Human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks

[AnnaG]

Oh good - off on another tangent .... yum....

My question: Is feeling of pain or sensory recognition or reaction of any type in its most basic form the true identifier of humanity?

Obviously the pain may never be recognized by the brain at the first weeks ergo cannot react to pain (much as those who are near death and we gratefuly acknowledge they "feel no pain" but it in no way indicates that bodily/cell/muscular/bone/organ pain is not significant but cannot be measured by the standard tests currently done with humans who are able to verbally or instrumentally demonstrate pain.

We are leaping to assumptions relying ultimately on our "machines" for measurement and current literature which hastily tidies it up for modern
society to stomach.

Therefore we are relying on our machines to determine when life begins.

Actually this isn't a tangent, Hun. The topic started out with prenatal pain. Apparently some people are trying to prove that human life doesn't start till it can feel pain.

Here's some info on the development of the brain and nervous system from McGill University:

THE BRAIN FROM TOP TO BOTTOM

 

[Tonington]

Pain can't be a true identifier of humanity. Experiencing pain at the physiological level is nociception, and it's not unique to humans. It's not even unique to vertebrates (click here for a jargon filled paper.)

It doesn't make sense in an evolutionary sense to view pain differently for humans and say a lizard. Pain is highly conserved, and with good reason obviously. If the life form cannot react to noxious stimulus, then there's nothing stopping it from allowing a predator to eat it. There's nothing to give incentive to move away from extreme heat.

That's why that pathway has survived and been passed on through evolution. In fact it may even be more conserved than glucose metabolism.

It makes even less sense that pain would develop after the life form is independent from the uterus. Babies of all species still need to respond to pain and danger.

 

[Curiosity]

Thanks Anna

I just Google'd "When does fetus feel pain" and there were pages of articles and citations to read....

I think at present there is nothing to measure "reaction" in utero in the early weeks but who is to say that is the only verifiable method? Once the egg and sperm are conjoined, it is a human life form yes? no?

Regardless - I still feel pain (or reaction to pain) is the basic measurement of life.

I hope I don't "choke" Andem's nice forum but here is the link to get the Google page. If it fails it is easily found...

when does foetus feel pain which is measurable - Google Search

 

[AnnaG]

BTW, Nebraska apparently discovered research that says pain in infants starts at about 20 weeks:

Briefing: New law claims a fetus can feel pain - science-in-society - 16 April 2010 - New Scientist

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]1997: Statement by Dr. Paul Ranalli:[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Dr. Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto, in Toronto Canada. He is acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. He gave a presentation called "Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion" on 1997-JUN-27 to the House Judiciary Committee of the State of Ohio. 3,4 He has concluded that the "spino-thalamic" system is fully developed at about 12 to 14 weeks of gestation. This is the system that conveys pain signals from pain receptors throughout the body to the thalamus. He apparently believes that the thalamus can feel pain, even if a connection between it and the cortex is missing.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]To support his belief that a fetus in the second trimester can feel pain, he cites three signs: [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]A fetus will "withdraw from painful stimulation" [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Two types of stress hormones which are detected in adults who are feeling pain are also found in a fetus from when a blood sample is withdrawn. He quotes: [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Nicholas Fisk of London, England who observed this reaction as early as 19 weeks 5, and [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]J Partch of Kiel, Germany who observed it at 16 weeks. [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]2001: Statement by the Medical Research Council at Edinburgh University, UK:[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]According to Fox News for 2001-AUG-31, the Council's study revealed that "a fetus was absolutely aware of pain by 24 weeks."
[/FONT]



