a painful decision

August 23, 2005 4:46 PM

It's baby killing time.Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the abortion debate, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.
posted by The Jesse Helms (106 comments total)

*gets popcorn*
posted by edgeways at 4:55 PM on August 23, 2005

ooh this is gonna be good .
posted by mishaco at 4:56 PM on August 23, 2005

This post sucks in so many ways.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:57 PM on August 23, 2005

.

Not for the fetuses (though they get a couple too ...), for this thread because it was DOA.
posted by fenriq at 4:59 PM on August 23, 2005

Cue lifers: "ONLY GOD CAN KNOW THAT!"

Therefore nullifying any arguement. Ever.
posted by sian at 5:00 PM on August 23, 2005

.
posted by fire&wings at 5:01 PM on August 23, 2005

I don't really see what the point of NOT anesthetizing them is.
posted by biscotti at 5:04 PM on August 23, 2005

Hey, edgeways.
posted by sohcahtoa at 5:05 PM on August 23, 2005

Thanks for the Wikipedia link to "Roe v. Wade" — hadn't heard of it til now, and definitely hadn't seen the abortion issue discussed ad infinitum on any number of tedious discussion forums (though the few times I have seen it discussed, it was always civil, rational, and resulted in a lot of opinions being changed). Cheers.
posted by dhoyt at 5:15 PM on August 23, 2005

I love using the word "sophmoric". But perhaps there is a better one to describe this post? Sophmoronic?
posted by snsranch at 5:16 PM on August 23, 2005

I don't really see what the point of NOT anesthetizing them is.
posted by biscotti at 5:04 PM PST

I don't really get what you're saying. If they don't feel pain, why anesthetize them in order to ease their pain? Or is this some sort of weird trap?

Could you please expand on what you mean? Thanks.
posted by billysumday at 5:20 PM on August 23, 2005

"SophOmoronic."
posted by Floydd at 5:21 PM on August 23, 2005

Sophomoronic - the hijinks of the perennially infantile frat boy jackass. The guy at the dinner party who slips some fake bug filled ice cubes into the punch or the guy who breaks into your room to cut the crotches out of all your underwear and pants. See also, Republican Party.
posted by fenriq at 5:24 PM on August 23, 2005

I summon thee!
posted by RakDaddy at 5:36 PM on August 23, 2005

I'll wait until I hear from Bill Frist before I decide. he's a doctor.
posted by mcsweetie at 5:38 PM on August 23, 2005

All the fetuses I've talked to are very upset by this development.
posted by wakko at 5:51 PM on August 23, 2005

Thankfully, they're not pained about it.
posted by Gyan at 5:58 PM on August 23, 2005

Do you know?! Are you a fetus?! How could they know?! OH! Thats right! SCIENCE! The same SCIENCE that says we came from monkeys. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? HUH?!

BESIDES. IT DOESN"T MATTER IF THEY FEEL PAIN BECAUSE YOU"RE KILLING A HUMAN WITH A REAL SOUL AND IF YOU KILL IT IN THE MOMMY"S TUMMY, GODS PLAN WILL BE RUINED. RUINED I TELL YOU. god bless.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 6:02 PM on August 23, 2005

This baby-killing thread is making me lol. How can that be wrong?
posted by fleetmouse at 6:02 PM on August 23, 2005

Will this thread fell pain if we abort it? I know I will feel pain if we don't.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:04 PM on August 23, 2005

And here I always thought that the anasthesia was for the women involved, who are undergoing a painful and often emotionally fraught surgicall procedure. Silly me.
posted by jokeefe at 6:05 PM on August 23, 2005

And even a surgical procedure, too. Meh.
posted by jokeefe at 6:06 PM on August 23, 2005

the fact that after reading that, i became worried someone wouldn't smell the sarcasm got me thinking. I think its time to become intolerant of religious ideas placing one FOOT outside a church or someone's home.

can't we go back to the days where christians had to draw the fish in the sand?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 6:06 PM on August 23, 2005

I don't really get what you're saying. If they don't feel pain, why anesthetize them in order to ease their pain? Or is this some sort of weird trap?

No weird trap. Just that (going from the links) it sounds as if there's still some disagreement about whether or not they actually can feel pain or not, so why not play it safe? Continuing to use anesthetic until such time as a consensus (based on more hard evidence) is reached seems a very minor thing to do to make sure you're not causing unnecessary pain. Causing unnecessary pain, even to something about to be killed, is wrong in my view.

