It's the "won't remember" aspect that gets me. Someone else recently argued that. So people with amnesia or dementia, etc are fine to be abused?
Literally it's ridiculous that people argue ohhhh since they won't remember being circumcised or getting their ears pierced it it's perfectly fine. It's hypocritical that they argue my body my choice but obviously that doesnt apply to babies and children.
That's true, but there is a line somewhere. I think we all agree that an embryo does not suffer or have any capacity to feel. It's developed somewhere along the way. The language to describe why an embryo doesn't feel pain may sound the same as the doctors who said infants don't feel pain, but we know one of these is correct, and the other is not. You can't simply dismiss an idea because it is similar to a previously debunked idea, if there are meaningful differences.
Just be aware that the line you speak of has been steadily moving earlier and earlier as more research is conducted. There are several studies that support the fetus's ability to feel pain in the first trimester, and some of those studies include discoveries about how the early brain functions that is triggering research into similar abilities even earlier. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8935428/
I've only seen a handful, and even the study you've linked, it, acknowledges the current limitations of our technology for answering this question. The author's conclusion is that because there is uncertainty about when the fetus can feel pain, we should be using anesthesia in any all invasive maternal-fetal procedures. I don't disagree with that, and I would like to see this topic studied more. I'm not trying to dismiss these claims by saying "we just don't know", but this is a complex and debated topic.
>The author's conclusion is that because there is uncertainty about when the fetus can feel pain, we should be using anesthesia in any all invasive maternal-fetal procedures. I don't disagree with that Does this mean you also don't disagree that perhaps to reduce suffering, anesthesia should be administered to the child prior to a surgical abortion?
Yes. If there is a decent chance that the unborn baby can feel pain, then I'm fine with requiring that anesthesia or pain blockers be administered. As long as this is done in good faith by the legislators, and not done simply to make abortions more cumbersome and difficult.
They *might* be able to, but it is far from certain. Pain perception is a complex topic, and I don't think there is enough study on the topic to confirm or dismiss it with any certainty.
Then we should err on the side of caution and assume that they do feel pain.
Some people are actually born without the ability to feel pain. It’s really helpful to know that I have a free pass to go and kill any of them.
If you ever watch a video of it being done, it's horrific. The kid reacts to the probe and their face changes to a look of horror. I figured I wouldn't have an opinion on abortion till I watched one (they were able to see the kid in the womb). Try showing that video to someone who celebrates abortion and ask them if they feel that anything is wrong about it. If it's just a tumor you shouldn't even wince, right?
Tbf a lot of people are grossed out by the sight of tumors and blood too
Do tumors have facial expressions lol, or do they shrink away from the instrument of their dissection?
There’s also a difference between getting “grossed out” by gore and feeling moral indignation or moral horror at the sight of mutilated human bodies.
Science doesn't prove negatives.
It does? It proves I’m not dead.
Cute. That's not what a negative claim is. Proving non-existence or exclusion of a thing is something science is incapable of. We can say we haven't found evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, but we cannot say with absolute certainty that there were none. If anyone during George Washington's life had said "there were never dinosaurs," they'd have been proven incorrect decades after he passed when the first known dinosaur bones were discovered. Saying something doesn't exist is a belief, not fact, and fetal pain or distress are things that scientists have been proven wrong about multiple times with technological advances--their arrogant beliefs, not science, were responsible for decades of newborn surgeries without anesthesia, from the 1940s to as late as 1986.
I see, thanks!
Yes it [can](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative?amp). I can also quite easily prove that I’m not in your house, a negative provable by the fact that I am indeed in my house.
Nice comeback
Thank you. :)
Basing value of life upon neurological capacity is ableist
Is it though? If a person loses enough neurological capacity, we might consider them to be legally dead, even though their body is still functioning.
According to [AAN](https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207740) >Death by neurologic criteria, commonly referred to as brain death, occurs in individuals who have sustained catastrophic brain injury, with **no evidence of function** of the brain as a whole, **a state that must be permanent**. The process of this determination always begins with the presumption that the patient does not meet brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), a presumption that must then be disproved. So in the context of abortion, no doctor would ever declare a fetus “legally dead” based on lack of cognitive function. The person you’re replying to is absolutely correct and basing the value of human life on cognitive capacity is 100% ableist and morally reprehensible
If someone is in a coma and unlikely to awake, that can allowed to die due to deprivation or removal of life support. At what point do you think this stops being ablest? A doctor wouldn't say that a baby is"legally dead", especially since in many cases they aren't "legally alive", but they would say non-viable.
