Can Fetuses Feel Pain?

In truth, I am mostly interested in this as an issue of science. It's implications for late-term abortions are of less importance to me.

That's nice, but the reason this article was written and the reason this topic is of interest to the general public is so both sides can get fuel for their side of the abortion fight.
 
I thought of this right away, as well.

WHO CARES?!

If you're aborting the fetus, does it matter how much pain they were in? Or is this just an attempt to emotionally bias the issue?

I'm thinking the latter is definitely true.


Well, if I had to kill an animal I would try to do so humanely. I would hope we do the same for a foetus. Even in war, we distinguish between killing and torture. Of course , some would say that legitimises killing.
 
That's nice, but the reason this article was written and the reason this topic is of interest to the general public is so both sides can get fuel for their side of the abortion fight.

I apologize if I seemed flip. I just wanted to make my position and my interest clear. I do not wish to enter into a debate about late term abortions (I am very prochoice), but I will go so far as to agree with Sam, for the sake of basic humanity, the evidence suggests that these procedures should include analgesia +/- anesthesia for the fetus.

One last point, I don't think Dr. Derbyshire or the other scientists conduct their research within an "abortion framework". These are all well-respected pain researchers, in particular Dr. Fitzgerald who is easily the world authority on the developmental neurobiology of pain. I believe they are both motivated by a scientific interest in understanding pain and in providing the best care possible.

Again, my apologies if I gave offense. It was not my intention.
 
Well, if I had to kill an animal I would try to do so humanely. I would hope we do the same for a foetus. Even in war, we distinguish between killing and torture. Of course , some would say that legitimises killing.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

*ponders*

*deletes his first response*

*ponders*


I'll go on record right now as pro-choice.

Humanely killing? Why do I think of this as an oxymoron?

Torture? Are you aware of what they DO during an abortion? I am keenly aware. I doubt anyone would describe it as 'torture'. A bit gruesome, maybe, but a clean cut isn't torture. I would say that is a loaded term in this context. The "death" is probably as quick as one could ask for. A flash of the blade, and it's done. The rest is sliced up for easy removal. I am not trying to be flip, but merely to state the facts as directly as possible. I apologize if this disturbs anyone.

I realize I speculate here, but don't we all when we speak of how much pain a fetus experiences? Unless YOU remember, because I certainly do not. Of course, we have the same dilemma with animals, as well.

I do not think there is any justification for equating an abortion with torture. And it is undeniable that the circumstances in war are different. Apples and Oranges, which makes me wonder why you bring it up.

I have always respected your posts, Sam, but I must question you in this regard.


Respectfully,
Scott.
 
Humanely killing? Why do I think of this as an oxymoron?

That's a good question. It's NOT. There's no way I'm stepping into the abortion issue... BUT humane killing certainly is possable. If someone is suffering and wants to be let out of their misery, it is humane to help them out in as quick and painless way as possable. We often put animals to sleep humanely.
No matter how we feel about these things on a personal level, I don't think there's any doubt that there are bad and better reasons for killing, and crueler and kinder ways too.
 
I realize I speculate here, but don't we all when we speak of how much pain a fetus experiences? Unless YOU remember, because I certainly do not. Of course, we have the same dilemma with animals, as well.
That's actually not true because most animals have some kind of pain physiology and pets are almost all vertebrates and have almost the same pain physiology that we do. Fetuses on the otherhand simply don't have the physiology of pain in place before 24-26 weeks. From that we can extrapolate that a dog feels pain and a fetus doesn't.
 
Torture? Are you aware of what they DO during an abortion? I am keenly aware. I doubt anyone would describe it as 'torture'. A bit gruesome, maybe, but a clean cut isn't torture. I would say that is a loaded term in this context. The "death" is probably as quick as one could ask for. A flash of the blade, and it's done. The rest is sliced up for easy removal. I am not trying to be flip, but merely to state the facts as directly as possible. I apologize if this disturbs anyone.

Just to clarify, what you are describing is done only in rare cases when the mother's life or health is at risk. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester when a small clump of cells, maybe the size of your pinky fingernail, are vaccuumed out of the uterus.

If Plan-B anad RU-486 were more easily available, even this procedure would be unecessary in most cases.
 
Agreed, which is why I refered to nociception rather than pain. Interestingly, there is emerging data that premies learn pretty fast which events will be associated with nociception. They exhibit more pain behaviours (such as guarding) in the presence of some staff or equipment than others. If they are anticipating it, then I think they are crossing your line into pain.

I am also concerned about your use of "adult". Are you saying children do not experience pain? There is a vast amount of evidence that they do.

No, children definitely experience pain. I don't think there's a lot to argue about there. But I'm also wondering if we can equate the pain experienced by a child with that of an adult. Of course the sensation is there, but I'm wondering how it relates in terms of life experience.

Could it be worse, as a child's lack of knowledge would increase the fear of not understanding the sensation? Or perhaps without prior experience, the sensation is more physical, lessening the 'impact' as such?

I'll have to claim ignorance on this. But it's an interesting thought.

Athon
 
No, children definitely experience pain. I don't think there's a lot to argue about there. But I'm also wondering if we can equate the pain experienced by a child with that of an adult. Of course the sensation is there, but I'm wondering how it relates in terms of life experience.

Could it be worse, as a child's lack of knowledge would increase the fear of not understanding the sensation? Or perhaps without prior experience, the sensation is more physical, lessening the 'impact' as such?

I'll have to claim ignorance on this. But it's an interesting thought.