(for the record, I'm strongly pro-choice, but I'm definitely anti-pain (unless it's consensual))
posted by biscotti at 6:07 PM on August 23, 2005

Is bevets on vacation this week?
posted by psmealey at 6:09 PM on August 23, 2005

A late second trimester abortion can cost as much as $3000. So hopefully this will make things a bit more affordable for those unfortunate people who have to think long and hard before making a decision.

As for the bible thumpers, all I can say is that Jesus never got an anesthetic while he was on the cross so in my mind that makes doctors more considerate than that wacky passive God he spoke so fondly of.

[dusts off his hands]
posted by furtive at 6:11 PM on August 23, 2005

Abortion: the other other white meat.
posted by mullingitover at 6:14 PM on August 23, 2005

I don't really see what the point of NOT anesthetizing them is.

It says why right in the third graf.

The finding poses a direct challenge to proposed federal and state laws that would compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus.

One of the more creative tactics from the "well we're not banning it, it's still legal, hee hee hee hee" anti-choice lobby is this very law, which was designed purely as a way to legally require doctors to induce guilt in women for having an abortion. This study is very important because it smashes yet another nonsense argument meant to put up barriers to choice.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:16 PM on August 23, 2005

It was all worth it so I could see the Bevets card.
posted by blendor at 6:17 PM on August 23, 2005

Death is the ultimate anesthesia.

Muahahaha. (but seriously, if they arn't going to remember the pain, why bother trying to stop it). But I suppose we would then not need anesthesia for kids under three.
posted by delmoi at 6:18 PM on August 23, 2005

I'll start this: most of you in this post are a bunch of shitheads. I can imagine rational arguments for a woman's freedom to choose. I can imagine arguments where one decides pain is acceptable. I can even imagine -- though the articles don't make it and it seems unlikely -- a tight case for abortions being painless. I can't imagine any ethical, moral, thinking person simply dismissing or mocking the question of pain and suffering. And that's apparently what 2/3 of you have decided to do as you vomited your opinions all over the page.

There are medical experts on opposing sides of the issue as well, and the only thing they agree on is that it is virtually impossible to tell for sure what a fetus can feel.
posted by namespan at 6:19 PM on August 23, 2005

Not near as good as the Robertson thread. Is there anyway we drag Europe, Socialism and assassinations into this? [snaps fingers] Hey. What if Chavez knocked up Pat Robersons wife? Would he assassinate the commie hell-spawn in a publicly funded abortion clinic?
posted by tkchrist at 6:22 PM on August 23, 2005

I'm not going to dismiss or mock the question of pain and suffering. But I do take issue with the title of the first link up there. I mean... way to guarantee the discussion is gonna go in a bad direction.
posted by unsweet at 6:25 PM on August 23, 2005

I can't imagine any ethical, moral, thinking person simply dismissing or mocking the question of pain and suffering. And that's apparently what 2/3 of you have decided to do as you vomited your opinions all over the page.

This topic has been batted back and fourth for so long, it's officially a cliche. I feel no remorse for making light of it.
posted by mullingitover at 6:29 PM on August 23, 2005

I thought humanity was supposed to be defined by suffering, or was that just in the Matrix? If so, then by not suffering they aren't human. Case closed, Mister Anderson.
posted by nightchrome at 6:29 PM on August 23, 2005

does it mean that now John Roberts will able to say that it's OK for the brave fetus-rescuers to mistakenly firebomb a fetus, too, since said fetus won't feel pain anyway? or is it just OK to firebomb the evil doctors and nurses?
posted by matteo at 6:37 PM on August 23, 2005

Ooh. Nightchrome played the Philosophy Card. No fair!
posted by JeffK at 6:37 PM on August 23, 2005

delmoi: we give anesthesia for kids under three to SHUT THEM UP, or was that just my mom?
anyway these fetuses? are they in Venezuela?
posted by Elim at 6:38 PM on August 23, 2005

