New abortion ban law in S.Carolina, thoughts?

[Zanna]

In S.Carolina they passed a bill where fetuses older than 19 weeks of gestation are forbidden to be aborted. Which is about a 5-month fetus, at the size of a golf ball.
We've heard of regulation for older fetuses that are in place because the older the fetus the more dangerous the abortion can be to the mother. However the scientific evidence behind the current bill is considered dubious by a lot of scientists: the notion that it's possible for a fetus to feel pain since the 20th week of gestation since it's nervous system is adequately developed.
And yet there are papers out there that say pain perception is unlikely to happen before the third trimester (so after the 6th month).

12 other states have similar laws: Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
After the bill was passed 6 other states moved to pass a similar bill, but court challenges prevent Arizona, Idaho and Georgia from enforcing that law.

What do you guys think about this new abortion law?

 

[nytegeek]

I don't know that the science is dubious or not. You haven't cited any evidence or referenced any studies to back up or disprove such a statement. Most of the time laws restricting abortion are passed with by and for people that want to elimnate it entirely so the purpose of the law is suspect in my mind regardless of the science.

 

[dogtowner]

Taking innocent life is murder. Hard to imagine that baby not being innocent.

 

[Zanna]

I don't know that the science is dubious or not. You haven't cited any evidence or referenced any studies to back up or disprove such a statement. Most of the time laws restricting abortion are passed with by and for people that want to elimnate it entirely so the purpose of the law is suspect in my mind regardless of the science.

Good point, I mistakenly assumed people might have already looked this up.

I can't provide every paper ever, but I can give examples of paper that hold particular different opinions over the matter.

So there's one example here: (It's open access) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/ , which is the most robust oppositional arguement for against the bill that was passed, where the authors believe that the pain neural pathway in the fetus is only completed after 26 weeks of gestation, because even though the nerves are in place, the brain itself isn't mature enough to receive and imprint pain signals. In this study they take under consideration one of the many pain pathways, which is the thalamocortical one.

"
Summary points

The neuroanatomical system for pain can be considered complete by 26 weeks' gestation

A developed neuroanatomical system is necessary but not sufficient for pain experience

Pain experience requires development of the brain but also requires development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity of pain

Development of the mind occurs outside the womb through the actions of the infant and mutual adjustment with primary caregivers

The absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the morality of abortion but does argue against legal and clinical efforts to prevent such pain during an abortion

"

Similar studies might place pain perception to begining at 24 weeks, but no less than that.

Now, on the other hand, there are papers like this one: (also open access) http://anes-som.ucsd.edu/VP Articles/Topic C. Anand.pdf , similar to which were used to back up the bill that was passed, that support the notion that even though a younger than 24week fetus's thalamocortical neural circuitry isn't complete in terms of it's brain anatomy, there are other pain pathways in place already. Therefore a fetus can feel different kinds of pain already, before it's able to feel that conscious pain.

Although the thalamocortical connections are not complete before 24 weeks, other pathways are present in the developing nervous system and demonstrate robust connections to the subplate neurons. The fetus or newborn may not be able to perceive pain from a cortical level; however, he may be able to perceive noxious stimuli, processing the information, and model the developing nervous system in response to the pain

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Good point, I mistakenly assumed people might have already looked this up.

I can't provide every paper ever, but I can give examples of paper that hold particular different opinions over the matter.

So there's one example here: (It's open access) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/ , which is the most robust oppositional arguement for against the bill that was passed, where the authors believe that the pain neural pathway in the fetus is only completed after 26 weeks of gestation, because even though the nerves are in place, the brain itself isn't mature enough to receive and imprint pain signals. In this study they take under consideration one of the many pain pathways, which is the thalamocortical one.



Similar studies might place pain perception to begining at 24 weeks, but no less than that.