[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]2004: Testimony by Kanwaljeet S. Anand:[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Congress passed a law which criminalizes most D&X abortions (a.k.a. Partial Birth Abortions). Three temporary injunctions were obtained by pro-choice groups to prevent the law from being applied. U.S. District Judge Richard Casey ruled on 2004-MAR-19 that the testimony of Kanwaljeet S. Anandwould would be allowed when the constitutionality of the law is examined in New York, NY. Simultaneous trials on the constitutionality of the law also started in San Francisco, CA, and Omaha, NE on MAR-22. Dr. Anandwould is a pediatrician who specializes in the care of newborns and children. He has conducted research over the past two decades to study whether a fetus can sense of pain by a fetus. He concludes that a fetus at 20 weeks of gestation may be able to feel pain. [/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]The law states that a partial-birth abortion is a "brutal and inhumane procedure" and that "during the partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain." 10[/FONT]

References

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Larry Neumeister, "Judge: MD can testify on fetus pain," Associated Press, 2004-MAR-23, at: http://www.philly.com/[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]N.M. Fisk et al, "Fetal plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin response to intrauterine needling." The Lancet 344, 77-81 (1994)

[/FONT]Paul Ranalli, "Abortion and the Unborn Baby: The Painful Truth," is available on the California Pro-Life Council home page at: http://www.californiaprolife.org/
[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]

[/FONT]

Thanks Anna

I just Google'd "When does fetus feel pain" and there were pages of articles and citations to read....

I think at present there is nothing to measure "reaction" in utero in the early weeks but who is to say that is the only verifiable method? Once the egg and sperm are conjoined, it is a human life form yes? no?

I doubt there is any method available to measure if there is pain anytime before some development of the brain. After some development of the brain, there seems to be at least a mechanical way of measuring pain, namely poking an embryo with a needle to see if it reacts. After brain waves can be detected, I would imagine that is another method.

Once the human sperm has fertilsed the human egg, I can't see any rational argument that a human life has not begun.

 

[mentalfloss]

I would argue that consciousness is more of a determinant for human life rather than pain specifically. Of course, in this case, the first inklings of consciousness may be that of pain, but there seem to be some pretty convincing shots of fetuses earlier than 20 weeks that appear to be conscious of their surroundings (surrounding?)

This really begs the question again - does it really matter when a human life begins? If it is in the first, second, or third tri-mester.. it really doesn't matter as science will not fully resolve this issue nor should it for the sake putting an insignificant label on the thing.

 

[Curiosity]

Mentalfloss

For the mother-to-be the question can be a life long act of determination to cease growth or killing of a human.

Whether acknowledged in the conscious mind or relegated to the back room of "unthinkable acts" it can do some pretty nasty work to some females whether acknowledged as the trigger or not.

Science has given women many "outlets" to release the guilt in past decades, but unfortunately women (unless without some degree of sanity) can reap a harvest of negatives while they try to live out the remainder of their lives acknowledging and atoning for the act.

I hardly think putting an insignificant label on the thing (your words) describes the situation for a female and certainly not for the lifeform developed or not.

It does matter as long as humanity continue to deny the ramifications of the decision and find ways of coping and releasing the guilt.

Or ultimately find the answer of prevention which is much needed.

 

[AnnaG]

I would argue that consciousness is more of a determinant for human life rather than pain specifically. Of course, in this case, the first inklings of consciousness may be that of pain, but there seem to be some pretty convincing shots of fetuses earlier than 20 weeks that appear to be conscious of their surroundings (surrounding?)

This really begs the question again - does it really matter when a human life begins? If it is in the first, second, or third tri-mester.. it really doesn't matter as science will not fully resolve this issue nor should it for the sake putting an insignificant label on the thing.

Scientific people are curious. Sometimes they just want to know about something just because it exists. The point is not so much to be able to pin a label on something as much as it is to describe it as accurately as possible.
That's besides what Curio said, too.

 

[gerryh]

just make the abortion pill available and free to all and the little sl*ts can bang their asses off all they want without worry.

 

[mentalfloss]

Mentalfloss

For the mother-to-be the question can be a life long act of determination to cease growth or killing of a human.

Whether acknowledged in the conscious mind or relegated to the back room of "unthinkable acts" it can do some pretty nasty work to some females whether acknowledged as the trigger or not.