Cartman: Guess what I have sitting in my back yard?
Kyle: A trampoline?
Cartman: Better.
Stan: A boat?
Cartman: Better.
Kenny: (A football machine?)
Cartman: Better.
Stan: Well WHAT, Cartman?
Cartman: Thirty-three aborted fetuses. [the boys look back at him for a long time] Oh yes.
Kyle: ...What? [closes his eyes in disbelief]
Cartman: Mint condition, tax free.
posted by fet at 6:40 PM on August 23, 2005

Metafilter: most of you in this post are a bunch of shitheads.
posted by Bort at 6:41 PM on August 23, 2005

Stolen from somethingawful. (Not safe for your eternal soul.)
posted by MikeKD at 6:44 PM on August 23, 2005

Metafilter: I can imagine rational arguments
posted by furtive at 6:50 PM on August 23, 2005

furtive, you just won't get them here.
posted by nightchrome at 6:56 PM on August 23, 2005

That bevets card is a thing of beauty.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:58 PM on August 23, 2005

EEk, and um,... EEK!
posted by Balisong at 7:00 PM on August 23, 2005

I wish someone had aborted this thread in its first trimester.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:08 PM on August 23, 2005

I was aborted, and look at me now.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:10 PM on August 23, 2005

posted by Mephistopheles at 7:21 PM on August 23, 2005

posted by Mephistopheles at 7:22 PM on August 23, 2005

Baby Killing Time is, of course, our favorite part of Tuesday evenings.
posted by wakko at 7:23 PM on August 23, 2005

soph(O)moric, soph(O)moronic. I think I get it now. Thanks!
posted by snsranch at 7:24 PM on August 23, 2005

lol
posted by angry modem at 7:27 PM on August 23, 2005

Wakko- me too! Do you use lawn darts, too?
posted by id at 7:30 PM on August 23, 2005

Mephistopheles wins for funniest shit I've seen in weeks. Although I haven't seen Wedding Crashers yet..so I may have to revise my opinion.
posted by spicynuts at 7:35 PM on August 23, 2005

biscotti:

Just that (going from the links) it sounds as if there's still some disagreement about whether or not they actually can feel pain or not, so why not play it safe?

The legislation in question doesn't prevent that. What it does do is force a doctor, under penalty of prison, to share the opinions of pro-life politicians with someone who's about to undergo a surgical procedure.

The bill includes a script doctors must read to women, offering to deliver anesthesia directly to the fetus and stating, "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."

Congress does not have the medical expertise to "determine" this, and the people who do generally disagree according to this article. This is simply an effort to move the pro-life argument from the sidewalk to the operating table.
posted by swell at 7:55 PM on August 23, 2005

Just stop giving the "mothers" who are having these 3rd term abortions any anesthesia or pain medication while performing the procedure. Perhaps their opinions will change. Or not, as is probably the case.

I've always been amazed by the egotisticaland boorish and their assertions of knowing the unknowable. Unfortunately, most of them are in a position to influence many people
with their dangerous bull____.
posted by bat at 8:02 PM on August 23, 2005

Like veal... only babies.
posted by crunchywelch at 8:02 PM on August 23, 2005

id: I prefer to use them as the birdies in my badminton games, but I like to "mix it up". I will give your idea a try!
posted by wakko at 8:03 PM on August 23, 2005

Abortion is wrong, or maybe not.
posted by eatitlive at 8:17 PM on August 23, 2005

eatitlive I lukewarmly disagree.
posted by glenwood at 8:21 PM on August 23, 2005

Wow, what a POS FPP. This SNAFU has been FLGD.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 8:23 PM on August 23, 2005

I've always been amazed by the egotisticaland boorish and their assertions of knowing the unknowable.

Well, apparently THEY don't have that much influence...
posted by c13 at 8:41 PM on August 23, 2005

Did someone mention Southpark?

[Planned Parenthood OR.]
Mrs. Garrison: Hello doctor, looks like I need an abortion. [sits on the chair and puts his feet on the stirrups]

Doctor: ...an abortion?

Mrs. Garrison: Yeah, I've got one growing inside me. Now, are you gonna scramble its brains or just vacuum it out? [a nurse arrives and her jaw drops] ...If you want you can just scramble it and I'll queef it out myself.

Doctor: Mmister Garrison-

Mrs. Garrison: [correcting him] Mrs. Garrison.

Doctor: Mmrs. Garrison, you can't have an abortion.

Mrs. Garrison: Don't you tell me what I can and can't do with my body! [gets up, goes to the nurse, and hugs her] A woman has a right to choose!