Now, on the other hand, there are papers like this one: (also open access) http://anes-som.ucsd.edu/VP Articles/Topic C. Anand.pdf , similar to which were used to back up the bill that was passed, that support the notion that even though a younger than 24week fetus's thalamocortical neural circuitry isn't complete in terms of it's brain anatomy, there are other pain pathways in place already. Therefore a fetus can feel different kinds of pain already, before it's able to feel that conscious pain.

What has pain reception to do with the life cycle? Is not the baby growing? Did it not start growing at conception?

 

[Zanna]

What has pain reception to do with the life cycle? Is not the baby growing? Did it not start growing at conception?

I only focused on pain reception because the arguement that was used in the debating of that bill was that a fetus shouldn't be aborted after an "x" period of time because it feels pain.
I think they used that instead of the philosophical arguements because hard science is easier to be accepted in the court of law and among the wider strata of society.

However you have a point in that it is a life nonetheless, whether it feels pain or not. If we use their arguement for adults, it's like saying that it's "ok" to kill someone you don't want to take care of as long as they don't feel any pain. (that comes very close to a different subject which is "pulling the plug")

 

[Lagboltz]

What do you guys think about this new abortion law?

That is the real question - "guys". As I guy I feel I don't have a right to judge what a woman does when her body involves something that my body can't do. Old white haired guys holding bibles seem to disagree with me.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

That is the real question - "guys". As I guy I feel I don't have a right to judge what a woman does when her body involves something that my body can't do. Old white haired guys holding bibles seem to disagree with me.

Why think about it as "old white guys" at all? If one was to read Roe v Wade it clearly states that if science proves life begins at conception then Roe is moot. (Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Science has declared that to be so for more then one form of life, and thus one has to wonder why Roe has not been reversed.

The next question one would have to answer, if one were to be honest that is, is just where does this "right to privacy" exist in the Constitution? This was another fabrication by the Blackmun court (as noted by Justices White, and Rehnquist) relying on a previous ruling declaring the "right to privacy" for a woman to take contraceptives in her own home. (Griswold v. Connecticut).

 

[dogtowner]

I only focused on pain reception because the arguement that was used in the debating of that bill was that a fetus shouldn't be aborted after an "x" period of time because it feels pain.
I think they used that instead of the philosophical arguements because hard science is easier to be accepted in the court of law and among the wider strata of society.

However you have a point in that it is a life nonetheless, whether it feels pain or not. If we use their arguement for adults, it's like saying that it's "ok" to kill someone you don't want to take care of as long as they don't feel any pain. (that comes very close to a different subject which is "pulling the plug")

I don't debate rationalization over a simple matter of right and wrong. I'm glad you see that.

 

[Lagboltz]

Why think about it as "old white guys" at all? If one was to read Roe v Wade it clearly states that if science proves life begins at conception then Roe is moot. (Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Science has declared that to be so for more then one form of life, and thus one has to wonder why Roe has not been reversed.

The next question one would have to answer, if one were to be honest that is, is just where does this "right to privacy" exist in the Constitution? This was another fabrication by the Blackmun court (as noted by Justices White, and Rehnquist) relying on a previous ruling declaring the "right to privacy" for a woman to take contraceptives in her own home. (Griswold v. Connecticut).

Medicine, philosophy, theology, law, and atheists are unable to arrive at any consensus on the definition of the word life. I think that makes the whole idea of the illegality of abortion quite iffy. If the word is that ambiguous, I'm not going to condemn any woman for doing what she needs to do, if it remains in the bounds of some sort of "decency", another word that is hard to define.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Medicine, philosophy, theology, law, and atheists are unable to arrive at any consensus on the definition of the word life. I think that makes the whole idea of the illegality of abortion quite iffy. If the word is that ambiguous, I'm not going to condemn any woman for doing what she needs to do, if it remains in the bounds of some sort of "decency", another word that is hard to define.

"Needs to do"? Like athletes aborting their babies just for the increase in hormones that occurs after a few weeks of growth? Like women who go out for a "hook up", get pregnant, and then don't want the baby? "Decency" is not hard to define for a moral person just as "life" is not hard to define.

