Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: Feeling their pain: Science, abortion and fetal pain’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Sept. 8 2013 1:51 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ranch
Here, UT

Whether or not a clump of cells can feel pain is irrelevant. The relevant discussion is whether or not the WOMAN whose body is going to be incubating the cells WANTS to have a baby or not. It is nobody else's business. Not yours, not mine, not the states.

MYOB.

thunderbolt7
DUTCH JOHN, UT

Since when is Pain a determinant for Abortion? By that reasoning if abortion could be done pain-free, is it therefore morally acceptable? If a struggling family could not care for their children, how about rendering the children unconscious and killing them? The presence or absence of pain is NOT a determinant for justifiably killing someone.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Since pain is a built in feature of all living things, we must assume that pain would exist in any thing that has life.

The significance of pain is two fold. There is an aspect of pain that comes to our consciousness and is unpleasant and another aspect of pain that simple causes physical reaction of muscles.

Our long held assumption has been that when a person is unconscious they do not feel pain. Thus when medical procedures that would cause much pain to a conscious person are done to a anesthetized person they don’t feel the pain. We sometimes refer to this as simply putting a person to sleep. Whether or not the person felt the pain and just doesn’t remember seems irrelevant.

When an unborn child moves around or kicks in his very confining space, he may be consciously reacting to something uncomfortable. But does it really matter if he won’t remember it.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

If a fetus is just a clump of cells, then its parents can be defined in the same way. What is inhumane treatment of a 1 month old child is also inhumane to a fetus 1 month before birth. This article didn't concern a woman's right to elect to have an abortion. It analyzed the methods and importance of protecting the fetus from pain during medical procedures in the womb. Since we are "our brother's keepers", then it is our business that unborn babies be treated with compassion, even if they ultimately are not born.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

If there is any doubt whether a human being in the fetal state, embryonic state, or any other state, is experiencing physical pain by the deliberate action of another, that human being should be protected and that inflicter of pain should be prosecuted.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

The good news:

"(CBS News) The rate of teenagers becoming mothers is declining rapidly, according to a report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The average teen birth rate decreased 9 percent from 2009 to 2010, reaching an all time low of 34.3 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19.
That's a 44 percent drop from 1991 to 2010. There were less teenage mothers in 2010 than any year since 1946."

The key to reducing the number of abortions is to reduce unplanned pregnancy.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

Using pain or viability to determine whether or not an abortion should be performed is just muddying the water. So is justifying abortion because there are a lot of spontaneous abortions. Biologically, from the moment the egg is fertilized, the zygote is a human being. It's not a dog or a cat or a monkey. It has its own unique DNA and chromosomes, etc. It is metabolizing and following a genetically programmed course to maturity. To intentionally kill it is taking a human life no matter what its stage of development. If a woman decides to have an abortion, it is taking her child's life. Sometimes a very difficult decision must be made if a rape has occurred or if the life of the mother is at serious risk. But to arbitrarily take the life of a child just because to have the baby might interfere with the mother's career or education or convenience is callous disregard and disrespect for human life.

Pac_Man
Pittsburgh, PA

Clump of cells??! I have heard it all.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Ranch,

At what point does the “clump of cells” have an interest separate from that of the “body . . . incubating the cells”? Can the fetus ever have interests separate from those of the mother?

I think most would agree that a near term baby has a separate interest from the mother. The question is when is that divergence?

And, if abortion is not okay at 8.9 months, what about 8.8 months? Or 8.7? And so on.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"Biologically, from the moment the egg is fertilized, the zygote is a human being." I and many others have to disagree. It will possibly develop to be a human being because of it's biology but it's not a human being. The zygote actually would have DNA that is 50% compatible with a banana, and 97% compatible with a chimpanzee. It's the developmental process that allows the human differences to develop. Until that development takes place what exists before is not a human being.

"There is an aspect of pain that comes to our consciousness and is unpleasant and another aspect of pain that simple causes physical reaction of muscles." To Bob's point I read an article how a body that is brain dead but having organs harvested actually reacts to the procedure much like a fetus with muscle twitches and movement.

Befuddled
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Ranch, I bet God will have the final say, not you, me or the state! Murder is murder no matter how its painted.

Truthseeker2
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

re:Befuddled
"Murder is murder no matter how its painted."

The LDS Church's stance is abortion may be allowed in cases of incest, rape and or life/health issues of the mother. Are they condoning "murder"?

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

I like the LDS position on abortion. In addition to rape, incest and life/health of the mother, the Church has also allowed abortions in cases of severe fetal deformity. Pain has not been a key factor in the Church's stance.