Doctor: No, I mean you're physically unable to have an abortion, because you can't get pregnant.

Mrs. Garrison: But I missed my period.

Doctor: You can't have periods either. [Mrs. Garrison looks surprised] You had a sex change, Mr. Garrison, but you don't have ovaries or a womb. You don't produce eggs.

Mrs. Garrison: [sits down] You mean, I'll never know what it feels like to have a baby growing inside me and then scramble its brains and vacuum it out?

Doctor: N-that's right.

Mrs. Garrison: But I paid five thousand dollars to be a woman. This would mean I I'm not really a woman. Ih, I'm just a... a I'm just a guy with a mutilated penis!

Doctor: Basically, yes.

Mrs. Garrison: ...Oh boy, do I feel like a jackass.
posted by Happy4la at 8:44 PM on August 23, 2005

I EAT BABIES
posted by Balisong at 9:15 PM on August 23, 2005

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun... Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life. ~ Planned Parenthood "Plan Your Children" pamphlet in 1963.

There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It's all the same human being in different stages of development. ~ Dr. Arnold Halpern

murder: killing an innocent person when you have the ability not to kill that person.

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

child: a person with 2 parents

abortion = child murder

Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man, free of income tax. The only way you can save money nowadays. ~ Harry Lime
posted by bevets at 9:25 PM on August 23, 2005

He he...
posted by c13 at 9:28 PM on August 23, 2005

At least you are consistent, Bevets.
posted by Balisong at 9:38 PM on August 23, 2005

"person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people."

Hrm. I've stopped growing. Dammit.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:39 PM on August 23, 2005

snsranch: the word sophomore already contains the moron, although a Greek one. "Wise fool".
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:40 PM on August 23, 2005

Man Mephistopheles, why'd you go and play the Summon Bevets card? Now look at what we have to deal with.

Metafilter: I EAT BABIES.
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 9:42 PM on August 23, 2005

child: a person with 2 parents

AND THEY BETTER BE A MAN AND A WOMAN
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:22 PM on August 23, 2005

One of the more creative tactics from the "well we're not banning it, it's still legal, hee hee hee hee" anti-choice lobby is this very law, which was designed purely as a way to legally require doctors to induce guilt in women for having an abortion. This study is very important because it smashes yet another nonsense argument meant to put up barriers to choice.

The legislation in question doesn't prevent that. What it does do is force a doctor, under penalty of prison, to share the opinions of pro-life politicians with someone who's about to undergo a surgical procedure.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I suspect that there's certainly at least some small element of providing the woman with adequate information to make an informed decision about things involved here. If it's possible/still undetermined that a fetus can feel pain at this stage, I think it's irresponsible NOT to bring it up.

I don't think it's necessarily all about pro-life/pro-choice, but the deep emotions people on both sides have about this issue often seems to blind them to what's reasonable. It's unreasonable to say "how dare you want to torture your baby to death", it's not unreasonable to say "we don't know whether it can feel pain, so we recommend using anaesthesia just in case", which is what it seems is the case with the "script" involved here. The fact that you agree with one side or the other shouldn't mean that you always assume the worst of the opposite side, it is not a simple black and white issue. It does not sound to me as if the only people who aren't sure whether or not fetuses feel pain are crazy pro-lifers. Even accounting for the agendas involved, it just doesn't seem unreasonable to me to take such a relatively small step to ensure there's minimal pain involved (I'd personally be horrified to be "protected" from knowing the current thinking/debate about something like this, especially if I learned it after the fact and hadn't been allowed to use the information in my decision-making process). It seems demeaning to assume that women aren't capable of handling things like this, that they need to be protected from this aspect of the debate as though someone else knows better than they do what they need to know.

If there is no reliable, fact-based consensus about this ("we think it's unlikely that they feel pain" doesn't count as a consensus, but should definitely be included in the discussions with the patient), then what is the harm in offering to make sure by using anaesthetic? Having an open discussion about both sides of the debate over pain is just providing good care. I think there's much greater harm (as well as dishonesty and misrepresentation) in assuming there is no pain, and basing your patient care on that assumption. I don't think it's anyone's decision to make other than the woman involved - in my view, providing her with adequate information to make the appropriate choices for herself is a hell of a lot more pro-choice than keeping information from her so that she doesn't have to worry her pretty little head about the more murky and less-understood aspects of abortion.
posted by biscotti at 10:30 PM on August 23, 2005

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection.

