How Not to Argue Abortion
I'm always hesitant to enter into an abortion debate on its substance. You'll commonly hear my argument that the abortion issue should be settled by legislatures, but that's a technical argument. Arguing the substance of the issue often leads to some of the most shrill and unreasonable arguments possible-- from both sides of the argument.
Then you read something like this:
Let's argue abortion on whether it's right or necessary, not whether the baby feels pain and when. The problem with the latter argument is that it tries to make the issue a scientific one, when it's truly a moral one.
Then you read something like this:
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco reviewed dozens of studies and medical reports and said the data indicate that fetuses likely are incapable of feeling pain until around the seventh month of pregnancy, when they are about 28 weeks old.This is one of the most callous, calculated arguments I've ever heard. Compare that to talk about cutting government programs. And the motivation for the study:
Based on the evidence, discussions of fetal pain for abortions performed before the end of the second trimester should not be mandatory, according to the study appearing in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.So because fetsuses "likely are incapable of feeling pain until around the seventh month of pregnancy" (emphasis added), we shouldn't talk to women about fetal pain when they're considering an abortion? It's as if these people are trying to sell a used car, rather than discussing a major life decision.
Let's argue abortion on whether it's right or necessary, not whether the baby feels pain and when. The problem with the latter argument is that it tries to make the issue a scientific one, when it's truly a moral one.
10 Comments:
Hey man, the last used car I bought was a major life decision for me.
On the subject at hand, is it normal for one's parents to express the desire to have a 95th trimester abortion performed on one?
By Marc Moseley, At 2:37 PM EDT
I agree with you on the policy implication; parents should definitely be counseled about the effects of abortion.
But--
The scientific angle here isn't as distinctly scientific as you make it seem. Determining whether something feels pain when it dies is critical to deciding whether terminating its existence is morally unacceptable. For the same reason, people feel guilty for killing pigs for food but not about picking berries.
I think to understand why that's relevant at all (because if science were to prove a fetus is 100% incapable of feeling pain until day X, opposition to abortion still probably wouldn't flinch at all), you have to be considering abortion from a utilitarian perspective. Which is the difference between arguing if it's right versus if it's necessary. Utilitarian analysis doesn't have much to say about ethics other than that which improves the total quality of life for a society is ethical. That perspective is willing to accept a negative (e.g., fetal suffering) for a bigger positive (e.g., low birth rate, fewer single mothers, etc.). So in this case, if the negative is removed (if a fetus doesn't feel pain) then there's no reason why abortion policy shouldn't remain liberal. Of course, that's not an argument based in moral thought, but it seems like that's where the study is coming from.
I'm not staking out that position, but this study is of critical importance to anyone who wants to hold the above-stated view.
By Tim McGuire, At 11:29 AM EDT
In either viewpoint fetus pain isn't really the issue. The fetus is dying either way: make your argument there.
If you walk into my bedroom and shoot me in the face while I'm sleeping, I won't feel pain, but it's still killing. Now, if there is a compelling reason for that killing, then maybe it's worth it (assassinating a whacko dicator, etc).
But that's the real argument I think we need to make: is there a compelling reason to have abortion. I think you could probably come up with a few cases where there is.
Shifting the argument to "does it hurt" or "is it human yet" or "is its heart beating yet" is just a intellectual shortcut.
By Ben Polidore, At 11:52 AM EDT
Right, however, but as another analogy, people will support capital punishment by lethal injection but not by burning at the stake. There's a strong negative value put on suffering that plays a role in most moral reasoning, utilitarian or otherwise.
By Tim McGuire, At 2:01 PM EDT
As far as giving the fetus anesthesia goes, my understanding is that general anesthesia does not block pain. The patient is unconscious or semi conscious and does not react to the pain mentally or remember it afterward and is paralyzed so he does not react physically but a brain scan will show the person is experiencing pain.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4621493
(at about 7:00 into the story)
Surgery on infants is often done without anesthesia, including unnecessary surgery such as circumcision. The rationale is that the baby can be held down so that it cannot react to pain by moving and that it won’t remember anything anyway.
If a woman decides not to have an abortion because it will cause the fetus pain will she have the kid circumcised after he is born?
By doughcrop, At 11:42 PM EDT
Surgery on babies is done w/o general anaesthesia? WTF?
By Tim McGuire, At 9:50 AM EDT
They are getting better about it.
A Child's Pain
BY DENISE GRADY
"When it comes to treating pain in children, the medical profession has a checkered history. Until the 1970s, the mistaken idea that babies do not feel pain was widely accepted, and infants undergoing major surgery were often given little or no anesthesia, just drugs to paralyze them temporarily. "The reluctance to use anesthesia was not due to doctors' being mean and nasty," Berde says. "There were real risks. It was an era when some babies did die from anesthesia, especially the ones who were very sick. So if you didn't know how to anesthetize them safely, it was easier to believe they didn't feel pain."
But of course they do. In fact, Berde says, research has shown that babies actually feel more pain than older patients--longer-lasting, more widespread pain that is likely to affect their behavior later in life. Pain unleashes a destructive cascade of stress hormones that can weaken the immune system and make the heart rate and blood pressure soar. Studies in the 1970s and '80s showed that babies deprived of anesthesia during surgery were more likely to develop infections, brain hemorrhages, muscle wasting and difficulties in healing.
Those findings, combined with advances that have greatly reduced the risks from anesthesia during the past 10 to 15 years, have brought about some substantial changes. "Now no newborn is too sick to get pain medication," Berde says. In general, there seems to be more effort to reduce kids' pain from all medical procedures, including bone-marrow biopsies, spinal taps and repeated blood drawings. Says Berde: "I think most major children's hospitals are changing. There is less willingness than there used to be to hold kids down and brutalize them."
There is still room for improvement, though. Families with children who need surgery are traveling long distances to Children's, specifically because they have had bad experiences with pain control in other hospitals. In addition, not enough research is being done on pain medication for children because, Berde believes, drug companies do not think children are a large enough market. Too many babies are still being circumcised without anesthesia, in Berde's opinion; he thinks that at the very least a numbing cream should be used but that general anesthetics and nerve blocks are more effective. "You couldn't go into an animal lab and do a procedure like that without anesthesia," he says."
http://www.time.com/time/reports/heroes/childs.html
30 years ago doctors chose to think that babies don't feel pain. The authors of the study Ben cited may be engaging in wishful thinking too.
By doughcrop, At 11:41 AM EDT
My understanding is that they are afraid the baby is not robust enough to handle strong anesthesia, and it's safer to do the surgery w/o it.
You want to hear something that'll freak you out? Ultra-orthadox Jewis rabbis suck the blood resulting from a circumcision off the baby's penis with their mouths. One rabbi killed two babies by giving them herpes (seriously) and is barred from this tradition unless he uses a straw.
By Ben Polidore, At 1:33 PM EDT
Jesus. Everything said in the last 2 comments was horrifying. I knew circumcision was done w/o anaesthesia, but spinal taps? major surgery? Wow. Insane.
By Tim McGuire, At 3:04 PM EDT
There is medical literature going back to the 19th century that the practice of sucking blood from the penis can transmit tuberculosis. That Type-1 herpes can be transmitted this way is scary because most adults are infected with Type-1 herpes and it can kill babies.
By doughcrop, At 3:12 PM EDT
Post a Comment
<< Home