Science itself doesn’t say whether something is “moral”, and doesn’t distinguish between right and wrong. This is why I hate when you try to say that science defines “humanity” at some point, and therefore logically defines something as wrong.

You can do global warming research and identify trends, but the data itself doesn’t say that pollution or warming are in some way “wrong”. Even in cancer research, the data generated describes the system but doesn’t say that cancer is bad. Likewise, abortion scientific research describes the fetus and generates information on fetal development, but taking a stance on when it’s “right” to abort is a philosophical issue, and is not defined by science itself. I’ve presented my philosophy, but I’m not trying to expand it into the broader scope of scientific “right and wrong” because that doesn’t exist.

Maybe that’s why “pro life scientist” sounds funny to me, because taking a stance on the issue of abortion is not a scientific process. A “pro choice scientist” is equally absurd. Abortion researchers are more accurately something along the lines of “fetal development scientists”, as the data itself, properly presented, has no bias.

So stop trying to define humanity or the sanctity of life in scientific terms, because it’s impossible. That’s really been my point from the first post on this board.

If you don’t think that an abortion doctor is qualified to write a paper on abortion, then please explain who is. There are no “tobacco doctors”, there are lung surgeons who would probably write the review papers about tobacco. And again I’ll point out, this was a review paper with no new research.

The article about that author states that she’s concerned about the lack of doctors willing to do second trimester abortions. It explains that this is important because many women (and girls) don’t realize they’re pregnant until week 14 or so, and by then many doctors are unwilling to perform the abortion. The fact that she has a “soft spot” for it is a problem for you lifers, but not for us sensible people.

There is more to interpreting this paper than looking at individual studies out of context. I’ll address the points you brought up:

” However, they failed to state that this study of newborns involved only two who were under 29 weeks, but even they evoked a response, although slightly delayed compared to the rest. ”

The thalamus is the part of the brain responsible for the relay of neural input from the sensory neurons to the cerebral cortex (where the pain input would be processed). If you look at table 1 in the study, it cites two studies that show that thalamic afferents (neurons) don’t reach the cortical plate until 23-24 weeks. That’s why the bottom end of the range in the next studies is around 24 weeks, because before the thalamus is “hooked up”, there’s no way the fetus can feel pain. These studies cost many millions of dollars, so doctors won’t bother wasting their time testing before a logical range. If you’d like to raise money to test an earlier range, then maybe that’s one actually useful, logical way that pro-life people can support their own cause (although logically the data would work against you)

” Also, the researchers refer to a study which found normal EEG signals appearing at 24 weeks which they toss aside in favour of another study which found that EEG signals representing wakefulness appear around 30 weeks and conclude from this that pain is not felt until 30 weeks. So, they make the assumption that wakefulness is necessary before pain can be felt. ”

In the literature, there are often conflicting results. In this case, there is one paper that says there’s normal EEG’s at 24 weeks, and then three that say it’s later. It’s a GOOD sign when the researchers include conflicting papers in a review article, it shows they’ve been thorough and presented all the evidence.

The authors here are clearly focusing on thalamocortical connections, which is where they get their 23-30 week range from. They’re clearly not as comfortable putting any confidence in EEG measurements, as they said all of the following:

” Given these baseline differences between neonatal and adult EEGs, patterns associated with impaired consciousness in adults (33,35) are inapplicable to the analysis of neonatal EEGs. ”

So these authors present the EEG information, as many neonatal pain studies are based on it, but they suggest that measuring consciousness using EEGs is not logical, as it’s too difficult to interpret the patterns. Again, these authors favor an anatomical approach, where they suggest pain reception can’t occur until the proper anatomical structures are in place.

You misinterpret this quote, as I thought you might, which is why I provided some clarification earlier: “ It’s not suggesting that the results of these studies may be wrong, it’s just suggesting that more studies should be done before we can be more sure. And really, this goes for any science, that more studies = more confidence in a theory ”

Science always needs to be -refined-, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. This paper shows thalamocortical connections between 23 to 30 weeks, which is a broad range, but they want to be sure they don’t define it to narrowly right now. More research might show it’s between 25 to 27 weeks. Or 28 to 30 weeks. More research must be done, but that doesn’t meant that this research is wrong. Similar refinements in the exact age of development of features occur all the time, particularly in forensic sciences. The speed of light was initially an estimate, refined by rigorous scientific studies over the years, but that doesn’t mean that the initial estimate was wrong.