I always knew identical twins weren't really people.
posted by Mephistopheles at 10:31 PM on August 23, 2005

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection.

So all of my cells are people?
posted by kenko at 10:33 PM on August 23, 2005

I look forward to bevets's APOPTOSIS IS MURDER bumper sticker.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:38 PM on August 23, 2005

Apoptosis is suicide, dude. Nuclei have the RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
posted by Mephistopheles at 10:39 PM on August 23, 2005

child: a person with 2 parents

I'm the result of a "swinger's party" that featured 6 couples. Does that mean I was never a child at all, or was I six children?
posted by mosch at 10:49 PM on August 23, 2005

Leave it to the fundys to reduce complex ethical and empirical matters to quote-mining, bumper-stickerisms, and rhetorical clip art.
posted by dgaicun at 11:05 PM on August 23, 2005

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

One could say that the only reason you exclude animals is because you wish to justify killing them. What reasonable basis do you have for denying them personhood?

Of course, your definition of person also excludes human clones. I'm going to grow a dozen clones of myself, that way I'll never have to worry about not having enough blood or organs. When I need another kidney, I just shoot one of my clones in the head. Bevets says its okay. Just in case he has any vestigial qualms about my having them killed, I'll be sure to get them all jobs in an abortion clinic.
posted by Planter at 11:06 PM on August 23, 2005

I have 2 parents. Does that mean I'm a 'child'?
posted by Goofyy at 11:57 PM on August 23, 2005

child: a person with 2 parents

Optimus Chyme

AND THEY BETTER BE A MAN AND A WOMAN

Glad to see you were awake in your Sex Ed class.

Goofyy

I have 2 parents. Does that mean I'm a 'child'?

Ask your mother
posted by bevets at 12:32 AM on August 24, 2005

Wow, I had no idea there was even such a thing as a debate on anesthesia for fetuses... and that 'bills requiring that women be warned about fetal pain have been introduced in the House and Senate and in 19 states, and recently passed in Georgia, Arkansas and Minnesota'... but then it's America, it never stops to be a source of wonder and amazement, and that's what makes it so great, or something like that.
posted by funambulist at 1:26 AM on August 24, 2005

Foetus. Hooray for English spelling.
posted by malusmoriendumest at 3:48 AM on August 24, 2005

The faint, sarcastic flaming and vague efforts to appear unbiased of our dear friend bevets seem likely to stick around. I vote we play the Repel Bevets card. Is there a counter to that? There'd better not be......
posted by malusmoriendumest at 3:51 AM on August 24, 2005

malusmoriendumest: fortunately....


posted by furtive at 4:12 AM on August 24, 2005

I think there's much greater harm (as well as dishonesty and misrepresentation) in assuming there is no pain, and basing your patient care on that assumption. I don't think it's anyone's decision to make other than the woman involved - in my view, providing her with adequate information to make the appropriate choices for herself is a hell of a lot more pro-choice than keeping information from her so that she doesn't have to worry her pretty little head about the more murky and less-understood aspects of abortion.

Again, the article. It's about how doctors and scientists concluded fetuses don't feel pain. Your argument relies on the belief that you choose to not believe them. That's your prerogative. But saying there's a "greater harm in assuming there's no pain" is like saying there's a "greater harm in assuming there's gravity" and not wearing lead boots around. After all, it's a relatively small step to avoid the risk of falling off the earth. Now doctors make mistakes, but I still think I'll take the words of medical experts over politicians with a direct agenda.

Now if you want to suggest doctors have "an agenda" which provoke them to hide information from women that their fetuses experience pain, you're welcome to, but I'll say now you're nuts. This isn't like cigarettes, where warning labels had to oversee the clear marketing desires of the tobacco companies to sell their product. Abortion doctors aren't on commission, nor do they have quotas. The anti-choice crowd has yet to explain their fantasy that there's some cabal of doctors out there promoting abortions for some bizarre personal gain.

Furthermore- "basing your patient care on that assumption?" You mean diagnosis? You know, that thing that doctors are trained to do? Assume they know what's right for the patient?

