Yes, unborn babies can feel pain at 20 weeks, doctors testify

[_Abyssinia]

It raises questions about the dissenting research, yes. The answer is a simple one and explained below.

See my correction of “fact” number 2. They approach this issue from the false premise that any physical reaction to stimuli constitutes sentient/conscious awareness, i.e. that awareness of the body is the same thing as awareness of the mind. We know this to be a false premise precisely because the body has all sorts of autonomic responses to stimuli. A fetus supposedly “thrashes” about in response to ordinarily painful stimuli? So does a corpse when the body is preserved artificially. It doesn’t mean that either have a sentient/conscious awareness or perception of pain. Further, the majority of research also found that the same responses can be induced even with stimuli that are not ordinarily painful.

It hast to be substantiated.

A corpse, whether preserved artificially or not, is a corpse. It’s not alive in the same way an unborn baby in the womb is. An unborn baby that is alive in the womb is not a corpse.

Regarding sentience, as this source says. “if sentience is the criterion of full humanness, then the reversibly comatose, the momentarily unconscious, and the sleeping would all have to be declared nonpersons. Like the presentient unborn, these individuals are all at the moment nonsentient though they have the natural inherent capacity to be sentient.” "Why should sentience “in the past” be the decisive factor in deciding whether an entity is fully human when the presentient human being “is one with a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts?”[4]

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Well then, we can kill off the senile and the mentally disabled too. That will be coming up next.

That’s the slippery slope. Euthanasia is already legal in some states.

 

[Monkey1976]

The issue at hand is more than mere pain perception; it is an issue of sentience.

If a person is unconscious, their mind is functioning - at the time - on the same level as a 20-week-old fetus: Basic autonomous maintenance. So is it moral to kill someone via a painless method so long as they’re unconscious?

 

[irishpatrick]

I have never understood these arguments.

The bottom line is, are unborn babies human persons or not? If they are nothing but a clump of cells, than they can be washed away at will, but if they are a well-designed human life that will one day result in a born human person–than to destroy that process is equal to taking a human person (we all start life in the exact same manner).

To me the overriding thoughts for all pro-choice people to make are these:

1. What if you are wrong? What if God does in fact look at the unborn as human persons?
2. What if unborn persons can, in fact, feel pain?
3. Is risking your soul worth taking for something that really amounts to a personal opinion based on science that has no way to be proved?

Let us not forget that God said He formed us in the womb. He formed us in the womb!

 

[mikekle]

I will add to this by saying the legal world and courts already recognize the unborn AS A REAL LIFE…in cases where a pregnant woman is killed, its pretty common for them to charge 2 counts of murder…for a murder charge to stick, IT MUST BE A LEGAL LIFE.

Ive yet to hear any defense lawyer get the person off the hook by arguing the fetus is not a real life.

 

[irishpatrick]

I will add to this by saying the legal world and courts already recognize the unborn AS A REAL LIFE…in cases where a pregnant woman is killed, its pretty common for them to charge 2 counts of murder…for a murder charge to stick, IT MUST BE A LEGAL LIFE.

Ive yet to hear any defense lawyer get the person off the hook by arguing the fetus is not a real life.

This supports my points. I do NOT understand people who do not think it through, and I truly believe they do not think it through.

If a person sides with life, how can that be a wrong choice?

If a person decides that the unborn are not real persons, what if they are wrong?

Put all the arguments aside–and put all the so-called science aside for both sides. The simple bottom line is a mother must decide if that unborn baby is a real human person, or not. If they choose that its not, and they are wrong, then they have killed their baby and they have changed the course of their own eternal path and the path of the soul of the baby they aborted.

I cannot fathom how anyone who actually thinks about these issues can ever do anything but side with life.

If there is any chance that an unborn baby can feel pain, why would we ever want to cause that pain?

A deep madness has come upon Western Culture–we cannot even make simple connections. We are so busy arguing and debating the issue of abortion, that all that happens is millions continue to be slaughtered every year. We are so filled up with pride that we cannot see the obvious truth, siding with life is always the better choice. It is a simple formula that so many refuse to see.

“I’m right.”

“No, I’m right.”

“But science says–”

“No, science actually says–”

“But my Priest says abortion is wrong.”

“Fine, but my Minster says it is not a sin.”

“But, but the science shows that after 20 weeks babies–”

“No, no, no, those studies are wrong, they can’t feel any pain–”

Meanwhile the babies keeping dying!

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

A corpse, whether preserved artificially or not, is a corpse. It’s not alive in the same way an unborn baby in the womb is. An unborn baby that is alive in the womb is not a corpse.

Yet it is capable of precisely the same autonomic responses exhibited by a fetus in response to ordinarily painful stimuli. Just one nugget of proof that physical movement is not evidence of conscious awareness.

Regarding sentience, as this source says. “if sentience is the criterion of full humanness, then the reversibly comatose, the momentarily unconscious, and the sleeping would all have to be declared nonpersons. Like the presentient unborn, these individuals are all at the moment nonsentient though they have the natural inherent capacity to be sentient.” "Why should sentience “in the past” be the decisive factor in deciding whether an entity is fully human when the presentient human being “is one with a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts?”[4]

This appears to be more of a concession than anything else.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

((

 

[Monkey1976]

Yet it is capable of precisely the same autonomic responses exhibited by a fetus in response to ordinarily painful stimuli. Just one nugget of proof that physical movement is not evidence of conscious awareness.