Definition of life
plural lives play \ˈlīvz\

1. 1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
2. b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
   
3. c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

 

[dogtowner]

Medicine, philosophy, theology, law, and atheists are unable to arrive at any consensus on the definition of the word life. I think that makes the whole idea of the illegality of abortion quite iffy. If the word is that ambiguous, I'm not going to condemn any woman for doing what she needs to do, if it remains in the bounds of some sort of "decency", another word that is hard to define.

Didn't seem to be a gray area till girls started looking for ways to avoid responsibility.

 

[Zanna]

till girls started looking for ways to avoid responsibility

...or until the parents or the boyfriend demands the fetus gone. Not every girl is so callous about it.

It depends on the situation and in many cases these girls are left with no alternative choice other than being disowned and raising that child as a single mom living alone on waiting tips...or striping tips.

"hook up", get pregnant,

On this matter I think there should be more freely distributed contraception methods and awareness. Abortion was never meant to be a contraception method, it's a last resort. You'll find that these people who accidentally get pregnant are mostly teens, too stupid or too shy to get a condom or a contraceptive pill.

Like athletes aborting their babies just for the increase in hormones that occurs after a few weeks of growth?

That's really sick though...Can be easily regulated if they ban athletes from competing after having a recent abortion, on grounds of obfuscating doping tests.

 

[Lagboltz]

"Needs to do"? Like athletes aborting their babies just for the increase in hormones that occurs after a few weeks of growth? Like women who go out for a "hook up", get pregnant, and then don't want the baby? "Decency" is not hard to define for a moral person just as "life" is not hard to define.

Definition of life
plural lives play \ˈlīvz\

1. 1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
2. b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
   
3. c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

I agree that abortion is the worst form of birth control. I'm saying that the whole idea of abortion is a gray area with lots of different circumstances, like rape, incest, accidents, and just plain stupidity.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

...or until the parents or the boyfriend demands the fetus gone. Not every girl is so callous about it.

It depends on the situation and in many cases these girls are left with no alternative choice other than being disowned and raising that child as a single mom living alone on waiting tips...or striping tips.

There is always a choice. One can give the baby up for adoption, or, under current law, just drop it off at a hospital, police station, or fire station.

As to the family influence, well, there are a lot of sick people in this world.

On this matter I think there should be more freely distributed contraception methods and awareness. Abortion was never meant to be a contraception method, it's a last resort. You'll find that these people who accidentally get pregnant are mostly teens, too stupid or too shy to get a condom or a contraceptive pill.

No one "accidentally" gets pregnant. They may not have planned that end result, however, they knew it was possible.

That's really sick though...Can be easily regulated if they ban athletes from competing after having a recent abortion, on grounds of obfuscating doping tests.

For using a procedure that is legal? Doping is illegal, getting pregnant is not.

 

[Zanna]

No one "accidentally" gets pregnant. They may not have planned that end result, however, they knew it was possible.

Agreed, the act itself isn't an accident, but I know very few teens who have a mind to premeditate about this. They mostly worry about where they could hide and do it rather than to try and whip up some precautions.
Remember, even really young teens have sex. At young as 12 even, which is very common apparently in the US , and teen pregnancy happens a lot in societies where neither the parents nor the teachers want to educate them about what reproduction is and how to be responsible about engaging in intimate relationships with other people.

For using a procedure that is legal? Doping is illegal, getting pregnant is not

Going to the doctor to prescribe you testosterone replacement therapy is also legal but it is now strictly regulated among athletes because they would use it to buff their hormonal levels. Simply put, once the athletic association decides they want to regulate or ban something they can do it no matter how legal it is in real life.

While they can't stop anyone from getting pregnant, they can penalise people who had an abortion less than two-three weeks prior to the athletic event they attend. These post-natal hormones don't tend to last very long after the fetus is gone.