babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Fetal pain is a lie

Snuckles
Offline
Joined: Jun 13 2002
Quote:
Since Nebraska first jump-started the trend back in 2010, close to a dozen state legislatures across the country have passed laws banning abortion at 20 weeks. Most of these restrictions are given grave-sounding titles like the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” or some near-identical riff on the words “fetal,” “pain” and “protection.” All of them, no matter what they’re called, rest on the stated premise that a fetus can experience pain at 20 weeks, and that this is a sufficient justification to ban all abortions after this gestational stage. But “fetal pain” in the popular discourse is a nebulous concept, one that lawmakers like Jodie Laubenberg, Trent Franks and others haven’t much bothered to define or help ground in available medical evidence. Probably because there really isn’t any. The limited research used to support such claims has been refuted as pseudoscience by both the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (Not to mention smaller studies from researchers at Harvard University, University College London and elsewhere.)
Fetal pain is a lie: How phony science took over the abortion debate

Comments

Francesca Allan
Offline
Joined: Feb 25 2013

I thought it was supposed to be about 24 weeks.


Ghislaine
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2008

whether they feel pain or not is a diversion and irrelevant. It is still a part of a woman's body and it is up to her what she does with her own body. The issue in Canada with 20+week abortions is access. It is nearly impossible to find a doctor willing to perform one if a woman's needs it - and often women travel to the States. How are doctors allowed to refused to perform a legitimate health service for women?


Ghislaine
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2008

meant to add that pro-choicers need to stop getting trapped by pro-lifers into these arguments, which only validates their women-hating agenda. 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
What Ghislaine said.

6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Yup. Getting duped into arguing the contrary side of this only makes one sound like a baby butcher and an easy target. Anyone who has actually had to consider abortion knows it is a lie.

It's not like choice isn't under assault in Canada, but at least the Supreme Court has correctly ruled where the bottom line lies - with the woman who is carrying that pregnancy.


Sineed
Offline
Joined: Dec 4 2005

The real failure of the pro-life argument lies in their refusal to acknowledge how the Canadian model actually results in fewer abortions. In places where abortions are readily available, fewer abortions occur. If they were really about the poor babies, that should end the argument right there.


Francesca Allan
Offline
Joined: Feb 25 2013

Ghislaine wrote:

whether they feel pain or not is a diversion and irrelevant.

I don't think so. If fetuses feel pain at a certain stage of development, then anaesthesia should be used prior to abortions at and after that point in a pregnancy. What's the downside to that? It's still the woman's choice (and I am firmly pro-choice) but it would prevent needless suffering of a non-person but certainly a homo sapiens. Or, never mind the homo sapiens bit, just avoiding the suffering of any creature seems worthwhile.


Sineed
Offline
Joined: Dec 4 2005

Francesca Allan wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

whether they feel pain or not is a diversion and irrelevant.

I don't think so. If fetuses feel pain at a certain stage of development, then anaesthesia should be used prior to abortions at and after that point in a pregnancy. What's the downside to that? It's still the woman's choice (and I am firmly pro-choice) but it would prevent needless suffering of a non-person but certainly a homo sapiens. Or, never mind the homo sapiens bit, just avoiding the suffering of any creature seems worthwhile.

The fact of the matter is, 2nd term abortions are usually performed with a general anaesthetic that readily crosses the placenta and enters the fetus. 

Given how obsessed anti-choicers are with abortion, no doubt they are fully aware that the procedure for late-term abortions already anaesthetizes the fetus, just as they are aware that late-term abortions represent a tiny minority of all abortions, usually where the pregnancy is desired but the fetus has been discovered to have non-survivable birth defects. 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Methinks Snuckles - who never ever comments on the threads s/he opens - has scored another triumph! Eight (8) posts (9 counting this one) on a non-issue, and re-launching the "debate" over abortion - even though everyone seems to be on the same side!

You see, once you say, "well, 2nd term abortions usually involve a general anaesthetic", you're trapped. What if the woman doesn't want a general anaesthetic, or it's medically contraindicated for some reason. Will the foetus then feel pain? Do "we" force the woman to have an anaesthetic? Do we deny her right to an abortion if she won't agree to be anaesthetized!?

Ah, the possibilities!! I suggest this thread be closed before we start citing scientific studies about how to "protect the foetus" while still defending women's right to choose. Because, you see, in the final analysis, and I really hate to point this out, but abortion and protecting the foetus are fundamentally incompatible notions. So let's not get sucked into that U.S.-style conversation, please.

 


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

And add suppression and censorship to the list of accusations? That would be the gravy on the cake. Seeing as it has already been kicked around, and I doubt that we are at the edge of some raging debate, better to just consider it discussed and let it fade away, IMO.


Sineed
Offline
Joined: Dec 4 2005

I disagree, U. The "just ignore them and they'll go away" tactic has proved to be a monumental failure in preventing the spread of pseudoscience, for instance. The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has been bolstered by the attitude that "These people are too stupid to argue with," and now we have rising rates of people choosing to leave their kids vulnerable to polio, tetanus, hepatitis, encephalitis, meningitis, and so forth.