Science has given women many "outlets" to release the guilt in past decades, but unfortunately women (unless without some degree of sanity) can reap a harvest of negatives while they try to live out the remainder of their lives acknowledging and atoning for the act.

Fair enough, but it is pretty clear that science is not enough to alleviate the minds of mothers - especially since it attempts to couch this guilt by denying the fact that they are indeed killing a human being. Perhaps there should be more education in schools (and the media) that the act of killing a human being - in the instance of abortion of course - is not so vile an act as society has placed such a burden on women to be.

 

[Curiosity]

Mentalfloss

Society has tried to lighten the burden on a woman's conscience by legalizing abortion - declaring it to be safe and medically approved, but the act of interference with a potential life plays an insidious game with those who make the choice. Approval by society does not release a woman's conscience to freedom from that lifechanging decision. It is hardly addressed by any community, and it should be but as abortion was fought for by so many people as a "right", it is difficult to introduce any future complications against the act.

I am not against abortion - I am wholly for science championing "prevention" for both men and women until they are ready, willing, and capable of becoming loving parents to a wanted child.

To date "prevention" has not been elevated beyond what women practiced decades ago - because abortion has become the "prevention" of our modern era.

It reduces the advanced creature called human to a status far less than it deserves. But then we still use killing as a means of settling international problems, so what's a cessation of a life which has not begun?

 

[L Gilbert]

Mentalfloss

Society has tried to lighten the burden on a woman's conscience by legalizing abortion - declaring it to be safe and medically approved, but the act of interference with a potential life plays an insidious game with those who make the choice. Approval by society does not release a woman's conscience to freedom from that lifechanging decision. It is hardly addressed by any community, and it should be but as abortion was fought for by so many people as a "right", it is difficult to introduce any future complications against the act.

I am not against abortion - I am wholly for science championing "prevention" for both men and women until they are ready, willing, and capable of becoming loving parents to a wanted child.

To date "prevention" has not been elevated beyond what women practiced decades ago - because abortion has become the "prevention" of our modern era.

It reduces the advanced creature called human to a status far less than it deserves. But then we still use killing as a means of settling international problems, so what's a cessation of a life which has not begun?

Good points, Curiosity.

Education is an extremely effective tool. But kids are astigmatized for even having preventative methods. Why? Because of the completely foolish notion that sex, bodies, etc. are evil.

 

[gerryh]

Good points, Curiosity.

Education is an extremely effective tool. But kids are astigmatized for even having preventative methods. Why? Because of the completely foolish notion that sex, bodies, etc. are evil.

sex isn't evil. Killing the product of sex is evil.

 

[L Gilbert]

sex isn't evil. Killing the product of sex is evil.

I agree, but not everyone agrees with you and I.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Back to square one again, huh? Just when I thought you were making progress. The textbook you quoted from said that life begins from the single fertilised cell. And you agreed with that. Or at least said you did.

I don’t think we ever moved form square one; we are pretty much where we were at the beginning of the thread.

I did not agree that life begins with a single fertilized cell; I agree that it is life. But then there was life even before fertilization, sperm and egg are both alive.

And as a human sperm fertilises a human egg to form the cell, you shouldn't expect anything other than a human life to come of the union; no other humans anything other than a human to come of the union. Therefore, the consensus is that it is a human life from fertilisation.

Eventually, yes. The questions is, when has the development proceeded to such an extent that we can call fetus human? Development of human life begins at conception; I think most will agree with that. But we are back to the same question, at what stage could the fetus be called a human being?

There is no satisfactory answer to that. If the development of human life begins at conception, it is clear that at least for a while after that, it is not a human being.

Is this absurd? It should not be to those who claim that a human being can't feel pain before 24 weeks of development, and thus it is perfectly all right to butcher it.

I don't think the researcher said anything of the sort. He simply reported his findings, that is what a scientist should do. It is for others to draw conclusions from that, if any.