You ask ” What if in the future as science and technology improve we discover that 13-week old fetuses can feel pain? “, and that was not the point I’m making. I’m confident in their 23-30 week range presented in the paper, because before that there’s no anatomical means of sensing pain. Pain is logically not felt at 13 weeks, and the -refining- process doesn’t mean that this data will be invalidated.

“Substance P and enkaphalin, chemicals in pain perception, have been detected in the fetal brain at 11 weeks. What if science discovers that 11-week olds can perceive pain?”

Chemicals in the brain are unable to relay signals without the presence of connected neural networks. So this won’t happen.

“Science has not said specifically that a fetus cannot feel pain before 20 weeks but only we do not know if the fetus feels pain before 20 weeks”

Science says that the anatomical features necessary for pain reception are not present before 20 weeks. To scientists, this is equivalent to saying that they don’t feel pain before 20 weeks. Particularly in the case of abortion, it’s important to watch how you word things because prolifers might kill you.

The reason I didn’t give my criterion of when I consider it “bad” to abort a baby is because I knew you would twist my words. Here’s my quote:

“Yes, when the fetus is able to feel suffering is my criteria for when I consider it wrong to abort it”

And here’s your quote:

“You reject the claim that a new human being comes into existence at conception because it is just two pieces of DNA coming together but then come up with an arbitrary criterion of suffering to determine humanity”

I did NOT say that the ability to feel pain “determines humanity”, I don’t waste my time and effort trying to define wishy-washy unscientific things like when “humanity” starts. I just said that my personal opinion of when it’s “wrong” to kill a fetus is when it can feel pain. And science can tell, by anatomical observation of the neural networks in the fetus, when it’s definitely, logically unable to feel pain, and I’m ok with that. More studies would only INCREASE the minimum age, as right now the minimum is set by the lack of sufficient structures.

” This is more like saying, “Well, we don’t really know if it can feel pain or if it really is human so what the hell what could it hurt?” ”

No, we do know when it definitely can’t feel pain, and again science and I don’t care when you define it as “human”

” You reject the science that says life begins at conception ”

Umm, what science is this? You’re getting right back to the start of this debate, trying to say that the “humanity” of a fertilized egg is important.

And I’ll state again, putting importance on the ability to feel pain is my OPINION and not a scientific fact. I’m not saying anyone else said this is the case, and I’m not using it as a central part of my pro-choice stance. Unlike you I can separate opinions from facts.

Real Scientist
Build a culture of Reason:
Defend science from evolution to conspiracy theories

Of course, I will remember this the next time the tobacco company funds research into the health risks of smoking (they are the experts after all).
It also seems that one of the researchers, Dr. Drey, has a little bit of a soft spot for second-trimester abortions and beyond:

http://www.prch.org/eleanor-drey-md

Oh, you wanted actual study flaws, well the researchers refer to one study of 102 premature newborns which used an electrical recording method (evoked potentials) to record the brain’s responses to stimuli. That study found that signals are present at 29 weeks. They used this as evidence to support their claim that pain is not felt until 29 weeks. However, they failed to state that this study of newborns involved only two who were under 29 weeks, but even they evoked a response, although slightly delayed compared to the rest. Also, the researchers refer to a study which found normal EEG signals appearing at 24 weeks which they toss aside in favour of another study which found that EEG signals representing wakefulness appear around 30 weeks and conclude from this that pain is not felt until 30 weeks. So, they make the assumption that wakefulness is necessary before pain can be felt. I don’t know about you, but I’ve noticed that preemies tend to sleep a lot and so their EEG will be different depending on the state (waking or sleeping). In actuality, normal EEG waves were recorded as early as 24 weeks and this finding is discounted by the researchers.