And Francesca's comments show how it's not a non-issue. Sure, the anti-choicers are doing nothing more than throwing their shit against the wall to see what sticks, but instead of just saying, you're feeding the anti-woman trolls, we can say, like the article does, that a fetus doesn't have a well-developed-enough nervous system to feel pain until around 26 weeks, past the point of a vast majority of abortions.

True, you're not going to convert any zealots. But if you don't debunk the lies, you're handing the zealots the means by which they may sway the fence-sitters.

The battle has not been won. It continues.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

So Sineed, if a woman doesn't want a general, how does that affect your argument in #8?

And I never said the battle had been won. I'm really just suggesting we don't pretend that issues which may be controversial in the United States or Saudi Arabia are actually worth taking on in Canada. Next we'll be discussing some U.S. "study" which says adopted kids of same-sex couples tend to be more gluten intolerant.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should concentrate on the battles that really matter here, in our society. Maybe you had heard of the "fetal pain" scandal before. I hadn't. Why give it currency?

 


Sineed
Offline
Joined: Dec 4 2005

Unionist wrote:
So Sineed, if a woman doesn't want a general, how does that affect your argument in #8?

It's a surgical procedure that causes intense pain. Some sort of anaesthesia is required. And if someone says, what about those women who opt for epidurals, you call them out for slippery slope. 

Like I said, it's not going to work on the zealots. 

Unionist wrote:
I'm really just suggesting we don't pretend that issues which may be controversial in the United States or Saudi Arabia are actually worth taking on in Canada.

Reasonable, and I agree. But if someone like Francesca reads about these things and responds to them, we can say, we got this; here's what the facts are. I agree that we need to pick our battles, that there are larger issues afoot in Canada, but there are a small number of these zealots in this country, be they anti-gay Christian fundamentalists or anti-choicers, and I think it's a mistake to ignore them when they try to rekindle debates they already have long since lost.

Some of these anti-choice homophobic fundamentalist Christians in Canada are in government. We ignore them at our peril.

 


alan smithee
Offline
Joined: Jan 7 2010

As I've said...SoCons are a cancer....They must go at all costs.....They are far more dangerous than the Liberals.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

alan smithee wrote:

As I've said...SoCons are a cancer....They must go at all costs.....They are far more dangerous than the Liberals.

Sure. But while some liberal (small-L) thinkers might not fall for this, they might just fall for another wedge issue like sex-selective abortion. Not everyone who is conflicted on this is a right-wing idealogue.  Sineed is right about meeting this head on.

 


laine lowe
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2006

The pseudo-science approach has been on the rise for the last two decades, supplanting the plain old, "abortion is murder" morality cry of the past, and it has had incredible traction in the US. So I wholly agree that we have to be vigilant and ready to attack any of the quasi-medical justifications for curtailing abortion rights anti-choicers come up with head on.

It's not just in the US - these arguments based on dicey scientific studies definitely are seeping into our public discourse thanks to the socons pseudo-legitimacy in Parliament. Every single bogus backbencher bill put forward by the Harper government has the incremental effect of making the discussion of whether there needs to be some restrictions legitimate. Just last summer, the CBC had a whole morning of one program after another reporting on the rise of sex-selection abortions in Canada.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Yes. But if we argue that "aw well, y'know, foetuses don't really feel pain", we're done.

Even the Criminal Code doesn't recognize foetuses as human beings. Even the Supreme Court said to Parliament, strike down the law, and we're not telling you to replace it with anything. And we, the progressive forces, are supposed to defend women's ownership of their own body by debating details about medical procedures that no ordinary person really understands? Or try to argue the cultural/religious merits of sex-selection abortions, instead of just sticking to the fundamental slogan of justice and equality that got us to where we are today : "Keep your hands off my body!"?

If we engage these "debates", women's gains will be put at risk.


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

What Ghislaine said:

Ghislaine wrote:
 whether they feel pain or not is a diversion and irrelevant. It is still a part of a woman's body and it is up to her what she does with her own body.

Diversion! Don't look directly at the light! All these idiot talking points are a smokescreen for controlling women's bodies. That's all. Please keep moving, nothing to see here.

Now, let's have a party thread!

Unionist wrote:
 Next we'll be discussing some U.S. "study" which says adopted kids of same-sex couples tend to be more gluten intolerant.

My parents were heterosexual and I can't stand that goddamn gluten.


RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

Enough of the side-tracking about pseudo-science too. This has nothing to do with that and I'm offended it's being used as a trojan horse in this thread.


laine lowe
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2006

I agree that all the anti-choice points are irrelevant and would love to move on, giving them absolutely no credibility. Unfortunately, our current government and the media still feel like they have to haul out every possible "evidence" or excuse to curtail women's reproductive freedoms.

All I advocate is keeping one eye wide open on what's going on. Unfortunately, these groups have more funding than one would think possible, and that in of itself is frightening.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

I don't think anyone here is calling for a debate. I think most of us know it's contrary to policy anyway, and my first reaction here was to resist falling into that.

But again, I think Sineed is right. Taking the time to point out concisely that crap is crap, and why it is crap - without getting into a wrestling match with fools -  can sometimes be a bit more instructive than rolling out the police tape and geiger counters and clearing the area. And it raises a bit less suspicion from some who might have honest questions.

