The questions open up a can of worms.  If a fetus feels pain then aborting it w/o anesthetic is simply barbaric.  If a woman requests anesthesia for the abortion, then she's essentially conceding that the unborn child is a separate entity and not a part of her body.  She's also conceding that abortion is a monstrously painful event.

Still - I think the questions it brings up should be asked.

Oct 18, 2010 -- 9:30AM, faith713 wrote:

If the mother cares enough to not want the child to feel pain then it makes no sense to allow their son or daughter to be killed. 

You're assuming that the mother sees the fetus as being a child.  Legally, the fetus is not considered a child, but personally, everyone is going to see that in their own way.  If the woman does not see the fetus as a child, does that mean she feels no compassion?  I think not.

Oct 18, 2010 -- 9:46AM, Cesmom wrote:

Oct 18, 2010 -- 9:30AM, faith713 wrote:

If the mother cares enough to not want the child to feel pain then it makes no sense to allow their son or daughter to be killed. 

You're assuming that the mother sees the fetus as being a child.  Legally, the fetus is not considered a child, but personally, everyone is going to see that in their own way.  If the woman does not see the fetus as a child, does that mean she feels no compassion?  I think not.

Legal doesn't make it right to harm another human being.

Some people don't see neonates as "a child", so if it were legal and they gave them pain medicine before killing them, would that make it OK?

CES, this is one of the problems we run into when legislators get involved in this complex and medically evo9lviong issue.  There are always exceptions or issue not considered from ignorance and the patient (woman) suffers.  I once had a patient while in the AF who had an anencephalic fetus.  We wanted to send her to an AF facility to terminate the pregnancy since the fetus was not only nonviable but insensate!  We were blocked because an amendment to the appropriations bills prevented the military medical system from terminating ANY pregnancy except in the case of a threat to the life of the mother.  She went home to Mom and Dad and Northwestern U. Medical Center solved the problem, at the family's expense of course.

Oct 18, 2010 -- 8:39PM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Pain means little, IMHO.  I would think the ability to live out in the real world would be the more pressing issue.  There are humans with depressed or missing senses of pain.  Should we feel free to kill them?

This has to be one of the top ten examples of convoluted logic I've ever read or heard!
I'm absolutely sure if you have your arms and legs torn from your body your cavalier opinion of pain would change suddenly and drastically. There are humans, who will be viable, in wombs around the world. Why do you feel free to kill them before viability is possible? BTW, a womb is "the real world" for a developing fetus.