And again, it is only your opinion, that fetus is a human being at 24 weeks. I agree with that myself, but it is still only an opinion. Perhaps an educated guess.

Thanks Anna

I just Google'd "When does fetus feel pain" and there were pages of articles and citations to read....

I think at present there is nothing to measure "reaction" in utero in the early weeks but who is to say that is the only verifiable method? Once the egg and sperm are conjoined, it is a human life form yes? no?

When egg and sperm are conjoined, blueprint for a human being is formed, and human development begins. But that doesn't answer the question if it is a human being. Indeed, the fact that development begins at conception tells us that it has to proceed to some extent before it can be called a human being.

But we just don't know, it is more a metaphysical question than a scientific question.

I would argue that consciousness is more of a determinant for human life rather than pain specifically. Of course, in this case, the first inklings of consciousness may be that of pain, but there seem to be some pretty convincing shots of fetuses earlier than 20 weeks that appear to be conscious of their surroundings (surrounding?)

This really begs the question again - does it really matter when a human life begins? If it is in the first, second, or third tri-mester.. it really doesn't matter as science will not fully resolve this issue nor should it for the sake putting an insignificant label on the thing.

You said it, mentalfloss. And that is what I have been saying all along. We just don't know when human life begins. As to its important, I think it is an important question. If we decide that human life begins at say 4 months, then fetus at 4 months will receive all the protections of the Bill of rights (or Charter of Rights) as a human being. Abortion after 4 months will be banned overnight, without anybody doing anything.

So the question is very important. Unfortunately it is practically impossible to answer. It is like answering if there is an afterlife, or which God is the true God (or if God exists). We just don't know, and we don't really havce any reliable way fo knowing.

 

[Goober]

There was fairly good evidence that the pathways necessary to feel pain really just aren't there before 24 weeks - although they very clearly are there after," said Richard Anderson, a professor in human reproductive sciences at the University of Edinburgh on the study's authors.

Some doctors disagree with the findings, arguing that foetuses can experience distress by the age of 20 weeks.

Can someone please define " Fairly good evidence - is 51 for 49 against - 70 for -30 against - what is it - Fairly good does not cut it in Science - Unless it is what you need to support your belief that is.

 

[Sаbine]

If we decide that human life begins at say 4 months, then fetus at 4 months will receive all the protections of the Bill of rights (or Charter of Rights) as a human being. Abortion after 4 months will be banned overnight, without anybody doing anything.

And before that, what would we decide it to be? Armadillo's life?

 

[Curiosity]

This is one of the better exchanges I have seen on a touchy subject for some.... I thank the contributors

I wonder if we will ever reach a point of reality as to when there is viable life in utero - it would seem science itself is hesitant to place boundaries other than (iffy groupings of weeks/months) to satisfy the population of those utilizing abortion as birth control.

Perhaps man will never "know" when life begins - perhaps it is beyond our capability of knowing, but I can't help feeling "abortion" is an insulting answer to creation - it demeans the parents involved and the life to begin.

Maybe someone will invent a "cool down" type of medication people in their early years of frenzied sexual activity - unprotected and on-the-spot practice will be able to control themselves - sort of an anti-booze/drug effect.....lonely middle-lifers on a cruise effect.... or just 'hot teens' effect.

We tiptoe around playing God like puppies at the food dish. Sex is a fantastic idea for populating our planet - but we have to catch up by matching our physical desires
to foreseeable future planning.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And before that, what would we decide it to be? Armadillo's life?

I was only discussing a hypothetical scenario, Sabine. If the society decides that fetus is a human being at say, four month of pregnancy, then the society would decide that before that, we just don't know.

Right now society (at least Canadian society) says nothing about when fetus becomes a human being, and it doesn't look likely that society will have anything to say about it for a long time to come.

This is one of the better exchanges I have seen on a touchy subject for some.... I thank the contributors

I wonder if we will ever reach a point of reality as to when there is viable life in utero - it would seem science itself is hesitant to place boundaries other than (iffy groupings of weeks/months) to satisfy the population of those utilizing abortion as birth control.