Athon

What immediately sprang to mind would be a child's experience of being molested and physically hurt in this way. I'd propose that the impact would be just as significant and probably more so because of the psychological impact in addition? Fear, disillusionment, confusion, breaking of trust... What about those children dumped in Rumanian orphanages, left with little care or abandoned and being hurt from neglect? Not changed, not fed, suffering disease and associated pain from that?
 
As far as a fetus feeling pain in the third trimester, how many abortions are performed that far along? As I understand it, late-term abortions are mostly performed when the life or health of the mother is at risk, and abortions of "convenience" are usually performed in the first trimester (as early as possibile).

Does anyone have stats on that?
You are correct. Unfortunately I don't have sources at hand, but I'm sure a quick Google search would reveal this, as I clearly remember reading that upwards of 90% of abortions (in Canada, though, and those were 1993 stats, I recall) are performed during the first trimester. Most others are done during the second, and those are usually for wanted pregnancies, that must be terminated to preserve the mother's life or health (and are usually traumatic experiences).

Re: the pain thing. I think it disgusting and intellectually dishonest that doctors in the US are required by law to claim that the procedure will cause pain to the fetus. It's nothing more than a dishonest tactic against abortion, and it's not even true in most abortions, which are too early for that.
 
please don't take the fact that this is only my third post as proof that i'm an uneducated troll.

Isn't this a moot question? I mean, I suppose it's provable that cows feel pain when slaughtered for beef, yet I and many others have no problem enjoying cheesebugers. Is it that you consider human pain somehow special?
 
please don't take the fact that this is only my third post as proof that i'm an uneducated troll.

Isn't this a moot question? I mean, I suppose it's provable that cows feel pain when slaughtered for beef, yet I and many others have no problem enjoying cheesebugers. Is it that you consider human pain somehow special?

Welcome to the board, zizzy. And no, it's not a bad question. Quite a good one, in fact.

There's several responses to this. Firstly, as we've stated, pain extends beyond merely the negative sensation. It involves past experiences, anticipation, fear, context... things that humans arguably have a more varied experience of than cows.

In addition to this, when we discuss the infliction of pain on others as a moral issue, it becomes an emotional discussion over a rational one. As such, it becomes one of empathy. We can more easily (and rationally) empathise with other humans more than animals, hence human morals tend to extend only to other humans. Because it is an emotional construct, there's no objective reason why we should either dismiss animal rights or, for that matter, include them. It becomes a discussion of 'why should we support the rights of a living thing', which has no logical reason.

It's not a logical discussion, unfortunately, and makes it more difficult to convince others why they should share your viewpoint. Whether this makes it more or less reason to pursue it something else.

Athon
 
I might also mention that when a child is born the head is compressed to the point the bones actually change position giving the classic molded head. And besides the pain of uterine contractions the mother feels at least some pain from the child moving through the birth canal. So it stands to reason the infant experiences pain during birth.

So does the pain hurt the child in the long run or is it cruel at the time it is occurring? If you buy all the anti-abortion arguments then should we anesthetize the infant for the birth procedure? Should all mothers be encouraged to have C-sections to save the baby from pain?
 
Sam, I don't think your evolutionary explanation works. Pain signals damage and the baby communicates its need for pain relief. Just because a baby can't verbally communicate his/her pain does not mean it doesn't communicate it nonverbally. Pain behaviours are fairly robust in neonates and premies (see work by Bonnie Stevens). This is not so different from the way babies communicate their other needs.
Oh it's not an explanation. It's a question. What use is a fire alarm if you're tied to your chair ? In nature, foetal pain must come from inside the mother- ie from internal illness or damage to mother or foetus. If the mother is ill or injured, there is no need for the foetus to tell her this. The only possible use for pain is if the foetus can either reposition itself to stop it, or can alert the mother to do something.

But that does not mean it can't feel pain. It can't count, but it has finger buds.

Invasive surgery bypasses any such considerations- the mother is "under attack" , but ignores it. Its a situation the embryo cannot be able to cope with. In this context it might be able to feel pain but have no way to express the fact.




" I do not think there is any justification for equating an abortion with torture. And it is undeniable that the circumstances in war are different. Apples and Oranges, which makes me wonder why you bring it up.

I have always respected your posts, Sam, but I must question you in this regard. " -Clarsct.

I think my vague sentence structure is misleading you, sorry. I don't intend an equation, but a contrast. Hence the "Even in war". We won't get into justifying homicide. My point is that most societies permit it in war, but even then try to minimise unnecessary suffering- albeit to little effect. My point is that we don't know how much a foetus suffers either during abortion or maternal surgery. We should err on the cautious side, insofar as we can- which may raise complex safety issues regarding anaesthetics etc.
 
Last edited:
My point is that we don't know how much a foetus suffers either during abortion or maternal surgery. We should err on the cautious side, insofar as we can- which may raise complex safety issues regarding anaesthetics etc
.
Actually we do know something about how much a fetus suffers. What we don't know is the anesthetic related safety issues for the mother.
 
thank you for clarifying, Sam. I had misunderstood you. A very quick thought to further this discussion (not as a challenge, more as a "thinking together"):

I don't know much about fetal development, but there are probably many things a fetus can do that do not have an immediately obvious use. Processes simply develop and await their usefulness after birth. Perhaps this is part of why a fetal nervous system is capable of processing nociceptive stimuli. Interestingly, like the brain itself, there is some evidence for "pruning" of nociceptive systems after birth, so that neonates actually come equipped as better pure processors of nociception, in some ways at least.
 
Sam:

Hm. Well enough. I'm not entirely sure anesthetizing a fetus is necessary, however, if that is what you are talking about.


As for the rest, they do tend to chop thing up before the vacuuming. It makes thing go through easier, and then they do a full DNC.
 

Back
Top Bottom