Now, before you go and comment about how only 0.76549% of abortions occur at 24 weeks or after I want to draw your attention to a couple of your quotes:

“Again, yes, I don’t think it’s ‘harmful’ to kill something that’s unconscious, has never been conscious, and that can not feel pain”

and

“It’s not suggesting that the results of these studies may be wrong, it’s just suggesting that more studies should be done before we can be more sure. And really, this goes for any science, that more studies = more confidence in a theory”

Hmm, you seem to be certain that babies in the first trimester (at least I assume that is who you are referring to in the first quote) cannot feel pain but then go on to say that more studies need to be done to be sure about this theory (which is absolutely correct). What if in the future as science and technology improve we discover that 13-week old fetuses can feel pain? Substance P and enkaphalin, chemicals in pain perception, have been detected in the fetal brain at 11 weeks. What if science discovers that 11-week olds can perceive pain? The point I am getting at is not whether a fetus can feel pain at these stages but to try and demonstrate that our humanity is not based on simply scientific advances. Science has not said specifically that a fetus cannot feel pain before 20 weeks but only we do not know if the fetus feels pain before 20 weeks. If science finds this out in the future, is a 16 week old all of a sudden a human being? Did anything inherently change about a 16-week old fetus before the discovery or after?

You reject the claim that a new human being comes into existence at conception because it is just two pieces of DNA coming together but then come up with an arbitrary criterion of suffering to determine humanity, a criterion that, like viability, is not really dependent on the organism but based more on how much science can advance. This is more like saying, “Well, we don’t really know if it can feel pain or if it really is human so what the hell what could it hurt?”. You reject the science that says life begins at conception and then come up with your own interpretation that humanity depends on the ability to feel pain (which doctor/researcher/scientist said this is the case?) but yes, all pro-lifers are the unscientific type.

Danny
Build a Culture of Life:
Defend life from conception to natural death

Well, please articulate the difference between these. What measurable “harm” is it to kill that which is and never has been conscious to existence or pain? I mean, this is the central argument between pro life and pro choice, but I’ve never heard it articulated in a way that makes any logical sense. It always comes down to pro-lifers distinguishing a fertilized egg as a human being, which I’ve already spent enough time on. Again, the intrinsic value of human life is a philosophical debate that doesn’t interest me.

” It’s as if you think it wouldn’t be harmful to kill someone if their death was painless. ”

Again, yes, I don’t think it’s ‘harmful’ to kill something that’s unconscious, has never been conscious, and that can not feel pain. For these reasons, I really don’t care that there’s been 100,000+ abortions, it could be a billion abortions and it’s the same moral principles in question.

And let’s address your “references”:

1,2,3. First of all, doctors like Paul Ranalli who speak at pro-life rallies are biased and certainly not obligated to be strictly scientific in their discussions. A DVD is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific piece of work. It’s irrelevant what the DVD says, and it’s irrelevant what the talk says. As I’ve said before, doctors can be just as biased as anyone else, but I’m only interested in the pure science, which is only found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

4. The editorial is not peer-reviewed either. It is a short paper that probably reiterates his DVD and his talk. Besides, his point seems to be that the fetus feels pain at 20 weeks, which isn’t that far off from the papers he’s supposedly trying to contradict. Then he says “if” some pain is felt at 17 weeks then the fetus might feel pain during those abortions. Wow, do you think that “if” rocks feel pain that throwing a rock might make it feel pain? Let’s discuss the implications! This is why he hasn’t been able to publish the “data” from this talk, DVD or editorial in a peer reviewed article.

5. The conclusion from this paper is “Rigorously controlled studies of invasive procedures and analgesia in the fetus are required to clarify the impact of fetal nociception on postnatal pain sensitivity and neural development, and the potential benefits or harm of using analgesia in this unique setting.” So essentially the argument of this paper is that more studies should be done to determine when to start using anesthesia during abortions. It’s not suggesting that the results of these studies may be wrong, it’s just suggesting that more studies should be done before we can be more sure. And really, this goes for any science, that more studies = more confidence in a theory. More studies about heart surgery should be done to find better heart surgery protocols!

6. This article is the same as the editorial you listed earlier, the 17 weeks was apparently cited by Dr. Glover with no real scientific basis. But yes, as you said she’s pro-choice, she’s saying that the fetus should be anesthetized when it’s 17 weeks old or older. I’m not sure how you’re implying that this supports a pro-life stance, or how it really conflicts with the paper I listed other than the dates are slightly different. And I’ll repeat, that date of 17 weeks isn’t based on any actual data of any sort, it’s just Dr. Glover’s opinion (that I don’t care about)

7. And OK, let’s look at those 4 links you gave, and who criticizes the paper I cited:
- A pro-life website called lifenews.com
- A legitimate website, but is citing outrage from “Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee”
- One that just says that the articles raised questions about bias
- Another pro-life website

As for the bias, the authors were found to be tied to abortion clinics or something. Oh wow, I read a cancer paper published by someone working in a cancer group, and a heart disorder paper written by a heart surgeon. Of course the most appropriate authors for a paper on abortions is going to be written by people who perform abortions, this is not as much of a big deal as the pro-life websites make it sound. I would question the data more if a doctor NOT involved in abortions had written it, it’s actually more reliable if it’s written by an expert. All of those pro-life scientists can write their own peer-reviewed paper published in a reliable scientific journal. Oh wait, no they can’t, nothing about being pro-life is based on science because all of their arguments are philosophical ones masked as actual science. Something about the phrase “pro-life scientists” is very funny to me.