Those are some awfully lively corpses, then. In my experience, when a corpse is burned, the only response is a rapid oxidation reaction. When a corpse is stabbed, the only response is that a hole opens and perhaps gases from decomp are released. When food is placed in the stomach of a corpse, no digestion occurrs and no waste products are generated. You might be thinking of when electricity is applied to a corpse, it can cause muscular contractions. While true, this isn’t an autonomic response, as the stimuli is not being processed by the nervous system - the muscle cells are contracting due to the direct application of current or due to chemical reactions from the decomp processes activating them.

The biggest distinction is this: Given time, will the developing child - assuming no defects - become conscious? A corpse won’t, but a sleeping person will.

This appears to be more of a concession than anything else.

If one reads that as a concession, then there is no moral issue presented by killing a person while unconscious. At that point in time, they are exhibiting no signs of sentient behavior. If one argues that killing a sleeping person is immoral because they will wake up and be sentient at that point, so will a developing child.

I’m curious: Exactly what argument can be made for allowing the killing of a developing child in its mother’s womb that cannot also be applied to a sleeping person?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The biggest distinction is this: Given time, will the developing child - assuming no defects - become conscious? A corpse won’t, but a sleeping person will.

The issue here is not what capacity the fetus may have for sentience in a later period of development. The issue is what the capacity the fetus has at 20 weeks of development and the prevailing scientific view is that they have no such capacity at 20 weeks.

If one reads that as a concession, then there is no moral issue presented by killing a person while unconscious. At that point in time, they are exhibiting no signs of sentient behavior.

A sleeping person has the capacity for sentience; a 20 week old fetus does not.

 

[Monkey1976]

The issue here is not what capacity the fetus may have for sentience in a later period of development. The issue is what the capacity the fetus has at 20 weeks of development.

A sleeping person has the capacity for sentience when they awaken. A coma patient, for example, might awaken in 30 minutes, 30 days, or 30 months - far longer than a developing fetus takes to go from non-sentience to sentience. Is it moral to kill coma patients?

A sleeping person has the capacity for sentience; a 20 week old fetus does not.

At that particular moment, they have equal levels of sentience. How much time must pass between the moment of determination of non-sentience and the killing of the individual to allow it to still be a moral act?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

A sleeping person has the capacity for sentience when they awaken. A coma patient, for example, might awaken in 30 minutes, 30 days, or 30 months - far longer than a developing fetus takes to go from non-sentience to sentience. Is it moral to kill coma patients? At that particular moment, they have equal levels of sentience. How much time is must pass between the moment of determination of non-sentience and the killing of the individual to allow it to still be a moral act?

A sleeping person has the capacity for sentience whether they are awake or not. A 20 week old fetus hasn’t even developed a functional cerebral cortex as the biological structures don’t even exist so your attempt to draw an equivalent falls flat.

 

[Rau]

A sleeping person has the capacity for sentience whether they are awake or not. A 20 week old fetus hasn’t even developed a functional cerebral cortex as the biological structures don’t even exist so your attempt to draw an equivalent falls flat.

Your point is irrelevant. The coma patient will become self-aware in time (we hope). The unborn offspring will become self-aware quite soon too. Due to healing or due to developing, their lack of self-awareness is the reality they share. If that means killing is permissible,… Some physical attribute can’t really matter…

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Your point is irrelevant. The coma patient will become self-aware in time (we hope). The unborn offspring will become self-aware quite soon too. Due to healing or due to developing, their lack of self-awareness is the reality they share. If that means killing is permissible,… Some physical attribute can’t really matter…

My point is relevant for the topic of this thread. You folks are the ones trying to assert that the point at which a fetus becomes sentient is the point where abortion should no longer be legal. That is the topic of this thread and the answer is most definitely not 20 weeks. Also, I’m sorry that you don’t seem to think there is a relevant difference between a person with a developed cerebral cortex and a fetus in which no such structure even exists but you are wrong as the day is long.

 

[Rau]

My point is relevant for the topic of this thread. You folks are the ones trying to assert that the point at which a fetus becomes sentient is the point where abortion should no longer be legal. That is the topic of this thread and the answer is most definitely not 20 weeks.

Good God no. Arguments about pain and sentience don’t address when abortion can be moral. I made that point earlier. Post #33.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Good God no. Arguments about pain and sentience don’t address when abortion can be moral. I made that point earlier.

This thread isn’t about when abortion is moral. Its about when it should be illegal based on when a fetus has the capacity for sentience.

 

[Rau]

This thread isn’t about when abortion is moral. Its about when it should be illegal based on when a fetus has the capacity for sentience.

Why would lack of pain cancel the immorality of murder??

The fact of pain simply adds cruelty to the act.

Anesthetics are available to eliminate pain.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Why would lack of pain cancel the immorality of murder??

The fact of pain simply adds cruelty to the act.

Anesthetics are available to eliminate pain.

Morality is subjective and its not the topic of the thread.

 

[Rau]

Morality is subjective and its not the topic of the thread.

Morality is subjective if there is no God.

The thread topic rapidly morphs to what substantive issues one thinks might flow from a scientific consideration. This is CAF, not a science or medical academy.

 

[_Abyssinia]

My point is relevant for the topic of this thread. You folks are the ones trying to assert that the point at which a fetus becomes sentient is the point where abortion should no longer be legal. That is the topic of this thread and the answer is most definitely not 20 weeks. Also, I’m sorry that you don’t seem to think there is a relevant difference between a person with a developed cerebral cortex and a fetus in which no such structure even exists but you are wrong as the day is long.

Your comment about it not being 20 weeks is in no way definitive because there are medical professionals who say that babies can feel pain by 20 weeks and there are medical professionals who say they can feel pain a lot earlier.

In their survey, the majority of those children surveyed with hydranencephaly are reported to feel pain, say the Hydranencephaly Information Network. If they can feel pain, you can’t need a functioning cerebral cortex to feel pain.