You claim that "providing her with adequate information to make the appropriate choices for herself is a hell of a lot more pro-choice than keeping information from her." Well, the accurate information was just given. You're suggesting now that it's appropriate to make federal laws forcing doctors to say otherwise because, essentially, you don't trust them. Explain to me how that's anywhere near the best interests of a mother and how it keeps her decisions personal and unadulterated.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:31 AM on August 24, 2005

We've been here before:

Descartes believed that all material bodies, including the human body, are machines that operate by mechanical principles. In his physiological studies, he dissected animal bodies to show how their parts move. He argued that, because animals have no souls, they do not think or feel; thus vivisection, which Descartes pioneered, is permitted.

Or, to quote the man himself (Traité de l'Homme, p. 427):

...All the functions which I have attributed to this machine (the body), as the digestion of food, the pulsation of the heart and of the arteries; the nutrition and the growth of the limbs; respiration, wakefulness, and sleep; the reception of light, sounds, colours, flavours, heat, and such like qualities, in the organs of the external senses; the impression of the ideas of these in the organ of common sense and in the imagination; the retention, or the impression, of these ideas on the memory; the internal movements of the appetites and the passions; and lastly, the external movements of all the limbs, which follow so aptly, as well the action of the objects which are presented to the senses, as the impressions which meet in the memory, that they imitate as nearly as possible those of a real man: I desire, I say, that you should consider that these functions in the machine naturally proceed from the mere arrangement of its organs, neither more nor less than do the movements of a clock, or other automation, from that of its weights and its wheels; so that, so far as these are concerned, it is not necessary to conceive any other vegetative or sensitive soul...

Of course 6-month fetuses don't feel pain in any important sense. Neither do any of the rest of you--in any important sense. You're just meat machines, and cutting you up is perfectly OK.

On the other hand, if you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt, you meat-thing, I'll be expecting to see you give the same benefit of the doubt to others. All others.
posted by jfuller at 5:05 AM on August 24, 2005

Continuing to use anesthetic until such time as a consensus (based on more hard evidence) is reached seems a very minor thing to do to make sure you're not causing unnecessary pain.

The past few years have convinced me that consensus is no longer possible. It doesn't matter how much evidence one side can marshal--there will still people who say "the jury's still out" on the biological realities of abortion or the psychological consequences of being raised by gay couples or the evidence for the theory of evolution.

By agreeing that there is doubt, we play into their hands. There may or may not be a non-negligible amount of doubt, but that's not the point--the point is that the far right has created situations where we cannot win despite their having virtually no evidence for their arguments.
posted by Epenthesis at 7:12 AM on August 24, 2005

That said, Epenthesis, many of us are trying to adopt a scientific attitude, and thus must acknowledge a degree of doubt, if and when it exists. Not the best approach politically, I grant you.
posted by gaspode at 8:05 AM on August 24, 2005

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun... Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life. ~ Planned Parenthood "Plan Your Children" pamphlet in 1963.

1963?!?!?! Please.
posted by agregoli at 8:43 AM on August 24, 2005

The only reason to suggest ANY other definition [of "person"] is to justify killing other people.

(...or maybe to help you feel less terrible when yours is one of the estimated 25 to 40 percent of pregnancies that end in miscarriage.)

(oh, or maybe if you're drafting a constitution and some of you want to count all the human beings as persons for the purpose of calculating congressional representation, but others think there are human beings that shouldn't count as persons so then you come up with a 3/5s estimate of these human beings' personhood).

I'm sorry. I obviously don't have a point, here. Let me make this smaller.
posted by nobody at 9:14 AM on August 24, 2005

ah....

Thanks everyone, for not disappointing and thanks for the link sohcahtoa.


shoo be doo be do
posted by edgeways at 9:27 AM on August 24, 2005

And here I always thought that the anasthesia was for the women involved, who are undergoing a painful [...] procedure. Silly me. - jokeefe

Well, abortions are not normally done with general anasthesia at all. Local anasthetic is used for the woman as you describe. Medical abortions (ones caused by a pill - not legal in the US but in use in the rest of the developed world) generally don't cause pain worse than menstrual cramps.

But did you read the main link? There is a proposed federal law in the US, the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," that would require doctors to offer to give the fetus painkillers directly and saying;

"The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."