So out of all of these things you’ve cited, where are the real SCIENTIFIC objections to this review paper? Of course people are upset and want to refute the findings, but what’s their scientific basis for rejecting the data? Again, this was a review paper, which compiled all the papers on the subject in the biggest medical scientific database in the world. I didn’t even see one mention of a paper they cited that’s disputable, or one mention of an important pro-life supporting paper that they missed.

” First of all, I am very likely a descendant of black slaves. Second, Martin Luther King Jr’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, wrote in the Washington Times that “abortion and racism are evil twins, born of the same lie.” ”

First of all, I don’t care if you’re a descendant of slaves, and second of all I don’t care what Martin Luther king Jr’s niece has to say about it. I don’t even care if Martin Luther King Jr himself said this! The issue of slavery is not the same as abortion, and I still think it’s offensive that you suggest that it is.

In reference to the posters being offensive, you said ” So are pictures of the Holocaust, or black people being lynched, put people aren’t clamouring to have them removed from high school textbooks.”

Yes, from TEXTBOOKS! If you were putting up posters of mutilated dead black people on campus, do you think people would be thanking you for keeping them informed? I’m not suggesting that pictures of abortions be removed from surgical TEXTBOOKS, I’m just suggesting that you stop harassing people by putting it on posters! By the way, nice move equating abortions to the holocaust, I’m sure that jews appreciate this analogy.

You guys won’t let this poster thing go, but everyone with any sense knows the purpose of these posters is to harass pro-choicers and people who’ve had abortions. Every time you try to justify it you add to my dataset of examples of prolifers being stupid.

“Is it really that hard to understand that these sorts of protests aren’t about harassment or guilt, but exposure and education?”

I’m sure that you really believe this, but that doesn’t make it true. As I’ve said about 10 times already, EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT ABORTION ALREADY! The excuse of using it to educate is just silly, how stupid do you think the general public is? If you’re over the age of 14 and you still don’t know that abortions lead to aborted fetuses, then here’s some other information you need to know: You are the stupidest person on earth.

“Well, it’d be nice to know that the death threats actually came from Life Support members before you go around publicly declaring it, potentially opening yourself up to libel lawsuits.”

Who’s going to sue me? You?

” You think it’s stupid to be pro-life. If you encounter a pro-lifer, you won’t think they’re a smart person. With that sort of ignorance, it’s absolutely meaningless to say “ever smart person I’ve ever asked is pro-choice.” ”

Actually most of this is from judging people before I find out if they’re pro-choice or pro-life. There are other examples though, such as pro-life people suggesting that putting up posters of dead fetuses is a reasonable means of generating civil discussion because people are uneducated. I am interested in compiling some IQ vs stance on abortion datasets, but every time I tell pro-lifers about my hypothesis, they threaten to kill me.

” What amazes me is that you actually think that’s an “observation” worth mentioning, yet you try and claim objectivity for your perspective. ”

This pretty much sums up how I feel when you say that a fertilized egg is a human being. And I stand by my observations until they’re proven false

You keep asking about when I consider a fetus to be a human, and I consider that definition unimportant to the issue. What I consider important, in terms of human rights, is whether or not somebody is suffering from an action. If you kill a clump of cells that has no consciousness, does not feel pain, and who nobody else has an emotional attachment to, then that’s fine, it’s essentially the same as killing bacteria at that point in terms of suffering…

Yes, when the fetus is able to feel suffering is my criteria for when I consider it wrong to abort it, as I indicated.

The main problem I have with your argument is that you equate harm with pain. It’s as if you think it wouldn’t be harmful to kill someone if their death was painless.

