Anasthesia for fetus pre-abortion?

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2003-07-01 12:46pm

I am certain that a fetus suficciently developed has a functioning nervous system capable of processing sensations, including pain.

Should doctors be made to anesthetize a fetus prior to aborting it?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-01 12:46pm

I don't see why not. We stun cows before slaughtering them, after all.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-01 02:01pm

Unless there is a medical reason why you shouldn't do it, I don't see why not.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-01 02:12pm

Required? Don't care. Allowed? Yeah. It should be on request of the host, because its going to affect her as well. There is most certainly a danger in anaesthetizing a pregnant woman, most likely to occur during the actual aborti procedure.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-01 04:01pm

As long as the baby isn't having real brain activity (in which case the abortion shouldn't be done at all), yes.

TheFeniX · Post by **TheFeniX** » 2003-07-01 04:10pm

From a scietific point of view: It doesn't really matter. A newborn baby can't see, hear, smell, or feel pain because his cerebrum has not yet developed. All the reactions a baby makes to stimuli are purely on instinct and controlled by the lower brain. The baby is not conscious at all. Think of it's brain as a blank slate that will develope hardend pathways as the brain "learns."

I can't make a judgement from a religous standpoint, but I would say why not give him the sedation if it gives people the illusion of (semi-)morality.

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-07-01 06:07pm

If your so attached to the baby that anaesthesia is a concern, regardless of the stage in pregnancy, then put the baby up for adoption, don't abort it.

If it's a question of saving the mother's life, anaesthesia probably isn't going to make the situation better, it's more likely to make it worse.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2003-07-01 07:56pm

If you're destroying something, why do you care about crap like that? You're KILLING it...

TheFeniX · Post by **TheFeniX** » 2003-07-01 08:17pm

Seggybop wrote:If you're destroying something, why do you care about crap like that? You're KILLING it...

I also wonder why they clean the spot where they administer the lethal injection. We'll never know....

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2003-07-01 08:18pm

I had a pet rabitt I had put to sleep.

It was sick, so I felt it was best to put it out of its misery.

It was given an painless overdose of barbituites...I could've just bashed its head in with a brick, but I wanted it destroyed humanely.

Why do unborn humans deserve less?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-01 09:21pm

TheFeniX wrote:I also wonder why they clean the spot where they administer the lethal injection. We'll never know....

Its that last minute infection. Robin Williams did a skit on that.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-01 09:25pm

Traceroute wrote:If your so attached to the baby that anaesthesia is a concern, regardless of the stage in pregnancy, then put the baby up for adoption, don't abort it.

That's impractical. Carrying a baby for the full three trimesters and then delivering it in a hospital room is expensive. Plus, the mother may not want to gain any more weight, experience any more back pains, et cetera.

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-07-02 12:26am

Durandal wrote:
Traceroute wrote:If your so attached to the baby that anaesthesia is a concern, regardless of the stage in pregnancy, then put the baby up for adoption, don't abort it.
That's impractical. Carrying a baby for the full three trimesters and then delivering it in a hospital room is expensive. Plus, the mother may not want to gain any more weight, experience any more back pains, et cetera.

If the mother is concerned more about that than the fetus, then she probably won't ask for anaesthesia for the fetus.

Just as a point of clarification, I'm not an "pro-life"; I don't think a fetus has a right to life until it is viable without the mother (birth, basically, or sometime in the third trimester), barring other complications or danger to the mother.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-02 05:47am

Durandal wrote:
Traceroute wrote:If your so attached to the baby that anaesthesia is a concern, regardless of the stage in pregnancy, then put the baby up for adoption, don't abort it.
That's impractical. Carrying a baby for the full three trimesters and then delivering it in a hospital room is expensive. Plus, the mother may not want to gain any more weight, experience any more back pains, et cetera.

... die in child birth; be disowned by her parents; lose other babies in multiple pregnancies; there's a whole host of reasons a woman might need to get rid of a baby, no matter how much she's attached to it.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-07-02 06:47am

...and yet my wife and I have tried to adopt for two years, without success.

Much easier to kill them off....

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-07-02 09:03pm

innerbrat wrote:... die in child birth; [snip] lose other babies in multiple pregnancies

Those are exactly the types of "other complications or danger to the mother" situations I was referring too. Attachment to the fetus is not a big factor in those circumstances (IMO).

Minor or non-physical issues (back pain, weight gain, expense of delivery, family problems) are most likely going to be considered earlier on in the pregnancy, before the fetus is viable on its own. Those can be perfectly valid considerations for an abortion; its you're body, do what you will.

I draw the line at third trimester abortions where the pregnancy is progressing well and the baby is healthy & viable.

But that's my opinion; I'd rather see abortion be legal for any reason than illegal under any circumstance.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-07-02 10:33pm

Yeah, it should be made available. Not required, but available on request. There's no good reason not to.

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-07-03 10:08am

Seggybop wrote:If you're destroying something, why do you care about crap like that? You're KILLING it...

I agree here.

While I am not an anti-abortionist I think it should be kept in mind that you are killing an organism. You are doing the fetus no kindness by removing it's capacity for feeling pain before terminating its life.

I think that such an act is more for everyone else's benefit than for the fetus. So that all involved can take comfort in the knowledge that the fetus could not feel it's body being destroyed.

TheFeniX · Post by **TheFeniX** » 2003-07-03 10:39am

Durandal wrote:I don't see why not. We stun cows before slaughtering them, after all.

You ever seen a cow killed in a "kosher" way? Cutting it's neck open while it's still alive and letting it bleed to death isn't exactly "stunned."