A late second trimester abortion can cost as much as $3000. - furtive

That's crazy. Here in Canada, the provincial insurance plans cover abortions (although at what stage of gestation varies, and some provinces only fund abortions done in hospitals and not ones done in clinics). But even when women choose to have abortions that aren't covered by their health plans, a 2nd trimester abortion only costs $900.00.
posted by raedyn at 10:17 AM on August 24, 2005

Oh, sorry, I forgot to provide my supporting link re: the price of abortion in Canada. Fee schedule.
posted by raedyn at 10:19 AM on August 24, 2005

Just stop giving the "mothers" who are having these 3rd term abortions any anesthesia or pain medication while performing the procedure. - bat

There are almost zero abortions performed in the third trimester. Those very few that are performed are only done to same the mother's life and/or in the case of severe fetal abnormalities. The US Census doesn't even bother to split up their count of 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions because there are so few. The TOTAL of 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions is 12%. Source [pdf - click no.90] Only 13% of abortion providers in the US will perform abortions at 24 weeks, let alone into the 3rd trimester. Source 1.4% of abortions in the US are performed a 21+ weeks according to the Allan Gutmacher Institue [pdf - scroll to p.12]. So that number still includes a number of 2nd trimester procedures. The closest thing to a third trimester statistic I could find was this:

Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy

[Source: "Susan Dudley, Ph.D. "Abortion After Twelve Weeks" National Abortion Federation 1996]

So it's dishonest to act as if there's a lot of abortions happening so late in pregnancy. It's rare.
posted by raedyn at 10:53 AM on August 24, 2005

Disclaimer: I may have been wrong in my previous assertion that the US does not allow medical abortions. I'm getting conflicting information on that. I'd appreciate clarification if anyone here knows about the situation in the US better than I do.
posted by raedyn at 10:55 AM on August 24, 2005

we cannot win despite their having virtually no evidence for their arguments.

Shape of Earth: Views Differ
posted by Malenfant at 12:12 PM on August 24, 2005

Raedyn: Having known a woman who had an abortion by taking a pill here in the US, I'd say they're legal at least in my state.
But hell, we're just spittin' distance from Canada.
posted by klangklangston at 1:29 PM on August 24, 2005

Depends whether you're talking about RU-486 (illegal in U.S. as far as I know) or Plan B, which is the "morning after" pill, which prevents implantation.
posted by agregoli at 2:16 PM on August 24, 2005

Thanks agregoli. Yeah, AFAIK the abortion pill is still illegal in the US. Meanwhile it is commonly & legally prescribed in other civilized countries.

Plan B & other emergency contraceptives (AKA "the morning after pill" - a misnomer since they can be used for 72 hours after intercourse) are NOT abortion pills. They prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, but the will not affect an established pregnancy. If an egg never implants, there's no pregnancy. There's plenty of misinformation about this being spouted by anti-contraceptive activists.
posted by raedyn at 2:38 PM on August 24, 2005

RU-486 (mifepristone) was approved by the FDA in 2000 and has been used by hundreds of thousands of women in the US since then. It is NOT illegal (yet).
posted by purplemonkie at 2:51 PM on August 24, 2005

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

Doesn't this grant personhood to a cancerous tumor? (One having become cancerous through a genetic mutation that the rest of the host does not possess)
posted by beth at 5:31 PM on August 24, 2005

Of course 6-month fetuses don't feel pain in any important sense. Neither do any of the rest of you--in any important sense. You're just meat machines, and cutting you up is perfectly OK.

On the other hand, if you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt, you meat-thing, I'll be expecting to see you give the same benefit of the doubt to others. All others.
posted by jfuller at 5:05 AM PST on August 24

Thanks for quoting inaccurate, 400 year-old information, bro. I'll be sure to come to you when I need to know how Aristotle would have dealt with a flaky TCP/IP stack.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:50 PM on August 24, 2005

They used to think young infants did not feel pain either and so they operated on them with no anesthesia. Guess what... they feel pain.
posted by sultan at 6:22 PM on August 24, 2005

Sultan: Wow, your anecdote totally refutes this well-documented study. Thanks for your insight!
posted by klangklangston at 7:02 AM on August 25, 2005

Many cultures around the world do not name a child until it speaks.

This is because of the high likelyhood of infant mortality.

...the kid was only 6 years old, they couldn't have been too attached to her...
posted by asok at 7:59 AM on August 25, 2005