I think currently fetal viability is put at around 28 weeks. It si quite possile that with advances in biology and medicine, we may be able to push that limit further and further back as time goes on.

Perhaps man will never "know" when life begins - perhaps it is beyond our capability of knowing, but I can't help feeling "abortion" is an insulting answer to creation - it demeans the parents involved and the life to begin.

That presupposes that one believes in creation. I don't. There is nothing miraculous about creation of life, it goes on all around us all the time, millions or billions of times a day. A more commonplace occurrence than the creation fo life cannot be imagined.

Maybe someone will invent a "cool down" type of medication people in their early years of frenzied sexual activity - unprotected and on-the-spot practice will be able to control themselves - sort of an anti-booze/drug effect.....lonely middle-lifers on a cruise effect.... or just 'hot teens' effect.

Where is the necessity of that?

 

[AnnaG]

I don’t think we ever moved form square one; we are pretty much where we were at the beginning of the thread.

I did not agree that life begins with a single fertilized cell; I agree that it is life. But then there was life even before fertilization, sperm and egg are both alive.

Not human life though. Human life begins with that single cell.

Eventually, yes. The questions is, when has the development proceeded to such an extent that we can call fetus human? Development of human life begins at conception; I think most will agree with that. But we are back to the same question, at what stage could the fetus be called a human being?

I and others have told you zillions of times, at viability. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Sydaxeli?

There is no satisfactory answer to that. If the development of human life begins at conception, it is clear that at least for a while after that, it is not a human being.

I explained that, too. Apparently you have Alzheimers or some sort of memory problem..

I don't think the researcher said anything of the sort. He simply reported his findings, that is what a scientist should do. It is for others to draw conclusions from that, if any.

Excuse me? Any scientist knows that when they fill out a report, they end with a conclusion formed after assessing their results. Where did you say you got your "PhD"?

And again, it is only your opinion, that fetus is a human being at 24 weeks. I agree with that myself, but it is still only an opinion. Perhaps an educated guess.

Wrong, it's obvious. If a fetus can viably live outside the womb after 23 weeks, then it is obviously a human being. Well, obvious to most everyone except you, I mean.

When egg and sperm are conjoined, blueprint for a human being is formed, and human development begins. But that doesn't answer the question if it is a human being. Indeed, the fact that development begins at conception tells us that it has to proceed to some extent before it can be called a human being.

But we just don't know, it is more a metaphysical question than a scientific question.

Wrong. It's a legal question. Anyone with an ounce of sense can figure out that it is human life from fertilised cell onward. That is, if they can understand the science of cell division and stuff.

You said it, mentalfloss. And that is what I have been saying all along. We just don't know when human life begins.

Make up your little mind. You just finished saying "Development of human life begins at conception; I think most will agree with that." WTF do you think was developing if it wasn't human life?

As to its important, I think it is an important question. If we decide that human life begins at say 4 months, then fetus at 4 months will receive all the protections of the Bill of rights (or Charter of Rights) as a human being. Abortion after 4 months will be banned overnight, without anybody doing anything.

I think the cutoff for abortions is 20 weeks.

So the question is very important. Unfortunately it is practically impossible to answer. It is like answering if there is an afterlife, or which God is the true God (or if God exists). We just don't know, and we don't really havce any reliable way fo knowing.

Nonsense. That's only your opinion.

 

[Goober]

AnnaG
I believe in free choice - I also disagree that abortions should be permitted past a certain point, unless the mothers life is in danger.

Like yourself i believe life begins at fertilization - when else could it begin.

I believe many women go thru a personal hell when they make a decision to abort. And it tortures many women mentally and emotionally for the rest of their lives.

I also believe that we in Canad make it difficult to impossible for a single mother to succeed. Some do of course but many do not.

A sad reflection on Society itself.