But anyway, I think I'm done.


Francesca Allan
Offline
Joined: Feb 25 2013

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sure. But while some liberal (small-L) thinkers might not fall for this, they might just fall for another wedge issue like sex-selective abortion. Not everyone who is conflicted on this is a right-wing idealogue.  Sineed is right about meeting this head on.

Indeed. Sex-selective abortion is repulsive for reasons that have nothing to do with the pro-choice/life argument. I don't see myself "falling for" anything in holding this view.


Ghislaine
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2008

francesca, why is sex-selective abortion repulsive and abortion for another reason no repulsive? You do not get to make that call. Only for your own pregnancies. Only the pregnant woman can determine what is right for her. 


Francesca Allan
Offline
Joined: Feb 25 2013

Ghislaine wrote:

francesca, why is sex-selective abortion repulsive and abortion for another reason no repulsive?

Because terminating a pregnancy because you don't want a girl is repugnant.

Ghislaine wrote:

You do not get to make that call.

I know that. I'm not in charge of which abortions are right nor would I want to be in charge of this. I can, however, express my revulsion. 

Ghislaine wrote:

Only the pregnant woman can determine what is right for her. 

Well, I would suggest that aborting a female fetus so you can go for the gold and have an almighty male isn't right. On the other hand, if you're that fucked up, maybe you shouldn't be raising a girl.


laine lowe
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2006

Get rid of patriarchal societies that value men over women, and sex selection will cease to exist. Circumstances for outcomes of male and female children are better here than in other parts of the world, and a such, reflected in the low number of sex selection abortions that occur in Canada (not that any have beeen proven, only the taint of racist assumptions).

Bottom line, Ghislaine is absolutely right. Whatever reason a woman has to terminate a pregnancy is none of our business. FULL STOP.


Ripple
Offline
Joined: Mar 3 2010
I must admit, I'm not entirely sure I know what gluten is, Maysie, but I know I love it!

Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

laine lowe wrote:

Get rid of patriarchal societies that value men over women, and sex selection will cease to exist.

Although I agree wholeheartedly, I wouldn't even engage the argument to the extent of saying that. Why does our society need a conversation on whether sex-selection abortion is right, wrong, or indifferent? Only the women-haters benefit from that.

Quote:
Bottom line, Ghislaine is absolutely right. Whatever reason a woman has to terminate a pregnancy is none of our business. FULL STOP.

That's what I would say.

Otherwise it never ends. Example: How about abortion in case of a foetus with so-called "birth defects"? Should that be "allowed"? Should it depend on the nature and extent of the "defects" (which, of course, would be an analysis made by someone other than the woman)? Aren't "we" facilitating discrimination on the basis of disability?

Once the motive of the woman is brought into the discussion, the limits on freedom will inevitably show their heads as well.

 


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Francesca Allan wrote:

Indeed. Sex-selective abortion is repulsive for reasons that have nothing to do with the pro-choice/life argument. I don't see myself "falling for" anything in holding this view.

Evidently you are wiser than the former editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, who argued in an editorial not too long ago that doctors should take public policy into their own hands and refuse abortion requests based on that. It is also, very likely the next tactic Harper's crew will use to try and debate choice in the H of C.

Whether you are fooled or not, it is still a wedge issue, just like the one at the top of this thread.

(edit)

And I should add that sex selection - in its context as a wedge against choice and making that distinction - was at the time discussed at length here. When something like this hits the floor of the commons are we also supposed to pretend it isn't there?


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Evidently you are wiser than the former editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, who argued in an editorial not too long ago that doctors should take public policy into their own hands and refuse abortion requests based on that.

That's actually false.

You've obviously confused a discussion about whether or when to disclose the sex of a foetus, which is quite radically different from whether or not to respect a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

You really believe there's an official medical association in Canada, or its journal, which would advocate denying abortion on demand? No, I'm not talking about the Dutch Reformed Islamic Evangelist Chassidic Opus Dei Physicians Association.

There is no debate in this country about whether or not to "allow" a woman to have an abortion based on her motives - except among those women-hating forces who oppose abortion, period. Please let us not lower ourselves to having such conversations here.

 


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

You're right Unionist, thanks, and excuse me. It has been awhile since we discussed it here.

And that was my actual point - that we discussed it, and that sometimes there is good reason to do so. Can you put your schoolteacher's cane back on the shelf, please?

But if I was technically mistaken, the upshot is the same - preventing choice, and refusing a woman's request for medical information about her own body. I also recall that the practicewas referred to in the journal, and even in the CBC as "feticide" - something that doesn't exist here, and is more in keeping with a right-wing religious interpretation than Canadian law.

So sorry, but we're already down to that level in some respects. Pick the cane back up, if you think the remedy is to make everyone shut up about it.

Anyway, I won't link to the actual article directly, but evidently the Canadian Women's Health Network didn't mind ringing the alarm bells about it. They linked to it, and pointed out how it was inconsistent with standard obstetric practice:

http://www.cwhn.ca/en/node/44259


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments