Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

You are assuming a lot of facts by stating that the "nerves have hooked themselves up." People like to believe what they like to believe, but the nervous sytem in a fetus is very, very rudimentary. Even in a newborn, the myelination of the nerves and brain are so incomplete that they rely on us for everything. Why do you think they learn as they age? Because their brain develops the myelin and is able to function and send signals from one cell to the other more efficiently. Just because a nerve is present in a fetus does NOT mean that a 3 month fetus "feels pain" like you or I do. Even if the fetus appears to "recoil from painful stimuli," those can be easily explained by basic reflexes. It's the same as saying that because the nerves are there, a baby should be able to think the same as you or I, be immediately potty trained, go straight to school, etc. It doesn't happen because of the limitations of the nervous system as it matures.

What did I say to make you think I assumed that fetuses feel pain the same way fully developed bodies do? I'm not concerned about the degree of pain. I'd prefer there to be NO pain. If nerves are basically formed by the 12th week, regardless of how rudimentary, there is sensation.

Can you guarantee to me that there is no pain? If not, I vote to anesthetize.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

What did I say to make you think I assumed that fetuses feel pain the same way fully developed bodies do? I'm not concerned about the degree of pain. I'd prefer there to be NO pain. If nerves are basically formed by the 12th week, regardless of how rudimentary, there is sensation.

Can you guarantee to me that there is no pain? If not, I vote to anesthetize.

Can you guarantee the safety of a mother whose fetus is anesthetized? You realize they share a circulatory system through the placenta, right? You're arguing with a medical professional about an ideal but not grounding it in facts.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Considering "partial-birth abortion" isn't an actual procedure, which was the major complaint about the bill banning it, and every court in the US would consider THIS murder, I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse to try and make a point. It doesn't suit you.

Not at all. I have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the concepts that we're dealing with. For instance, on one hand, murdering a pregnant woman can trigger two counts of murder. On the other hand, abortion is legal. I have the same issue with "fetus in = abortion" while "fetus out = murder."

Analogy fail. Contrasting the accepted procedure to one considered inappropriate and gruesome was the point he was making. Accepted procedure isn't inherently good, but you have to actually break it down on medical grounds not because it sounds icky. Snipping the spine of a newborn is murder, plain and simple.

Now, it is. My point continues to be that the reaction from the onlookers is curious.

Do you think there may be a reason why this isn't done? Medical reason that is.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Can you guarantee the safety of a mother whose fetus is anesthetized? You realize they share a circulatory system through the placenta, right? You're arguing with a medical professional about an ideal but not grounding it in facts.

Riiiight...and mothers in higher end facilities have been known to be anesthetized. We just haven't decided to make that the norm. It's not all that far-fetched of an ideal.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Not at all. I have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the concepts that we're dealing with. For instance, on one hand, murdering a pregnant woman can trigger two counts of murder. On the other hand, abortion is legal. I have the same issue with "fetus in = abortion" while "fetus out = murder."

Only some jurisdictions trigger multiple murder counts if a woman is pregnant. Fetus becomes infant at birth. One often uses drawing a breath as the 'standard' but I don't believe that it's legal.

Now, it is. My point continues to be that the reaction from the onlookers is curious.

Only if they don't make the distinction themselves. Additionally it is curious you ignored the other aspect, the part where we've all held scissors so we can imagine it happening where most of us have not held other medical equipment on a regular basis.

Absolutely.

If so, then why insist on it.

Riiiight...and mothers in higher end facilities have been known to be anesthetized. We just haven't decided to make that the norm. It's not all that far-fetched of an ideal.

The mother is anesthetized, you were talking about the fetus.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Only if they don't make the distinction themselves. Additionally it is curious you ignored the other aspect, the part where we've all held scissors so we can imagine it happening where most of us have not held other medical equipment on a regular basis.

Maybe I have an active imagination, because both ripping the fetus apart and stabbing/cutting it with scissors give me shivers.

The mother is anesthetized, you were talking about the fetus.

I mean general anethesia, which takes us back to the line we're drawing. If there's a chance the fetus feels pain (and there is), I can't stomach the idea of hurting it. That's the second of two reasons I haven't ever been able to bring myself to do it.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Maybe I have an active imagination, because both ripping the fetus apart and stabbing/cutting it with scissors give me shivers.

I guess. Generally I don't imagine myself doing things I hear about in the news unless they're things that I would like to do. And I have a morbid sense of amusement, so I really can't relate.

I mean general anethesia, which takes us back to the line we're drawing. If there's a chance the fetus feels pain (and there is), I can't stomach the idea of hurting it. That's the second of two reasons I haven't ever been able to bring myself to do it.

Well, generally you don't anesthetize people unless they need it due to the risks involved. That can include mental health reasons, that's why sedation dentists on the radio here are doing such good business. But though no one actually enjoys the idea of causing any living thing harm, humans do so all the time. If anesthetizing the mother completely increases the risks to her, then the risk/benefit may not be wise unless the woman cannot be calm enough during the procedure without it.

Do you eat meat? While we can never be 100% certain, science tells us that the fetus wouldn't be able to feel pain in any way similar to that of a fully formed human. The reason I bring other animals into the discussion at all is because a fetus' nervous system is THAT underdeveloped.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Do you eat meat? While we can never be 100% certain, science tells us that the fetus wouldn't be able to feel pain in any way similar to that of a fully formed human. The reason I bring other animals into the discussion at all is because a fetus' nervous system is THAT underdeveloped.

Animals feel pain too, but I don't place any animal's life above that of a human/fetus, so the connection isn't as relevant to me.

I've had the opportunity to kill animals with my own hands for meat, so I'm not entirely distanced from what it means to take life. It's important to me that death (animal or fetus) is as quick and painless as possible.