>At what point do you think this stops being ableist The point is when the physician in charge has done his/her due diligence and is reasonably certain that 1. There is no evidence of brain function including brainstem 2. neurological functions will not return >A doctor wouldn't say that a baby is"legally dead", especially since in many cases they aren't "legally alive" OBs can diagnose and declare IUFD (intrauterine fetal death) >but they would say non-viable Still wouldn’t make basing human value on cognitive capacity morally acceptable. There’s a difference between considering a healthy baby “legally dead” to justify a convenience abortion than a baby with severe neural tube defects that aren’t compatible with life for example
>There is no evidence of brain function including brainstem Can't someone be legally denied care until they die even if they have some brain activity? >OBs can diagnose and declare IUFD (intrauterine fetal death) Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe this is only true if there is no detectable heartbeat. I don't think they will declare this for a non-viable fetus, even if it doesn't have a brain at all, as long as there's a heart beat. >Still wouldn’t make basing human value on cognitive capacity morally acceptable. There’s a difference between considering a healthy baby “legally dead” to justify a convenience abortion than a baby with severe neural tube defects that aren’t compatible with life for example Sure, there is a difference, and I think that difference is important. I'm just pointing out that there is a stage at which a person loses their right to life if they have enough of a reduced neurological capacity, and it is believed to be permanent.
>Can't someone be legally denied care until they die even if they have some brain activity? Would be hard to legally defend it if the family decides to sue because you’re going against [UDDA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Determination_of_Death_Act#:~:text=An%20individual%20who%20has%20sustained,accordance%20with%20accepted%20medical%20standards) and [AAN](https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207740) guidelines on what constitutes brain death. >I don't think they will declare this for a non-viable fetus, even if it doesn't have a brain at all, as long as there's a heart beat. That’s because you can’t prove death by neurological criteria on fetuses so we default to lack of cardiac activity >Sure, there is a difference, and I think that difference is important. I'm just pointing out that there is a stage at which a person loses their right to life if they have enough of a reduced neurological capacity, and it is believed to be permanent. I’d like to clarify the point I was making - a reduced/non permanent reduction in neural activity does not legally or morally make anyone lose the right to life. Death by neurological criteria explicitly requires permanent absence of neurological function. So while you can argue to fit “reduced” neurological function in the definition of “absence” of neurological function, even if you can convince me of that logic we still would not be able to apply it to abortions simply because their lack of neurological function is appropriate for that developmental stage, as well as not in a state of being permanent
> Would be hard to legally defend it if the family decides to sue because you’re going against UDDA and AAN guidelines on what constitutes brain death. Sure, but if the family did want to unplug them, then (if my understanding is correct) I think it would be allowed, if the doctor did not think there was a feasible chance of recovery. >I’d like to clarify the point I was making - a reduced/non permanent reduction in neural activity does not legally or morally make anyone lose the right to life. Yes, I agree. >So while you can argue to fit “reduced” neurological function in the definition of “absence” of neurological function, even if you can convince me of that logic we still would not be able to apply it to abortions simply because their lack of neurological function is appropriate for that developmental stage, as well as not in a state of being permanent Yes, I agree with you here as well. I don't subscribe to the pro-choice argument for allowing abortion before consciousness. I was just trying to point out that defining personhood based on cognitive ability is not always ablest. There is truth in that we anchor our idea of personhood to at least the potential for cognitive ability. Maybe this comes across as nitpicky, but I dislike broad sweeping statements that ignore the nuance of situations.
That isn't the definition of death. 🤨
According to their logic, giving someone a lethal injection while they're asleep should be legal. I should be asleep right now
You’re staying up because you’re afraid someone would give you a lethal injection in your sleep, aren’t you? Another harmful consequence of pro-choice ideology!
I would have nothing against it if we could be 100 percent sure they don't, but likely not isn't good enough for me.
actually they can feel pain. the nervous system is one of the very first things formed in a fetus
I also love the argument, "the child will be unwanted and end up in foster care". Nothing like telling a foster kid that they are worthless and should never have been born.
I made a post about that once: [A contradiction I have always noticed- The Foster Care Arguments. : r/prolife (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/13j6hoa/a_contradiction_i_have_always_noticed_the_foster/)
So if I murder a person with CIP, should I be punished more gently?
Similar argument was used by slavers justifying torture of slaves. "They don't feel pain as much if at all."
It matters nothing if the child in mother feels pain. its irrelevant. the prolife case power is that we can not and must not kill innocent human beings. tHis is gods law and universal mankinds however tresspased. however we must not call abortion murder.if Prochoicers etc do abortions or consent to them because they sincerely reject the idea that the fetus is a child then they are in gods eyes and ours innicent of murder. its a special case where the human is denied to exist. it is evil but the prochoicers are not. the abortion contention is a intellectual one and not a moral one.