In the Bible we also find that God allows the termination of unborn life in three circumstances: 1. Use of "bitter water" to terminate pregnancy, as explained in Numbers 5, 2. the stoning of women who are pregnant out of wedlock and 3. the slaying in some cities of all residents, including women, some of whom would have been pregnant.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Rape and incest implies that the woman did not consent to have sex. There was no choice. She was a victim. Her body was invaded against her will.

That circumstance is rare. Regardless of what some people insist, of the 55,000,000 abortions since 1976, very few were the result of incest or rape. Very few involved the imminent death of the mother if the pregnancy continued.

Telling us that better birth control would reduce abortions is nonsense. If a man and a woman honor their Creator, they will not kill unborn children because of their "mistake" any more than they would kill a parent just because they didn't want the responsibility of "dealing" with that parent.

Pain is pain. The closest method of destroying the unborn baby is being drawn and quartered. NO COUNTRY on earth allows that as a form of capital punishment. Are we so deaf that we can't hear the screams of the unborn as they are being destroyed?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm pretty sure most of you support abortions in the case of the life of the mother being in jeopardy. Those are pretty much always late-term abortions so do you want those banned now because that'd be in the fetal pain stage?

WHAT NOW?
Saint George, UT

@Mike Richards

"...Rape and incest implies that the woman did not consent to have sex. There was no choice. She was a victim. Her body was invaded against her will.

That circumstance is rare...".

Is that a feeling or do you have some info/data?

"...of the 55,000,000 abortions since 1976...".

Conservative icon Ronald Reagan, while he was the GOV. of California, signed into law, in 1967,

an abortion bill that led to the murder of over 2,000,000 babies.

Why the arbitrary cutoff of 1976, in your comment?

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Mike, I don't know what you call rare, but the official stats say that over 10% of abortions are because of rape or incest. I would say 10% is not rare but significant. Also the number of abortions, and the rate of abortions are also declining significantly again nearly 10% over the last decade. Coincidence is not causation, but the decline is coincidental with increased birth control and sex education. Once again I think the numbers indicate that better birth control likely does reduce abortions.

BTW over 80% of abortion occur before the 16th week so the vast majority of abortions would not be effected by a twenty week deadline so it's pretty much grandstanding by the right.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

If abortions were only performed when pregnancy was caused by rape or incest and if as many as 10% of all abortions were the result of rape or incest, there would have been 5,500,000 abortions instead of 55,000,000 since Roe v Wade. There would be 49,500,000 people who not been destroyed inside the womb of their mothers. Maybe that number means nothing to you because you are one of those people who was not aborted. You have experienced life. You live and breathe. Those who were destroyed do not. That is the difference. They didn't have a choice.

If it is "grandstanding" to protect the right of a baby to be born after that baby was conceived by consenting parents, then I'll "grandstand" everyday of my life. NO ONE has the right to destroy life unilaterally. Life is a gift from our Creator, both ours and the lives of those whom we invite to join us in mortality because of our actions.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@JSB
Sugar City, ID

Biologically, from the moment the egg is fertilized, the zygote is a human being.

[So then - Biologically a dead person must be "biologically" living several months after being buried then as well?...]

====

@Befuddled
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Murder is murder no matter how its painted.

[I disagree. That is inconsistent with the LDS Church's stance on the issue.]

======

@Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Rape and incest implies that the woman did not consent to have sex. There was no choice. She was a victim. Her body was invaded against her will.

That circumstance is rare.

[So you and the other uber-far-right guys are OK with allowing what happened to the victims of Ariel Caesar in Cleveland, Ohio? A Total ban on all abortions because "those" circumstances are rare? I suppose you also believe a human body will spontaneously abort in cases of "legitimate" rape.
The LDS Church allows for abortion in these circumstances, it is not considered murder, and the Church is politically "neutral" over the issue. I have a suggestion -- Follow the Prophet.]

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Mr. Richards, believe as you will, you have every right to do so. Grandstand all day long everyday. As long as it's within certain limits you also have that right. But some of us are here to point out that these are beliefs fueled by your religious beliefs and while they may inform your opinions and votes they are not beliefs shared by everyone. Many don't believe that a) life comes from a creator, and/or b) a fetus prior to around the 26 week period is humanly developed enough to trump the life choices of the mother. Both beliefs resulting in a woman's legal ability to choose whether she wants to continue with a pregnancy up to the 26 week period.

Both are beliefs but the later set of beliefs are informed by science either partially or wholly. You are entitled to your beliefs and your sources but you don't get to change the facts of science. You have to either accept them, reject them, or somehow accommodate them.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments