Senate passes bill mandating 'fetal pain' abortion warnings

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SLC Flyfishing, Mar 6, 2009.

  1. SLC Flyfishing macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #1
    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11847310

    I for one think this is a great idea, if there's a chance that a fetus that's about to be aborted will feel pain, the mother should be warned about it.

    But what does everyone else here think?

    SLC
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Why would the information not be given to a woman in the case of an emergency? Does the fetus not feel pain in an emergency situation? :confused:
     
  3. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #3
    I guess by emergency they mean in the case of the mothers health so if she was unconscious for example the doctors could perform the procedure without this being a stumbling block.

    I wonder if this is based in fact or if this is some sort of pro life campaigning going on?
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Hmmm.... I think we all know the answer to that.
     
  5. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #5
    I think it's far more strategic than that.
    Well of course. ;)

    I think the title of the thread should be clarified however; this is about the Utah Senate, not the US Senate, which is what one is lead to believe initially.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Good- let's hope it stays there. I fail to see how a microscopic blob of cells with no CNS to speak of is suddenly conscious and feeling pain.

    Speaking of which, is the warning only given after a certain term in the pregnancy? Or are they claiming that the fetus feels pain if aborted a week or two after conception?

    EDIT- Nevermind, I see there is. Sorry!
     
  7. SLC Flyfishing thread starter macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    This whole thing is dealing with fetuses at or after 20 weeks. By then the CNS is nearly fully developed, some would even argue that a fetus can likely feel pain by 17 weeks, the fetus is far from being merely a ball of cells at this point.

    At 20 weeks, it can hear, it's heartbeat can be heard with a simple stethescope on the mothers abdomen, it's growing hair, it's growing findernails, it can move etc etc etc.

    I think it's very appropriate that physicians should be required to inform mothers seeking an abortion of the ability of their children to feel pain as they are being killed.

    SLC
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Got it! Thanks! I read the article after I posted. My mistake. ;)

    Gotta tell ya though SLC- I don't remember anything before I was about 1 1/2 years old. I'm having a hard time believing a fetus is so developed that it is consciously feeling anything. Just my opinion.
     
  9. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #9
    Errr, I don't think so. You need a fetal doppler for that, at least to hear with any accuracy whatsoever. You're right about the rest though.




    I'm sure the motive here is more emotional blackmail for a woman looking to have an abortion. However even being very much pro-choice I have a really hard time with the idea of abortions past the first trimester.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    I can agree with that.
     
  11. SLC Flyfishing thread starter macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #11
    That's not true, the heartbeat can in fact be heard at 20 weeks with a stethescope. I've done it myself, and I know my wife doesn't have a HR of 148.




    Are you so sure? Nobody who claims to be concerned about killing unborn humans wants to do it for any other reason do they? :rolleyes:

    Most pro-life folks really do just have a problem with killing defenseless children, despite how you might try and mischaracterize them.

    SLC
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    I fail to see what good this would do. It's putting the entire burden on the woman and nothing on society. Laying guilt trips on vulnerable women is shameful.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Of course it is. The SCOTUS basically requires exemptions for the health of the mother, thus this exemption.

    Which basically tells you all you need to know about the motives of the authors of this piece of legislation.
     
  14. SLC Flyfishing thread starter macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #14
    Nothing to do with putting shame on anyone, everything to do with informing someone of the fact that her child will feel pain as it's being aborted. If guilt is felt after proceeding, then that should say something about the whole idea of even performing the procedure.

    Why should we advocate not giving somebody all the facts, simply because it might cause them to feel uncomfortable about pursuing a certain course of action? Sometimes the truth "hurts" right?

    SLC
     
  15. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #15
    I think that's fairly unusual/lucky. It may very well depend on the location of the placenta. An anterior facing placenta does a good job to muffle noises. As far as I know most fetal heartbeats can't be heard with just a stethoscope throughout most of the pregnancy.

    I think when someone has a goal and an idea about what is wrong in their opinion they can go to great lengths to press the issue. This could include emotional blackmail and guilt/shame trips for a woman looking to terminate a pregnancy. Abortion is never a woman's first choice, ever. I can't imagine how difficult that decision would be. Because as pro-choice as I am, I am not really keen on abortions. I don't think anyone really is. I just don't think it's the governments place to decide or to add more emotional turmoil.
     
  16. SLC Flyfishing thread starter macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    As I said above, the government can't put anyone in any emotional turmoil. A person puts themselves in emotional turmoil. If somebody learns that their baby is going to feel pain during the abortion procedure and it causes them to be concerned, that's their cue to rethink having the procedure and perhaps opting for adoption instead. If they are comfortable with the fetus feeling pain, then they go ahead with the procedure and don't really worry about it.

    I'm sorry, but we shouldn't be padding people's emotions when human life is at stake. A physician should by law, be required to inform their patient fully about the procedure being performed. Even though it might be uncomfortable.

    Good science requires that all the information be presented, and it's unethical to hide things from a patient as well.

    SLC
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Then why the exception in emergencies?
     
  18. SLC Flyfishing thread starter macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18
    Because as somebody mentioned earlier, there needs to be a way for these things to be done in the event that the mother is not responsive, otherwise we'll have the law requiring the death of a mother if she's unconscious and unable to be informed in a timely manner, or the jailing of a physician for doing what's medically necessary when a woman is unable to respond.

    In the event of a person being unresponsive and in the absence of an advance directive, there is a provision called implied consent which essentially grants physicians the ability to make medical decisions for their patients. (with the usual provisions for spouses or parents/legal guardians etc).

    SLC
     
  19. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #20
    I don't really disagree. I think informed consent (if it is truly based on fact) is probably not a bad idea, but I do question the motives to some degree. I think the intent is to emotionally torment a woman into changing her mind over an already difficult choice, which I think is hers to make.

    I don't feel it is my place to judge or obviously decide for anyone else, but a part of me doesn't agree with abortions past the first trimester as it is.

    This is a difficult subject and a good reminder of why I seldom get involved in these debates.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    How is "emergency" defined in this legislation?

    Edit... Here it is:
    While your description of an unresponsive patient falls into this category, it would seem like any medical emergency qualifies whether the mother is responsive or not.

    So the question then becomes, if the authors and supporters of this bill are so concerned with fully informing the mother about the pain her "child" is about to undergo, why does any medical emergency qualify for this exemption? Why do they not simply specify "when the mother is not capable of responding"? Quite often, the mother is quite aware and capable of response even when her life is in danger. So why is this exemption so broad? Surely it would be possible to inform her in under a minute that her fetus is likely to feel pain, and would she like it to be anesthetized before it is murdered?
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    Interesting. I do wonder why it is worded that way.

    BTW- just noticed your sig. Is that for real? :eek:
     
  22. SLC Flyfishing thread starter macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #23
    Because they're pushing for a law that requires a 24 hour wait period, and there are times when 24 hours is not a luxury that a mother has. Even I didn't realize that until the link to the text of the bill was posted. I really don't think this is a bad thing, they aren't going after the ability of a woman to receive an abortion, just requiring some education first, and making a provision for the times when the requirements of the bill are not feasible.

    SLC
     
  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    No, what they're trying to do is make sure this bill will pass SCOTUS muster.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    Would I lie to you Lee? ;)
     

Share This Page