Doctor: Fetus Feels Pain After 20 Weeks

AP via Yahoo ^ | 6 April 2004 | KEVIN O'HANLON

[churchillbuff]

LINCOLN, Neb. - A type of abortion banned under a new federal law would cause "severe and excruciating" pain to 20-week-old fetuses, a medical expert on pain testified Tuesday.

"I believe the fetus is conscious," said Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sonny" Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. He took the stand as a government witness in a trial challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The act, which was signed by President Bush (news - web sites) in November, has not been enforced because judges in Lincoln, Neb., New York and San Francisco agreed to hear evidence in three simultaneous, non-jury trials on whether the ban violates the Constitution.

Anand said fetuses show increased heart rate, blood flow and hormone levels in response to pain.

"The physiological responses have been very clearly studied," he said. "The fetus cannot talk ... so this is the best evidence we can get."

The Bush administration has argued that the procedure, referred to by opponents as "partial-birth abortion," is "inhumane and gruesome" and causes the fetus to suffer pain.

During the procedure, which doctors call "intact dilation and extraction" or D&X, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull is punctured. It is generally performed in the second trimester.

Abortion rights advocates argue that it is sometimes the safest procedure for women, and that the law will endanger almost all second-trimester abortions, or 10 percent of the nation's 1.3 million annual abortions.

The law would be the first substantial limitation on abortion since the Supreme Court legalized it 31 years ago in the landmark case Roe v. Wade (news - web sites).

Challenges to the ban were filed by several doctors being represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Abortion Federation (news - web sites) and the Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America. The issue is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).

[Eddie Dean]

How 'bout at 19 weeks and 6 days?

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[My2Cents]

Good point. How about eliminating all abortions, just to be safe. I mean, after all, an unborn baby might actually be HUMAN!

[Maceman]

In other words, it would be accurate to tell a mother contemplating a late-term abortion: "It will hurt your fetus as much as it would hurt you if I the doctor were to use a device to squeeze your head until it broke like an egg."

[aruanan]

In the abortion debate many pro-abortion and not-quite-anti-abortion proponents have said the humanity of the fetus is “the central question”, “the central issue”, but never define humanity or human being except as something that is sentient, the killing of which would be murder. And? By their own words sentience does not define humanity for cows are sentient and humans may feel no pain if certain nerves are severed.

In the above context, they say the case for first trimester abortions depends upon the experience of pain. Are they saying that denying life is not to be permitted if the experience is painful? For whom? Surely after the fetus is dead it will no longer feel or remember feeling pain. This reminds me of the question of whether one would rather be given a drug before an operation that would prevent pain or be given one later that would erase from the memory the pain experienced during the operation. Such questioning is secondary to the fact of the operation. What will be its result? In the case of abortion the result will be the death of the fetus whether it feels any pain or not. The experience of pain, then, is not bad in itself if its cause brings about a better state of being or prevents a worse one. To grant or deny a fetus (the term here used generically) a future life outside the womb as a sentient human being by its present ability to experience pain seems more than bizarre--"It’s okay, you know, it didn’t feel a thing because it wasn’t sentient." Yeah, which is better, to exist having felt no pain of abortion or to not exist having felt no pain of abortion? To be or not to be, that is the question, isn’t it?

[princess leah]

It's too bad Ginsberg couldn't just retire between now and the time this hits the supreme court - she's such a worthless justice. Forgive me for thinking out loud!

[tortoise]

"I believe the fetus is conscious," said Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sonny" Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

It is nice that he "believes" this and all, but a competent neurophysiologist could tear him to pieces. The parts of the brain required for consciousness are developed post-natal (there are good practical reasons that things work this way in nature), and the only part of the brain that is really even online in a fetus is the most low-level reptilian parts that are essential to running basic life support.

Articles like this make me cringe. Perfectly valid points become discredited by association with nonsense like the above.

[Eddie Dean]

Good point. How about eliminating all abortions, just to be safe

I'm willing to except rape and incest (that's pregnancy against one's will - and ruffles my libertarian feathers) but those account for a minuscule number of overall aborts.

[Eddie Dean]

This reminds me of the question of whether one would rather be given a drug before an operation that would prevent pain or be given one later that would erase from the memory the pain experienced during the operation.

I think you think too much - cuz us common folk would choose the latter.

[Eddie Dean]

Whoops... and I guess I don't think enough!

I meant the FORMER.

[Bart Mann]

"It is nice that he "believes" this and all, but a competent neurophysiologist could tear him to pieces."

As in a partial birth abortion?

"The parts of the brain required for consciousness are developed post-natal, and the only part of the brain that is really even online in a fetus is the most low-level reptilian parts that are essential to running basic life support."

Reptilian? Uh, let let me guess. Abortion on demand, but fur is murder, right?

I will never understand how people can put aside all reason and logic and humanity to defend the murder of the unborn. I'll make it simple so you can understand. A baby is a baby is a baby.

"Articles like this make me cringe."

The truth hurts, when you live a life of lies.

[My2Cents]

You know what? -- if the pro-abortionists would be willing to abandon "abortion for convenience," I'm willing to bend on abortion for rape and incest. This isn't a purist pro-life position, but if the other side would agree to it, I'd take it.

[tortoise]

You don't actually refute anything I say, just go off on inane tangents. My point was that the "expert witness" provided by the article was factually wrong about relatively basic developmental neurophysiology. Higher brain function is a post-natal development; that this fact is true does not really change the abortion argument in any significant sense. But people who pretend like this is not a fact are simply idiots and therefore can be safely ignored. If you want to make a point and take a position, it helps the credibility of the argument if one does not come out of the gate making trivially falsifiable claims.

It is an indictment of a shoddy article, not a commentary on abortion.

[newgeezer]

if the other side would agree to it, I'd take it.

It'd be a good start, that's for sure. But, the "reproductive rights" advocates are correct to warn their legions that it won't stop there.

At any rate, God is love and He is sovereign.

[My2Cents]

I'm all for "reproductive rights," too. A woman should be able to exercise a choice as to whether she will conceive. Once conception has taken place, there is another set of rights that need to be considered.

[Bart Mann]

Your comparison of the human brain to a 'reptilian' one is sickening and inhuman. And frankly, the development of the human brain is a life long endeavor which should never be cut short for convienience. The author's point is that the unborn child reacts physically to being torn apart, just as any human would. I think his professional credentials are far higher than yours, since he is the expert witness here.

I find it idiotic to cling to the liberal line that a pre-born baby feels nothing. There is absolutely no evidence to support that position, and it defies logic to suppose otherwise.

Why are you afraid to stand by your support for abortion?

[grellis]

Like I always say...keep your knees together until you are ready to raise a child. Everything else is a reproductive wrong.

[Eddie Dean]

But, the "reproductive rights" advocates are correct to warn their legions that it won't stop there.

Yes they are. And rightfully so...

Those that would not make provision for forced conception (rape) need a little introspection.

There's no reason why the 'fairer sex' can not live up to the same post-coital responsibilities that we demand of menfolk - but when one's free will re: pregnancy has been subjugated, matters change.

[My2Cents]

Well said.