I got that 0.8% number (the percentage of Canadian abortions that occur 20 weeks or later), actually from a pro-life website here http://www.late-term-abortion.com/ , who was citing statistics Canada (the spreadsheet of the data can be found at http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/StatsCan-gestation-times-1995-2003.xls )

Did you read all the numbers in the spreadsheet? There were 103,619 total “abortion records” from 2003, whatever that means. If you dig further… Stats Canada reports [PDF] that 103,768 abortions took place in 2003.

That’s still nearly one thousand abortions past the 20 week mark. I’d be interested to know how many of those abortions involved providing the fetus with anesthesia.

Dr. Paul Ranalli is one of the leading Canadian experts on fetal pain. He’s based at UofT, working out of the Division of Neurology in the Department of Medicine. He spoke at an event we hosted last year on campus.

His most recent findings are presented in a DVD. Unfortunately, the video is not available for free, but there’s a long summary:
http://www.theinterim.com/features/dvd-review/new-dvd-provides-information-on-fetal-pain/

And here’s a 1 minute overview of the talk that appears on the DVD (not much details though):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSRD0n6LNQA

I’ll continue digging…

Here’s an editorial from 2000:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL09/ranalli.html

Ranalli isn’t alone. Here’s a study criticizing the narrow approaches taken by some scientific studies (like the one you cited):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16269314?dopt=Abstract

Also, you can check out work from Dr. Vivette Glover (who describes herself as pro-choice). It might also be worth looking up Dr. Kenneth Craig’s research, as it seems he’s been studying pain in premature babies at UBC for the past couple decades.

Oh, and the study you mentioned from 2005 was quite heavily criticized, since the studies’ authors failed to disclose ties to the abortion practice, including the lead author’s former advocacy work with NARAL. Hardly sound scientific practice.

I’m sure that descendants of slaves would love to hear you equate their suffering to the suffering that a fertilized egg feels.

First of all, I am very likely a descendant of black slaves. Second, Martin Luther King Jr’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, wrote in the Washington Times that “abortion and racism are evil twins, born of the same lie.”

The fact that a fetus looks gross and people don’t want to look at it does not mean that it’s wrong, as you are suggesting. Open heart surgery is gross too, I don’t want to see pictures of open heart surgery posted all over campus, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

So are pictures of the Holocaust, or black people being lynched, put people aren’t clamouring to have them removed from high school textbooks. And graphic images helped to expose the evils of those human rights abuses in the past.

Anyway, the issue, as I’ve already said and you keep ignoring, is that it’s harassment. It’s target is to INCREASE the guilt and suffering of someone who’s had an abortion, which is the opposite of what you claim to stand for, and I would love to see one of you address that point.

The target is not to increase the guilt and suffering of anyone. That’s a flat out lie. It’s to depict the harsh reality of abortion, what it does to the unborn child, so that we don’t do it anymore. We can’t undo abortions of the past. The goal isn’t to make people feel guilty, but to make people realize that abortion is wrong. And it’s not just about women or people who’ve had abortions. It’s everyone’s responsibility, as a society that offers women in crisis pregnancy situations death for her unborn child instead of real compassion and assistance.

We held a demonstration at UofT last week (no graphic images, but using signs with slogans), and I spent a good 15 minutes talking to sign-holding pro-choicers who were counter-protesting. We clearly disagreed on the issue, but not one of them was stupid, ignorant or dishonest enough to suggest that our purpose was to harass women. In fact, one of them even affirmed our right to be there, and none of the others contradicted him.

Is it really that hard to understand that these sorts of protests aren’t about harassment or guilt, but exposure and education? You’re certainly not stupid. I can’t tell if you’re really that ignorant, or if you’re just being dishonest.

The death threats happened, I heard about it from one of the people who got threatened, I didn’t think to request forensic proof at the time.

Well, it’d be nice to know that the death threats actually came from Life Support members before you go around publicly declaring it, potentially opening yourself up to libel lawsuits.

Was the threat reported to the appropriate authorities?

And I’m not “table thumping”, I am totally 100% serious that every smart person I’ve ever asked is pro-choice. That’s just an observation really, you should know the facts.

This is hilarious.

You think it’s stupid to be pro-life. If you encounter a pro-lifer, you won’t think they’re a smart person. With that sort of ignorance, it’s absolutely meaningless to say “ever smart person I’ve ever asked is pro-choice.”

What amazes me is that you actually think that’s an “observation” worth mentioning, yet you try and claim objectivity for your perspective.