“pain receptors appear around the mouth at 4 to 5 weeks post-fertilization, followed by the development of nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. Around 6 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child first responds to touch. By 18 weeks post-fertilization, pain receptors have appeared throughout the body.”
The unborn child? I had to look at your source, since I recognized the emotive language of the anti-choice movement. The same
source contained this: "
In our culture, there are those who will have more compassion for animals than for babies who are given a death sentence because of their age and location. We will continue to fight until every one of these vulnerable preborn babies are protected—by our laws and our culture. It is not enough to recognize that these children feel pain when aborted; we must empower those around us to make life-affirming choices. Only then will our nation become one where it is safe to be in the womb."
Furthermore, she cites herself as a source of information. One should never take his science or any other conclusions from a tendentious source like this. Why? Because they are presented not to educate, but to indoctrinate. She's on a mission, and it isn't to teach. It's to prevent abortion. The presence of pain receptors by itself is not an indication of the capacity to suffer. Consciousness is required as well.
We also know that there is no question, biologically speaking, about whether an unborn child can feel pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization at the very latest, since by then they have the full anatomy to process pain and also the neurobiology to transmit painful sensations to the brain and to perceive pain.
Same counterargument. No consciousness, no pain, whatever the neural anatomy. A person undergoing general surgery has no pain despite an intact nervous system. A person who was alive moments ago also has an intact nervous system.
Studies show that babies can feel pain by their increased hormonal stress response and by wincing when they are exposed to painful stimuli.
Yet neither of those is a proxy for experiencing pain. They are physical reflexes. There still needs to be consciousness.
Interesting anecdote. I witnessed a colonoscopy of a patient who was anesthetized, yet was squirming and grimacing, even screaming at times. When he came to, he had no recollection of any discomfort. I'll bet had he seen a video of a similar reaction in another patient, he would have been afraid of the procedure for himself, because it's hard to ignore the outward manifestations of what would be experienced as suffering were there consciousness. But the fact remains: no consciousness, no suffering and no memory of suffering.
Have you never fallen asleep with a headache and awakened with it? Do you feel pain while unconscious? Your entire nervous system remains intact during sleep. Stimulate a neuron and evoke an action potential and the release of synaptic neurotransmitters. Whatever the chemistry of that headache is, it's the same during sleep if the headache is still there in the morning.
This is why we don't take our science from ideologues, even those with academic degrees. It's not about the accuracy of the facts included, which can be confirmed by fact-checking if in doubt. It's because of what is left out - anything and everything that weakens the argument. This is what converts it from education to indoctrination.
There are certain ethical standards that are fairly universal. Not harming the innocent is one of those.
Here's the anti-choice wheelhouse - emotive language, not science. That is what brings believers into the fold. I know, because I was there once, listening to it. The "factual" part of the church argument isn't scientific. It is religious - what God wants and forbids. The remainder are things like this: the innocent embryo. This isn't a trial, and guilt and innocence aren't relevant. It's also a category error. Nothing can be called innocent that can't have been guilty of something. An embryo is innocent like a peach one is about to pick, which will kill it. And if we were trying to convince people to criminalize picking peaches, we could call it an innocent peach.
Defenseless is a good one, too. Embryos are as defenseless as a peach.
I'll bet that the anti-choice people would call an embryo cute if people couldn't see what they look like. They would draw them as adorable babies for tap into that instinct notpresent when looking at something that resembles a shrimp with gills and a tail. "Cootchy-coo, little guy!"
no one has the right to kill their unborn baby.
And again. Babies are so adorable, so it's helpful to coopt a bit of that instinct by calling embryos babies. Poor, cute, innocent, defenseless babies! Oh no, not cute. Poor, innocent, defenseless babies.
Your values are not mine. They are for you, mine for me. However many times you write them out, they're still just your feelings. And your feelings have been manipulated. It's not a coincidence that they cluster where people have been indoctrinated with Christian doctrine, which is how it's imparted to those willing to believe it uncritically. That's for you. I come to my moral judgments via a different path, one that doesn't rely on received morals.
